The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process:
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
Module 4
Page 1
Module IV
Using Student Work to Set Performance Standards and
Develop a Scoring Guide
Module Outcome
Participants will determine what is “good enough” with a set of student
work, use the student work to set a performance standard, and
analyze the student work to identify gradations of quality in order to
develop a scoring guide.
The process of setting performance standards is one of the most
crucial components of a standards-based system. Standards-based
practice requires that teachers participate in this process together to
build a collective understanding and agreement about what quality of
work is good enough to meet standard(s). Teachers can no longer
make these vital decisions alone in their own classrooms. As a result
of the intense professional discussion that takes place while setting
performance standards, teachers gain clarity about the quality, level,
and specific characteristics of work students must demonstrate to
meet the standard(s). This conversation also provides an opportunity
to inform, change, and improve instructional practice to assure that all
students meet the content standards (what students should know)
and the performance standards (the quality of work every student is
expected to do).
The process of setting performance standards involves teachers
analyzing a set of student work samples up against the standard and
the criteria for success to determine if the work is “to standard” or “not
yet to standard.” Teachers sort the work into the two separate stacks
as they look for evidence to support their view that the quality of
student work is good enough or not good enough to meet the content
standard(s). Teachers struggle with the question, “What quality of
work is necessary to meet the standard?” As the conversation
progresses, teachers begin to identify the specific characteristics of
work that are good enough to meet the standards. Through the
process teachers develop a commonly agreed upon understanding of
what quality work looks like.
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved.
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process:
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
Module 4
Page 2
Content Overview
A. Setting Performance Standards by Deciding the Characteristics
of Work that are Good Enough to Meet Standards
B. Steps for Designing a Scoring Guide
Materials

Handout #22: Sorting Worksheet and/or Wall Chart

Handout #23: Scoring Guide/Performance Standard Criteria

Handout #24: Steps for Designing a Scoring Guide

Handout #25A: Bowling Task Scoring Guide

Handout #25B : Bowling Task Student Work Packet (15 pieces
of student work)
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved.
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process:
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
Module 4
Page 3
IV.A. Setting Performance Standards by Deciding the
Characteristics of Work that are Good Enough to
Meet Standards
1. Read and Analyze Student Work from the Bowling Task

Work in pairs

Review the content standard(s), assessment, and criteria for
success in preparation for reading the student work

Read all student work samples from the assessment looking for
evidence of the content standard(s) and criteria for success.

Discuss and sort the student work samples into two separate
piles/stacks:
HO
#22


“To Standard” or

“Not Yet To Standard”
Use the “Sorting Worksheet” to record decisions and to
record evidence that supports each decision.
2. Record Results of Group and Identify Agreement and
Disagreement

Each pair records decisions on large easel sorting chart
compiles decisions for the whole group

Summarize the decisions that the group has made referring to
papers where everyone agrees, slightly disagrees and those
with the widest range of disagreement

Circle the letter on the chart identifying the pieces of student
work where teachers disagreed
3. Discuss Disagreements Using Evidence to Identify
Characteristics of Work That Are Good Enough to Meet
Standards

Select the paper that has the most disagreement or
controversy to discuss first

Give directions:
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved.

“Let’s all look at Paper B”

“Some of you thought it was to standard and some of you
thought it was “not yet to standard.”
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
Sorting Wall Chart
Student
Work
Samples
To
Standard
Not Yet To
Standard
Evidence
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#22
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process:
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
Module 4
Page 4

“What evidence convinces you it is to standard or not to
standard?”

Listen for and help teachers to identify and name the
characteristics of work that make the student work good
enough to meet standards as revealed during the whole group
discussion

Record the characteristics on large easel chart titled
“Characteristics of Work That Are Good Enough to Meet
Standards”

If necessary, push participants’ thinking by paraphrasing,
asking a clarifying question, or asking a question that causes
the participant to clearly identify the characteristic of work
and/or the quality of work that is needed to meet the standard.
For example:

© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved.

“So you think that students need to include the actual math
term or use mathematical vocabulary in order to meet the
standard”

“You think that the student needs to be more explicit with
his/her position, state it more clearly”

“You are saying that students need to demonstrate at least
three statistical procedures and this student only provided
two”

“So you think this paper meets the standard because the
student clearly addresses the readers counter arguments
by ________”

“What specifically do you think this paper is lacking?”

“What specifically do you think this paper needs to meet the
standard?”

“Can you read to us the part that supports your position?”

“How does that make Paper B good enough to meet the
standard?”

