Wild About Radishes PCA Scenario Map, Results, and Scoring Rubrics
Title: Wild About Radishes (2006 and 2007 Exam)
Authors: SALTers
Grade: 8
Description: Students investigate the effect of acidity of water on the height that radish plants grow.
Grade Level Expectation &
Evidence of Learning Codes
Item Description
Inquiry
in Science
Changes
in Systems
Structure
of Systems
Properties
of Systems
WASL Evidence of Learning
for the Grade Level Expectation
Application
of Science
System of Science
Answer & Results
A
B
C
2%
11%
62%
21%
10%
65%
10%
1
Identify a controlled variable in an
investigation.
IN02b
2.1.2
3%
*2
Identify the manipulated variable in an
investigation.
IN02c
2.1.2
6%
*3
Identify the responding variable in an
investigation.
IN02d
2.1.2
6%
Write a scientific conclusion,
including supporting data from an
investigation, using inferential logic.
Identify how to increase the reliability
of the results of an investigation (e.g.
5 repeating an investigation exactly the
same way increases the reliability of
the results).
IN03a
2.1.3
4
*6
Describe how the method of an
investigation ensures reliable results
7
(e.g. multiple trials ensure more
reliable results).
Identify the different sources of matter
8 and energy required for life processes
in plants and animals
Compare human body systems to
9 another organism’s systems (e.g.
human lungs to plant leaves).
10
Point Total = 15
Actual Science WASL= 62 pts.
9%
CH08b
1.3.8
1%
IN09a
2.2.4
1%
ST08c
1.2.8
24%
IN02e
2.1.2
3
20%
40%
12
80%
40%
correct
66%
correct
8%
6%
45%
19%
44%
correct
SA Rubric
CH08a
1.3.8
Construct a logical plan for a
controlled investigation
19%
84%
correct
SA Rubric
IN09b
2.2.4
Identify how organisms acquire
materials for life processes
correct
D
7%
44%
49%
14%
correct
48%
correct
13%
ER Rubric
0
0%
20%
MC=7pts, SA=4pts,
ER=4pts
45%MC,36%SA,19%ER
Note: Points on the WASL are balanced among the Systems of Science with 33% Physical Systems, 33%
Earth/Space Systems, and 33% Living Systems.
*Typical pilot results. These items were not part of the 2007 Grade 8 Operational Science WASL.
Published by the Science Assessment Team of the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction on September 27, 2007
Copyright © 2007by Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
All rights reserved. Educational institutions within the State of Washington have permission to reproduce this document. All other individuals wishing to
reproduce this document must contact OSPI.
OSPI Science Assessment
1
February 18, 2016
Wild About Radishes PCA Scenario Map, Results, and Scoring Rubrics
Scoring Rubric and Results for Item 4: Write a Conclusion
Value
Points
Performance Description
A 2-point response demonstrates the student understands the GLE: Explaining IN03a
(2.1.3) Apply understanding of how to construct a scientific explanation using evidence
and inferential logic BY writing a scientific conclusion, including supporting data from
an investigation, using inferential logic.
2007
Results
Mean =
0.5 pts
4
12%
A 1-point response demonstrates the student has partial understanding of the GLE.
2-3
28%
A 0-point response demonstrates the student has little or no understanding of the GLE.
0-1
Example: Radish plants with a pH of 6 grew the tallest. The average plant height was
0.5 cm for pH 4 water. The plants grew to 9.0 cm tall with the pH 7 water. The plants
were shortest for pH 4 and pH 5 water.
57%
Blank =
2%
Acidity of Water vs. Average Plant Height
Acidity of Water
(pH)
Average Plant Height
(centimeters)
4
0.5
5
0.5
6
12.5
7
9.0
OSPI Science Assessment
2
February 18, 2016
Wild About Radishes PCA Scenario Map, Results, and Scoring Rubrics
Scoring Rubric and Results for Item 4: Write a Conclusion (continued)
Attributes of a Conclusion for Awarding Value Points
Note: The italicized print is the part of the “Example” credited for the value point.
