co - carbon monoxide - ipat :: integrative technology ... · web viewconvergent response: there are...

EPA Phoenix Guide to Item-Specific Scoring

Rubrics and Student Work Samples

Table of Contents

Items and Rubrics1............................................................................................................. p. 4

Rubric (Attribute-based query)............................................... p. 42............................................................................................................. p. 4

Rubric (Chart Interpretation)................................................... p. 43............................................................................................................. p. 5

Rubric (Data transfer)............................................................. p. 54............................................................................................................ p. 6

Rubric (Data Pattern Recognition).......................................... p. 65 & 6 ..................................................................................................... p. 7

Rubric (Evidence-based conclusion)...................................... p. 77............................................................................................................. p. 9

Rubric (Map interpretation )................................................... p. 98 & 9...................................................................................................... p. 10

Rubric (Map analysis )............................................................ p. 1010........................................................................................................... p. 12

Rubric (Critique Map)............................................................. p. 1211........................................................................................................... p. 13

Rubric (Evidence-based conclusion)...................................... p. 1312........................................................................................................... p. 15

Rubric (Data Table Interpretation).......................................... p. 1613 (no rubric)......................................................................................... p. 1714 & 15 ................................................................................................. p. 18

Rubric (Phrase-based search query)........................................ p. 1816........................................................................................................... p. 21

Rubric A (Finding relevant information)................................. p. 21Rubric B (URL)....................................................................... p. 21

17........................................................................................................... p. 21Rubric A (Conclusion and Support)........................................ p. 23Rubric B (Organization)................................. ........................ p. 23Rubric C (Mechanics).............................................................. p. 31Rubric D (Graphics)................................................................ p. 34Rubric E (Productivity Tool) ................................................. p. 38

1



RATER VERSIONDetailed Rubrics Used to Score the Student Assessment Data

(with Illustrative Examples of Student Work, and Explanations of Why They Received the Scores They Did)

(explanations are in italics)

Item Formats used in the assessment: Selected Response: student selects answer

Constructed Response: student constructs answer Convergent Response: there are correct answers and incorrect answers

Divergent Response: there is no single correct answer

Answers are provided to the convergent response items, and they are in bold

Introduction

Every year, the Far West Tri-State Junior Soccer League holds championship games in the Arizona/California/Nevada tri-state region. Within the next few years, the League needs to find a new home for the games. The location must meet the following requirements:

The air quality needs to be fairly good but it doesn't need to be perfect. If the location has air pollution, the League must be convinced that the air quality is likely to

improve there in the future. The weather during the games should not be too hot.

Phoenix, Arizona is one of the finalist cities. The Soccer League wants you to:

research the air quality and climate in Phoenix recommend if Phoenix would be a good location, explain why, and use evidence from the Web

sites to support your recommendation recommend what season to hold the games (should they choose Phoenix), and explain why research how one pollutant, ozone, could affect the soccer players' health

Before you write your recommendations to the Soccer League, you will gather information and answer questions. Provide full explanations in your answers.

Assume that you are in the middle of the year 2001.

Part A. Daily Pollution Trends in Phoenix

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collects data on air quality in cities and counties throughout the United States and posts the data on its Web site. You will look at data on three major pollutants -- carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and particulate matter (PM10). Most of your attention will be spent on ozone. The EPA sets standards for how much of each pollutant is legally permitted.

DIRECTIONS: On the Web, you will go to the EPA's AIRS Graphics Web site. It contains maps and charts for air pollution levels, including PSI (Pollution Standards Index) charts, which show daily pollution values for cities and counties in the United States.

Generate three PSI charts for 2000, 1999, and 1998. Follow these steps:

Generate three PSI charts for 2000, 1999, and 1998. Follow these steps:

2



Step 1. Click http://www.epa.gov/air/data/psi.html?ms~6200~Phoenix%2C%20AZ/. Figure 1 shows what will appear on your screen.

FIGURE 1

3

Step 2. Use these pull-down menus to select the year you want the chart to cover. The year is set at 2001. Change it to 2000.

Step 3. Click "Generate Map." A chart of Phoenix for the year 2000 will open.

Step 4. Study the chart that you generated on the screen and answer Items 1-3 below.

http://www.epa.gov/agweb/



ITEM 1Question.What are the abbreviated names of the three pollutants that are charted on your graph?

RubricOutcome Area: Technology UseProficiency: Using attribute-based query tool to find targeted information in Web-based data baseItem format: Constructed, convergent responseScoring criteria: Quality of answer provides evidence of whether the student was able to generate the graphScale:

3. all three elements are clearly identified2. one or two elements are correct, some misspellings1. no correct elements cited M. answer is missing

Adequate performance: 2 and above (because one can assume that even a partially correct answer constitutes sufficient evidence of the targeted proficiency)(Exemplars not provided for this item)

ITEM 2Question : Each data point on the chart represents the amount of pollution on a particular day. On what part of the chart are the unhealthful days? (Circle the one correct answer.)

a. top part b. middle partc. bottom part

Rubric:Outcome Area: Reasoning with InformationProficiency: Interpreting information on Web-based chartsItem format: Selected, convergent responseScoring criteria: Selection of correct answer is evidence that the student is able to interpret the structure of the chart at a basic levelScale: 1 pt: answer is correct 0 pts: answer is incorrect M: answer is missingAdequate performance: 1 pt. (Illustrative examples not provided for this item)

4

CO, O3, PM10



ITEM 3Question : The table below is meant to show the number of unhealthful and very unhealthful days in Phoenix from 1998-2000. Fill in the table. Follow these steps as you go along.

