28.3 Assessing Science Learning
Key Takeaways
- PECT 0013.3 applies SAS assessment types — screening, diagnostic, formative, summative, and benchmark — to science, then uses results to plan, modify, differentiate, and accommodate.
- Science evidence should include performance tasks, notebooks, talk, and explanations, not only multiple-choice items; 'how do you know?' is often the diagnostic question.
- Formative probes catch misconceptions (plants eat soil; heavier objects always fall faster; ice 'loses' mass in a closed bag) so reteaching matches the idea, not a generic worksheet.
- PSSA science exists in Pennsylvania; tested grades have shifted with STEELS. Confirm the current PDE tested grade on the PSSA page — do not run kindergarten bubble practice because a later grade is tested.
- Accommodations (extra time, scribe, alternative recording, read-aloud of directions) keep the science intent; sending a child to the hall is not an accommodation.
28.3 Assessing Science Learning
PECT lens: Objective 0013.3 tests assessment in science: selecting appropriate assessments for different purposes (screening, diagnosis, benchmark, formative, summative); interpreting results; and using those results to plan, modify, and differentiate instruction and to make accommodations. Module 3 remains 45 selected-response items, 90 minutes. A color-coded spreadsheet that never changes a station, a notebook prompt, or a reteach is not yet assessment in the PECT sense.
SAS — Pennsylvania's Standards Aligned System — still names the types you learned in 0002.1. 0013.3 is those types aimed at science. STEELS assessment guidance asks students to use at least two dimensions together (for example a practice plus a core idea). You do not need a branded item bank to do that in PreK–4: a child who measures and explains plant growth is already two-dimensional.
Match the science decision to the type
| Type | Science question it can answer | PreK–4 snapshot | What it is not |
|---|---|---|---|
| Screening | Who might need a closer look at observing, comparing, or explaining? | Brief universal look at whether children can sort by a property or tell what they did at the water table | A disability diagnosis or a report-card grade |
| Diagnostic | Which idea or skill is missing — observation, language, a misconception, a motor barrier? | Interview with ice and two cups: What happened? How do you know? | A two-minute whole-class thumbs-up |
| Formative | What should I teach in tomorrow's investigation or small group? | Notebook I think plants eat dirt; anecdotal note during the flashlight lab | |
| Summative | Did they meet the taught STEELS / ELS science target after instruction? | Rubric on a performance task; unit notebook collection | Daily checks that still change this week's teaching |
| Benchmark | Is the grade on track toward year-end science expectations at this checkpoint? | Fall/winter/spring standards-aligned pulse if the school uses one | A sticky-note during centers |
| Authentic / performance (method) | Can they do science — investigate, record, explain? | Melt-time task; plant comparison; shadow walk | A packet that never asks children to observe |
Screening is a gate. Good science screeners are brief, given to everyone, and sensitive enough to flag children who may not yet observe, compare, or communicate. A child below a concern range is not thereby labeled with a science disability. Next comes diagnosis: a misconception probe, a look at notebook pages, a talk with families about home-language science words, a check of access (Did the child even get materials?). Universal screening includes children who already have IEPs.
Diagnostic science assessment is narrow and deep. It should name an idea or skill, not a vibe: does not yet use evidence; thinks ice 'goes away' even in a closed bag; cannot yet classify by a stated property; language barrier, not a concept barrier. Diagnostics are not universal screeners and not daily formative checks.
Formative science assessment happens during instruction and changes teaching. The same notebook page is formative if you pull a "what is evidence?" group tomorrow. It is wasted if you only file it. Summative science assessment judges a period of teaching against the standard. Benchmark science is a periodic standards checkpoint, often three times a year — not tomorrow's exit ticket.
PSSA science: exists; confirm the tested grade
PSSA science is a statewide summative that exists in Pennsylvania. ELA and mathematics PSSA remain grades 3–8. Science tested grades have shifted with the move from 2002 Science and Technology standards to STEELS. PDE currently publishes science PSSA for grades 5 and 8 (not the older grade-4 science PSSA many candidates remember). Confirm the current tested grade on PDE's PSSA page before you tell families or lock a study plan to a grade, because assessment design can change.
What 0013.3 does with that fact:
- PSSA science is one later accountability measure. It is not the PreK–4 science program.
- PreK, K, 1, 2, 3, and 4 still need classroom screening through summative: performance tasks, notebooks, talk.
- Do not give kindergarteners bubble sheets "to get ready." Grade 4 still needs inquiry evidence, not only test-prep packets.
- A principal who wants only PSSA-style items in Grade 1 has confused summative grain with instruction.
Performance tasks, notebooks, and explanations — not only multiple choice
Selected-response items can sample some ideas. They hide process. PECT 0013.3 expects multi-method science assessment.
| Method | What it uniquely shows | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Performance task | Can the child plan or carry out an investigation and use evidence? | Rubric must name science, not neatness or compliance |
| Notebook / work sample | Growth of notice, wonder, claim, because over time | Products without talk can hide copying |
| Interview / conference (How do you know? Show me.) | Misconceptions, language, whether a right word was luck | Time; needs a focus question |
| Observation (centers, outdoor, lab roles) | Process skills in use | Not systematic if undated and unfocused |
| Explanation (oral, drawn, written) | Argument from evidence — a STEELS practice | A copied definition is not an explanation |
| Multiple choice | Efficient sample of some knowledge | Cannot see why; poor as the only PreK–2 measure |
Construct a performance task from the target: two ice cubes, sun and shade, a way to record, the question which melted faster, and how do you know? Score observation, recording, and the evidence-based claim — not whether the drawing is pretty.
