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 06 learning pathway.
The student demonstrates the following:
Five science criteria plus separately reported integration (Page 3).
Time or measure the same thing five times; report the spread.
The student names random vs systematic error in their own setup (Page 4).
Every trial, the spread, and any outlier 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 report the spread honestly and tell random error from systematic error. 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Error | ||
| Random error | scatter under stated conditions | Separate within-sheet variation from differences among independently sampled sheets. |
| Systematic error | bias / offset | Pushes every result one way — a ruler that starts at 1 cm |
| Uncertainty | qualified doubt about a result | SD describes spread; SE models mean variability under assumptions. Neither alone certifies accuracy. |
| Outlier | anomaly / odd point | A point far from the rest — flag it, don’t delete it |
| Honesty & spread | ||
| Spread (range) | observed minimum to maximum | Specify the level: coupon values or sheet means; range is not a confidence interval. |
| Repeat trial | new run or repeat observation, labeled explicitly | State the independent unit; nested subsamples do not become independent replicates. |
| Intellectual honesty | reporting what really happened | Never changing a number to make it “come out right” |
| Disproven hypothesis | prediction challenged by evidence | Check model and method assumptions, then revise; disagreement is not permission to erase a value. |
The split between Proficient and Mastery is honest about the spread: one number is a guess, a range is a measurement. Ask “how much did it vary, and did you keep the odd point?” before accepting a result.
| Criterion | Developing | Proficient | Mastery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sources of error | Blames “human error” for everything, or can’t say where a measurement might go wrong. | Names a source of error but can’t tell whether it scatters results randomly or pushes them all one way. | Names random variation and possible systematic bias at the correct level; explains why averaging cannot remove every error. |
| Repeat trials & spread | Measures once and treats that single number as the truth. | Repeats the trial but ignores how much the results differ from each other. | Reports independent units separately from repeat readings or subsamples, with means and spread at the appropriate level. |
| Reporting uncertainty | Reports a lone number as if it were exact. | Admits the measurement isn’t perfect but can’t attach a range to it. | Reports a value with units and a justified uncertainty summary, explaining its assumptions and what it does not include. |
| Anomalies & outliers | Quietly erases a point that doesn’t fit, or never notices it. | Spots an odd point but drops it with no reason, or keeps it without a second look. | Retains anomalies and sources, documents any justified exclusion and distinguishes sensitivity analysis from silent deletion. |
| Intellectual honesty | Changes numbers or the hypothesis to make the results “come out right.” | Reports the real result but calls the experiment a failure because it disproved the guess. | Reports conflicting results and revises the claim honestly; does not alter observations or relabel uncertainty to rescue a prediction. |
| 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 | Sources of error | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 2 | Repeat trials & spread | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 3 | Reporting uncertainty | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 4 | Anomalies & outliers | Dev / Prof / Mast | |
| 5 | Intellectual honesty | 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.