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.
By the end of the Health Decisions, Media & Consumer Science unit, a student should be able to:
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.
| Canonical answer | Accepted synonyms | Common confusion / discriminator |
|---|---|---|
| Reading a health claim | ||
| Health claim | advertised benefit | An assertion that something affects health — the question is what evidence backs it |
| Source | who is behind the claim | Ask whether the source has something to sell before trusting it |
| Correlation | a link / an association | Two things move together — not proof one causes the other |
| Causation | cause and effect | One thing actually produces the other — takes more than a link to show |
| Evidence & consumer science | ||
| Marketing | advertising / persuasion | Language designed to sell — not the same as evidence |
| Testimonial | personal anecdote | One person’s story — not evidence a claim holds up in general |
| Supplement | vitamin/mineral pill | Can add a specific nutrient; can’t replace the whole food it came from |
| Whole food | unprocessed food | Carries fiber, a mix of nutrients, and things we haven’t isolated — a pill leaves those out |
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. | Meets a health claim by asking who made it, what evidence backs it, and whether the source has something to sell. |
| 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. | Explains why a link between two things is not proof of cause, and names other explanations a headline might have missed. |
| 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.
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.