Use these targets, vocabulary, rubrics, examples, and score sheet with the instructor's approved lesson and procedure. This is an assessment companion, not a complete lesson or safety authorization.
Student lessons, data, and public practice answers (not assessment keys): Unit 08 learning pathway.
The student demonstrates the following:
Five science criteria plus separately reported integration (Page 3).
Take a real headline or ad apart; reach an evidence-based verdict.
The student separates correlation from causation aloud (Page 4).
The claim, its source, and the evidence weighed kept distinct.
You are making a decision, not adding up points. For each criterion, decide whether the work is Developing, Proficient, or Mastery — the column language tells you which. A criterion counts as mastered only when the student can both analyze the claim and explain how they told evidence from marketing. Each student has three tokens per term; each token retries one rubric criterion. Approved accommodations, equipment failures, and approved absences are handled separately and do not consume these tokens.
Accept listed synonyms; use the distinction column to resolve near-matches.
| Term | Accepted explanation | Distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute risk | Cases divided by total in a group | Often clearer than a headline percentage. |
| Relative risk reduction | Change compared with a baseline risk | Can sound large when absolute risk is small. |
| Confounding | A third factor that may explain an association | A major limit in observational claims. |
| Evidence quality | Strength and fit of source, design, data, and review | Not the same as persuasive wording. |
The split between Proficient and Mastery is follow the evidence: a student who can trace a claim to its source and say what would make it trustworthy has it. Ask “who made this claim, and what evidence backs it?”
| Criterion | Developing | Proficient | Mastery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reading a health claim critically | Accepts a health claim at face value and cannot say what would make it trustworthy. | Senses a claim needs checking but cannot name what evidence to look for. | Evaluates a health claim by source, purpose, funding, review, date, privacy, study design, denominators, and confounding. |
| Correlation vs. causation | Treats any headline linking two things as proof that one causes the other. | Has heard “correlation is not causation” but cannot apply it to a real headline. | Separates correlation, causation, absolute risk, relative risk, and practical significance. |
| Spotting marketing vs. evidence | Cannot tell an advertisement apart from an evidence-based recommendation. | Notices persuasion but cannot point to the specific tactic being used. | Separates marketing language from evidence — naming the tactic (testimonials, vague “studies show,” fear appeals) and what real support would look like instead. |
| Supplements vs. whole food | Assumes a supplement can simply replace the nutrients in a balanced diet. | Knows whole food matters but cannot explain what a supplement leaves out. | Explains why supplements can’t replace a balanced diet — whole food carries fiber, a mix of nutrients, and things we haven’t isolated — and treats “a pill fixes it” as a red flag. |
| Anchor lab (health-claim media-analysis case study) | Skips the case study or summarizes a claim without evaluating it. | Analyzes a claim but stops before weighing the evidence behind it. | Works a health-claim media-analysis case study end to end — tracing the claim to its source, weighing the evidence, and reaching an evidence-based verdict. |
| Integration (cross-domain) | Makes no supported connection between the source and the science. | Uses the source but needs help connecting evidence, writing, or limitations to the science. | Independently connects History, Reading, and Writing using a cited source, appropriate evidence, a limitation, and a scientific explanation. |
Read these before you grade. They show what Mastery and Developing actually sound like, plus the edge cases where you should coach rather than decide on the spot.
Evidence record: Level ____ Case/data ____ Criterion ____ Source/date ____ First attempt ____ Calculation/limits ____ Transfer ____ Educator review ____. Supplied records, source evaluation, and any approved practical are separate; no private health disclosure is required.
Student: ______________________________________ Date: _______________ Guide: _________________________
| # | Criterion | Decision | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reading a health claim critically | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 2 | Correlation vs. causation | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 3 | Spotting marketing vs. evidence | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 4 | Supplements vs. whole food | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 5 | Anchor lab (health-claim media-analysis case study) | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 6 | Integration (cross-domain) | Dev / Prof / Mast |
☐ No ☐ Yes — for criterion: __________
Tokens left this term after this session (choose one): ☐ 3 ☐ 2 ☐ 1 ☐ None left
Dev = Developing · Prof = Proficient · Mast = Mastery · Unsure between two levels? Circle the lower one and note what a re-do would need.