Step 1. Fill in cells on the table for the year 2000.Step 2. Click the "Back" button to return to the page that lets you make selections.Step 3. Bring up a PSI chart of Phoenix for the year 1999.Step 4. Fill in cells on the table for the year 1999.Step 5. Repeat Steps 2-4 for the year 1998.Step 6. Calculate totals.

Table for Item 3.Number of unhealthful and very unhealthful days in Phoenix from 1998-2000.

Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Total 2000 3 1 3 1 81999 0 1 3 6 101998 3 1 2 0 6Total 6 3 8 7 24

DIRECTIONS: Use your table and the PSI charts to answer Questions 4-6. You may want to regenerate the three charts to examine the data.

Rubric:Outcome Area: Reasoning with InformationProficiency: Transferring appropriate information from one data representation (chart) to another (data table)Item format: Selected, convergent responseScoring criteria: Putting the correct data into the correct cells of the data table is evidence that the student understands the representational structureScale:

3. all cells filled in with correct data2. at least one year's worth of cells (a row) or at least one season's worth of cells (a column) is completely correct, including the totals; though other columns are blank or have errors have errors (which shows that the student understands, but might be careless, or do incomplete work)1. every row or column has at least one error or blankM. all cells are blank

Adequate performance: 2 points (which shows that the student has some proficiency, but might be careless, or do incomplete work)

Illustrative Example of Student WorkScore of 2:

Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec Total 2000 3 1 2 1 71999 0 1 3 4 81998 3 1 1 0 5Total 6 3 6 5 20

Explanation of Score:Apr-June column is completely correct, but other columns have errors

(Examples not provided for scores of 3 or 1)

5



ITEM 4Question:How did the air quality in Phoenix change from 1998 to 2000?

Rubric:Outcome Area: Reasoning with InformationProficiency: Recognizing patterns of data in data tablesItem format: Constructed, convergent responseScoring criteria: Appropriate analysis of dataScale:

3. answer displays understanding of the data in the PSI charts or data table (which, if correct, shows that the air quality got worse from the first year to the second year, then better from the second to the third year)2. answer displays partial understanding about the data in the PSI charts or the data table, 1. answer does not reflect what the analysis of the PSI charts or data table

requires OR --

the analysis is highly confused, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the PSI charts or the data in the data table

M. missingAdequate performance: 3 points NOTE: The answer should be judged by how well it reflects a correct analysis of the data in the data table, even if those data are in themselves not accurate (the latter issue was dealt with in Item 3).

Illustrative Examples of Student Work

Score of 3:

Explanation of score:The data have been correctly interpreted.

Score of 2:

Explanation of score:There is an attempt at an analysis but there is also some confusion about the data.

Score of 1:

Explanation of score:The student thinks the data is about temperature and furthermore does not see the pattern in the numbers.

6

In 1998 there were 6 unhealthful days. Then in 1999 it went up 4 to 10 days. In 2000 it dropped one to 8 days.

It mainly changed in April-June. The rest of the months were either the same or better.

the temperature got hotter each year



ITEM 5Question:What do you think is the least polluted three-month period in Phoenix? (Circle one answer. Use your best judgment. Any answer can be correct.)

a. January-March b. April-June c. July-September d. October-December

(Item 5 is not scored. It is only a set-up for Item 6)

ITEM 6Question:Use evidence from the PSI charts to explain why the 3-month period you selected is the least polluted.

Rubric for Items 5&6Outcome Area: Reasoning with InformationProficiency: Formulating evidence-based conclusion from data Item formats: Constructed, divergent responseScoring criteria: Whether the conclusion is supported by accurate and appropriate evidenceScale:

3. conclusion (e.g., selection made in Item 5) is supported by clear, appropriate evidence from the data sources2. conclusion is supported by only partially clear and appropriate evidence from the data sources1. conclusion is supported by completely unclear, inaccurate,* or inappropriate evidence, or not supported by evidence at allM. either or both questions missing answer

Adequate performance: 2 points* Note: If the students are citing evidence from their data table, the same note from Item 4 applies here (i.e., that he answer should be judged by how well it reflects a correct analysis of the data in the data table, even if those data are in themselves not accurate; the latter issue was dealt with in Item 3)


Score of 3:

Explanation of score: The conclusion is based on an accurate reading of appropriate evidence.

Score of 3 again:

7

April-June has only had one unhealthy day for each of the years we examined. Even though this was more than there were in 1999 in January-March, and more than there were in 1998 in October-December, we think that it is the least polluted, if you look at the trend.

Over the three year period, January-March had 6 unhealthy days and April-June had only 3. On the other hand, if you look at the PSI charts, you can see that over the same period, there were many more good air days in January-March than in April-June, so we conclude that January-March is the least polluted.



Explanation of score: This conclusion is based on an accurate reading of appropriate evidence. Though not required, good days as well as unhealthy ones are examined.

Score of 2:

Explanation of score: The evidence offered is appropriate, but only partially clear (the level was "very unhealthful," not "awful" and the student does not explain what was "really bad").

Score of 2 again:

Explanation of score: The evidence offered is appropriate, but only partially clear (the phrase "as opposed to the other high marks" is confusing).

Score of 2 again:

Explanation of score: The evidence offered is appropriate but the statement is too vague to deserve a 3.

Score of 1: (student selected April-June in Item 5)

Explanation of score: The evidence offered contradicts the conclusion -- perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the question.

8

Because it had the least amount of healthful days

Because on the chart there were less unhealthful days

The period from April-June because it has only three unhealthy days as opposed to the other higher marks

Only once there were awful levels, though it was really bad



Part B. Comparing Phoenix to Other Locations

DIRECTIONS: Click http://ipat.sri.com/epa/backup/ozone_map.html. A map will appear. The map shows locations in the three states and rates them on whether they have been attaining EPA standards for ozone. Study the map and what's written about it on the sides. Answer questions 7-11.

