When I started working at High Tech High International (HTHI) in 2018, I was completely new to project-based learning. In fact, I was completely new to teaching other than my prior experience as a student teacher serving at different schools in San Diego. Creating a project-based curriculum in science was going to be a challenging albeit passionate undertaking, and like many teachers, I had high expectations for my practice. Luckily I started my career with a solid foundation in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and I knew that I could use them as a framework to design my projects. What I really wanted to know was whether my students were actually mastering the science standards from the different projects I implemented over the years. This meant that in order to effectively evaluate student learning I also needed to have an understanding of how to properly assess the NGSS. Through the creation of my own three step process, I have found a meaningful way to match the standards to student learning that could be applied across all science disciplines and grade levels. I hope you can find inspiration from my story to get through some of the academic rigor challenges you might have or be facing during your first or second year teaching, and use the rest of the guide to carve your own path towards equitable grading for student learning success.
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are K–12 science content standards that offer “performance expectations” for what students should be able to do by the end of the school year. The performance expectations set the learning goals for students, but do not describe how students get there (hence why I created this article!).The NGSS focuses on three areas of learning: disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and science and engineering practices. At the time of writing, 20 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the NGSS.
In the fall semester of 2020 I started using standards-based grading in my class. What this means in practice is that I am grading student learning based on how they demonstrate their understanding. I do this by evaluating specific action items that need to be completed in order to meet a learning objective. I made this shift, because I wanted to encourage students to move away from focusing on meeting my expectations as their teacher, and rather move toward a goal of learning and improving their understanding through each learning objective. This also meant I would give students the opportunity to make multiple revisions throughout a learning activity or project since mastery requires growth in the learning process. This approach lends itself to the NGSS because the learning objectives, or “performance expectations” are focused on deep understanding of concepts and mastery of practical skills, rather than memorization of facts.
I developed a three-step approach to assessing using the NGSS (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: My A-B-C Approach to Standards-based Assessment Using the NGSS
| What This Looks Like in Real Life: The A-B-C Approach To illustrate the A-B-C approach, I’ll use text boxes like this one to explain what this process looked like in a 12th-grade project that I did in the spring semester of 2022, in which students investigated human impacts to our local water resources. |
Selecting an “anchor phenomenon” is a critical component for aligning a science project to the NGSS because instructional sequences in science are more coherent when students investigate compelling natural phenomena the way that a scientist would. The NGSS defines an anchor phenomenon as an observable event or process which becomes the topic that anchors all of the learning within a unit. A good anchor phenomenon is grounded in students’ lived experiences, and is too complex to explore within a single lesson.. Once I have selected the anchor phenomenon, I frame it as an essential question for the project. From here, I can refer to the DCIs in the NGSS to connect a specific performance expectation, or learning objective to the project.
| What This Looks Like in Real Life: Selecting an Anchor Phenomenon
Since I teach environmental science, I choose an anchor phenomenon based on socio-ecological impacts that my students and I can observe in our local community. In order to do so I need to have a basic understanding of what these impacts are, and where they might be located. If you are new to your community then I would recommend conducting background research on your area, otherwise you could also go out and do a basic field survey -I have done both! (For additional guidance you can also check out the phenomena database developed by the Science Resource Center for the San Diego County Office of Education). For this particular project I chose my anchor phenomenon as the effects of human impacts that could be directly observed at San Diego Bay and Mission Bay. From this anchor phenomenon I was able to frame my essential question into the following: Is there a relationship between human activity and the current “state” of San Diego Bay and Mission Bay? If so, is there a significant difference between these two natural resources? For this essential question, “state” was defined into two separate measurable variables: water quality and biodiversity. The essential question became part of my project launch that led students on an inquiry-based investigation to compare human impacts in our local water resources. |
The NGSS provides performance expectations linked to each anchor phenomenon. In order to craft a rubric, I begin by selecting a performance expectation.
| What This Looks Like in Real Life: Selecting a Performance Expectation Now that I have selected the anchor phenomenon for my class project I can refer to the NGSS to determine which DCI would be appropriate for students to develop an understanding of the content they need to know in order to explain this phenomenon. I chose ESS3.C: Human Impacts on Earth Systems because the big takeaway for this idea is that the sustainability of human societies and the various forms of life that support them requires responsible management of natural resources. At this stage it’s important to pre-think the learning goals for the core idea. In this case, if I want my students to end up with an understanding of how humans impact our local water resources I first need to ask them what they might already know from the essential question. There are different ways to organize these initial conservations, depending on how you might launch the project. I started by introducing students to the anchor phenomenon. The introduction started by asking them to discuss in small groups where they think their drinking water comes from, and how it gets into their homes. I then showed two aerial images: one of San Diego Bay, and the other of Mission Bay. I then posed the essential question to the class, and asked them to form a hypothesis about whether or not there is a relationship between human impacts, biodiversity, and water quality in these two areas. These statements were written on sticky notes that were posted on our project discussion board that we would refer to throughout the project. Eliciting student’s initial scientific hypotheses is what I used to help me plan further instruction. Since the hypotheses are formatted to describe relationships, one scientific practice or SEP that can help convey their understanding is to “develop a model” to visualize these relationships. I was then able to make a connection between this scientific practice and one of the performance expectations listed for this DCI: (HS-ESS3-3): Create a computational simulation to illustrate the relationships among the management of natural resources, the sustainability of human populations, and biodiversity. |
Once a performance expectation has been selected, I review the evidence statements again to distinguish each feature as a specific criterion within my rubric.
