Scientific Inquiry 2004-2005 For more information contact: Aaron Persons, Assessment Specialist Oregon Department of Education Office of Assessment and Information Services 503-378-3600, Est. 2242 aaron.persons@state.or.us
Scientific Inquiry Work Sample Anchor Papers Oregon Department of Education Recent reform in science education places increased emphasis on assuring that students learn how to do science (NRC 1996, Inquiry and the National Standards 2001, Oregon 2001 Science Standards). Recognizing the importance of students actually doing science, the Oregon Department of Education requires inclusion of scientific inquiry work samples as part of the statewide assessment of science beginning in the 2003-2004 school year. To aid teachers with the scoring of student work samples, the Department has begun the process of identifying and documenting anchor papers actual student work samples with scores assigned and justified. The anchor papers that follow are works in progress. They should be seen as first drafts in our efforts to elucidate the performance standards in the form of student work. Limitations These anchor papers have been scored by many educators from throughout Oregon and were selected because of the high level of agreement among scorers. The corresponding justifications written to validate why each paper received these scores were written by one individual and reviewed by a small number of educators. It is expected that feedback from teachers as they use these anchor papers, hereafter referred to as paper, will result in continual refinement and improvement. Currently, the justification of the scoring for each paper focuses on why the work is scored at the level it is. Next steps for these justifications include development of reasons why a higher or lower score is not assigned to each paper. All of the attached papers are full investigations, scored on each of the four dimensions. They are also all written as traditional lab reports. Oregon science educators have advised the Department that scientific inquiry should allow students to submit work samples where not all of the dimensions are scored (or even completed). Also, it is not expected or required that the work sample be a written lab report. A complete collection of anchor papers will eventually include greater variety in format (e.g. posters, taped oral presentations) and scope (e.g. field-based observations, correlational studies, etc). There are several improvements planned for anchor papers for the future. For one, the pool of work samples will be expanded to include greater variety in context (physical, life, and earth/space sciences). Also, the current collection consists of controlled experiments because these are the type of work samples most commonly submitted by the classroom teachers. In the future, the anchor papers will reflect a broader collection of types of inquiry (e.g., field studies and analytical inquiry). Feedback Please feel free to provide feedback and/or submit comments to Aaron Persons regarding these anchor papers. Improvement of the collection will be greatly facilitated by your questions, concerns and submission of your students work to the Office of Assessment and Information Services.
Oregon Department of Education Instructional Context for Scientific Inquiry Student Work Sample Submission The wording of the scoring guide was developed for use by the classroom teacher to score work samples generated in his or her own classroom. Few student work samples are totally selfexplanatory independent of some understanding of the instructional context. The following information will assist those scoring and identifying anchor exemplars of student work to have a picture of the classroom experiences that lead to the production of the work sample. For each set of student work samples please provide the following: Briefly describe the instruction that lead up to the students producing the work sample. Specifically explain student background knowledge. What was the prompt to which the students are responding (you may attach a copy of your lesson if you prefer)? What particular question are they addressing? What specific assistance did the teacher provide for students (i.e., data table, data format, or safety/ethical issue)? Teaching and Learning to Standards: Science Oregon Department Education, 255 Capitol Street, NE, Salem OR 97310 For questions contact: Aaron Persons at aaron.persons@state.or.us For use during the 2004-05 school year www.ode.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Education Office of Assessment and Information Services 255 Capitol St. NE Scientific Inquiry in care of Aaron Persons Salem, OR 97310-0203 Permission For Releasing Student Work Scientific Inquiry Grade Dear Parent or Guardian, During this school year your child participated in classroom assignments that included work samples for Scientific Inquiry. The work samples are designed to measure student progress toward recently adopted academic standards in Oregon. This form is to ask permission to use your child s work in materials that inform students, teachers and the public about these student achievement standards. Only a small sample of work will be selected for this purpose. If your child s work is selected for inclusion, it will be carefully examined to remove names and any other personally identifying information. We are strictly interested in the academic work your child did, and we do not ask questions related to anything else. Please sign below and have your child return this form to his/her teacher. Please check the appropriate space: OR OR I give permission for s (print student s name) work to be included in materials, printed or prepared for the Internet, with the understanding that the name of my child, the teacher, school and town will not be included on any material. I give permission for s (print student s name) work to be included only in printed materials, with the understanding that the name of my child, the teacher, school and town will not be included on any written material. I do not give permission for s (print student s name) work to be duplicated for any purpose. My permission is effective until such date as I may revoke my permission in writing to Phyllis Rock, Assessment Coordinator, Oregon Department of Education, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310-0203. I understand that revocation of my permission will apply to subsequent copies of the material and not to copies already published and distributed. Signature: Parent/Guardian s Name: (please print) Relationship to Child: Date:
INITIAL ANCHOR PAPER SCORING Thank you for assisting the Oregon Department of Education develop valid scientific inquiry anchor papers. Grade: Today s Date: Location: Paper ID#: Dimensions Scores Justification (Reasons for Scores) Forming Student Language that informs the Justification (Quotes and examples from the student work sample) Designing Collecting Analyzing Paper ID#: Dimensions Scores Justification (Reasons for Scores) Forming Student Language that informs the Justification (Quotes and examples from the student work sample) Designing Collecting Analyzing
ANCHOR PAPER DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEET Thank you for assisting the Oregon Department of Education develop valid and well annotated scientific inquiry anchor papers. Today s Date: Location: Work Sample ID: Why should this work sample be considered an anchor paper? Initial Score Justification and Explanation (Please indicate where you disagree with the justification/explanation) Forming the Question or Hypothesis - Your Suggestions and Clarifications for the Justification and Explanation Student Language that Informs the Justification and Explanation Designing the Investigation
Page 2, Initial Score Justification and Explanation (Please indicate where you disagree with the justification/explanation) Collecting and Presenting Data Your Suggestions and Clarifications for the Justification and Explanation Student Language that Informs the Justification and Explanation Analyzing and Interpreting Results
BENCHMARK 3 Official Scores Type of ID F D CIP A/I Investigation # Pages 82 Water Rocket 5 5 5 5 Physical Science 4 83 Car Experiment 4 4 4 3 Physical Science 3 431 My Pond Water 3 3 3 3 Life Science 4 86 Isopod Experiment 5 5 5 5 Life Science 5 Science Anchor Paper Scores Aaron Persons, Assessment Specialist Oregon Department of Education Office of Assessment and Information Services
2004-2005 Anchor Papers Benchmark 3 For more information contact: Aaron Persons, Assessment Specialist Oregon Department of Education Office of Assessment and Information Services 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242 aaron.persons@state.or.us
Anchor Paper Development 2004-2005 82 Water Rocket Aaron Persons, Assessment Specialist Oregon Department of Education 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242 Office of Assessment and Information Services
ANCHOR PAPER DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEET Thank you for assisting the Oregon Department of Education s development of valid and well-annotated scientific inquiry anchor papers. Today s Date: Location: Grade: 8 ID#: 82 Water Rocket SRC: Physical Science Why should this work sample be considered an anchor paper? This is an example of a paper that scores fives in each dimension. This work is based in Oregon s Physical Science standards and is a simple physical controlled experiment with an amount of water. Initial Score Justification and Explanation Forming the Question or Hypothesis - 5 The student uses scientific knowledge to explain why the rocket should get off the ground. The student formed a question or hypothesis that points towards a correlation between water used and distance traveled. The hypothesis contains sufficient background information to imply an appropriate scientific investigation. Your Suggestions and Clarifications for the Justification and Explanation Background information is provided as connection to scientific law. However, the connection between mass of water and forces exerted is not explicit The hypotheses of the relationship between amount of water and distance the rocket will travel is a scientific question that can be answered. The appropriate approach to the scientific investigation is clearly addressed by the background information provided to support the hypothesis. Student language that informs the Justification They knew Isaac Newton s Third Law of Motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This pertains to rockets because as the rocket puts a force on the ground, the ground pushes back at the same amount of force. That s what launches the rocket. They also knew the water did not compress, but air did. They predicted that the more water, the farther it would go. For the launchers they were using they had to compress air into the bottle with water to launch the rocket. They were using a twolitter (L) bottle but measured For current information on anchor papers, see the Web at www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/science. For information about scoring scientific inquiry student work, contact Aaron Persons, Office of Assessment and Information Services, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242