Description of Attributes
Value
Points
2007
Results
1
41%
Conclusive statement correctly answers the investigative question (or correctly states
whether the hypothesis/prediction was correct): Radish plants with a pH of 6 grew the
tallest.
Attribute Notes:
1. A vague conclusive statement (e.g. the acidity of the water did affect the plant height)
cannot be credited, but other value points can be credited.
2. A response with an incorrect conclusive statement or no conclusive statement may not be
credited any value points.
3. A response with both a correct and an incorrect conclusive statement (e.g. The higher the
pH the taller the plants…Plants had the greatest height at pH 6.) cannot be credited but
other value points can be credited, if separate from any contradictory statements.
Supporting data should at least be over the entire range of the conditions investigated. Thus, the
minimum reported data are the lowest and highest conditions of the manipulated variable for
quantitative data (responding variable when the manipulated variable information is descriptive).
Supporting data for pH 4 water: The average plant height was 0.5 cm for pH 4
water.
1
36%
Supporting data for pH 7 water: The plants grew to 9.0 cm tall with the pH 7 water.
1
31%
1
30%
Explanatory language, separate from the conclusive statement, is used to connect or
compare the supporting data to the conclusive statement: The plants were shortest for
pH 4 and pH 5 water.
Attribute Notes:
1. This point can only be credited when at least one numeric value (or the text from a
descriptive data table) for the manipulated or responding variable is included in the
response.
2. A copy of the conclusive statement cannot be credited for explanatory language. However,
a re-phrased credited conclusive statement can be credited.
3. Explanatory language comparing the range of the manipulated and/or responding variables
may be credited (e.g. When the pH was lowest, pH of 4, the plant height was the lowest,
0.5 cm.).
4. If a response misquotes trend data between the highest and lowest conditions, this value
point cannot be credited.
5. Transitional words (e.g. however, therefore, because, so, then, clearly, but) cannot be
credited as explanatory language even when added to a conclusive statement.
6. A compound sentence as a conclusive statement may be read as two separate sentences.
7. This point can only be credited if the results for pH 6 water are included somewhere in the
response (e.g. the plants were tallest for pH 6 water).
Total Possible Value Points
OSPI Science Assessment
3
4
February 18, 2016
Wild About Radishes PCA Scenario Map, Results, and Scoring Rubrics
Scoring Rubric for Item 4: Write a Conclusion
General Notes:
1. Copying the Data Table: If a response just copies the whole data table verbatim, supporting data value
points may not be credited even with a correct conclusive statement and explanatory language.
a) For grades 3-5, a translation of the whole data table into sentences is acceptable.
b) For grades 6-8 and high school, a discussion of the whole data table may be acceptable when the data
table is minimal with a very small number of data cells.
2. Supporting Data: Responses must give the precise numerical values or precise descriptive language from
the data table for both the manipulated and responding variables.
a) Average data (if given) rather than trial data, or data from the end of the investigation, must be included
for grades 6-8 and high school.
b)
For grades 3-5, consistent trial data, or data before the completion of the investigation when
measuring a responding variable over time, can be credited.
c) Rounded numerical values cannot be credited.
d) Units and significant figures are not necessary for credit.
e) Minor language differences in descriptive data may be acceptable as decided in range finding.
f) For grades 3-5, the manipulated variable may be implied.
3. Derived Data: Responses giving their own derived data between conditions can be credited for supporting
data and explanatory language (e.g. the plant with pH 6 water was 3.5 cm taller than the plant with pH 7
water).
a) When the derived data uses the lowest and/or highest conditions, one or both supporting data points can
be credited.
b) Minor arithmetic errors in derived values are acceptable as decided in range finding (e.g. pH 6 helped
plants grow 3 cm taller than the next best pH).
4. Responses may use the terms acidity and pH interchangeably. Responses with a misconception about the
relationship between pH and acidity (e.g. pH of 7 is the most acidic water) may be creditable.