ITEM 7Question:According to the map, what area is severely polluted and has been given 15 years by law to meet the standards? (Circle the one correct answer.)

a. Phoenix b. San Francisco Bay Areac. Venturad. South Coast

Rubric:Outcome Area: Reasoning with InformationProficiency: Interpreting information on Web-based mapItem format: Selected, convergent responseScoring criteria: Correctness of answer is evidence of proficiencyScale: 1 pt: answer is correct 0 pts: answer is incorrect M: answer is missingAdequate performance: 1 pt.

9

http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/maps/r9_o3.html



ITEM 8Question:According to the map, which labeled locations have a worse ozone problem than Phoenix?

ITEM 9Question:How can you tell?

Rubric for Items 8 and 9Outcome Area: Reasoning with InformationProficiency: Analyzing information on Web-based mapItem format (for both items): Constructed, convergent responseScoring criteria: Selection of correct answer is evidence that the student is able to interpret the structure of a data map at a basic level Scale:

4. all 4 correct locations identified in item 8; accurate, appropriate explanation in item 9

3. all 4 correct locations identified in item 8; explanation in item 9 is missing or contains flaws (inaccurate, inappropriate, or unclear)

-OR- 1-3 correct locations identified in item 8; accurate, appropriate explanation in item 9 of the correct location or

locations mentioned in item 82. 1-3 correct locations identified in item 8; explanation in item 9 is missing or contains flaws (inaccurate, inappropriate,

or unclear) -OR- all locations identified in item 8 are wrong or answer to item 8 is missing

explanation in item 9 shows understanding of the map, even though answer to item 8 is completely wrong or missing

1. all locations identified in item 8 are wrong or item 8 is missing incomplete, inaccurate, inappropriate, or unclear explanation in item 9M: both items missing an answer

Adequate performance: 3 points and above Note: a performance of 2 would not be adequate because it suggests either...a) that the student had to guess or rely on mistaken assumptions to identify correct locations because the explanation shows no evidence of understanding of the map-OR-b) if no correct locations were identified but the explanation has some value, it suggests that the student for some reason was unable to apply his or her understanding of the map to the identification task


Score of 4 (all four correct locations are in answer to item 8. Answer to item 9 is the following:)

10

Sacramento Metro, Southeast Desert, South Coast, Ventura

They are shaded darker than the Phoenix box



Explanation of score: All 4 correct locations cited, and the explanation shows a basic understanding of how to interpret the map.

Score of 3 (all four correct locations are in answer to item 8. Answer to item 9 is the following:)

Explanation of score: All 4 correct locations cited. However, the explanation is incomplete. All the labels are colored, not merely those of the correct answer.

Score of 3 again (only South Coast mentioned in answer to item 8. Answer to item 9 is the following:)

Explanation of score: 1 out of 4 correct locations cited. Explanation is complete in its relation to the answer in item 8

Score of 2 (only South Coast mentioned in answer to item 8. Answer to item 9 is the following:)

Explanation of score: 1 out of 4 correct locations cited for item 8, but the explanation in item 9 does not reflect what is on the map. The answer to item 8 suggests some understanding of the map.

Score of 2 again (only the Bay Area mentioned in answer to item 8. Answer to item 9 is the following:)

Explanation of score: No correct locations cited, but the explanation does reveal some understanding of what is on the map.

Score of 1 (no correct locations mentioned in answer to item 8. Answer to item 9 is the following:)

Explanation of score: Answer provides no evidence of student ability to interpret the map correctly. The map does not indicate a pollution problem in Nevada.

11

Because the color represents extreme. It has had 20 years to meet the standards.

By the colored labels on the map and the key

Nevada is very polluted.

Because Los Angeles is near there

The colors that are darker than the one with Phoenix all have pollution.



ITEM 10Question:Finish the sentence:The map would be more helpful to the Soccer League if it had... (Circle the correct answer)

a. more states on itb. larger lettersc. information that is more recentd. information about water pollution too

Rubric:Outcome Area: Reasoning with Information Proficiency: Critically evaluating information on Web-based data representation (map) Item Format: Selected, convergent responseScoring criteria: The student's selection of the correct answer is evidence that he knows what information is appropriate for the problem solving at hand, and can look at information critically. To answer question correctly, the student has to: a) focus on what the Soccer League wants - knowing this would rule out choices a and d, which would be reasonable but irrelevantb) study the map carefully to detect the statement that the data reflected on it is 3 years oldItem format: selected, convergent responseScale: 1 pt: answer is correct 0 pts: answer is incorrect M: answer is missing

Adequate performance: 1 pt. Additional comment about the item: The multiple choice format of this item provides a suitable set of constraints that produce valid evidence of the targeted proficiency. By constraining the choice of answers, the item forces the student to interpret the meaning of the question as intended. If this instead were a constructed response item, it would be harder to draw valid inferences from possible unanticipated student answers. For example, a student could write that it would be helpful for the League if the map were available in a soccer pamphlet rather than only on the EPA Web site.

12



ITEM 11Question:Do you think that Phoenix would be a good site or a bad site for the League's championship games? Explain why. Support your answer with specific evidence from:

the PSI charts your table of unhealthful days the ozone map

Rubric:Outcome Area: Reasoning with InformationProficiency: Formulating evidence-based conclusion from data Item format: Constructed, divergent responseScoring criteria: Whether a conclusion is drawn, and how well it is supported by accurate and appropriate evidenceScale:

3. conclusion is drawn; evidence comes from at least one of the data sources and is high quality (complete, specific, fully reflective of the data sources, and fully appropriate* ); may have one minor flaw2. conclusion is drawn; evidence from the data sources has minor flaws (e.g., somewhat vague, somewhat unclear, and/or only partially reflective of the data sources)1. evidence from the data sources has major flaws (e.g., very vague, very unclear, and mostly if not completely non-reflective of the data sources) or is missing; there may be conceptual misunderstanding; there may be no conclusion offered M. either or both questions missing answer

Adequate performance: 2 points

* Note: the evidence CAN come from the climate data as well and be acceptable, even if the directions for the item do not identify the climate data. Climate information-gathering comes later in the task sequence, yet the students were never directed to exclude the climate data and there was nothing to stop them from returning to this question after doing the climate part. Hence, it is fair to take the position that the students' quoting of climate data is appropriate to the task.


