Click here
Click here
Earth's Hidden Layers: Summative Performance Assessment Rubric
A comprehensive standards-based rubric for evaluating middle school students' understanding of Earth's internal structure through multimedia scientific portfolios.
Performance Task Overview
What Students Will Create
In this authentic assessment, students take on the role of geoscientists presenting a comprehensive digital scientific portfolio. This performance task challenges them to demonstrate their understanding of how scientists use seismic waves, density measurements, and indirect evidence to reveal Earth's hidden internal structure—layers we cannot observe directly.
The portfolio integrates multiple forms of scientific communication and technical skills, requiring students to synthesize their knowledge across various formats. This approach mirrors real-world scientific practice, where researchers must present findings through multiple channels to different audiences.
Portfolio Components
  • 3D Digital Earth Model with interactive layers
  • Annotated Seismic Wave Data analysis
  • Narrated Screencast explanation
  • Written Scientific Argument defending conclusions

Standards Alignment: This assessment directly addresses Georgia Performance Standards S6E5.a and S6E5.b, ensuring students master core geology concepts.
Understanding the Scoring Scale
4 — Exceeds Standard
Student demonstrates exceptional understanding with sophisticated scientific reasoning, accurate technical execution, and advanced application of concepts beyond grade-level expectations.
3 — Meets Standard
Student demonstrates solid understanding with accurate scientific reasoning, correct technical execution, and successful application of all required concepts at grade level.
2 — Approaching Standard
Student demonstrates partial understanding with some gaps in reasoning or technical execution. Work shows progress toward mastery but needs refinement in key areas.
1 — Beginning
Student demonstrates limited understanding with significant gaps in reasoning or technical execution. Additional instruction and practice needed before reassessment.
This four-point scale provides clear differentiation between performance levels, helping both teachers and students identify specific areas of strength and opportunities for growth. Each criterion in the rubric uses this consistent scale for objective evaluation.
Criterion 1: Scientific Accuracy of Earth's Layers
Standards Addressed: S6E5.a, S6E5.b
This criterion evaluates students' fundamental understanding of Earth's four distinct layers: crust, mantle, outer core, and inner core. Students must demonstrate knowledge of each layer's composition, relative position, density characteristics, and temperature ranges.
Performance Level Descriptors

