Car Wash
Rubric
Contributed by: Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT)

SCORING GUIDE

Car Wash        Dimension I - Individual Understanding
Student Code: ______________________ Scorer Code: ______________
Date: ________

Directions: For each criterion below, circle the letters of the standards for which students have provided sufficient evidence in their written work. Then add the numbers of standards met and circle the corresponding total from 0 to 5 in the columns to the right.

Criteria and Standards Performance Levels
Excell. Good Fair Poor No Evid.
I.1 Effects on environment >=4 3 2 1 0
  1. Dump detergents to ground.
  2. Change underwater quality.
  3. Create noise.
  4. Increase Co-emissions
  5. Create traffic congestion.
  6. Others: (specify).






I.2 Identification of relevant site factors >=4 3 2 1 0
  1. Soil properties (permeability, pH, porosity, compaction, particle size distribution)
  2. Drainage (depth bedrock, depth to ground water, surface runoff, groundwater flow)
  3. Topography
  4. Proximity to residential development
  5. Proximity to environmentally sensitive areas
  6. Accessibility to site






I.3 Identification of factors for choosing community garden site. >=4 3 2 1 0
  1. Soil compaction (porosity, permeability)
  2. Slope
  3. Population density
  4. Topsoil quality
  5. Drainage
  6. Proximity to wetlands, wells, reservoirs, sensitive watersheds, etc.
  7. Water Supply
  8. Persistence of pesticides and fertilizers
  9. Others: (specify)






I.4 Analysis of Permeability Report. 4 3 2 1 0
  1. Number and size of holes not specified
  2. Amount of soil in porosity experiment is not described
  3. Amount of water in porosity experiment is not described
  4. dependent variable not defined in porosity experiment






I.5 Analysis of Detergent Report. 4 3 2 1 0
  1. Experimental procedures are well described
  2. Conclusion is based on data
  3. Conclusion is tentative because data are based on only one measurement with each sample of soil
  4. No reference to possible sources of error








Alternative Assessment in Science Appendix SA1 (Lomask, Baron, & Grieg). Supported by the Connecticut State Department of Education & the NSF (SPA-8954692). Please do not cite or circulate without written permission. November 1993. (11/26)
SA1 - 47



Part II: Group Experimentation and Report

Car Wash        Dimension II - Group Experimentation
Student Code: ______________________ Scorer Code: ______________
Date: ________

Directions: For each criterion below, circle the letters of the standards for which students have provided sufficient evidence in their written work. Then add the numbers of standards met and circle the corresponding total from 0 to >= 6 in the columns to the right.

Criteria and Standards Performance Levels
Excell. Good Fair Poor No Evid.
II.1 Identification of environmental concerns. >=6 4-5 2-3 1 0
  1.waste water.
  2. detergents
  3. suspended solids
  4. salts
  5. waxes
  6. Petroleum distillates (degreaser, gas oils, detergents, etc.)
  7. auto emissions
  8. water supply
  9. aesthetics
   Others: (specify).






II.2 Experimental design. 4 3 2 1 0
  The experimental design should:
  1. match the factor to be studied.
  2. define independent and dependent variables.
  3. control and test variables separately.
  4. be clearly described.






II.3 Data Collection and presentation. 4 3 2 1 0
  1. Sufficient repetitions of measurements
  2. Mathematical treatment of data (averages, etc.)
  3. Appropriate presentations (labeled charts, appropriate graphs)
  4. Adequate description of procedures






II.4 Identification of ideal soil properties. 4 3 2 1 0
  Factors considered in final report recommendation:
  1. moderate percolation rate
  2. ability to filter contaminants in order to protect the aquifer (from particulates, salts, oils, etc.)
  3. resistant to erosion
  4. non-disruptive for residential life






II.5 Selecting the appropriate site. 4 3 2 1 0
  Holistic judgment based on the following:
  1. Reference to or consistency with conclusions from experiments
  2. Consideration of numerous site factors
  3. Lack of misconceptions or misinformation
  4. Clarity and organization








Alternative Assessment in Science Appendix SA1 (Lomask, Baron, & Grieg). Supported by the Connecticut State Department of Education & the NSF (SPA-8954692). Please do not cite or circulate without written permission. November 1993. (11/26)
SA1 - 48



Part III: Collaboration


STUDENT'S SCORING GUIDE

Car Wash                      Dimension III - Collaboration
Name _________________