OSPI Science Assessment
4
February 18, 2016
Wild About Radishes PCA Scenario Map, Results, and Scoring Rubrics
Scoring Rubric and Results for Item 7: Describing Sources of Error
2007
Results
Performance Description
Mean =
1.1 pts
A 2-point response demonstrates the student understands the GLE: Evaluating Methods of
Investigation IN09a, c (2.2.4) Understand how to make the results of scientific investigations
reliable and how to make the methods of investigation valid BY describing how the method of an
investigation ensures reliable results AND/OR is valid.
The response describes two possible sources of error in Amanda’s investigation by:
Identifying two possible sources of error in the investigation
AND
Describing how each source of error could have affected the investigation results.
Examples:
34%
Identify possible sources of error
Describe how source could have affected
investigation
Amanda may have accidentally given some of the
plants too much water.
Too much water could stunt plant growth.
Amanda only did the experiment one time with
one batch of seeds.
There might have been something wrong with
the batch of seeds used, which could affect
how the plants grow.
If half of the pots were in the shade, then the
Supplying plants with different amounts of
plants that were in the sun might dry out more
sun creates a second manipulated variable.
quickly than those grown in the shade.
A 1-point response demonstrates the student has partial understanding of the GLE.
The response identifies one possible source of error in the investigation and describes how this
source of error could have affected the investigation results.
OR
The response identifies two possible sources of error, but does not describe how each source of
error could have affected the investigation results.
44%
19%
A 0-point response demonstrates the student has little or no understanding of the GLE.
Blank =
4%
General Notes:
1. A response must indicate how a variable would be a source of error to receive credit for identifying a
source of error. Responses that only identify the variable may not receive credit. (E.g. Water may not
receive credit, but one plant might have received more water than others would receive credit.)
2. Responses discussing rate of growth (of any plant part), rate of photosynthesis or change in amount of
food (from photosynthesis) may be credited for how the source of error could have affected the
investigation results.
OSPI Science Assessment
5
February 18, 2016
Wild About Radishes PCA Scenario Map, Results, and Scoring Rubrics
Scoring Rubric for Item 10: Plan an Investigation
Value
Points
2007
Results
Mean =
2.3 pts
A 4-point response demonstrates the student understands the GLE Planning and
Conducting Safe Investigations IN02e (2.1.2) Understand how to plan and conduct
scientific investigations BY constructing a logical plan for a controlled or field
investigation.
7-9
30%
A 3-point response demonstrates the student partially understands the GLE.
5-6
20%
A 2-point response demonstrates the student has limited understanding of the GLE.
3-4
9%
A 1-point response demonstrates the student has very little understanding of the GLE.
1-2
20%
Performance Description
17%
A 0-point response demonstrates the student has almost no understanding of the GLE.
0
Blank =
4%
Value
Point
2007
Results
1
38%
1
33%
1
58%
Attributes of a Controlled Investigation for Awarding Value Points
Investigation
Attributes
Prediction
Prediction
Reason
Description of Attribute
The prediction portion of the hypothesis must answer the given
question including the effect of the manipulated (changed) variable
amount of pH 6 water) on the responding (dependent) variable
(height of plants).
A hypothesis must give a related reason for the prediction. …
because plants need water to grow.
Attribute Note: This point cannot be awarded without an attempt at a
prediction.
A list of the minimum materials needed to perform the procedure
(e.g. plants or plant seeds, pots, pH 6 water, measuring devices for
water and height of plants).
Materials
Attribute Notes:
1. The ‘right’ amount of materials (e.g. 6 pots) needed to carry out the
procedure does not need to be given in the materials list.
2. If pre-measured amounts of materials are listed in the materials list, a
measuring device may not be needed in the materials list.
1. Standard classroom materials do not need to be listed: paper, pencil,
and safety equipment (e.g. goggles, aprons, gloves, tongs).
