A second option would be for a state or district (or its contractors) to design stan- dardized performance tasks that would be made available for teachers to use as designated points in curriculum programs. Classroom teachers could be trained to score these tasks, or student products could be submitted to the district or state
and scored centrally. Results would be aggregated at the school, district, or state level to support monitoring purposes.
This option builds on an approach that was until recently used in Queensland, Australia, called the Queensland Comparable Assessment Tasks (QCATs). The QCAT consists of performance tasks in English, mathematics, and science that are administered in grades 4, 6, and 9. They are designed to engage students in solving meaningful problems. The structure of the Queensland sys- tem gives schools and teachers more control over assessment decisions than is currently the case in the United States. Schools have the option of using either centrally devised QCATs, which have been developed by the Queensland Studies Authority (QSA), with common requirements and parameters and graded accord- ing to a common guide, or school-devised tasks, which are developed by schools in accord with QSA design specifications.
The QCATs are not on-demand tests (i.e., not given at a time determined by the state); schools are given a period of 3-4 months to administer, score, and submit the scores to the QSA. The scores are used for low-stakes purposes.20 Individual student scores are provided to teachers, students, and parents for instructional improvement purposes. Aggregate school-level scores are reported to the QSA, but they are not used to compare the performance of students in one school with the performance of students in other schools. The scores are consid- ered to be unsuitable for making comparisons across schools (see Queensland Studies Authority, 2010b, p. 19). Teachers make decisions about administration times (one, two, or more testing sessions) and when during the administration period to give the assessments, and they participate in the scoring process.
Assessment Task Example 11, Plate Tectonics: An example of a performance task that might be used for monitoring purposes is one that was administered in a classroom after students had covered major aspects of the earth and space science standards. It is taken from a program for middle school children in the United States that provided professional development based on A Framework for K-12
Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National
Research Council, 2012a) and training in the use of curriculum materials aligned
to the framework. It was designed and tested as part of an evaluation of a set of curriculum materials and associated professional development.21
The task was given to middle school students studying a unit on plate tec- tonics and large-scale system interactions (similar to one of the disciplinary core ideas in the NGSS). The assessment targets two performance expectations linked to that disciplinary core idea. The task, part of a longer assessment designed to be completed in two class periods, is one of several designed to be given in the course of a unit of study. The task asks students to construct models of geologic pro- cesses to explain what happens over hot spots or at plate boundaries that leads to the formation of volcanoes. The students are given these instructions:
A. Draw a model of volcano formation at a hot spot using arrows to show movement in the model. Be sure to label all parts of your model.
B. Use your model to explain what happens with the plate and what happens at the hot spot when a volcano forms.
C. Draw a model to show the side view (crosssection) of volcano formation near a plate boundary (at a subduction zone or divergent boundary). Be sure to label all parts of your model.
D. Use your model to explain what happens when a volcano forms near a plate boundary.
In parts A and B of the task, students are expected to construct a model of a vol- cano forming over a hot spot using drawings and scientific labels, and they are to use this model to explain that hot spot volcanoes are formed when a plate moves over a stationary plume of magma or mantle material. In parts B and C, students are expected to construct a model of a volcano forming at a plate boundary using drawings and scientific labels and then use this model to explain volcano forma- tion at either a subduction zone or divergent boundary.
The developers drew on research on learning progressions to articulate the constructs to be assessed. The team developed a construct map (a diagram of
21Although the task was designed as part of the evaluation, it is nevertheless an example of
a way to assess students’ proficiency with performance expectations like those in the NGSS. The question being addressed in the evaluation was whether the professional development is more effective when the curriculum materials are included than when they are not. Teachers in a “treatment” condition received professional development and materials needed to implement Project-Based Inquiry Science, a comprehensive, 3-year middle school science curriculum. The research team used evidence from the task discussed in this report, in combination with other evidence, to evaluate the integrated program of professional development and curriculum.
thinking and understanding in a particular area; see Chapter 3) that identified dis- ciplinary core ideas and key science practices targeted in the unit, which was based on research on how students learn about the dynamics of Earth’s interior (Gobert, 2000, 2005; Gobert and Clement, 1999) and on research on learning progressions related to constructing and using models (Schwarz et al., 2009).
The scoring rubric in Table 5-2 shows how the task yields evidence related to the two performance expectations. (The developers noted that the task could also be used to generate evidence of student understanding of the crosscutting con- cepts of pattern and scale, although that aspect is not covered in this rubric.) The scoring rubric addressed the middle school performance expectations, as well as the range of student responses generated from a field test of the task. Field testing verified that students could provide explanations as part of their responses to the task that matched the researchers’ expectations (Kennedy, 2012a,b).
Scores on the component sections of the task set were used to produce a sin- gle overall score (the individual parts of the item are not independent, so the task does not generate usable subscores). Taken together, the components demonstrate the “completeness” of a student’s skill and knowledge in constructing models to explain how volcanoes form. To earn a top score for parts A and B, not only must students label key parts of their models (crust, plates, magma, and mantle) with arrows showing the mechanism involved, they must also provide an explanation of or clearly show how volcanoes form over a hot spot.
Figure 5-5 illustrates two students’ different levels of performance on parts A and B. The drawing on the left received a combined score of 4 points (of a pos- sible total of 5) for constructing a model because it includes labels for the mantle, magma, crust, volcano, and a hot spot. Arrows show the movement of crust, and the student has written a claim (below the drawing), “The hot spot allows magma to move up into the crust where it forms a volcano.” The drawing includes the correct labels, shows some direction in the movement of the crust, and mentions
TABLE 5-2 Scoring Rubric for Task on Volcano Formation
Score Point Descriptor B
+1 The explanation states or drawing clearly shows that a volcano forms when magma from the hot spot rises and breaks through the crust.
+1 The explanation states or drawing clearly shows that the hot spot in the mantle stays in the same place and/or states that the crust/plate moves over it.
magma moving up and penetrating the crust, to form a volcano. However, the stu- dent did not write or draw about the plate moving across the hot spot while the hot spot stays in the same place, so the model is incomplete.
The drawing on the right received only 1 point for parts A and B. It included a drawing of a volcano with magma and lava rising up, with the claim, “The magma pushes through the crust and goes up and erupts.” The student’s drawing does not show anything related to a hot spot, although it does mention that rising magma pushes up through the crust causing an eruption, for which the student earned partial credit.
A score on this task contributes one piece of evidence related to the perfor- mance expectations. A similar rubric is used to score parts C and D. These scores are combined with those on other tasks, given on other days, to provide evidence of student learning for the entire unit. No attempt is made to generate separate scores for the practice (developing models) and the knowledge because the model is a part of the way students are representing their knowledge in response to the task: these two aspects of practice and knowledge are not separable.