Score of 4:

Explanation of score: A conclusion is offered (that it would be OK), supported by specific evidence from the data table and the map.

Score of 3:

Explanation of score:

13

Phoenix is a fairly good place, although it's not the best you could choose. It has higher pollution levels than Imperial and San Francisco, has 24 unhealthy days, and has a fair amount of healthy days.

Phoenix would be OK. There were only eight unhealthy days in 2000 and there are other places in the three states with worse problems, such as the South Coast and Sacramento.



A minor flaw can be found in the absence of context regarding what period of time is covered in the tally of unhealthy days. Otherwise, a strong answer.

Score of 2:

Explanation of score:No explanation provided of why April-June is a good time to play. A misconception is evident in the reference to ozone as a temperature.

Score of 1:

Explanation of score:No conclusion is drawn -- only a general observation..

14

Yes, because the ozone temperature is serious, but in April-June it would be a good time to play the season

Phoenix is very polluted.



Part C. The Climate of Phoenix

ITEM 12Question:Find and write down the average high temperatures in Phoenix during these four months in the year 2000:

(Each is the second month of a 3-month period you examined on the PSI Charts.)

TO ANSWER QUESTION 12, FOLLOW THESE STEPS:

Step 1. Click http://www.phx.noaa.gov/climate/index.html#historical. Figure 2 below shows the part of the Web page that will appear on your screen.

FIGURE 2:

15

February: 72.5May: 98.1August: 102.6November: 67.4

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/cag3/Y0.html



Step 2. Use the pull-down menus and button shown in Figure 3 below to generate a table of climate data for February 2000.

Step 3. On the table, find the average ("AVG") high ("max") temperature for that month. Use the scroll bar if you cannot see the whole table.

Step 4. Click the BACK key. Step 5. On the Web page that appears, click "Historical Climate Data" (as shown below) to return

to the page with the pull-down menus.FIGURE 3

Step 6: Repeat Steps 1-5 for the other three months.

Rubric:Outcome Area: Reasoning with InformationProficiency: Interpreting information in data tableItem format: Constructed, convergent responseScoring criteria: Whether the answers show that the student is able to find the appropriate data on a Web-based data tableScale:

3. all four answers correct2. some answers correct, or all are correct but out of order1. no answers correctM: missing

Adequate performance: 3 points (which shows that the student understands the data structure. A score of 2 shows inconsistency, which suggests that the student might be unsure of his strategy for finding the numbers; hence can be taken as a sign that he hasn't mastered the understanding)

(Illustrative examples not provided for this item)

16



ITEM 13Question: From what you learned in Question 12, what three-month period in Phoenix has the best climate for the games? (Circle one answer. Use your best judgment. Any answer can be correct.)

a. January-March b. April-June c. July-September d. October-December

Item 13 is not scored. It is an organizer for the final report or presentation.

17



Part D. Research Health Effects of Ozone.

ITEM 14Question:On the EPA's Web site, use the EPA's search engine in the upper part of http://www.epa.gov/ to find a Web site that explains how ozone could affect peoples' health.

My first search phrase: Number of documents:

My second search phrase: Number of documents:

ITEM 15Question:Which of your two search phrases got better results. What makes it better?

Rubric for Item 14 and Item 15:Outcome Area: Technology UseProficiency: Formulating targeted phrase-based Web search queryItem format: Constructed, divergent responseScoring criteria: Whether the student is able to generate an effective Web search phrase and understand why it is effective. "Effectiveness" means producing a high quantity of intended results and a low quantity of unintended ones given the rules of the selected search engine (in this case, the EPA's search engine, of which the rules are mentioned on the home page of the student's form)Scale:4: all three criteria met3: 2 criteria met 2: 1 criterion met 1: no criteria met

Criteria Details:

Score to be assigned:Criteria

At least one query is effective

The better of the two queries has been chosen

The explanation shows understanding

18

Step 1. In the spaces below, type your search phrase and the number of documents your phrase yielded. (Example: The search phrase "coal burning" yields 2 documents).

Step 2. Go back to the search engine.

Step 3. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for another search phrase.

http://www.epa.gov/



4 √ √ √3 √ √3 √ √3 √ √2 √2 √2 √1

("√" means criterion has been met)

Adequate performance: 3 points and above (meaning that at minimum, the better search query is selected, even if the explanation is flawed.)


Score of 4

1st search phrase Number of documentsozone and people's health 45

2nd search phrase Number of documentsozone affecting people's health 1

Answer to Q15:

Explanation of score:The better of the two phrases has been selected, the phrase is effective, and the explanation shows understanding of Web searching.

Score of 3

1st search phrase Number of documentsozone and health 125 out of 199

2nd search phrase Number of documentsHow does ozone affect health? 0 out of 199

Answer to Q15:

Explanation of score:The selected search phrase is effective but the explanation is not.

Score of 2

19

The first one, but still not useful

The first one, if you narrow it down and keep it simple it gives you more results.



