Scoring Level
| Science and Society |
Basic Concepts and Fundamental Principles
|
Scientific Approach
|
Nature of Science
|
4 - Accomplished
|
Develops and defends an informed position, integrating values, science, and technology.
|
Integrates and applies basic scientific concepts and principles.
|
Demonstrates comprehension of the scientific approach; illustrates with examples
|
Demonstrates scientific reasoning across multiple disciplines.
|
3 - Competent
|
Correctly describes perspectives concerning the scientific aspects of a societal issue.
|
Shows clear comprehension of basic scientific concepts and principles.
|
Accurately expresses concepts relating to the scientific approach
|
Interprets and relates scientific results in a way that shows a clear recognition of the nature of science.
|
2 - Developing
|
Recognizes the place of science in human affairs, but is unable to communicate its roles.
|
Able to state basic scientific concepts and principles.
|
Uses vocabulary related to scientific methods in a rote manner or showing simple conceptualization
|
Provides simplistic or incomplete explanations of the nature of science.
|
1 - Beginning
|
Does not visualize a role or need for science in human affairs.
|
Lacks understanding of basic scientific concepts and principles.
|
Shows minimal understanding of scientific methods
|
Does not distinguish between scientific, political, religious, or ethical statements.
|
(adapted from: Barbara Walvoord, Winthrop Univ., Virginia Community College System, Univ. of Washington)
Quality
Criteria
|
No/Limited Proficiency
|
Some Proficiency
|
Proficiency
|
High Proficiency
|
(Rating)
|
1. Thesis/Focus:
(a) Originality
|
Thesis is missing
|
Thesis may be obvious or unimaginative
|
Thesis is somewhat original
|
Develops fresh insight that challenges the reader’s thinking;
|
|
2. Thesis/Focus:
(b) Clarity
|
Reader cannot determine thesis & purpose OR thesis has no relation to the writing task
|
Thesis and purpose are somewhat vague OR only loosely related to the writing task
|
Thesis and purpose are fairly clear and match the writing task
|
Thesis and purpose are clear to the reader; closely match the writing task
|
|
3. Organization
|
Unclear organization OR organizational plan is inappropriate to thesis. No transitions
|
Some signs of logical organization. May have abrupt or illogical shifts & ineffective flow of ideas
|
Organization supports thesis and purpose. Transitions are mostly appropriate. Sequence of ideas could be improved
|
Fully & imaginatively supports thesis & purpose. Sequence of ideas is effective. Transitions are effective
|
|
4. Support/
Reasoning
(a) Ideas
(b) Details
|
Offers simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for the ideas. Inappropriate or off-topic generalizations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact
|
Offers somewhat obvious support that may be too broad. Details are too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to thesis, or inappropriately repetitive
|
Offers solid but less original reasoning. Assumptions are not always recognized or made explicit. Contains some appropriate details or examples
|
Substantial, logical, & concrete development of ideas. Assumptions are made explicit. Details are germane, original, and convincingly interpreted
|
|
5. Use of sources/ Documentation
|
Neglects important sources. Overuse of quotations or paraphrase to substitute writer’s own ideas. (Possibly uses source material without acknowledgement.)
|
Uses relevant sources but lacks in variety of sources and/or the skillful combination of sources. Quotations & paraphrases may be too long and/or inconsistently referenced
|
Uses sources to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute writer’s own development of idea. Doesn’t overuse quotes, but may not always conform to required style manual
|
Uses sources to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute writer’s own development of idea. Combines material from a variety of sources, incl. pers. observation, scientific data, authoritative testimony. Doesn’t overuse quotes.
|
|
