Row 1 of the Rubric for the Individual Research Report of Performance Task 1 is arguably the most important since it directs the standards for the entire paper. Prepare yourself - this is a long post!
Students can score a 2, 4 or 6 on this Row.
Row 1: Understanding & Analyzing Context
To get a perfect score of 6 for this row, the Performance Task must:
- Clearly identify an area of investigation within one lens
- Identify multiple perspectives within that lens
- Show connections among perspectives through the use of transitions and in the conclusion
- Address counterarguments/limitations
- Discuss viable solutions to the problem
- Demonstrate use of a wide variety of sources in formulating the argument
This Row basically sets the outline for the entire IRR. It's imperative that your students understand how they'll be scored in this row. If they don't understand the grading, they probably don't truly understand what they have to write.
1. Each student will examine their group's argument from a different lens. Remember, the eight lenses are: scientific, economic, environmental, social & cultural, ethical, artistic & philosophical, political & historical and futuristic.
2. Within that lens, they must identify at least two perspectives.
For example:
If a group is arguing that the United States should expand its nuclear energy resources, one student might argue from an economic lens that nuclear energy is cost-effective compared to other sources of energy because uranium is relatively inexpensive compared to other sources of energy (perspective 1). In addition, the costs for running a nuclear reactor are low (perspective 2).
A second student might write from a futuristic lens and argue that switching to nuclear energy is wise since there is a limitless fuel source, while fossil fuels are expected to run out (perspective 1). In addition, nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases and could help to minimize the threat of global warming (perspective 2).
3. This component of the grade relates to writing style. The student must use effective transitions to show connections between the perspectives. Basically, the perspectives have to be linked to the same issue - they can't just be random ideas that are thrown together.
For example:
A student might write, "In addition to the low fuel costs for nuclear reactors, the reactors themselves have low running costs."
"In addition to" relates the low running costs for the reactors to the low fuel costs and strengthens the overall argument that nuclear energy is cost-effective.
In addition, students need to summarize their perspectives in the conclusion of their IRR.
4. Students must address possible counterarguments or limitations of their solutions.
For example:
Despite the fact that nuclear reactors do not contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, critics argue that spent fuel must be transported from the reactors to a safe location. The transport of the spent fuel does contribute greenhouse gases.
5. Students must offer viable solutions to the problem.
For example:
By building nuclear reactors close to facilities that can safely store spent fuel, transport would be limited and the contribution of greenhouse gases from transportation would be minimized.
6. Each IRR must demonstrate that a wide variety of credible sources were used to develop the argument. The bibliography must show that students did not get all of their information from area. For example, if the students only cite web pages in their bibliography, this does not constitute a rich and wide variety of sources. However, if they cite web pages, academic journals and a TED talk, they have shown that their information comes from a variety of sources.
Truthfully, I think that the College Board packs waaay too many criteria into this Row. There are too many things that a student can do right and still end up losing points because there's something else that went wrong. Nevertheless, as of the 2016-2017 school year, these are the criteria that a student must master to get a perfect score for Row 1.