Nutrition-analysis defense
Use a public food label, a fictional menu, or an instructor-approved de-identified dataset. The student checks serving sizes, nutrient amounts, and the stated reference guidelines, then defends the analysis and its limits. Personal meal diaries, body measurements, and health disclosures are not required and declining to share them does not reduce the grade.
| Criterion | Developing | Proficient | Mastery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gathering & reading the data | Misreads the label or the record — wrong serving size, skips added sugar, cannot pull the numbers cleanly. | Reads most values but confuses one serving with the whole package, or misses a key nutrient. | Reads the nutrition data accurately — serving size, calories, macronutrients, added sugar — and pulls a complete, honest set of numbers to work from. |
| Analysis & reasoning from evidence | Reports numbers without interpreting them, or draws a conclusion the data does not support. | Spots one pattern in the data but cannot connect it to what the body needs. | Interprets the numbers against evidence-based guidelines — where energy and nutrients come from, what runs high or low — and reasons from the data rather than from assumptions. |
| Evidence-based recommendation | Offers a fad rule or a “good food / bad food” verdict the data does not support. | Suggests a change but frames it as an order rather than as reasoning, or cannot tie it to the evidence. | Frames a recommendation as reasoning — “the evidence suggests…” — grounded in the data and the guidelines, without prescribing calorie targets or judging the food as good or bad. |
| Defending under questioning | Folds at the first follow-up or recites a memorized line that does not fit the data. | Answers some follow-ups, falters when asked to justify a number or a choice. | Handles unrehearsed follow-ups about this analysis with sound, on-the-spot reasoning from the evidence. |
| 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. |
Integration is reported separately and cannot lower the science grade or block a science demonstration pass. Science and practical criteria determine that pass. Before assessment, publish the target list, task, permitted references, timing, and accommodations. Assess scientific reasoning and safe technique, not confidence or speaking speed.
“Most of the added sugar in this day comes from two drinks, not the meals — the labels show forty grams there, well above the guideline. The evidence suggests swapping one drink would bring the added sugar closer to that guideline, and I can point to the exact numbers I’m reasoning from.”
“This food is bad because it has sugar in it, so I’d just cut it out. I’m not really sure what the numbers say or how much is in a serving.”
The instructor checks the student's calculation, interpretation, and response to a fresh follow-up. Use fictional or de-identified practice records, not private disclosures. This is an educational analysis, not a personal diet prescription; live questioning adds evidence but does not by itself prove independent work.