1st search phrase Number of documentsozone layer 5

2nd search phrase Number of documentsclimate of the EPA 4

Answer to Q15:

Explanation of score:Neither search phrase is effective, but at least the student understands that the selected one is more related to the topic of ozone (though the ozone layer is not at issue)

Score of 1

1st search phrase Number of documentshealth effects 20723

2nd search phrase Number of documents"ozone effects" 137

Answer to Q15:

Explanation of score:Even though quotes are used (which shows that attention has been paid to the syntax rules), the least effective of the two phrases has been chosen, and the explanation reveals a misconception about the value of the phrase (i.e., that "health effects" would be sufficient without identifying the subject -- ozone). Also, the students apparently have confused quantity with quality (i.e., that 20723 results is better than 137)

20

The ozone layer because first it had more # of documents and secondly it was a better understanding of the topic

"health effects" Health is important



ITEM 16Question:Find information about the effects of ozone on human health in one or more of the documents. Summarize in one or two sentences what you learn. Also, write down the Web site's URL (universal resource locator)

Rubric A for Item 16Outcome Area: Reasoning with InformationProficiency: Finding relevant Web-based informationItem format: Constructed, divergent responseScoring criteria: Whether the answers show that the student has been able to find and understand appropriate information from a Web article Scale:

2. summary contains accurate*, relevant information from the Web site they found 1. summary contains inaccurate* or irrelevant information

--OR-- it is not clear if the information comes from a Web site found in this exerciseM. summary is missing


* NOTE: if you are not sure if the information is relevant, go to the Web site to check. If the Web site says it, score it as a 2, even if you still have doubts about its accuracy. Reason: the purpose of the item is to look at the students' proficiency at finding relevant information and summarizing it accurately, not at whether they can critique the accuracy of the information they find.

Score of 2:

Summary:

Explanation of Score:The information cited is accurate and relevant

Score of 1.

Explanation of Score:The information cited is irrelevant

Rubric B for Item 16Outcome Area: Technology UseProficiency: Citing URL Item format: Constructed, divergent responseScoring criteria: Whether the URL works and goes to a relevant Web siteScale:

3. URL works and goes to a relevant Web site

21

it can cause breathing problems, reduced lung function, asthma, irritates eyes, stuffy nose, reduced resistance to colds, and more

Warm temperatures increase air and water pollution.



2. URL works but does not go to a relevant Web site1. URL does not work, and may not be a URL at allM: missing



Score of 3:

URL :

Explanation of Score:A web site with relevant information has been found

Score of 2:URL :

Explanation of Score:The URL works but it goes to the EPA search engine, not go to a relevant site.

Score of 1:URL:

Explanation of Score:The URL has been cited incorrectly, hence it does not work

22

www_epa_gov/region9/air/permit/cap.htm

www_epa_gov/region9air//permit//cap,htm,

http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/



Part E. Your Recommendations

ITEM 17DIRECTIONS: Write an electronic report or create an electronic presentation for the Soccer League. Your final project will contain:

a) your recommendations about: whether Phoenix would be a good location, with supporting evidence from your table

or from the Web sites that shows you have met the League coordinators' requirements

what 3-month period they should hold the games in if they pick Phoenix, and whyb) the mean air temperature during the middle month of the 3-month period you recommend

(look at your answer to question 11)c) health effects of ozone that could affect the soccer players if Phoenix is picked

Your letter or presentation should also contain:a) an introductionb) clear, logical organization c) complete sentences and good grammar (i.e., correct spelling and punctuation)d) a bibliography of sources you usede) (if you write a report on the computer using a program your teacher has made

available to you): graphics that support your text, (if technically possible on your computer). One source of graphics is http://www.arizonaguide.com/home/index.asp.

f) a caption for at least one graphicg) (if you write a report on the computer using a program your teacher has made

available to you): a title that is centered AND in a different font size than the body of report

h) (if you create a slide presentation using a program your teacher has made available to you): multiple slides AND, a title that is in a different font size than the body of the presentation

Rubric A:Outcome Areas: Reasoning with information; CommunicationProficiency: Formulating and communicating argument (i.e., evidence-based conclusion from data)Item Format: Constructed, divergent responseScoring Criterion:

a. conclusion is made about whether Phoenix would be a good location for the games

b. explanation and supporting evidence is provided for "a"c. conclusion is made about what three-month period they should hold the

games ind. explanation and supporting evidence is provided for "c"

NOTE: if the information offered as evidence is completely inaccurate or inappropriate, it cannot be called supporting evidence, even if it has been offered as suchScale:

4. contains a-d 3. contains a-d but with minor flaws (e.g. occasional/minor inaccuracies, some

evidence or reasons plagiarized or not supportive enough because they are too general)

23



2. a-d only partially attempted, and in addition there might be some minor flaws

1. all of the following--vague, no specifics, may have major inaccuracies or be largely irrelevant

M. composition is missingAdequate performance: 3 and above

24




Score of 4:

Air Pollution Report Pg. 1

In our research we discovered that Phoenix would be a moderate location for the championship game competition. Phoenix has a serious problem with pollution, but in comparison with other counties, it was not the worst. With 9 years to fix their problem, it is not as bad as 20 years such as Sacramento Metro, South Coast, Ventura, and the Southeast Desert.

With recorded information from our table of highly polluted months, we figured that the months April-June are the best months to have the championship games. These months are not the least polluted but they have the best temperature range. The mean temperature for May, the middle month is 78.8 degrees F.

Some of the health affects of the ozone problem for the soccer players are as follows: Breathing problems, reduced lung function, asthma, irritated eyes, stuffy nose, reduced resistance to colds etc.

Explanation of score:The required conclusions and supporting evidence are made. No flaws in accuracy or relevance. The evidence is sufficiently specific to provide good support for the conclusions made.

Score of 3:We think that Phoenix would be a good place to have the Soccer Tournament

because the air temperature is not to hot or not to cold. The average temperature in May was 81.3° which is average for Arizona in that month. The temperature we think would be good because the temperature is just right.

If the soccer tournament were to be held in Phoenix the best months would be April-June. This is because the number of unhealthful days is the lowest in three years. That is good because if there were many unhealthful days the children would not be safe in that weather and it could cause distraction on the field. The only time that the ozone would affect the soccer players is if the pollution for air and water got really bad. That would be awful because the more pollution there is the better chance of people getting sick is more likely.

Explanation of score:The required conclusions and supporting evidence are made -- that Phoenix would be a good place for the games because it has a good temperature, and that April-June would be the best time for the games because there were fewest unhealthful days then over the course of a three-year period. There are flaws however, including an unsupported claim (that 81.3 degrees is average for Arizona in May rather than just for Phoenix), and an inaccurate association of ozone to water pollution in the second paragraph..

25



Score of 3 (again):

Phonix,AZ After some research I have found that Phoenix, AZ would not be a very wise selection for the soccer league. I think that it would be perhaps harmful and overly warm for the players. This would be too risky and strenious for the players.

The safest time for them to play would be the April-June season, yet the temperatures then are averaged on 85.1 degrees. I find that the players would be too warm and even if the heat isn’t much of a factor, there were still 3 unhealthy days during that season from the past three years.

This is a ozone air quality lay out. This shows that a better selection would be the bay area. It is a healthier environment for the players. It is very important that is also not too warm or too cold. I think that Phoenix would be an hot place for such a sport.

The league should pick an another spot to have their games because Phoenix doesn’t work for their purposes. The bay area would be a good selection because the air is much cleaner a s you can see in the picture above. Overall I think Phoenix would not work for the soccer league.

Explanation of sore:Required conclusions and evidence are present but the evidence for why Phoenix would not be good is marginal because no specifics are provided about why the Bay Area would be better other than to simply say it and refer to the map.

Score of 2:Phoenix

Phoenix is hot and polluted with ozone, which can make you sick if you are not careful with your body. We recommend that you go somewhere else to play soccer. If you have to play there, play in April-June because it's less hot then than at other times during the year.

Explanation of sore:Only one piece of marginal evidence is cited -- that April - June is less hot than other times of the year, but no specifics are offered about how less hot is. Hence, the requirements for evidence are not being met.

26



Score of 1:

Go to Phoenix

Phoenix would be a good place to have the games. The scenery there is great and the pollution keeps getting better and its not too hot. Enjoy yourself!

Explanation of sore:There is a major ambiguity (e.g., that "the pollution keeps getting better"). No

recommendation or supporting evidence is included about the season. The scenery is irrelevant.

27



Rubric B:Outcome area: CommunicationProficiency: Displaying adequate organization in written composition Item Format: Constructed, divergent responseScoring criteria:

Clear introduction to the recommendations (e.g., whether or not the games should be in Phoenix; where to go for help)

Explanations and evidence are logically related to the recommendations The sequence of recommendations, explanations, and evidence progresses

in a logical orderScale:

4. clear introduction; recommendations and supporting evidence are logically related; sequence of parts (recommendation, explanation, and supporting evidence about choosing Phoenix; recommendation and supporting evidence about best three-month period; and description of health effects) are in logical order;

3. recommendations, explanations, and supporting evidence are logically related; some minor problems in the order (such as an inappropriate transition word, or a minor digression or interruption)

2. major flaws in logical relationship or order; several disjointed statements; the reader must work hard to connect statements and infer the order and the logic

1. very confusing in logical relationship to the point of being hard to understand

M. answer is missingAdequate performance: 3 points or above

28




Score of 4:Download this HyperStudio stack: 07bmsm.stkPlugin or Player Required to View the Stack: see http://www.hyperstudio.com/downloads/index.html#playersfor more information.

Explanation of Score:The cards of this multimedia presentation are in logical order, and each card addresses a different requirement of the assignment. There is a clear introduction, which consists of a list of goals. Each subsequent card addresses a different goal clearly and logically.

Score of 4 again:





Explanation of score:The work is well organized. There is an introduction. Each paragraph has a different topic, all sentences are clearly stated and flow well together.

Score of 3:Score of 4:Download this HyperStudio stack: 04ebsa.stkPlugin or Player Required to View the Stack: see http://www.hyperstudio.com/downloads/index.html#playersfor more information.

Explanation of Score:The presentation follows is usually clear and follows a logical order. However, there are some minor problems that interrupt the clarity and flow in the third card. The first sentence is worded awkwardly, rendering it a bit unclear (i.e., the use of the phrase "with the following evidence" rather than something

29

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/04ebsa.stk

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/07bmsm.stk



like "for the following reasons"). The words "For one" at the start of the second sentence suggest that there will be more than one point made on the issue of why Phoenix would "meet the standards" but only one point is made. The sentence about the ozone problem being at a "classification of Serious with 9 years" presents an incomplete point because no explanation is provided about the significance of the 9 years.

Score of 3 again:We think that Phoenix would be a good place to have the Soccer Tournament

because the air temperature is not to hot or not to cold. The average temperature in May was 81.3° which is average for Arizona in that month. The temperature we think would be good because the temperature is just right.

If the soccer tournament were to be held in Phoenix the best months would be April-June. This is because the number of unhealthful days is the lowest in three years. That is good because if there were many unhealthful days the children would not be safe in that weather and it could cause distraction on the field. The only time that the ozone would affect the soccer players is if the pollution for air and water got really bad. That would be awful because the more pollution there is the better chance of people getting sick is more likely.

