|
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 Please do not cite or circulate without written permission.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
|
|