| What This Looks Like in Real Life: Finding Assessment Criterion in the Evidence Statements
Once I selected performance expectation HS-ESS3-3 to evaluate the first learning sequence of my project, I reviewed the corresponding evidence statements and noticed that they were distinguished into three criteria: representation, computational modeling, and analysis. Each criterion may include one or more descriptions for what type of work a student needs to produce in order to demonstrate an understanding in that specific area (i.e. the learning evidence). I chose to focus on representation as my first assessment criterion for this performance expectation because students would first be developing an initial model to represent their understanding of the relationships between humans, ecosystems, and natural cycles that may be present in the bay ecosystem. Therefore, I designed the learning evidence for my project launch to evaluate student models that were generated using a computer program (SageModeler) to illustrate their understanding of the relationships between the biodiversity, human impacts, water quality, and natural cycles that occur within the San Diego Bay (refer to figure 3 & 4 below). |
When I have chosen an NGSS performance expectation, reviewed the evidence statements, and selected a criterion, this goes into my rubric. I use a four-point scale for my rubric because it’s easy to convert back into a traditional letter grade scale (4= A, 3=B, 2=C, 1=D, 0=F). I label the scale on my rubric as follows:: 4 = capstone, 3 = second milestone, 2 = first milestone, 1 = benchmark, 0 = incomplete (see figure 2).
Figure 2: My Rubric
From here, developing, selecting, or screening appropriate student work becomes quite clear. If I use multiple rubrics like this throughout a project, students can create portfolios showcasing their learning progress, which the student and I can then use to determine the overall quality of student learning. With all this in mind, it is crucial to write the rubric before students initiate a task. That way students can use the rubric as a guideline for their first assignment iteration, and can take the feedback given on the rubric to make improvements during the revision period.
| What This Looks Like in Real Life: Assessing Student Work Using the Rubric
Once students completed the first project task I was able to use the rubric I designed (see figure 2) to assess their proficiency level for a selected learning evidence statement within the specified performance expectation. I then gave each student a digital copy of the rubric with the rating highlighted to reflect the overall score for the assignment. If students scored below the highest rating, I gave them oral or written feedback on what they needed to improve based on the criteria description, anda specified duration of time to submit their revisions. Figures three and four show two different student work samples. I rated the first sample as “capstone” because the model is complete and provides all the components described within the rubric (see figure 3). I rated the second sample as “first milestone” because the model was missing one example of a natural ecosystem cycle and one example of biodiversity (see figure 4). I provided the following written feedback to the student: Nice work, [Student]. Within your first attempt you have nearly completed your initial model. In order to improve your score I recommend providing an example of a natural cycle that occurs within our selected ecosystem: the San Diego Bay. Consider how nutrients move through the ecosystem. I would also like to point out that even though there are a diverse number of invasive species that we can identify, this factor can actually threaten the biodiversity within a local area. You were correct in relating this as one potential human impact. Consider what different types of native species you may encounter at the bay. |
Figure 3: Student Work Sample (Capstone) 
Figure 4. Student Work Sample (First Milestone)
While the process for assessing NGSS using standards-based grading seems straightforward, effective implementation of the NGSS demands a great deal of collaboration and patience among states, districts, schools, teachers, and students. I attribute my own success to my credentialing and induction program providing coursework that focuses on the NGSS, monthly science teaching department meetings where we review NGSS alignment across grade levels, and my master’s program that has given me the opportunity to personally develop project-based curriculum that is aligned to the NGSS. I am also indebted to the other teachers at my school site who have decided to adopt this grading metric since it has been shown to more accurately reflect a grade that demonstrates student mastery of a given learning objective. With all this in mind it takes time, research, and planning to assess, especially if you are new to the NGSS. Luckily the framework for these standards is highly organized and the guidelines are clear. In this sense we have a destination postcard (i.e. the learning objectives), but standards-based grading is needed to map the journey. I would personally recommend to start with the end in mind: ultimately what is it that you want students to know and take away from your class? How might you use an anchor phenomenon to route your students’ quest for this knowledge? Which expectations from the NGSS can be used to direct student learning along the way? What is currently preventing you from conducting your own classroom pilot study? Making the switch starts with taking small actionable steps towards answering these questions. Don’t be afraid to make mistakes along the way. After all, science in practice consists of a series of trials, errors, and breakthroughs.
Stevens, D. & Levi, A. (2005). Introduction to Rubrics : An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. DOI: 10.1353/csd.2006.0033
Tags:
