Information Booklet for Scoring
Regents Examinations in
Global History and Geography and
United States History and Government

GENERAL INFORMATION

The general procedures to be followed in administering Regents Examinations are provided in the publications Directions for Administering Regents Examinations (DET 541), and Regents Examinations, Regents Competency Tests, and Proficiency Examinations: School Administrator’s Manual, 2001 Edition. Copies of the Directions are shipped to schools prior to each Regents Examination period and
may also be accessed on the Department’s web site at: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa/hsgen.html.
The School Administrator’s Manual may be accessed on the Department’s web site at: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa/hsinfogen/hsinfogenarch/sam2001.pdf.
Questions about general administration procedures for Regents Examinations should be directed to the Office of State Assessment at 518-474-8220 or 518-474-5902. For information about the rating of the Regents Examinations in Global History and Geography and United States History and Government, contact Gary Warren, Donna Merlau, Greg Wilsey, or Patricia Polan of the Office of State Assessment
at 518-474-3860, or JoAnn Larson or Lawrence Paska of the Office of Curriculum, Instruction and Instructional Technology at 518-474-5922.
School administrators should print or photocopy this information booklet and distribute copies to all school personnel who will be scoring these examinations.

SCORING THE EXAMINATION

The Scoring Key and Rating Guide

       The Scoring Key and Rating Guide contains:

• Correct answers to the multiple-choice questions.
• Specific scoring rubrics for both the thematic (Part II) and document-based question (DBQ) essays (Part III B) and the DBQ scaffold (open-ended) questions (Part III A).
• Prescored anchor papers at each essay score level, with commentary explaining why a particular student paper was awarded that specific score.
• Prescored practice papers.

Scoring the Examination

The reliability of the scores is a fundamental concern in the measurement of the student’s
achievement. Therefore, each essay must be scored by at least two qualified teachers. The short-answer document-based scaffold questions need only be scored by one qualified teacher. Qualified raters include teachers of Grades 7-12 social studies and special education teachers who are knowledgeable about the Global History and Geography or United States History and Government curriculum. Raters should have previously received some school-level, district-level, or regional training on scoring social studies essays or scaffold (open-ended) questions as part of the turnkey training process.
It is recommended that schools with a small number of qualified social studies raters form a consortium of teachers to score as a group the answer papers from several schools.
In order to ensure reliable scoring, the principal of each high school administering the social studies Regents Examinations must appoint a scoring coordinator who will:

• Manage the training and logistics of the scoring process.
• Provide task-specific training, including review of the rating guide just prior to scoring.
• Assign two teachers to rate each essay response independently, with a third teacher available to resolve discrepant scores. (A discrepant score is one that varies by more than one credit on a 5‑credit rubric.) Only one rater is needed for the scaffold questions. If staffing is sufficient, separate teams of teachers should rate the Part II thematic essay, the Part III A scaffold questions, and the Part III B essay.

Every effort should be made to avoid having a teacher rate his or her own students’ responses. When this is not feasible, a teacher should score no more than one part of his or her students’ paper (i.e., a thematic essay, the scaffold questions, or a DBQ essay).

Organizing the Rating and Recording

Before student responses can be read and rated, each school must set up a procedure for collecting, arranging, and processing the answer papers and for maintaining records of the examination results. The procedure used in a particular school should be designed to produce a reliable score for each student and to facilitate maintenance of the school’s records of each student’s score. A suggested procedure for managing the mechanics of the rating process is described on pages HG-3 and HG-4.

Scoring of Multiple-Choice Questions

Multiple-choice questions may be either hand scored or machine scored. When hand scoring, indicate by means of a check mark each incorrect or omitted answer to multiple-choice questions on the designated answer sheet. Do not place a check mark beside a correct answer. Use only red ink or red pencil. In the appropriate space on the student’s answer sheet, record the number of multiple-choice questions the student answered correctly.
Machine-scorable answer sheets must be provided and scored by the school. Answer sheets supplied by the school must provide the same number of response options as are given in the examination questions, and the choices must be labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, not A, B, C, D. Instructions for using the answer sheets must be developed locally and provided to the proctors administering the examinations.
Before answer sheets can be machine scored, several samples must be both machine and manually scored to ensure the accuracy of the machine-scoring process. All discrepancies must be rectified before student answer sheets are machine scored. When machine scoring is completed, a sample of the scored answer sheets must be scored manually to verify the accuracy of the machine-scoring process.