Explanation of score:There is a clear logical sequence. There is an introduction, the first paragraph is clearly about whether the games should be held in Phoenix, and the second paragraph is clearly about what three-month period would be best. There are some flaws however. The word "or" in the first sentence is inappropriate and interrupts the flow. The third sentence seems redundant. In the second sentence of the second paragraph, "over" would be a better choice of words than "in.". Use of the word "in" makes it necessary for the reader to infer the sentence's meaning. The tacking on of the phrase "is more likely" at the end of the last sentence is unnecessary and makes it more difficult to read.

30



Score of 3 (again):Phonix,AZ After some research I have found that Phoenix, AZ would not be a very wise selection for the soccer league. I think that it would be perhaps harmful and overly warm for the players. This would be too risky and strenious for the players.



The league should pick an another spot to have their games because Phoenix doesn’t work for their purposes. The bay area would be a good selection because the air is much cleaner a s you can see in the picture above. Overall I think Phoenix would not work for the soccer league.

Explanation of score:There are some flaws. The point about Phoenix being too warm is repeated in two different paragraphs. The third paragraph skips from being first about air pollution to being about temperature. "Yet" is a poor choice for a transitional word in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

31



Score of 2:

To Pick or Not to Pick Phoenix

We think that you should go somewhere

This is a picture of Phoenix

else besides Phoenix. It's 72.5 degrees in Phoenix in February, which makes that good weather to be there in. Unfortunately, there were 6 unhealthful days then between 1998 and 2000, and that's not so good.

There are other places with less pollution than Phoenix like the Bay Area and ozone causes lung problems. So go there instead.

Explanation of score:There is an introduction but the sentences are not in logical order. The topic keeps changing. The use of the "Unfortunately" as a transitional word is inappropriate. With effort, it is possible to infer what the students are trying to say--that even though the weather is acceptable, they cannot recommend it because the pollution is bad there and cleaner alternatives exist, such as the Bay Area.

Score of 1:ABOUT PHOENIX

Phoenix is a really hot place if you don't mind pollution and if you don't think about it too much. We wouldn't hold the games there but that's your decision. However, there is unhealthy ozone all year so maybe the heat is important if you care about being comfortable. In addition, other states also have ozone.

Explanation of score:The points the students are trying to make are almost completely incomprehensible. The sentences do not follow in a logical order and the third sentence makes no sense at all. The transitional words that open the third and fourth sentence don't fit. There is no introduction.

Rubric C:Outcome area: CommunicationProficiency: Displaying correct mechanics in written composition Item Format: Constructed, divergent responseScoring criteria: Complete sentences, correct spelling, use of grammar, syntax, punctuationScale:

4. fully met3. contains some minor flaws, but they do not impact the flow of the reading 2. contains numerous flaws--some minor, some major, that as a whole, impact the

flow of the reading1. contains numerous major flaws, confusing

32



M: answer is missingAdequate performance: 3 points or above

Illustrative samples of student work:

(Illustrative example of score of 4 not provided)

Score of 4:Download this HyperStudio stack: 19sopg_dan_rev.stkPlugin or Player Required to View the Stack: see http://www.hyperstudio.com/downloads/index.html#playersfor more information

Explanation of Score:Though the work has faults (the most noteworthy being wrong data cited in the table about unhealthful days) the mechanics are flawless.

Score of 3:Download this HyperStudio stack: 15jfha.stkPlugin or Player Required to View the Stack: see http://www.hyperstudio.com/downloads/index.html#playersfor more information

Explanation of Score:There are several mechanical errors that bring the score down, but none of them is major enough to cause confusion. A comma is needed after "location" in the first sentence on the second card. The structure of the first sentence on the third card is awkward ("that they wish to have their air quality to be fairly good"). On the fifth card, the title uses "on" when it should use "in," the first sentence should contain a more explicit phrase such as "the games should be held between April and June," and "weather" is misspelled.

Score of 3 again:



Map of the ozone levels in California, Arizona, and Nevada


33

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/15jfha.stk

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/19sopg_dan_rev.stk




Explanation of score:The are four errors. The third sentence lacks a grammatically-correct ending. The fourth sentence needs the word "in." The sixth sentence needs a comma after "month". In the last paragraph, the word "Breathing" should not be capitalized.

Score of 2:Download this Microsoft Word file: 24ecszat_pilot.doc

Explanation of Score: There are several major syntactical errors that impact the readability of this composition. These errors can be found in the following sentences: 1st: "information containing data" 2nd: "Following all the instructions and answering all of the questions available in our packet has

given us sufficient data to conclude" 3rd: "the year by year analysis...has brought mixed results" (what is "mixed" is Phoenix's progress

reducing air pollution)There are also usage errors, such as "trust able" rather than "trustworthy," and "particular" rather than "particularly", a minor misspelling ("yea"), and inconsistent capitalization ("Soccer Championships")

Score of 2 again:

Phonix,AZ

After some research I have found that Phoenix, AZ would not be a very wise selection for the soccer league. I think that it would be perhaps harmful and overly warm for the players. This would be too risky and strenious for the players.



The league should pick an another spot to have their games because Phoenix doesn’t work for their purposes. The bay area would be a good selection because the air is much cleaner as you can see in the picture above. Overall I think Phoenix would not work for the soccer league.

Explanation of score:There are six errors in grammar and spelling. Phoenix is misspelled in the tile; "strenuous" is misspelled in the third sentence; the word "This" is a poor choice to

34

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/24ecszat_pilot.doc



open the third sentence, there is awkward phrasing in the fifth sentence ("temperatures then are averaged on 85.1 degrees") and the sixth sentence ("This is a ozone air quality lay out").

Score of 1:Download this HyperStudio stack: 05gtns.stkPlugin or Player Required to View the Stack: see http://www.hyperstudio.com/downloads/index.html#playersfor more information

Explanation of Score:Almost every sentence contains mechanical errors. Some sentences are very confusing, such as the following: 1st sentence in 1st card, which uses the wrong tense 2nd sentence in 3rd card: "It had serious ozone conditions, whcih is actually pretty average, but not

the best." 4th sentence in 3rd card ("The only times that is the lowest for Phoenix is during the three hotest

month period.")