Page 2, Grade 8, ID#: 82 Water Rocket Initial Score Justification and Explanation Designing the Investigation - 5 The design is safe and logical. There is sufficient quality and quantity of data. The design of the investigation is organized. Collecting and Presenting Data - 5 Recorded data is consistent with planned procedure. Displays are organized with appropriate units. Data is presented that clarifies results and facilitates scientific analysis. Analyzing and Interpreting Results - 5 Scientific terminology is used to report results and propose explanations. Results are used to address hypothesis. Procedures are reviewed to identify limitations or sources or error. Your Suggestions and Clarifications for the Justification and Explanation The logical design addresses safety issues Multiple trials are indicated in the design to provide sufficient quality and quantity of data The design is communicated in sufficient and organized though units of measurement are not mentioned Data table presents data that matches the design of the investigation Data table is organized in a logical fashion with appropriate units. Additional observational information is included as data that facilitates interpretation of results Graphical display does not reflect variability of data Conclusions about the relationships between amount of water and distance rocket traveled are accurately described as results are connected to expectations Explanation of results is well founded with logical relationships that use appropriate scientific terminology. The student identifies major errors and limitations and suggests changes to provide more accurate results. Student language that informs the Justification See designing the investigation and procedures Repeat steps 2-9 two more times for a total of three trials. Repeat steps 2-11 for amounts of 1000 ml and 1500 ml. See designing the investigation and procedures See Data Table See Data Table and Observations See Data Table I thought the more water the farther it would go. I thought this because I though it would put more force on the ground My explanation for this is because see 2 nd paragraph of the results Some limitations to the design of our procedure was that we did the experiment on two different days. On the second day the.see the results on 3 rd paragraph.. For current information on anchor papers, see the Web at www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/science. For information about scoring scientific inquiry student work, contact Aaron Persons, Office of Assessment and Information Services, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242
Anchor Paper Development 2004-2005 83 Car Experiment Aaron Persons, Assessment Specialist Oregon Department of Education 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242 Office of Assessment and Information Services
ANCHOR PAPER DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEET Thank you for assisting the Oregon Department of Education s development of valid and well-annotated scientific inquiry anchor papers. Today s Date: Location: Grade: 8 ID#: 83 Car Experiment SRC: Physical Science Why should this work sample be considered an anchor paper? This is an example of a paper that scores fours in all dimensions except in Analyzing and Interpreting Results. This work is based in Oregon s Physical Science standards and is a simple physical controlled experiment with an angle of ramp. Initial Score Justification and Explanation Forming the Question or Hypothesis - 4 The student uses personal experiences and observations to form a hypothesis The hypothesis can be tested by collecting data in the scientific investigation. There is both a hypothesis and some background information. Your Suggestions and Clarifications for the Justification and Explanation Personal experience is provided as background knowledge for formation of question Hypothesis of the relationship between steepness of ramp and speed of car can be tested in a scientific investigation The communication of both background information and hypothesis is clear. Student language that informs the Justification In the past, I have noticed that when I go down a steep hill I tend to go faster than I would if I was going down a flatter hill. I have also noticed this about skiing. My hypothesis is that the car will increase its speed as the ramp becomes steeper. I wonder if I could test this idea with a toy car. So I wonder if the car was a steep hill if it would go faster than a car on a flatter hill. For current information on anchor papers, see the Web at www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/science. For information about scoring scientific inquiry student work, contact Aaron Persons, Office of Assessment and Information Services, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242
Page 2, Grade 8, ID#: 83 Car Experiment Initial Score Justification and Explanation Designing the Investigation - 4 Procedures are logical, safe and ethical. The design provides the collection of data, which is applicable for testing the hypothesis. The summary of the plan includes important specific procedures. Your Suggestions and Clarifications for the Justification and Explanation The investigation is logically designed without violation of safety or ethical issues. The design results in data that is applicable to the testing of the question. Some details of the plan including the length of the path traveled by the car are held constant though not specified. Student language that informs the Justification See Procedure See Procedure # 4 See Procedure Collecting and Presenting Data - 4 Recorded data is consistent with the planned procedures. Display for measurements are organized, however, they are somewhat incomplete because the degree is missing for the angle. The graph presents and clarifies results. Analyzing and Interpreting Results - 3 Results are reported, a pattern is identified and an explanation is proposed. Results are used to generate a conclusion. Some obvious limitations or sources of error are identified. The data recorded reflects the logic of the design. Data display communicates results though the length of the ramp path is not included to identify variable for computation of speed. Degree units are missing for the angle Graph clearly demonstrates relationship of variables of angle and speed The pattern of the results are identified and connected to the hypothesis. However, there is no explanation proposed. Conclusion does not specifically refer to data gathered. Sources of error including the inaccuracy of timing, measurement of angle and force of release of car are identified. See Data Table See Data Table See Graph My results showed that as the angle of the ramp increased so did the speed of the car. My results confirmed my hypothesis that I had some sources of error I had some sources of error might have been that stopping and starting the stopwatch might not have been that accurate and the angle measured could have been of by a little. Another source of error could have been that I could have added more force to the car when I let the car go witch would have had a greater acceleration. For current information on anchor papers, see the Web at www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/science. For information about scoring scientific inquiry student work, contact Aaron Persons, Office of Assessment and Information Services, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242
