3D Science Assessments
This microcredential focuses on educators' consistent and effective use of Three Dimensional Assessments to inform instruction. Three Dimensional Assessments help demonstrate student understanding and proficiency to explain phenomena and solve design challenges. Assessments require students to apply the science and engineering practices (their skills) to reveal their understanding of disciplinary core ideas (the content) and crosscutting concepts. (the big ideas that connect all sciences.) Formative and summative assessments are both necessary to assess student understanding and performance.
This stack of microcredentials fulfills one of the requirements of the pathway for the Secondary Science Endorsement.
-
Utah Effective Teaching Standards > Standard 1: Learners and Learning
Element 3: Respecting Learner Backgrounds and - Demonstrating respect for each learner and exhibiting actions consistent with recognizing learners’ diverse backgrounds and perspectives as assets to the classroom community. -
Utah Effective Teaching Standards > Standard 2: Instructional Design Clarity
Element 3: Instructional Planning - Planning high quality, personalized instructional activities that are informed by student progress data, provide multiple opportunities for students to reflect upon and assess their own growth and allow multiple opportunities and means for demonstration of competency. -
Utah Effective Teaching Standards > Standard 3: Instructional Practice
Element 2: Assessment Practices - Critically analyzing evidence from both formative and summative assessments to inform and adjust instruction and provide feedback to students to support learning and growth.
To earn this microcredential you will collect and submit two sets of evidence demonstrating your effective and consistent use of Three Dimensional Assessments to inform science and engineering instruction. You will also complete a written or video reflective analysis.
Three Dimensional Assessments are NOT traditional exams, note taking, or quizzes.
The purpose of 3D assessment is to analyze the ability of students to explain phenomena, engage in argumentation, or work within the Engineering design process to solve problems.
Student sensemaking of phenomena and/or designing of solutions requires student performances that integrate elements of the SEPs, CCCs, and DCIs.
Specific performances based activities that reflect 3D learning may include:
-
Developing and refining models
-
Generating, discussing and analysing data and engaging in both spoken and written explanations
-
Elaborating arguments using claims, evidence and reasoning
-
Reflecting on understanding and making sense of phenomena
● The focus of the formative assessment is to activate prior knowledge, and ensure students are making sense of phenomena and/or able to design solutions to problems sense of phenomena and/or able to design solutions to problems.
● Formative assessments help faculty recognize where students are struggling or have developed misconceptions.
● Formative assessments help students identify their strengths and target areas they need extra support.
● May be informal data collections based on observations, questions, student performances, or student writings. Not graded, but used to drive instruction and create equitable opportunities to ensure all students can succeed.
Summative Assessments:● 3D summative assessments provide evidence for the teacher that a student is demonstrating their knowledge and skills of the scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas based on specific SEEd standards.
● Show understanding of argumentation to support ideas using claim, evidence and reasoning (CER).
● Provide a clear picture of students’ progress toward achieving mastery of the performance expectations outlined in the SEEds standards.
● Requires analysis of performance tasks to provide evidence to determine student proficiency in making sense of the initial phenomena using 3D science tools.
● In a three dimensional written test, one or several scenarios are presented that students use to answer a series of questions that often build on each other.
● Assessments are not always formal tests. Analysis data can be varied including, but not limited to, a portfolio, research paper, debate, investigation result, or model.
● If assessment is a formal test it should focused on the explanation of an analogous phenomenon not previously discussed in the learning progression.
Research from A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Research Council, 2012), states that “to develop a thorough understanding of scientific explanations of the world, students need sustained opportunities to work with and develop the underlying ideas and to appreciate those ideas’ interconnections over a period of years rather than weeks or months” (p. 26). This document also asserts that “The framework focuses on a limited set of core ideas in order to avoid the coverage of multiple disconnected topics—the oft-mentioned mile wide and inch deep. This focus allows for deep exploration of important concepts, as well as time for students to develop meaningful understanding” (p. 25). This places the focus on students using the other two dimensions of science instruction identified in The Framework (NRC, 2012), crosscutting concepts and science and engineering practices, to deepen understanding of disciplinary core concepts.
The Framework (NRC, 2012) document is the foundational resource that informed the development of the current Utah Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) Standards (USBE, 2019). Within these standards, the concept of sensemaking of core ideas through crosscutting concepts and science and engineering practices is a foundational principle of science education.
For teachers to include appropriate sensemaking experiences into instruction, they must also understand how to develop it in students. This microcredential stack focuses on teacher understanding and implementation of student sensemaking as a foundation for building effective science instruction in Grades 6-12. Each microcredential in the stack is meant to provide evidence of the competencies necessary to demonstrate effective three-dimensional science and engineering teaching.
Reference: National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Category: Preparation and Planning
Submit one of the evidence options listed below to demonstrate your effective and consistent preparation and planning for assessments to guide instruction.
Submit a unit plan you have used as a part of your instruction that provides evidence for your competency in planning experiences that support student sensemaking through formative and summative assessment. Be sure to include the following:
A. specific opportunities during the lesson or unit where students are guided toward their own sensemaking. (Figured it out on their own.)
