One of the biggest challenges with the new science standards in NYS (#NYSSLS) will be how these standards are assessed. With the new assessment for 5th grade set to be administered in May or June 2021, we still are not clear on what the assessment will look like. However, there are strong models that may give us a clue. The Stanford NGSS Assessment Project (#SNAP) and the work of Paul Anderson (thewonderofscience.com) provide frameworks for creating 3-dimensional assessments that allow students to engage with a phenomena across not only the Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs), but also the Science & Engineering Practices (SEPs) and Cross Cutting Concepts (CCCs). The assessments are challenging to create, but they provide so much information about the student, I believe they are worth it!
My teaching partner Beth Sweirski and I have been playing with these experiments over the past 2 years. This year, we are revising our first attempts, creating stronger pieces based on what we have learned about modeling. Our 5th graders are currently studying the Structure of Matter. We have been studying the states of matter, what matter is made of, and how we can find evidence that matter is created from small particles. This past week, they took their first assessment. The assessment focused on Performance Expectation 5-PS1-1. Develop a model to describe that matter is made of particles too small to be seen.
Students were shown a video clip that looped throughout the assessment. The video showed a beach ball starting flat and being inflated with an air pump. Our 5th grade scientists were asked to create a model to answer the question "How does the inflation of a ball provide evidence that there are particles too small to be seen?". In asking student to develop a model, we used the guidelines for directions as described in Ambitious Science Teaching, which are the same guidelines the scientists have been engaged in during lab sessions.
After the students create their model, they are to use their model and knowledge to write an explanation that addresses the same question. Having the model and explanation side by side are essential to determine what students really understand. In scoring we can see if the students have command of the SEP - Developing and Using Models, and the CCC of Cause and effect. Here is the explanation from the student who completed the model above:
The Gotta Have It Checklist is part of our Making Models procedures in the lab. It also comes from Ambitious Science Teaching and makes it very clear what is expected in the model.
Evaluating this type of assessment needs to be approached differently. You are assessing across 3 dimensions, so evidence of the model and cause-effect relationship need to be considered as much as the content (DCI). We are using a rubric with a checklist as we look at student work. The rubric has already undergone some revisions as I have corrected the first set of papers. But that's what should happen, the rubric evolves with evidence from real student work.
We decided to include a checklist, because of our focus on modeling this unit. There are certain elements we want students to understand appear in good scientific models. Interestingly enough, trends appeared within the checklist. Students with concrete level understandings that indicated "air went in the ball and now it is larger", did not include those things that can not be seen. Student who didn't understand the molecules were moving, didn't include arrows. The depth with which I understand where my students are in terms of all 3 dimensions of this Performance Expectation is incredible! I cannot see going back to multiple choice or short answer, when with one task completed in 30-40 minutes, gives me this volume of information about my students.
I know as I learn more about assessments, my attempts will continue to evolve. But I feel that I am on the right track and whatever NYS decides on, my students will be able to handle it, because of the type of work they are engaging in every day!