Assessing Learning Based on Skills

“Is standards-based grading working for you in English? I’m struggling with it in science,” I (Allie) casually mentioned to Erin during a district professional development meeting. We were both pioneers of this new grading system, and our conversation helped us begin to realize that we were off to a false start. It was a school site visit that opened our eyes to a different approach: using skills rather than content knowledge to assess proficiency.

Our initial efforts with content-based proficiency scales ranged from 0 to 4, with 0.5 between; each represented a distinct level of content mastery. The scales were supposed to measure student learning and progress but brought us challenges at the secondary level.

Some educators pointed out the difficulty in distinguishing between a 2, a 2.5, and a 3 score. Others noted the subjective nature of these assessments and the nonlinear nature of learning across different subjects. There were times when students displayed level 3 understanding yet missed elements crucial for a score of 2. How do we grade these students? Do they score a 2, a 2.5, or a 3?

Transitioning to a Skills-Based Approach

Realizing our false start, we knew we needed to change not only our methods but also our mindsets and instructional practices. This led us to shift our focus from content to skills as the driving force behind our proficiency scales.

Our science teachers developed proficiency scales based on the Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) from the National Science Teaching Association. Each was based on a four-point scale with success criteria that evaluates the student’s proficiency level. Here are two examples.

Proficiency Scale for Analyzing and Interpreting Data

4: In addition to proficiency, I can make connections to unfamiliar contexts and/or related science concepts.

3: I can analyze and interpret data using all success criteria in familiar contexts.

2: I can analyze and interpret data using some success criteria.

1: I attempt to analyze and interpret data with teacher support.

Success criteria for achieving proficiency (a 3) on this proficiency scale include the following:

• Accurately constructs or analyzes displays of data sets to identify patterns and relationships,
• Accurately interprets data analysis or graphical analysis (e.g., explain, organize, critique, limitations, and error), and
• Accurately applies scientific specific concepts and content.

Proficiency Scale for Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information

4: In addition to proficiency, I can make connections to unfamiliar contexts and/or related science concepts.

3: I can obtain, evaluate, and communicate information using all success criteria in familiar contexts.

2: I can obtain, evaluate, and communicate information using some success criteria.

1: I can obtain, evaluate, and communicate information with support.

Success criteria for achieving proficiency (a 3) on this proficiency scale include:

• Accurately reads, obtains, and/or evaluates scientific information and ideas to describe patterns and/or evidence (e.g., scientific texts, displays, models, media, data sets, equations),
• Accurately communicates scientific information through writing, presentations, and/or discussions (e.g., clarify, compare, patterns, sources, validity, and reliability), and
• Accurately applies scientific specific concepts and content.

Our new approach established clear success criteria for each skill, which provided students with a road map to proficiency. This approach empowered students to identify their strengths and areas of improvement.

A defining moment in this process came during a one-on-one conference with a student prior to a test. When asked, “What do you think you will score tomorrow on our summative assessment?” the student replied, “I think I am going to score a two because I always struggle with picking out evidence from the text.”

This response was an aha moment, highlighting the student’s self-awareness about their learning. Their earlier formative assessment confirmed that the student’s awareness was accurate—they had indeed scored a 2 because of their struggles extracting textual evidence. This moment made me realize that I couldn’t only reteach the science content but also needed to start reteaching the foundational skills.

A Cross-Curricular Connection

Our skill-based approach did more than just align with content standards—it promoted the development of enduring skills, skills that were relevant across the curriculum. We began to see overlaps in skills across various courses.

The shift became evident when students expressed insights like “Argumentation in science is easier due to the quantitative data, unlike in ELA.” Teachers began having conversations and tailoring their instruction to focus on how to argue effectively in different disciplines. Students started using the proficiency scales as road maps for self-reflection, growing their self-awareness and self-efficacy.

Our teaching became more intentional with a balanced emphasis on both content and skills. Our assessments became more meaningful by being application-based as students transferred their knowledge instead of just memorizing information. Over time, as some skills became easier for our students, we raised the rigor, replacing those skills with more complex ones.

Our false start ended with a paradigm shift, resulting in a profound realization: True educational success lies not just in “mastering” content, but in cultivating the enduring skills that transcend disciplines, inspiring students to become versatile thinkers and lifelong learners.