OSPI Science Assessment
6
February 18, 2016
Wild About Radishes PCA Scenario Map, Results, and Scoring Rubrics
Scoring Rubric for Item 10: Plan an Investigation (continued)
Attributes of a Controlled Investigation for Awarding Value Points (continued)
Investigation
Attributes
Procedure
One Controlled
(kept the same)
Variable
Manipulated
(changed)
Variable
Responding
(dependent)
Variable
Description of Attribute
Value
Point
2007
Results
The written or diagrammed procedure is evaluated as follows:
up to 6
At least one controlled (kept the same) variable is identified or
implied in the procedure or the materials list (e.g. pH of water,
same type of seeds, same small plant pots, time between
watering, same number of seeds in a pot, duration of
investigation, amount of soil in pot).
1
58%
Only one manipulated (changed) variable (amount of pH 6 water)
is identified or implied in the procedure or data table (if given).
1
57%
1
50%
1
52%
The responding (dependent) variable (height of plants) is
identified or implied in the procedure or data table (if given).
Attribute Note:
1. The terms pH 6 or water may be credited as pH 6 water.
The procedure states or implies measurements are recorded
periodically or gives a data table.
Record
Measurements
Attribute Note:
1. If artificial data for the responding variable is given, no value point
may be awarded.
2. The phrase ‘take measurement’ cannot be used to mean record.
Trials
are Repeated
More than one trial for all conditions is planned, or implied in a
data table, to measure the responding variable (e.g. multiple
seeds in one pot or multiple pots at same conditions).
1
25%
Logical Steps
The steps of the procedure are detailed enough to repeat the
procedure effectively (examples of illogical steps: no ending time
indicated, states Set up as diagrammed, but diagram is
inadequate, recording vague data or results).
1
32%
Total Value Points Possible
9
OSPI Science Assessment
7
February 18, 2016
Wild About Radishes PCA Scenario Map, Results, and Scoring Rubrics
Item 10: Plan an Investigation (continued)
General Notes:
1.
Inappropriate Procedures: If the response does not plan an appropriate procedure for the given
question, the response may not earn any of the possible procedure value points.
Examples:
a) Repeats the procedure from the scenario
b) Measures only one condition (therefore cannot establish the controlled or manipulated variables)
c) Purposefully changes more than one variable simultaneously
d) Writes a procedure that is too vague to possibly be appropriate
e) Writes a prediction instead of a procedure
2.
Naming Attributes: If the response names a bulleted attribute listed after “Procedure that includes:”
without including that attribute in the procedure, the attribute point cannot be credited. When a bulleted
attribute is named and implied in the response, both must be correct to be credited.
3.
Clarifying Vagueness in Procedures:
a) Vague materials used in the procedure (e.g. add 1mL) may be credited if the vagueness is clarified in
the materials list (e.g. 1mL, 2mL, and 3mL of solution).
b) Measuring a vague parameter (e.g. size of plant instead of height) may be credited as a manipulated or
responding variable. However, a vague parameter is difficult to repeatedly measure, so the logical
steps value point cannot be credited.
c) The term “repeat” at the end of a step refers to that step only.
d) The term “repeat” as a separate step (or in a new paragraph) refers to the whole procedure.
e) The term “repeat,” when qualified, cannot be credited for multiple trials (e.g. repeat if necessary,
repeat as desired).
f) A vague action that calls for the manipulated variable to be changed (e.g. increase the temperature by
5˚ C) without indicating how many times, gives no end to the investigation so the logical steps value
point cannot be credited.
g)
At high school, a vague action that calls for the manipulated variable to be changed without
indicating how many times cannot be credited for more than two conditions of the
manipulated variable.
h) When a procedure conflicts with the labeled diagram, the procedure is too illogical to be effectively
repeated. Therefore, the logical steps value point cannot be credited, but the procedure can be scored
for attributes that are not in conflict.
4. The terms pH 6 or water may be credited as pH 6 water.
OSPI Science Assessment
8
February 18, 2016