Formative probes of misconceptions
A formative probe is a short task designed to surface a known science idea children often get wrong, so you can reteach with evidence instead of assuming the unit "covered it."
| Common misconception | Probe grain | Instructional follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| Plants eat soil (food comes from dirt) | "Where does a plant's food come from? Draw and tell." | Grow, weigh, or compare plants; talk about light and water at child grain — not a high-school photosynthesis lecture |
| Heavier objects always fall faster | Drop a crumpled paper and a ball (safe height); predict, then try | Repeated trials; fair-test talk in Grade 3–4 |
| Ice 'loses' mass when it melts in a closed bag | Weigh bag of ice, melt, weigh again | Conservation in a closed system (0013.4) |
| Dark or dull objects cannot reflect light | Flashlights on many surfaces | Explore and talk during the investigation |
| Seasons happen because Earth is closer in summer | (Grade 4 grain, still careful) | Models later; do not dump astronomy into PreK |
Exam gold: The probe is formative only if you use it. If every child writes "plants eat dirt" and you still give the same packet, you assessed and then ignored.
Interpret with language and access in mind. An English learner who can show two plants and point to the window may have the science idea without the English sentence. A child who copies "plants need sunlight" from the board may have none of the idea. Do not confuse vocabulary with understanding, or silence with no science.
Interpret, then plan, modify, differentiate, accommodate
A useful science-assessment loop:
- Clarify the target (STEELS performance expectation or ELS science statement — name the idea, do not invent a code if you are unsure).
- Choose the type that answers the decision you actually have.
- Collect more than one source when the decision is high-stakes (probe + notebook + talk).
- Interpret with misconception analysis, language, and access in mind.
- Act — reteach the idea with materials, change the recording option, regroup, extend.
- Recheck to see whether the action worked.
Accommodations change how the child shows the science without changing the target. Typical PreK–4 science accommodations (must match the IEP or 504 when those exist): extra time; separate setting; read-aloud of directions and prompts (you are not reading the observation the child must make); scribe; enlarged print; alternative recording; a partner for motor steps while the child directs and explains; AT. Modifications change the target and are IEP-level decisions — do not quietly modify by sending the child out.
Sending a student to the hallway during the investigation or the performance task is not an accommodation. Neither is scoring only neatness, nor using a norm-referenced battery to claim mastery of this week's taught STEELS idea (that remains a criterion-referenced job from 0002.2).
Scenario: Grade 1 fall screen
Ms. Lee watches every child at the water table with a brief checklist (observes, compares float/sink, can say what happened). Four children flag. She does not call families to announce a disability. She runs a diagnostic (language? never had water play? vision? misconception?). One child was new to the materials, one explains in Spanish with accurate ideas, two need a small-group "what is evidence?" cycle. Screening found them; diagnosis explained them; instruction changed.
Scenario: notebook beats the bubble (Grade 2)
On a multiple-choice item, both children mark that plants need light. A notebook conference shows one child ran the closet test and cites the drooping plant; the other copied the poster. Formative next steps differ. The bubble alone could not tell.
Scenario: misconception probe (Grade 3)
Devon writes that ice will weigh less after it melts in a zipped bag "because melting uses it up." Ms. Hale treats this as a formative probe, not a character flaw. Tomorrow the class weighs closed bags before and after melt (0013.4 conservation). A worksheet titled "states of matter" would not have fixed the idea.
Scenario: PSSA versus PreK (summative grain)
A principal asks for "PSSA-style bubbles" in kindergarten so the school will be ready for science testing. 0013.3: K does not take PSSA science. Confirm the current PDE tested grade (PDE has listed grades 5 and 8 for science). Kindergarten summative science is a performance task and dated work against ELS/STEELS-aligned early standards. Even in a tested grade later, statewide summative does not replace unit evidence or daily formative checks.
Scenario: accommodation that keeps the target (Grade 4)
An IEP lists extra time, a scribe, and alternative recording. During a fair-test performance task, the teacher reads the prompt, allows a photo sequence plus dictation, and scribes the claim. The child still must show what changed, what stayed the same, and the evidence. A hallway coloring sheet would have dropped the target.
Exam traps for 0013.3
- Screener = diagnosis = IEP.
- Only multiple choice counts, especially in PreK–2.
- Ignoring notebooks and talk.
- Probes that never change teaching.
- PSSA as the only science assessment that matters; inventing a tested grade; or giving bubble batteries in kindergarten because a later grade is tested. Confirm PDE's current science PSSA grade.
- Exclusion as accommodation.
- NRT percentile as mastery of this week's STEELS idea.
- Scoring neatness instead of evidence.
If you can say, "This tool answers this science decision, the misconception or skill gap is this, and tomorrow I will teach this, with this access support," you are inside 0013.3. If you only have a score, you are not finished assessing.
Most of a Grade 3 class writes that plants get their food from soil. What is the most appropriate 0013.3 use of that information?
Which collection of evidence best matches PECT 0013.3 for PreK–4 science?
A kindergarten team wants weekly PSSA-style science bubble sheets 'to get ready.' Which statement is most accurate for 0013.3?