An Idea for Standards-Based Grading with 3D Science Standards (Part 4 of a series)

Continuing with the standards-based grading (SBG) theme, I wanted to share one idea on how I might structure a system and one possible modification to that plan. As I noted before, I haven’t found an SBG system that I feel frames the outcomes quite like I would want to. I’m not even sure that I like what I’m going to detail here, as I’d really want to see how it works in a classroom before passing judgement. I did learn a lot, though, from the process of drafting these ideas. Honestly, the learning and buy-in that happen through the SBG creation process are really the critical aspects of this work for a school/district.   Here I’ll continue to frame this work in a 1^st grade classroom, though the ideas could certainly be applied across K-12.

I would start by ensuring there is a general focus on sense-making of phenomena and solving problems. That focus comes out in supplemental standards materials, but is not always explicit in the NGSS performance expectations. Next, I think it’s valuable to specifically determine students’ capacity for using practices and crosscutting concepts (CCCs). There are too many to include them all, so I’d condense them, and I would also make sure they’re connected to this overarching sense-making goal. The Yearlong Grade Chart below shows the core setup:

Yearlong Grade Chart

1st Grade Science Report Card	Framing the Science	Investigating and Building Evidence	Modeling and Explaining	Using Lens of Causality	Using Lens of Systems
1st Trimester Students make sense of phenomena and solve problems related to organisms’ structures, growth, and traits passed to offspring by…	2.5	2	3	2.5	2.5
2nd Trimester Students make sense of phenomena and solve problems related to light and sound by…
3rd Trimester Students make sense of phenomena and solve problems related to the sun, moon, and stars by…

Assuming three grading periods, each trimester lines up with one of the NGSS topics at 1st grade. As seen in the left column (the row descriptors), the main focus underlying all of student work is that they are making sense of phenomena and solving problems related to the main disciplinary core idea (DCI) concepts within a topic. Students are doing this work through the practices and crosscutting concepts, which are condensed into five main categories noted across the top. These categories are:

·         Framing the Science – This category combines the practices of Asking Questions and Defining Problems with Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information. Students use these skills in framing their scientific work as they ask questions and find and evaluate information about phenomena. They have to think analytically to communicate information they have gathered, or ask questions to direct their information gathering. Further, a main part of defining problems is gathering relevant information.

·         Investigating and Building Evidence – This category combines the practices of Planning and Carrying Out Investigations and Analyzing and Interpreting Data, with Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking. In designing an investigation, students have to consider how they will gather data and how to collect it in such a way as to make it interpretable. Further, they employ mathematical thinking as they design plans for collecting quantitative data and make sense of data sets.

·         Modeling and Explaining – This category combines the practices of Developing and Using Models, and Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions, with Engaging in Argument from Evidence. Students often use models as parts of their explanations, showing relationships in evidence they have gathered and how that evidence supports their arguments. Arguing about how one explanation better fits a set of data is often akin to arguing how one model better fits the evidence than another one.

·         Causality – This category combines the crosscutting concepts of Patterns, Cause and Effect, and Stability and Change. As students make sense of phenomena, they use patterns to determine cause and effect. Further, they consider whether they are seeing patterns of stability or change and what is causing those patterns.

·         Systems – This category combines the crosscutting concepts of Systems and System Models; Scale, Proportion and Quantity; Energy and Matter; and Structure and Function. In making sense of phenomena, students use a lens of systems, which includes considerations of scale of those systems, energy and matter movement in those systems, and structures and functions of elements of those systems.

Through the course of a grading term, students would receive scores on assignments in these five categories, with a final proficiency level noted in this yearlong chart (samples shown). Growth in each of these categories can then be seen through the course of the year. Parents would need to be provided with a generic description of what the different proficiency levels mean in these five categories; however, the actual rubrics used to provide specific scores on assignments would be much more  detailed and nuanced in relation to the practice and crosscutting concepts and their subskills.

The chart for a single grading period, such as the 1st trimester, would look like the one below. The five categories are along the left, with individual projects, notebook work, assessments, etc., across the top. Not all student work would be included in this grading chart. Student work might align to multiple categories, but it would be essential to have a more narrow focus on fewer categories for ease of teacher grading and effective student feedback. Each grading period would have a chart like this one (though it might look a bit different within a particular online grading/management program).