Rubric D:Outcome area: Technology UseProficiency: Using graphics in a composition developed on the computerItem Format: Constructed, divergent responseScoring criteria: Graphic or graphics are...

inserted in places that enhance the ideas being expressed and the composition's visual appeal, and do not just appear without reference in either the text or a caption

properly cropped at least one graphic is accompanied by a caption that is appropriate for the content of the essay and

appears properly next to the graphicsScale:

3. criteria met in all cases 2. criteria met in some cases1. criteria rarely or never met M. graphics missing

Adequate performance: 2 points or above

NOTES: The assignment did not specify how many graphics to use, so a composition with one graphic should

be scored the same as one with multiple graphics. Specific graphics were suggested (the skyline-at-sunset picture and the ozone map) but not required,

hence students were free to find other graphics.

Illustrative examples of student work

Score of 3:Download this HyperStudio stack: 02jweo.stkPlugin or Player Required to View the Stack: see http://www.hyperstudio.com/downloads/index.html#playersfor more information

Explanation of Score:Each of the graphics (the opening picture, the picture of the soccer ball, and the ozone map) enhance the visual appeal, are on-topic, and are properly cropped. The first picture has an appropriate caption, which appears centered below it (though the parentheses are not needed). The ozone map is accompanied by text

35

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/02jweo.stk

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/05gtns.stk



that attempts an explanation. (It should be noted that while this work gets the highest possible score on use of graphics, it deserves only a 3 on argument, a 2 on organization, and a 1 on mechanics.)

Score of 3 again:


Phoenix at sunset


Map of the ozone levels in California, Arizona, and Nevada

36





Explanation of score: Each graphic is properly cropped, has a caption, and has been inserted in places to enhance the text.

Score of 2:Download this HyperStudio stack: 11kpdo.stkPlugin or Player Required to View the Stack: see http://www.hyperstudio.com/downloads/index.html#playersfor more information

The presentation contains multiple well-cropped graphics. All are visually appealing. Some enhance the text (the ozone map and the calendar) though the three desert pictures are superfluous. None have captions.

Score of 2 (again):Download this HyperStudio stack: 08bsjc.stkPlugin or Player Required to View the Stack: see http://www.hyperstudio.com/downloads/index.html#playersfor more information

The one graphic used in the presentation is properly cropped and enhances the visual appeal of the title page. However, there is no caption, which leaves the reader wondering how the graphic pertains to the topic. The students possess technical proficiency in cropping graphics but leave no evidence that they know how to use graphics to enhance the content.

Score of 2 third time:

Phonix,AZ

After some research I have found that Phoenix, AZ would not be a very wise selection for the soccer league. I think that it would be perhaps harmful and overly warm for the players. This would be too risky and strenious for the players.


37

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/08bsjc.stk

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/11kpdo.stk




The league should pick an another spot to have their games because Phoenix doesn’t work for their purposes. The bay area would be a good selection because the air is much cleaner as you can see in the picture above. Overall I think Phoenix would not work for the soccer league.

Explanation of score:One criterion has been met (that the graphic appear in places that enhance the ideas being expressed and the composition's visual appeal). The other two criteria have not been met (e.g., that the graphic be properly cropped and accompanied by captions that are appropriate for the content of the essay and appear properly next to the graphics)

Score of 1:

To Pick or Not to Pick Phoenix

We think that you should go somewhere else besides Phoenix. It's 72.5 degrees in Phoenix in February, which makes

38



that good weather to be there in. Unfortunately, there were 6 unhealthful days then between 1998 and 2000, and that's not so good.

There are other places with less pollution than Phoenix like the Bay Area and ozone causes lung problems. So go there instead.

Explanation of score:A picture (of the Grand Canyon) that does not enhance the text appears in the middle of the first paragraph and has been inserted into the middle of a sentence. The map image has no caption, was cropped poorly, and is not referenced in the text. Hence, it's value as an enhancement is not made clear.

Rubric EOutcome area: Technology UseProficiency: Using a productivity tool to create an expository composition on the computerItem Format: Constructed, divergent responseScoring criteria: Evidence of ability to use the tool to meet specified formatting requirementsScale:

3. both specified formatting requirements met2. one specified formatting requirement met1. no specified formatting requirement metM: productivity tool not used

Adequate performance: 2 points or aboveNote: This rubric scores the students on whether they have met the two formatting requirements described in the directions for the composition. The purpose of the formatting requirements is to build in to the task a standardized way to compare students on a measure of their technical proficiency using the chosen productivity tool. This measure however should NOT be seen as the sole appropriate measure of the students’ proficiency in using the productivity tool because there are many other ways they can demonstrate it. Therefore, if you are the teacher, you are advised to also look for other indicators of proficiency in each individual work.

39



Score of 3:Download this Hyperstudio file: 17kses.stkExplanation of Score:This meets the two requirements for a presentation. There are multiple slides and each has a page number that you could see if you printed it out.

Score of 2:Download this Hyperstudio file: 21jmjlkd.stkExplanation of Score:This meets one of the two requirements for a presentation -- that there be multiple slides

Score of 1:Download this Microsoft Word file: 23ntan_pilot.doc

Explanation of Score:This meets neither of the requirements for a report -- that the title be centered and in a different font from the body of the text.

40

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/23ntan_pilot.doc

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/21jmjlkd.stk

http://ipat.sri.com/epa/media/17kses.stk

co - carbon monoxide - ipat :: integrative technology ... · web viewconvergent response: there are...

Documents