Anchor Paper Development 431 My Pond Water Aaron Persons, Assessment Specialist Oregon Department of Education 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242 Office of Assessment and Information Services
ANCHOR PAPER DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEET Thank you for assisting the Oregon Department of Education s development of valid and well-annotated scientific inquiry anchor papers. Today s Date: Location: Grade: 8 ID#: 431 My Pond Water SRC: Life Science Why should this work sample be considered an anchor paper? This is an example of a paper that scores threes in each dimension. It is based on Oregon s Life Science standards and is an example of a simple experiment with control of amount of light to which the container of pond water is subject. Initial Score Justification and Explanation Forming the Question or Hypothesis - 3 Background (e.g., cells in pond water, water clarity) is irrelevant for the question and hypothesis (e.g., sugar (a nutrient) will influence pond water more if it is exposed to light). The question and hypothesis can be answered or tested, however, the question (impact of nutrients on water clarity) and hypothesis (the cup in the light will change more than the one in the dark) are inconsistent with one another. The question and hypothesis are unclear because they are contradictory and there is no supporting explanation. Your Suggestions and Clarifications for the Justification and Explanation Background information refers to personal knowledge without reference to source and question confounds variables of nutrient and light The question can be answered with a scientific investigation. However, the conditions of the relationships between the variables requires a multidimensional analysis The student has not clearly explained the relationship between the independent variables of nutrients and light Student language that informs the Justification I know that the more cells there are the water s clarity or color changes the question that I am try to answer is with nutrients (sugar water will the color or clarity change in the pond water. For current information on anchor papers, see the Web at www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/science. For information about scoring scientific inquiry student work, contact Aaron Persons, Office of Assessment and Information Services, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242
Page 2, Grade 8, ID# 431 My Pond Water Initial Score Justification and Explanation Designing the Investigation - 3 The design contains some significant scientific errors because there is not a control for the container in the dark. The design provides for data (relative color) somewhat applicable to the question or hypothesis. The plan is general and lacks detail (e.g., the use of a color chart to standardize color readings). Collecting and Presenting Data - 3 The data is reasonable but the data for the control cup in the light is missing. Displays are somewhat incomplete because there was no control cup in the dark. Displays are unclear because there are no units or reference on the darkness/ intensity axis. Your Suggestions and Clarifications for the Justification and Explanation No effort is made to control for extraneous variables such as temperature The design does not allow for controlled experiment, as the volumes of the cups are not held constant nor is there a control for cup in dark with no nutrients. The description of the plan is vague and general without sufficient detail, particularly in the measurement of relative color change The data contains no reference to the standards of color change and data for control is not included. The data is not consistent, as in the data for Day 4 for the cup in the dark is reported as lighter. Graphical display does not contain units for color change. Student language that informs the Justification See the procedures See the procedures i.e. 3 plastic cups See the procedures things to remember are the cup without sugar water is the control check color change. See III. Results Table Lighter than control and cup in the light See Graph For current information on anchor papers, see the Web at www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/science. For information about scoring scientific inquiry student work, contact Aaron Persons, Office of Assessment and Information Services, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242
Analyzing and Interpreting Results - 3 Scientific terminology is generally used to identify patterns. Student attempts to propose an explanation (e.g., the pond water was a darker color in the cup exposed to sunlight because there were more cells. ). The support for the conclusion is somewhat lacking. There is no explanation of why an abundance of cells would cause pond water to appear darker in color. The review of design is trivial in that statements were written but there is no coherent explanation of errors. The results are presented in vague and inconclusive statements about patterns. There is no recognition or interpretation of chance of color in control. There is also no explanation of any reason for the relationship between cells (plant and animal) and change in color of pond water. Identification of errors is superficial as there are no specific factors that are identified as potential source A relationship that I found during my investigation was that when the color change in one it changed in the other cup. Some conclusion from the results they got darker each day. The cup in the light was the darkest. The control was the lightest. An explanation for my ending result is the cup in the light was darkest because the more cells there is the darker the water see conclusions on 2nd and 3 rd paragraph. A problem of my data was was really hard to put in a graph. For current information on anchor papers, see the Web at www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/science. For information about scoring scientific inquiry student work, contact Aaron Persons, Office of Assessment and Information Services, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242