Single Grading Period Chart

Categories	Trimester 1
	Lab Notebook	Growth Investigation	Structure and Function  Investigation	Structure and Function Task	Inheritance Project	Lab Notebook	End-point
Framing the Science	2		2			2.5	2.5
Modeling and Explaining		2	2		2.5	2	2
Investigating and Evidence		2	2	3		3	3
Causality	2			1.5	2.5		2.5
Systems			2		3	2	2.5

In this example, rubrics for each particular category are on a four-point scale. Students receive multiple scores in each category during each grading period, with the final score reflecting their learning progress, not an average of scores. Of course, a four-point rubric isn’t a magic number; some might prefer a three- or five-point rubric, some a dichotomous “proficient” or “progressing.” I like the progression nuances that a four-point rubric provides. I also value the Facets process from the NSF-funded ACESSE Project for figuring out a progression of student understanding of a particular topic or a progression of their abilities within particular practices. It can be a valuable tool for creating the progression within a rubric.

Importantly, multiple rubrics would give rise to a specific score in each category on this grading chart. Within “framing the science,” a teacher might emphasize question-asking skills on one rubric and problem-defining skills on another, though both would factor into the overall score. As another example, scores in the “modeling and explaining” category might emphasize simple modeling to represent a phenomenon at the beginning and progress to students using the model as part of a verbal explanation. These intricate and practical details on progression of learning and creation of rubrics are where the true finesse, meaning, and artistry of teaching come in.

How the rubric is framed becomes very important so the multidimensional nature of the standards doesn’t get lost, and so all of the individual practices and CCCs (and subskills within each) don’t get lost. These rubrics will need to emphasize sense-making within a particular subject area through use of practices or crosscutting concepts. A sample rubric below emphasizes students making sense of several multigenerational photos from students in class. The teacher is specifically hoping to have students make observations and draw patterns from those observations. He then wants students to verbally and collaboratively make a claim about patterns they see in traits of parents and children.

Rubric to Support Student Learning and Add Evidence to Grading Chart

Objectives &  Standards	1	2	3 (proficient)	4
Student can make observations and use patterns to make claims about common traits in multi-generational family photos. (LS3.A and B; CCC1; SEP4 and 6)	Student makes observations and can point out things [traits] that are the same in parents and children, understanding these as images of parents and children.	Student makes observations and recognizes patterns across different families, noting things [traits] that are more similar within one family than in different families.	Student uses patterns found in observations as evidence to support a claim that members of one family have similarities that make them different from another family.	Student uses patterns found in observations to support a claim that there are both similarities and differences among and between families, supporting claims that all people have similarities, families have similarities, and we’re all unique.

Notably, there could be other ways students show a beginning or advanced understanding beyond what is noted in this rubric. Scores of 1, 2, and 4 are only starting points of what that continuum of understanding might look like. Careful consideration of proficiency, a score of 3, is the key part of the rubric. Further ideas on rubrics and performance tasks are in my previous blog posts.

In my categories and rubric, I do specifically link to crosscutting concepts, though some across the country argue that assessing crosscutting concepts directly is not possible. I do think students could be asked to describe patterns they see in relation to a phenomenon or explain why they would include some aspects of a system under review and not others. I want to see their scientific thinking. Admittedly, that will overlap with practice. Any display of scientific thinking, for example, could be considered modeling. Nevertheless, to call out the importance of the CCCs, I’d err on the side of including them and see how things play out.

It would, therefore, be easy to shrink these SBG categories down to only three by eliminating the two crosscutting concepts categories. Arguably, ideas within my CCC categories “causality” and “systems” could connect across the other three practice categories (“framing the science,” “modeling and explaining,” and “investigating and building evidence”). For example, cause and effect comes in as you ask questions, choose variables for study in an investigation, and argue with evidence. Having fewer categories would also make things easier for educators (always a good thing).

Whatever the categories, the key piece not to lose is the focus on sense-making. We want students making sense of phenomena and solving problems by using the practices and thinking from the lens of the crosscutting concepts. We want teachers to be able to provide students with coherent feedback through the course of a year to support them on that path.

As always, I welcome your feedback!