Detailed Directions for Training Raters to Score Student Responses

In training raters to score student responses for Part II and Part III of the examination, follow the procedures outlined below:
1.    Introduction to the Task
The introduction to the task may take place once the administration of the examination has begun. However, the actual Scoring Key and Rating Guide for this examination may not be removed
from the shrink-wrapped package of scoring keys for use by raters until after the Uniform Statewide Admission Deadline has passed.
a.    Raters read the task.
b.    Raters identify answers to the task.
c.    Raters discuss possible answers and summarize expectations for student responses.
2.    Introduction to the Specific Rubric and Anchor Papers
The introduction to the specific rubric and anchor papers may take place once the Uniform Statewide Admission Deadline has passed.
a.    Trainer leads review of specific rubric with reference to the task.
b.    Trainer leads discussion of procedures for assigning holistic scores (i.e., by matching evidence from the response to the rubric).
c.    Trainer leads review of each anchor paper and commentary.
3.    Practice Scoring Individually
a.    Raters score the practice papers independently without looking at the scores and commentaries provided after the papers.
b.    Trainer records scores and leads discussion of scoring criteria until raters feel confident enough to move on to actual scoring.
c.    If additional practice is required to reach scoring consensus, trainer may use a sample of student answer papers from the current administration of the examination.

Suggested Rating Procedure

The following procedure is recommended for managing the mechanics of the rating process. A copy of the rating sheet and the record sheet are included in the Appendix. You may make as many photocopies as are needed.

• The person assigned as the coordinator of the rating process, or other designated representative(s), will be responsible for coordinating the movement of papers, calculating a final score for each student’s essays, recording that information on the student’s Part I answer sheet, and determining the student’s final score for the examination.
• Set aside one room as a central rating room for collecting, sorting, circulating, and storing answer sheets/essay booklets and for preparing and maintaining records for these examinations.
• Provide a suitable location for rating of essays.
• Allow time to provide training for scoring the specific task for all raters immediately before the rating of the students’ responses (about 2 hours per essay and about 30-45 minutes per document). It is strongly recommended that teachers be trained on one document and score those responses, then be trained and score the responses to the next document, etc.
• Provide adequate time for rating (3-5 minutes per response for each essay, 1 minute per response
  for each scaffold question scored 0-2, and ½ minute per response for each scaffold question
  scored 0-1).

For Part II and Part III B, continue with these procedures:

• Each essay must be scored by at least two qualified teachers. For each essay question, divide raters into two-person teams. Designate one team member as Rater 1 and the other as Rater 2. After the examination has been administered, either keep the essay booklets together and shift them between raters or separate the students’ essay booklets into Part II and Part III B. If the essay answer booklet is separated, be sure to verify that the student has entered his or her name and the school name on the page where Part III (Document-Based Question) begins before separating the parts. After separating the essays, staple together all pages of the student’s Part II response and staple together all pages of the student’s Part III B response.
• Arrange the essay responses for each part according to a sequence, using whatever order is most convenient for your school, e.g., class period, alphabetical, or local identification number. Beginning with the first paper in the sequence, enter each student’s name on a copy of the record sheet. (Master for duplicating appears in the Appendix.)
• Divide each group of essays into bundles of 25-30 papers.
• Prepare a rating sheet for each bundle. (See sample rating sheet in the Appendix.) After recording the students’ names on the rating sheet, photocopy the rating sheet. Each rater will need a separate rating sheet for each bundle of 25 essay papers he or she rates. The second rater must not be aware of the score assigned by the previous rater.
• Distribute the bundles of essay papers to the rating teams, making sure that each rating team receives two rating sheets for each bundle of papers. Each rater on a team should rate one of the bundles and record his or her ratings on one of the rating sheets. The two raters should then exchange bundles. The second rater should only record his or her scores on the second rating sheet. No scores or corrections should be indicated on the essay papers.
• After each team has completed rating a bundle, the team should return those answer papers to the central rating room. Remove the rating sheets completed by each rater from the bundles and enter the scores on the record sheet. Make sure there are two independent ratings for each response. Enter the resolved scores in the appropriate columns on the record sheet.
• Review the two scores for each student to determine if the student’s scores for that essay are discrepant, i.e., a difference of more than one credit between the two scores. Separate the students’ responses with discrepant scores and make another bundle. Prepare a separate rating sheet for those discrepant papers. List the names of the students on a new rating sheet and attach the sheet to the corresponding bundle of student responses. Assign each of these bundles to a rater to obtain a third independent rating of the students’ responses. Make sure that the third rater is not one of the original two raters of that task and that the third rater has undergone the training for scoring that task.
• After the necessary third ratings have been obtained, remove the rating sheets from the bundles of student responses and determine the resolved scores by using the method for resolving discrepant scores described on the next page. Enter the resolved scores in the appropriate columns on the record sheet.
• Transfer the resolved scores to the appropriate spaces on the students’ Part I answer sheets.
• All rating sheets and record sheets used in scoring the social studies Regents Examinations must be kept for at least one year by the school where they were administered.

