Contributed by: Kentucky Department of Education (KDE)
SCORING GUIDE
KIRIS Performance Event, Grade 12
1992-93
Task: S/SS1 Best Place in the United States to Live
Unless otherwise noted, score questions for both science and social
studies.
Group Activity
Question 1
| SCORE |
DESCRIPTION |
| 4 |
Student names several factors and describes how and why they
are important. Analyses are thorough, insightful, logical, and
useful. Analyses must be based on fact rather than emotional
attachment to a region. |
| 3 |
Student generates good description of how and why several
factors are important. Response may contain minor inconsistencies
or flaws. |
| 2 |
Student describes how or why some factors are important.
OR
Student describes both but descriptions are sketchy and vague.
Response may contain inconsistencies or flaws. |
| 1 |
Descriptions are weak and vague. Student may give reasons
based upon emotional attachment to an area. |
| 0 |
BLANK |
Factors that were provided to students:
- frequency of severe weather (tornadoes, hurricanes)
- proximity to active volcano
- river pollution
- population density
- normal average total precipitation
- biomes
- earthquake probability
Individual Activity
Question 2
| SCORE |
DESCRIPTION |
| 4 |
(Does not apply.) |
| 3 |
Response provides a good description of other meaningful factors
that would be useful for evaluation, and may contain minor inconsistencies
or flaws. |
| 2 |
Response provides a fair description of other meaningful factors
that would be useful for evaluation and may contain flaws. Response
may contain inconsistencies or flaws. |
| 1 |
Response merely lists other factors, or descriptions are poorly
developed, vague, or not meaningful. |
| 0 |
BLANK |
Question 3 - Score for science only.
| SCORE |
DESCRIPTION |
| 4 |
Student generates a well organized, logical, thoughtful, detailed
data table that calculates areas of greatest risk based upon
the factors presented in the task,. Map shading is consistent
with data table. |
| 3 |
Student generates a good data table that calculates areas
of risk based upon the factors presented in the task. Map is
consistent with data table. Response may contain minor inconsistencies
or flaws. |
| 2 |
Student generates an analysis, but organization in data chart
may be weak or flawed.
OR
Map is related to analysis or chart or both, but map organization
may be weak or flawed. |
| 1 |
Student may list risks with little or no analysis. Table is
illogical, poorly defined, or absent. Map is poorly organized;
link with analysis may not be apparent. |
| 0 |
BLANK |
Question 4 - For social studies only.
| SCORE |
DESCRIPTION |
| 4 |
Student discusses multiple reasons for people continuing to
live in danger zones. Answer should include such factors as
cultural, environmental, historical, and political reasons. |
| 3 |
Student discusses some reasons for people continuing to live
in danger zones. Reasons are based on limited knowledge of areas.
Answer may contain some incorrect information. |
| 2 |
Student discusses one reason for people continuing to live
in danger zones. Reason given is minor. Answer may contain some
incorrect information. |
| 1 |
Student merely lists reason(s) for people continuing to live
in danger zones. List may contain reasons of minimal scope.
|
| 0 |
BLANK |
Question 5 - Score for science only.
| SCORE |
DESCRIPTION |
| 4 |
Student gives a clear, concise, detailed, scientifically accurate
description of the cause of the one of the following: volcano,
hurricane, tornado, polluted river, or earthquake. |
| 3 |
Student gives a good description of one of the natural disasters;
description may lack specific details or contain minor flaws
or inconsistencies. |
| 2 |
Student describes one of the natural disasters; response contains
flaws and/or inconsistencies indicating gaps in student's understanding
of phenomenon chosen. |
| 1 |
Student attempts to explain natural disaster but clearly does
not comprehend the cause. |
| 0 |
BLANK |
Question 6
| SCORE |
DESCRIPTION |
| 4 |
Student selects a technological advancement that has allowed
people to exist in danger zones and explains the scientific
principles involved in the technology. Response indicates understanding
of technology and how it has changed people's ability to exist
in otherwise dangerous areas. Student's choice of technological
advancement is logical, meaningful, and significant. |
| 3 |
Student selects a technological advancement that has allowed
people to exist in danger zones and explains the scientific
principles involved in the technology. Response lacks specific
detail, or advancement is not particularly significant to humankind,
or link between advancement and survival is not concise and
clear. |
| 2 |
Student provides a good description of technology with poor
description of scientific principles.
OR
Student provides a poor description of technology with good
description of scientific principles involved. |
| 1 |
Response is sketchy or vague, or contains major flaws. Response
indicates lack of understanding if issues. Choice of technology
may be trivial or inappropriate. |
| 0 |
BLANK |
|
|
