This packet is everything a parent or guide needs to assess Unit 08 at home — learning targets, the answers that count as correct, the mastery rubric, calibration examples, and a clipboard score sheet. No multiple-choice test: the student shows mastery by taking a real health claim apart and defending an evidence-based verdict aloud.
By the end of the Health Decisions, Media & Consumer Science unit, a student should be able to:
Six criteria, each judged Not yet / Approaching / Mastered (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 Not yet, Approaching, or Mastered — 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. A student carries three tokens per term; one token buys a re-do of one criterion on another day, so a single bad afternoon never sinks the unit.
Accept any answer in the synonyms column — they are pre-approved as equivalent. The third column flags the confusions that look close but are not yet, so you can coach precisely.
| 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 |
| Criterion | Not yet | Approaching | Mastered |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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) | Treats the science as isolated facts; makes no cross-domain connection. | Names a link to history, reading, or writing but cannot defend why it matters. | Connects the unit to its anchor across History · Reading · Writing (plus chosen electives) — including the James Lind scurvy trial as the origin of evidence-based medicine — and defends why the connection matters. |
The split between Approaching and Mastered 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?”
Read these before you grade. They show what Mastered and Not yet 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 | NY / Appr / Mast | |
| 2 | Correlation vs. causation | NY / Appr / Mast | |
| 3 | Spotting marketing vs. evidence | NY / Appr / Mast | |
| 4 | Supplements vs. whole food | NY / Appr / Mast | |
| 5 | Anchor lab (health-claim media-analysis case study) | NY / Appr / Mast | |
| 6 | Integration (cross-domain) | NY / Appr / Mast |
☐ No ☐ Yes — for criterion: __________ Tokens remaining: ☐ 3 ☐ 2 ☐ 1 ☐ 0
NY = Not yet · Appr = Approaching · Mast = Mastered · Unsure between two levels? Circle the lower one and note what a re-do would need.