USBE Logo MIDAS Logo

3D Science Assessments
Material Image
Microcredential ID : 3015
Stack
Secondary Science Endorsement: Three-Dimensional Science and Engineering
Credits
0.5 USBE Credit

Description

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.

Standards
  • 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.
How To Earn This Microcredential

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.

Be sure to follow the guidance in the "Earning Criteria" section of this microcredential. This is the rubric the reviewer will use to evaluate your work.

Fees
A fee of $20.00 will be assessed once the microcredential is submitted for review.
Clarifications

Effective assessments mirror classroom instruction. As such, assessments in a phenomena-based, three dimensional science classroom need to utilize three-dimensional (3D) assessments. 3D Assessments are NOT traditional exams, note taking, or quizzes.

The purpose of 3D assessment is to analyze the ability of students to explain a phenomena, by engaging in student sensemaking. Student sensemaking of phenomena and/or designing of solutions requires student performances that integrate elements of the Science and Engineering Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Disciplinary Core Ideas.

Specific performances based activities that reflect 3D learning may include:

--Developing and refining models.

--Generating, discussing, and analyzing data and engaging in both spoken and written explanations.

--Elaborating arguments using claims, evidence, and reasoning.

--Reflecting on understanding and making sense of phenomena.

Important Terms
Formative Assessments:

● 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, students use the Gather, Reason, and Communicate (GRC) process (or similar 3D Science learning sequence) during the assessment to develop an explanation of the phenomenon. This involves one or several scenarios 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.

Background Scenario / How This Will Help You

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.

Evidence Options
Be sure to submit the type and number of pieces of evidence specified below.
Category: Preparation and Planning

Submit the unit plan as described in this section to demonstrate your effective and consistent preparation and planning for assessments to guide instruction.

Unit Plan:

Submit a unit lesson plan you have used as a part of your instruction that demonstrates effective integration of multiple 3D assessments into a phenomena-based, three dimensional science unit. This unit lesson plan must include and clearly identify:

1) SEEd Standard(s) covered by the plan.

2) Multiple types of phenomenon.

3) Deliberate use of the SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs to explore phenomena throughout the unit.

4) Multiple formative assessments.

5) A summative assessment that asks students to go through a 3D Science learning sequence to make sense of a novel scientific phenomena.

Additionally, provide blank copies of two formative 3D assessments and the summative 3D assessment used within the unit. Clearly indicate when the assessments were used within the lesson. Also describe how they demonstrate students’ use of 3D science for sensemaking of the assessment phenomenon.

Category: Implementation

Submit ONE of the evidence types listed in this section to demonstrate your effective and consistent implementation of appropriate practices for assessment to guide instruction.

Student Work:

Submit one document containing student completed work samples of the blank assessments you submitted as evidence in preparation and planning. The document needs to include:

--at least three student completed work samples of one of the formative assessments.

--at least three student completed work samples of the summative assessment.

Be sure to follow your district/charter policies for student privacy.

Student Performance Data:

Submit pre/post assessment data of your students’ progress in the three dimensions as a result of experiencing the unit lesson plan submitted as evidence in preparation and planning. Your data should demonstrate your effective instruction of the following:

--disciplinary core ideas.

--science and engineering practices.

--cross cutting concepts.

Write a reflection identifying what the data indicates and how you will use that data to further impact student achievement.

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 the summative assessment is phenomenon based which uses a novel phenomenon. Students use a 3D Science learning sequence during the assessment to develop an explanation of the phenomenon.

Reflection Prompts

Reflect on the formative assessments used in the unit lesson plan. How did you use the data from the formative assessments to adjust the teaching and learning in your classroom? What impacts did you see in student work?

Reflect on the summative assessment used in the unit lesson plan. How was it 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 phenomena-based, 3D assessments to support student centered learning?


Review Criteria

Criterion 1: Reflection demonstrates that formative assessments are used to adjust teaching and learning in the classroom to impact student work.

Criterion 2: Reflection demonstrates how the summative assessment tasks are equitable and enables all students to demonstrate understanding of the learning goals.

Criterion 3: The reflective analysis includes suggested changes or enhancement to further their implementation of phenomena based, three-dimensional science assessments.

Resources
A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas
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.


USET 11 - PCBL: Demonstrated Competency & Assessment
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11h0O7NTubNCBudYW8YQr7z0J2OT56ms0knCEDPNtnNw/edit

This Utah Science Education Tool describes what Utah’s PCBL component of Demonstrated Competency and Assessment looks like in a Science Classroom.

Earners
Danielle Brown

Danielle Brown
Shauna Chapa

Shauna Chapa
Matthew Cottrell

Matthew Cottrell
Manon Felos

Manon Felos
Margaret Grindstaff

Margaret Grindstaff
A'Lura Hutchins

A'Lura Hutchins
Phillip Lundgreen

Phillip Lundgreen
Sarah Redd

Sarah Redd
Kent Schwager

Kent Schwager
Elizabeth Stott

Elizabeth Stott
Jessica Wootton

Jessica Wootton
Utah State Board of Education logo
UTAH STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

250 East 500 South

Salt Lake City, UT 84111-3204

Phone: 801.538.7807 

© Copyright 2024 Utah State Board of Education