For Part III A:

• Follow a similar procedure for processing the papers.
• The short-answer (open-ended) questions need only be scored by one qualified teacher.
• The scores for each scaffold question may be recorded in the student’s examination booklet.
• Record the total Part III A score in the space provided on the student’s Part I answer sheet.

Method for Determining the Score for Each Essay
Two Ratings:
       1.    Compare the two ratings.
       2.    If the two ratings agree, the student receives that score.
       3.    If the two ratings are contiguous, average the two scores.
       4.    If the two ratings are not contiguous, a third rating is necessary.
Three Ratings:
       1.    Compare the three ratings.
       2.    If two of the three ratings agree, the student receives that score.
       3.    If the three ratings are different, the student receives the middle score.
Examples:

       * If the final score ends in .5, do not round at this point.

Entering Essay Scores on the Record Sheet

The examples below show how students’ scores should be recorded on the record sheet.

Determining the Student’s Final Examination Score

To determine the student’s final         examination score, use the chart provided for each administration on         the Department’s         web site:http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa. Locate the student’s Total         Part I and
        Part III A Score on the left side of the chart and the student’s Total         Essay Score across the top of the chart. The point where those two scores intersect is the student’s final examination score. The         format of the chart is illustrated below. The chart provided for each administration         will include scores ranging from 0 to 100 within the cells of the chart. Because the number of scaffold questions may change from one examination to another and scaled scores in the conversion chart change in relation to raw scores, it is crucial that, for each administration, you use only the conversion chart provided for that specific administration to determine the student’s final score.

When the teacher scoring committee completes the scoring process, test scores must be considered final and must be entered onto students’ permanent records.
Principals and other administrative staff in a school or district do not have the authority to set aside the scores arrived at by the teacher scoring committee and rescore student examination papers or to change any scores assigned through the procedures described in this manual and in the scoring materials provided by the Department. Any principal or administrator found to have done so, except in the circumstances described below, will be in violation of Department policy regarding the scoring of State examinations. Teachers and administrators who violate Department policy with respect to scoring State examinations may be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with Sections 3020 and 3020-a of Education Law or to action against their certification pursuant to Part 83 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education.
On rare occasions, an administrator may learn that an isolated error occurred in the calculation of a final score for a student or in recording students’ scores in their permanent records. For example, the final score may have been based on an incorrect summing of the student’s raw scores for parts of the test or from a misreading of the conversion chart. When such errors involve no more than five students’ final scores on any Regents Examination and when such errors are detected within four months of the test date, the principal may arrange for the corrected score to be recorded in the student’s permanent record. However, in all such instances, the principal must advise the Office of State Assessment in writing that the student’s score has been corrected. The written notification to the Department must be signed by the principal or superintendent and must include the names of the students whose scores have been corrected, the name of the examination, the students’ original and corrected scores, and a brief explanation of the nature of the scoring error that was corrected.
If an administrator has substantial reason to believe that the teacher scoring committee has failed to accurately score more than five student answer papers on any examination, the administrator must first obtain permission in writing from the Office of State Assessment before arranging for or permitting a rescoring of student papers. The written request to the Office of State Assessment must come from the superintendent of a public school district or the chief administrative officer of a nonpublic or charter school and must include the examination title, date of administration, and number of students whose papers would be subject to such rescoring. This request must also include a statement explaining why the administrator believes that the teacher scoring committee failed to score appropriately and, thus, why he or she believes rescoring the examination papers is necessary. As part of this submission, the school administrator must make clear his or her understanding that such extraordinary re-rating may be carried out only by a full committee of teachers constituted in accordance with the scoring guidelines presented above and fully utilizing the scoring materials for this test provided by the Department.
The Department sometimes finds it necessary to notify schools of a revision to the scoring key and rating guide for an examination. Should this occur after the scoring committee has completed its work, the principal is authorized to have appropriate members of the scoring committee review students’ responses only to the specific question(s) referenced in the notification and to adjust students’ final examination scores when appropriate. Only in such circumstances is the school not required to notify or obtain approval from the Department to correct students’ final examination scores.