Anchor Paper Development 2004-2005 86 Isopod Experiment Aaron Persons, Assessment Specialist Oregon Department of Education 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242 Office of Assessment and Information Services
ANCHOR PAPER DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEET Thank you for assisting the Oregon Department of Education s development of valid and well-annotated scientific inquiry anchor papers. Today s Date: Location: Grade: 8 ID#: 86 Isopod Experiment SRC: Life Science Why should this work sample be considered an anchor paper? This is an example of a paper that scores fives in each dimension. This work is based in Oregon s Life Science standards and is a simple life science controlled experiment with surface texture. Initial Score Justification and Explanation Forming the Question or Hypothesis - 5 The student uses personal experiences and observations that are relevant to the question and hypothesis. The question can be answered and a focus for a scientific investigation is provided. The question along with the background implies an appropriate investigative approach. Your Suggestions and Clarifications for the Justification and Explanation Relevant background information includes analogy with humans The hypothesis is clearly stated that sand would provide the best surface together with rationale, though rationale is unclear. The relationship of the climbing surface with the rate of isopod climbing incline is answerable with a scientific investigation. Student language that informs the Justification Many people it is hard to run on a beach or run up a hill. Or even for some it is hard to run on glass. We, as human are not the only creatures who face these basic challenges, so do isopods and other insects The prediction that was thought up was that the sand would allow the isopod to move more swiftly than the wood, glass, and crumpled paper. Some background information The investigation that took place faced an interesting question, how does the surface texture affect an isopods ability to climb an incline? The textures that were used were sand, glass, wood, and crumpled paper. For current information on anchor papers, see the Web at www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/science. For information about scoring scientific inquiry student work, contact Aaron Persons, Office of Assessment and Information Services, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242
Page 2, Grade 8, ID#: 86 Isopod Experiment Initial Score Justification and Explanation Designing the Investigation - 5 Procedures are logical, safe and ethical with only minor scientific errors Design provides for data collection of sufficient quality and quantity. Design is organized and procedures are detailed. Collecting and Presenting Data - 5 Data is completely consistent with planned procedures. Displays are logical and organized with appropriate units. Graph clarifies the results. Your Suggestions and Clarifications for the Justification and Explanation The ethical considerations of the proper treatment of the organism are included with the design of investigation. That is logical and fits the hypothesis. The design does not take into account the interaction of wood and sand, nor are precise amounts used. Instead, multiple measurements are included. The data table clearly included accurate data that reflects the design. The data includes a display of distance with appropriate units as well information in observations. The graph appropriately expresses results though the order should reflect the design. Student language that informs the Justification See The procedure and procedure #13 See The procedure See Data Table See Data Table and an Observations See The Graph For current information on anchor papers, see the Web at www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/science. For information about scoring scientific inquiry student work, contact Aaron Persons, Office of Assessment and Information Services, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242
Analyzing and Interpreting Results - 5 Scientific terminology is used to report results, identify patterns and propose explanations. The results of the investigation are explicitly used to support conclusions. Procedures are reviewed for obvious limitations and sources of error. The student uses data to draw conclusions with adequate explanations. However, the explanation does not account for the increased distance (obstacles) due to ridges of paper. The explanation for concluding that the prediction was incorrect is logical. Student reviews limitation in terms of several factors. as the crumpled paper didn t slip and allowed the isopod more support. See Analyzing and interpreting results..2 nd paragraph. Limitation in this experiment were supplies; it could have been more interesting with different types of sand and wood. Errors that could have occurred were the measurement, time, and the isopod behavior. For current information on anchor papers, see the Web at www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/science. For information about scoring scientific inquiry student work, contact Aaron Persons, Office of Assessment and Information Services, 255 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 or call 503-378-3600, Ext. 2242