Date _______
Please see the reverse side for directions.             Check One
A. GROUP PARTICIPATION Almost
Always
Often Some-
times
Rarely

 1. Participated in group discussion without prompting.





 2. Did his or her fair share of the work.





 3. Tried to dominate the group - interrupted others, spoke too much.    





 4. Participated in the Group's Activities.




B. STAYING ON THE TOPIC Almost
Always
Often Some-
times
Rarely

 5. Paid attention, listened to what was being said and done.





 6. Made comments aimed at getting the group back to the topic.





 7. Got off the topic or changed the subject.





 8. Stayed on the Topic.




C. OFFERING USEFUL IDEAS Almost
Always
Often Some-
times
Rarely

 9. Gave ideas and suggestions that helped the group.





10. Offered helpful criticism and comments.





11. Influenced the groups' decisions and plans.





12. Offered Useful Ideas.




D. CONSIDERATION Almost
Always
Often Some-
times
Rarely

13. Make positive, encouraging remarks about group members and their ideas.





14. Gave recognition and credit to others for their ideas.





15. Made inconsiderate or hostile comments about a group member.





16. Was Considerate of Others.




E. INVOLVING OTHERS Almost
Always
Often Some-
times
Rarely

17. Got others involved by asking questions, requesting input or challenging others.





18. Tried to get the group working together to reach group agreements.





19. Seriously considered the ideas of others.





20. Involved Others.




F. COMMUNICATING Almost
Always
Often Some-
times
Rarely

21. Spoke clearly. Was easy to hear and understand





22. Expressed ideas clearly and effectively.





23. Communicated Clearly.






Alternative Assessment in Science Appendix SA1 (Lomask, Baron, & Grieg). Supported by the Connecticut State Department of Education & the NSF (SPA-8954692). Please do not cite or circulate without written permission. November 1993. (11/26)
SA1 - 49





STUDENT SCORING GUIDE INSTRUCTIONS
Car Wash                                                                                            Dimension III - Collaboration

Write your name and today's date at the top of side 2 and for each question, fill in the appropriate box to describe your behavior in the group during this task. Please note that items 3, 7, and 15 are different from the others; when you rate these items be aware that you are pointing out a problem.

After you have completed your self-ratings, circulate them to each person in your group for his or her review and signature. If any member of your group disagrees with your ratings of yourself, please discuss with that person the reasons for the disagreement and then decide whether or not you want to change your original rating.

Signature of Other Group Members

1. ___________________________________________________
2. ___________________________________________________
3. ___________________________________________________
4. ___________________________________________________
5. ___________________________________________________


When each member of your group has approved and signed your rating sheet, please submit this form to your teacher or follow any alternate directions your teacher may have provided.

If you cannot agree on a rating or if you wish to make comments about this process, please use the space below.

This space may be used for COMMENTS

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________


Alternative Assessment in Science Appendix SA1 (Lomask, Baron, & Grieg). Supported by the Connecticut State Department of Education & the NSF (SPA-8954692). Please do not cite or circulate without written permission. November 1993. (11/26)
SA1 - 50



Part IV: Oral Communication

Car Wash        Dimension IV: Oral Communication
Student Code: ______________________ Scorer Code: ______________
Date: ________

Directions: For each criterion below, circle the letters of the standards for which students have provided sufficient evidence in their written work. Then add the numbers of standards met and circle the corresponding total from 0 to 5 in the columns to the right.

Criteria and Standards Performance Levels
Excell. Good Fair Poor No Evid.
IV.1 Message(content) 4-5 3 2 1 0
The speaker:

  1. Organizes presentation effectively.
  2. Reports and explains clearly.
  3. Fits his/her presentation into the presentations of the other group members
  4. Provides thorough and clear answers to questions.
  5. Uses scientific terminology accurately and appropriately.






IV.2 Medium(style) 4-5 3 2 1 0
The speaker:

  6. Uses a voice clear and loud enough for all to hear.
  7. Maintains eye contact with the audience.
  8. Uses a conversational tone rather than reading to audience
  9 . Uses visual aids that are easily seen and understood.
 10. Avoids distracting behaviors.








Alternative Assessment in Science Appendix SA1 (Lomask, Baron, & Grieg). Supported by the Connecticut State Department of Education & the NSF (SPA-8954692). Please do not cite or circulate without written permission. November 1993. (11/26)
SA1 - 51