Timed label-and-data reading
The student is handed a stack of real nutrition labels and health headlines and a clock. Working against time, they read each label cleanly — serving size, % daily value, added sugar, ingredient order — and decide what the marketing on the front of the package is actually claiming versus what the data on the back supports. At the end they separate the science from the sell and justify each call from the evidence in front of them. There is nothing to copy and no key to consult: the labels are real, the time is real, and every call has to hold up.
| Criterion | Developing | Proficient | Mastery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Label literacy under time | Cannot find the serving size or % daily value, or confuses per-serving numbers with per-package numbers. | Reads the obvious fields but slows on added sugar or ingredient order, or misses one under the clock. | Reads serving size, % daily value, added sugar, and ingredient order quickly and correctly — knowing the first ingredient is the largest by weight. |
| Marketing claims vs. evidence | Takes front-of-package claims at face value — “natural,” “immune support” — as if they were proven. | Senses a claim is marketing but cannot say what the label data does or does not back up. | Separates a marketing claim from what the evidence on the label actually supports, and names which words carry a defined meaning and which are just selling. |
| Correlation vs. causation | Reads a headline’s link as proof of cause. | Suspects a headline overreaches but cannot explain why a link is not a cause. | Spots when a health headline treats a correlation as a cause, and explains what evidence a real causal claim would need. |
| Speed & accuracy under pressure | Either rushes into wrong reads or works so carefully the clock runs out. | Gets most calls right but loses accuracy as the timer drops, or stalls on the hard labels. | Holds both speed and accuracy — reading quickly, catching the tricky fields, and finishing the set without trading correctness for time. |
| 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.
“The front says ‘supports immunity,’ but the back shows the vitamin C is a tiny % daily value and sugar is the second ingredient — the label does not back the claim. And that headline said soda ‘causes’ low grades; it only found a link, which is not the same as a cause.”
“It says natural and immune support on the front, so it’s probably healthy. I didn’t get to the ingredients — I ran out of time.”
This assessment is AI-proof by design: it happens in person, with real labels and a real clock. No chatbot can read a package it cannot hold, catch a marketing claim in real time, or separate a correlation from a cause while the timer runs. The labels differ from student to student, so there is no answer to look up — mastery is shown by reading and reasoning in person, not by submitting.