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 04 learning pathway.
The student demonstrates the following:
Five science criteria plus separately reported integration (Page 3).
Plan and set up a controlled experiment — watched live.
The student defends each design choice aloud (Page 4).
Design, procedure, and results 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 design the fair test and defend why the comparison is fair. 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Variables & fair tests | ||
| Independent variable | what you change | The one thing changed on purpose (lamp vs. window) |
| Dependent variable | what you measure | The result you record (seedling height) |
| Controlled variable | held-comparable condition | Control known alternatives; explain remaining variation instead of promising identical conditions. |
| Comparison & trust | ||
| Control group | comparison / baseline group | A relevant comparison is not necessarily untreated or identical; state its allocation and differences. |
| Fair test | planned comparison | This introductory design varies one factor; more complex designs need explicit controls and replication |
| Replication | independent treatment units | Distinguish independently assigned pots or stations from leaves or rereadings within them. |
| Sample size | number of independent units | State the unit; more subsamples cannot repair a confounded treatment or guarantee a real effect. |
| Procedure | documented plan | Include random allocation and feasible masked observation, not only material-handling steps. |
Ask whether the design strengthens a qualified causal inference: comparable conditions, explicit allocation, independent units and a clear observation rule. Ask what alternatives remain; one controlled change does not automatically prove a cause.
| Criterion | Developing | Proficient | Mastery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent & dependent variables | Cannot say what is being changed or what is being measured. | Names one but mixes up which is changed and which is measured. | Names the assigned treatment and measured response with units and timing; distinguishes baseline value from change. |
| Controlled variables (fair test) | Changes factors without tracking their effects. | Controls some conditions but overlooks a plausible confounder. | Controls relevant conditions, identifies remaining variation or confounders, and explains how the design strengthens but does not guarantee a causal inference. |
| Control / comparison group | Runs only the test condition, with nothing to compare it to. | Knows a comparison is needed but sets up one that is not a fair baseline. | Defines an appropriate comparison group and explains its similarities, differences, and allocation; does not assume organisms are identical. |
| Replication & sample size | Tests one seedling once and calls it settled. | Includes repeats but confuses independent units with repeated readings or subsamples. | Identifies independently assigned units, distinguishes subsamples and repeats, and justifies replication without claiming a magic sample size guarantees an effect. |
| Procedure clarity | Keeps the plan in their head; written steps are vague or missing amounts. | Writes steps but leaves out a measurement, timing, or detail a stranger would need. | Documents allocation, controls, measurement rule and feasible blinding; records deviations and obtains educator approval before actual practice. |
| 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 ____ Work/limits ____ Transfer ____ Educator review ____. Attach the first attempt. Actual practical observation is separate.
Student: ______________________________________ Date: _______________ Guide: _________________________
| # | Criterion | Decision | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Independent & dependent variables | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 2 | Controlled variables (fair test) | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 3 | Control / comparison group | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 4 | Replication & sample size | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 5 | Procedure clarity | 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.