Assessment Tip: Look for students' ability to explain why layers are arranged as they are, not just memorization of layer names. Understanding density-driven stratification is key.
Criterion 2: Seismic Data Analysis & Indirect Evidence
Understanding how scientists use indirect evidence is central to Earth science. Students cannot drill to Earth's core, so they must interpret seismic wave behavior to draw conclusions about internal structure. This criterion evaluates students' ability to analyze P-wave and S-wave patterns, identify shadow zones, and connect these observations to physical properties of Earth's layers.
01
Wave Type Identification
Student distinguishes between P-waves (compression waves that travel through solids and liquids) and S-waves (shear waves that only travel through solids).
02
Shadow Zone Analysis
Student identifies P-wave and S-wave shadow zones on seismograms and explains what these gaps reveal about Earth's liquid outer core.
03
Evidence-Based Reasoning
Student connects seismic data patterns to specific conclusions about layer boundaries, composition changes, and physical state of materials.
Level 4 — Exceeds Standard
Student accurately analyzes P-wave and S-wave behavior, identifies shadow zones, and provides detailed evidence-based conclusions about Earth's interior with sophisticated scientific reasoning.
Level 3 — Meets Standard
Student correctly distinguishes between P-waves and S-waves and explains how seismic data reveals Earth's layers with adequate evidence and clear connections.
Criterion 3: 3D Digital Earth Model Quality
Technology Meets Content
The 3D digital model serves as both a technical demonstration and a content assessment. Students use platforms like Tinkercad to construct an interactive representation of Earth's layers, requiring them to apply spatial reasoning, accurate scaling, and scientific precision.
This criterion evaluates not just technical proficiency, but how well students translate their conceptual understanding into a three-dimensional visualization. The model should clearly show relative layer thicknesses, include density values, and demonstrate how seismic waves travel through different materials.
1
Accurate Scaling
Layers are proportionally sized relative to Earth's actual dimensions, showing crust as thin, mantle as thick, and cores appropriately sized.
2
Complete Labeling
All layers clearly labeled with names, composition details, and density values for scientific accuracy.
3
Wave Interaction
Model demonstrates how P-waves and S-waves behave differently as they pass through solid and liquid layers.
4
Interactive Features
Model includes features allowing viewers to explore layers, examine boundaries, and understand structural relationships.
Criteria 4–6: Communication, Argument, and Technology Integration
Multimedia Scientific Communication
Students create a screencast that clearly explains Earth's structure using precise scientific vocabulary. The presentation should be logically organized, engaging, and effectively integrate visuals with narration. Level 4 work demonstrates exceptional clarity and sophistication in scientific communication.
Written Scientific Argument
The written component requires students to construct a claim-evidence-reasoning argument explaining how density determines layer positioning. Strong arguments cite multiple pieces of evidence from seismic data, laboratory models, and scientific research to support conclusions about Earth's stratification.
Effective Use of Technology
This criterion evaluates students' ability to leverage technology to transform their learning, not just substitute for traditional methods. Students should independently use digital tools for interactive modeling, data visualization, and multimedia explanation at the SAMR model's modification or redefinition levels.
Criterion 4 Standards
  • Clear organization
  • Precise vocabulary
  • Visual integration
  • Engaging delivery
Criterion 5 Standards
  • Clear claim stated
  • Multiple evidence sources
  • Logical reasoning
  • Density connections
Criterion 6 Standards
  • Independent tool use
  • Interactive features
  • Data visualization
  • Learning transformation
Total Score Interpretation
The complete rubric awards up to 24 points (4 points × 6 criteria). Use the ranges below to determine overall mastery levels and guide instructional decisions. These thresholds help identify students who have achieved proficiency versus those requiring additional support or enrichment.
22-24
Advanced Mastery
Exceptional performance across all criteria with sophisticated understanding and exemplary technical execution.
18-21
Proficient
Solid understanding demonstrated across all criteria with successful completion of all required components at grade level.
13-17
Developing
Partial understanding with some successful components but gaps in key areas requiring additional instruction and practice.
0-12
Beginning
Limited understanding requiring significant additional support, reteaching, and practice before reassessment opportunity.
Technology's Role in This Assessment
Technology is not just a delivery method—it's integral to how students demonstrate their understanding. Each digital tool serves a specific assessment purpose, allowing teachers to evaluate skills impossible to assess through traditional paper-based methods.
3D Modeling Platform (Tinkercad)
Assesses spatial reasoning, scientific accuracy, and density relationship understanding through interactive model building. Teachers review version history to monitor student progress, revision thinking, and conceptual development over time.
IRIS Seismic Simulator & Data Tools
Assesses seismic wave interpretation, indirect evidence reasoning, and authentic data analysis skills. Students upload annotated datasets showing their analytical process and evidence-based conclusions as part of the portfolio.
Screencast Recording Software
Assesses oral scientific explanation, real-time model manipulation, and conceptual understanding. Students demonstrate their thinking both visually and verbally, revealing misconceptions or sophisticated connections that written work might miss.
Digital Portfolio Platform
Serves as the central assessment hub, compiling all performance artifacts into one graded product. Allows for comprehensive evaluation of multi-modal learning and provides students with a professional showcase of their scientific work.
Formative Assessment Alignment & Next Steps
Supporting the Summative with Formative Checks
This summative assessment doesn't stand alone. Throughout the unit, formative assessments build student skills and provide ongoing feedback, ensuring students are prepared for the final performance task. These checkpoints help identify learning gaps early and adjust instruction accordingly.
Daily LMS Exit Tickets: Auto-graded questions checking content understanding after each lesson, providing immediate data on concept mastery.
Digital Observation Checklist: Teacher tracks collaboration skills, technology proficiency, and scientific practices during work sessions.
Peer Rubric Scoring: Students practice evaluating work using simplified rubric criteria during gallery walk, building assessment literacy.
Teacher Annotation Feedback: Formative comments on model drafts guide revisions and address misconceptions before final submission.

Rubric Success Checklist
  • ✅ Aligned to all four learning objectives
  • ✅ Directly tied to S6E5 standards
  • ✅ Integrates technology explicitly
  • ✅ Includes clear performance descriptors
  • ✅ Supports formative assessment cycle
Optional Enhancements
Consider developing a student-friendly version with simplified language, adding IEP and ELL modifications for differentiated scoring supports, or creating a peer-assessment version for the gallery walk activity.