B. scaffolding support for students that might need targeted instruction to show their understanding.
C. a description of both formative and summative assessments that show how student sensemaking leads to standard proficiency
D. an interpretive system (such as a rubric) for evaluating a range of student products.
E. Formative assessment questions and observations should be centered around understanding of the initial phenomenon and student understanding of the chosen objectives. They are not always graded, but used in determining student understanding.
F. Summative Assessment Scenarios should connect to the initial DCI, SEP & CCC, and should be “similar but new” to what students experienced during the unit course. Scenarios can be descriptions of a phenomena in the form of text, media, data, or any other type of model.
Additionally, include a section describing how your unit plan aligns to the research base for best practices in science instruction. See the Resources section below for examples of sources to cite.
Submit a lesson plan you have used as a part of your instruction that provides evidence for your competency in planning experiences that support student sensemaking through formative and summative assessment. Be sure to include the following:
A. specific opportunities during the lesson or unit where students are guided toward their own sensemaking. (Figured it out on their own.)
B. scaffolding support for students that might need targeted instruction to show their understanding.
C. a description of both formative and summative assessments that show how student sensemaking leads to standard proficiency
D. an interpretive system (such as a rubric) for evaluating a range of student products.
E. Formative assessment questions and observations should be centered around understanding of the initial phenomenon and student understanding of the chosen objectives. They are not always graded, but used in determining student understanding.
F. Summative Assessment Scenarios should connect to the initial DCI, SEP & CCC, and should be “similar but new” to what students experienced during the unit course. Scenarios can be descriptions of a phenomena in the form of text, media, data, or any other type of model.
Additionally, include a section describing how your unit plan aligns to the research base for best practices in science instruction. See the Resources section below for examples of sources to cite.
Category: Implementation
Submit ONE of the evidence types listed below to demonstrate your effective and consistent implementation of appropriate practices for assessment to guide instruction.
Submit one document containing at least three samples of completed student summative assessments from the unit or lesson plan you submitted as evidence in preparation and planning. These samples should demonstrate how students use 3D science for sensemaking of the assessment phenomenon.
Be sure to follow your district/charter policies for student privacy.
Submit pre/post assessment data of your students’ progress in the three dimensions as a result of experiencing the unit or lesson plan submitted as evidence in preparation and planning. Your data should demonstrate your effective instruction of the following:
- unit disciplinary core ideas
- science and engineering practices
-
cross cutting concepts including claim, evidence, and reasoning
Be sure to follow your district/charter policies for student privacy.
Review Criteria
Criterion 1: Evidence demonstrates that formative and summative assessments of 3D science disciplinary core ideas are clearly connected to both science and engineering practices (SEPs) and cross-cutting concepts (CCCs) as defined by the Utah SEEd standards.
Criterion 2: Evidence demonstrates that summative assessment is phenomenon based which uses a novel phenomenon. Students use the GRC process during the assessment to develop an explanation of the phenomenon.
How has using 3D assessments given your students better demonstrated an understanding of disciplinary core ideas (DCI) science and engineering practices (SEPs) and cross-cutting concepts (CCCs)?
How has your planning and implementation of 3D assessments focused on equity and ensuring that all students can demonstrate understanding and access the learning goals?
Where do you go from here? What are your next steps in planning and implementation of 3D phenomena based assessments to support student centered learning?
Review Criteria
Criterion 1: Reflection demonstrates that assessment of 3D science is clearly connected to understanding of disciplinary core ideas (DCI) science and engineering practices (SEPs) and cross-cutting concepts (CCCs) as defined by the Utah SEEd standards.
Criterion 2: Reflection demonstrates that tasks are fair and equitable, allowing for multiple ways for students to show understanding.
Criterion 3: The reflective analysis includes suggested changes or enhancement to future learning opportunities.
https://www.nap.edu/read/13165/chapter/1
A teacher friendly research document that explains the three dimensions of science including science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Each dimension as well as their specific progressions from grades K to 12 is explained in depth within its own chapter. The disciplinary core ideas are grouped into major disciplines (i.e., Physical Sciences; Life Sciences; Earth and Space Sciences; Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science). Each discipline is explained in a separate chapter. The report also describes developmentally appropriate learning progressions. Additionally there are chapters on important topics such as integrating the three dimensions (Ch.9), Implementation into the classroom (Ch.10), Equity and Diversity (Ch.11).
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Ambitious Science Teaching
This book explores how to support student sensemaking of science concepts. It includes specific vignettes, examples, and practical suggestions for implementing in the classroom.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press
STEM Teaching Tools - Assessment
https://stemteachingtools.org/tgs/Assessment
This collection of practice briefs describes best practices for assessment in STEM.
Danielle Brown
Shauna Chapa
Matthew Cottrell
Manon Felos
Margaret Grindstaff
A'Lura Hutchins
Phillip Lundgreen
Sarah Redd
Kent Schwager
Elizabeth Stott
250 East 500 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-3204
Phone: 801.538.7807