“Now that we’ve heard some of your thinking behind why its
to standard or not, what do you now think about Paper B?
Has anyone changed their thinking?”
Summarize the characteristics of work that have been listed
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process:
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
Module 4
Page 5
IV.B. Steps for Designing a Scoring Guide
1. Present the “Scoring Guide Criteria” commenting on each
criterion
HO
#23
A.
Is consistent with the task requirements of the
assessment
B.
Clearly aligns to the content standard(s) and the
criteria for success
C. Describes the specific characteristics of work at
each performance level
D. Uses language to describe performance levels
that refer to meeting or not yet meeting the
standard rather than using language that focuses
on the degree of proficiency or passing or failing
E.
Provides an accurate measurement of progress
towards achieving the standard, levels build on
each other
F.
Written in accessible language that describes
what must be present in the student work, not
merely what is missing
G
Is useful in giving students feedback on their
work
.
H. Is easy to use to score student work
The
I. p The performance standard is set at an
appropriate level of rigor
HO
#24
2. Using the handout, “Steps for Designing a Scoring Guide”,
briefly walk participants through each of the steps as the
introduction to their actually following the steps with Bowling
Task student work.

© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved.
Each pair records decisions on large easel sorting chart
compiles decisions for the whole group
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process:
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
Module 4
Page 6

Summarize the decisions that the group has made referring to
papers where everyone agrees, slightly disagrees and those
with the widest range of disagreement

Circle the letter on the chart identifying the pieces of student
work where teachers disagreed
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved.
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
HANDOUT
#23
Scoring Guide/Performance Standard Criteria
A. Is consistent with the task requirements of the assessment
B. Clearly aligns to the content standard(s)
C. Specifically describes each performance level
D. Written in language that is accessible
E. Provides an accurate measurement of progress towards achieving
the standard, levels build on each other
F. Written in language that describes what must be present in the
student work, not merely what is missing
G. Is useful in giving students feedback on their work
H. Is easy to use to score student work
I.
The performance standard is set at an appropriate level of rigor
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
HANDOUT
#24
Steps for Designing a Scoring Guide
1) Use the criteria for success to further sort student
assessments into additional levels of Performance Quality
2) Write distinct characteristics for each performance level
3) Write performance level descriptions and the design scoring
guide
4) Indicate the performance standard levels and clearly mark
which levels are to standard and not yet to standard
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process:
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction

Module 4
Page 7
3. Guide participants through each of the steps providing time
for them to complete each step before moving on to your next
set of directions.
Step 1- Further sort papers into two additional levels of
quality
Instruct pairs to return to their two original piles and sort each
pile into two additional levels of quality, a “high” and a “low”.
They should end up with four piles, a high quality “to standard”,
a low quality “to standard”, a high quality “not yet to standard”,
and a low quality “not yet to standard.”
NOTE: There can be many levels of quality in the student
work. For the purposes of this exercise, four levels are
sufficient to give participants an understanding of gradations of
quality and feel for the process.
Step 2-Determining the characteristics of each level
After sorting, have each pair list characteristics of each pile on
large post-it notes or notepaper. Each list should link to the
criteria for success and answer the questions: What distinct
characteristics do these papers have that the others do not? At
this point, they do not have to write detailed descriptions, just
simple, distinct, clear characteristics.
Examples of characteristics of work from the Bowling Task:

Included at least two tables or graphs

Supported choice with mathematical average and mode
Step 3-Write performance level descriptions and design
the scoring guide
HO
#25A
Refer to handout “Bowling Task Scoring Guide.” Instruct
participants to convert list of characteristics from step 3 into
more detailed descriptions for each performance level. The
descriptions become the basis for the scoring guide.
The difference between the characteristic and the scoring
guide language is that rather than just 2-3 words; you have a
phrase that is clear and explicit, yet still concise. The objective
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved.
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process:
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
Module 4
Page 8
is to have a precise statement that avoids misunderstanding or
misinterpretation.
Examples of Scoring Guide Descriptors for Bowling Task

Displays accurate and clear charts that strongly support
their choice of position for selecting Bill or Dave.