APPENDIX

Generic Scoring Rubric
Social Studies Thematic Essay
Revised 2004

Score of 5:

• Thoroughly develops all aspects of the task evenly and in depth
• Is more analytical than descriptive (analyzes, evaluates, and/or creates* information)
• Richly supports the theme with many relevant facts, examples, and details
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that are beyond a restatement of the theme

Score of 4:

• Develops all aspects of the task but may do so somewhat unevenly
• Is both descriptive and analytical (applies, analyzes, evaluates, and/or creates information)
• Supports the theme with relevant facts, examples, and details
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that are beyond a restatement of the theme

Score of 3:

• Develops all aspects of the task with little depth or develops most aspects of the task in some depth
• Is more descriptive than analytical (applies, may analyze, and/or evaluate information)
• Includes some relevant facts, examples, and details; may include some minor inaccuracies
• Demonstrates a satisfactory plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that may be a restatement of the theme

Score of 2:

• Minimally develops all aspects of the task or develops some aspects of the task in some depth
• Is primarily descriptive; may include faulty, weak, or isolated application or analysis
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, and details; may include some inaccuracies
• Demonstrates a general plan of organization; may lack focus; may contain digressions; may not clearly identify which aspect of the task is being addressed; may lack an introduction and/or a conclusion

Score of 1:

• Minimally develops some aspects of the task
• Is descriptive; may lack understanding, application, or analysis
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, or details; may include inaccuracies
• May demonstrate a weakness in organization; may lack focus; may contain digressions; may not clearly identify which aspect of the task is being addressed; may lack an introduction and/or a conclusion

Score of 0:
Fails to develop the task or may only refer to the theme in a general way; OR includes no relevant facts, examples, or details; OR includes only the theme, task, or suggestions as copied from the test booklet; OR is illegible; OR is a blank paper

* The term create as used by Anderson/Krathwohl, et al. in their 2001 revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives refers to the highest level of the cognitive domain. This usage of create is similar to Bloom’s use of the term synthesis. Creating implies an insightful reorganization of information into a new pattern or whole. While a level 5 paper will contain analysis and/or evaluation of information, a very strong paper may also include examples of creating information as defined by Anderson and Krathwohl.

Generic Scoring Rubric
Social Studies Document-Based Essay
Revised 2004

Score of 5:

• Thoroughly develops all aspects of the task evenly and in depth
• Is more analytical than descriptive (analyzes, evaluates, and/or creates* information)
• Incorporates relevant information from at least X documents
• Incorporates substantial relevant outside information
• Richly supports the theme with many relevant facts, examples, and details
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that are beyond a restatement of the theme

Score of 4:

• Develops all aspects of the task but may do so somewhat unevenly
• Is both descriptive and analytical (applies, analyzes, evaluates, and/or creates information)
• Incorporates relevant information from at least X documents
• Incorporates relevant outside information
• Supports the theme with relevant facts, examples, and details
• Demonstrates a logical and clear plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that are beyond a restatement of the theme

Score of 3:

• Develops all aspects of the task with little depth or develops most aspects of the task in some depth
• Is more descriptive than analytical (applies, may analyze, and/or evaluate information)
• Incorporates some relevant information from some of the documents
• Incorporates limited relevant outside information
• Includes some relevant facts, examples, and details; may include some minor inaccuracies
• Demonstrates a satisfactory plan of organization; includes an introduction and a conclusion that may be a restatement of the theme

Score of 2:

• Minimally develops all aspects of the task or develops some aspects of the task in some depth
• Is primarily descriptive; may include faulty, weak, or isolated application or analysis
• Incorporates limited relevant information from the documents or consists primarily of relevant information copied from the documents
• Presents little or no relevant outside information
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, and details; may include some inaccuracies
• Demonstrates a general plan of organization; may lack focus; may contain digressions; may not clearly identify which aspect of the task is being addressed; may lack an introduction and/or a conclusion

Score of 1:

• Minimally develops some aspects of the task
• Is descriptive; may lack understanding, application, or analysis
• Makes vague, unclear references to the documents or consists primarily of relevant and irrelevant information copied from the documents
• Presents no relevant outside information
• Includes few relevant facts, examples, or details; may include inaccuracies
• May demonstrate a weakness in organization; may lack focus; may contain digressions; may not clearly identify which aspect of the task is being addressed; may lack an introduction and/or a conclusion

Score of 0:
Fails to develop the task or may only refer to the theme in a general way; OR includes no relevant facts, examples, or details; OR includes only the historical context and/or task as copied from the test booklet; OR includes only entire documents copied from the test booklet; OR is illegible; OR is a blank paper
* The term create as used by Anderson/Krathwohl, et al. in their 2001 revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives refers to the highest level of the cognitive domain. This usage of create is similar to Bloom’s use of the term synthesis. Creating implies an insightful reorganization of information into a new pattern or whole. While a level 5 paper will contain analysis and/or evaluation of information, a very strong paper may also include examples of creating information as defined by Anderson and Krathwohl.

Rating Sheet (Check one examination title below.)