Student used 2 or more statistical measures and probability.
The key is to describe what is there, versus what is missing
from work. This is more difficult with lower levels of quality
since it’s easier to list what is not there. For example, with
lower quality you might have only “showed computation of
averages of scores.” The scoring guide should be able to
demonstrate clearly to the student what they need to do for
improvement. Pointing out what is missing will not necessarily
inform the student what steps they need to take to improve.
After writing the individual level descriptions, participants will
need to look at the guide as a whole and to check for such
things as flow from level to level. Refer them to the “Criteria for
Scoring Guides” to guide their work.
Step 4-Indicating the performance standard
Instruct participants to draw a bold line on the scoring guide to
make clear which performance levels are “to standard” and
which are “not yet to standard”. This line shows where you
have set your performance standard.
4. Discussion in Pairs
Have two or three pairs come together to share and discuss their “to
standard” performance level descriptions noting the similarities and
differences in content and language. Ask them to evaluate their work
against the scoring guide criteria.
5. Whole Group Discussion
Debrief the group focusing on their questions and any
misunderstandings about the process as well as on issues related to
their replicating this with their own student work.
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved.
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
HANDOUT
#25A
Bowling Task Scoring Guide - Mathematics
Level 4
Meets the
standard and
includes
advanced work
Level 3
Meets the
standard
Level 2
Progressing
toward meeting
the standard
Level 1
Does not meet
the standard
 Uses two or more of these statistical measures: mean, mode, median, range
 Uses probability to identify outcomes that are more likely, less likely, or equally likely
to occur
 Shows strong evidence of considering a variety of statistical processes to solve the
problem
 Selects the statistical or mathematical procedure or procedures most appropriate to
the question at hand
 Makes valid inferences from the analysis
 Makes reasonable predictions from the data
 Displays accurate and clear charts and graphs appropriate to the data in the question
and effectively uses them in the letter as evidence
 Clearly describes the logic of the student’s use of data in decision-making
 Uses at least two of these statistical measures: mean, mode, median, range
 May use probability to identify outcomes that are more likely, less likely, or equally
likely to occur
 Shows evidence of considering only the two statistical measures used in solving the
problem
 Selects the statistical or mathematical procedure or procedures most appropriate to
the question at hand
 Makes valid inferences from the analysis
 Makes reasonable predictions from the data
 Displays accurate mathematical computations or displays at least one accurate and
clear chart or graph appropriate to the data in the question, but may not use as
evidence in the letter
 Clearly describes the logic of the student’s use of data in decision-making
 Uses one or two of these statistical measures: mean, mode, median, range
 Shows some evidence of considering only the one (or two) statistical measures to solve
the problem
 May select the statistical or mathematical procedure or procedures most appropriate
to the question at hand
 Makes reasonable, but weak predictions from the data
 May display a chart or graph, but does not include in the letter as evidence
 Attempts to describe the logic of the student’s use of data in decision making, but is
unclear and/or weak
 Inaccurately uses one or two statistical measures: mean, mode, median, range
 Attempts to make valid inferences from the analysis, but often lacks mathematical
vocabulary to explain thinking
 May display a chart or graph, but tend to be unclear or unlabeled and are not used in
the letter as evidence
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards To Instruction
HANDOUT
#25A
Bowling Task Scoring Guide —Writing
Level 4
Meets the
standard and
includes
advanced work
Level 3
Meets the
standard
Level 2
Progressing
toward meeting
the standard
Level 1
Does not meet
the standard
 States an assumption and supports it with strong evidence and specific examples
 Shows evidence of planning the structure of the piece to skillfully move the reader
purposefully through the text
 Shows evidence of considering a variety of statistical processes to make selection
 Anticipates the reader’s concerns or viewpoint for not being selected
 Addresses the reader’s anticipated concerns using appropriate facts, details, or
examples and provides positive statements about skill or talent or future opportunities
 Selects and justifies the criteria to be used in decision to select either Bill or Dave
 Includes illustrations or graphics as needed to enhance the reader’s understanding of
the mathematical evidence for the decision
 Makes precise word choices in order to communicate ideas clearly to the reader
 States an assumption and supports it with ample evidence and specific examples
 Shows evidence of planning the structure of the piece to move the reader purposefully
through the text
 Anticipates the reader’s concerns or viewpoint for not being selected
 Addresses the reader’s anticipated concerns using appropriate facts, details, or
examples and provides positive statements about skill, talent or future opportunities
 Selects and justifies the criteria to be used in decision to select either Bill or Dave
 Illustrations or graphics may or may not used to enhance the reader’s understanding
 Makes precise word choices in order to communicate ideas clearly to the reader
 Selects Bill or Dave and supports choice with weak evidence and/or examples
 Anticipates the reader’s concern or viewpoint for not being selected by including
apologies, recognizing feelings of disappointment, and/or words of encouragement
 Uses weak, unclear, or no criteria for justifying selection
 Illustrations or graphics are not used to enhance the reader’s understanding
 Tends to explain a particular word or concept rather than using precise words to
communicate ideas to reader
 Selects Bill or Dave without giving reasonable and/or accurate evidence for selection
 Attempts to justify choice, but either makes up the explanation, simply describes a
mathematical computational process, or uses inaccurate mathematical data
 May focus only on the reader’s concerns and/or feelings without using any
mathematical data or rationale
 Letter tends to be brief (2-5 sentences) using simple vocabulary rather than precise
words to communicate to reader
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
HANDOUT
#25B
Bowling Task Assessment
Student Work
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B
The Standards-based Instructional Planning Process
Backwards Mapping From Standards to Instruction
© 2002 WestEd. All Rights Reserved
Western Assessment Collaborative at
HANDOUT
#25B