WGU C871: MA, Science Education Teacher Performance Assessment

WGU C871, the Teacher Performance Assessment in Science Education, is the course where everything you have learned in your science teaching program comes together. Instead of answering multiple-choice questions on a screen, you demonstrate that you can actually teach. C871 is a performance assessment (PA): you plan a multi-week, standards-based science unit, teach it to real students in a real classroom, gather evidence of what those students learned, and then analyze and reflect on your own practice. It typically sits near the end of the MA and MAT Science Education degree paths, alongside or as part of your demonstration teaching experience.

Direct answer: You pass C871 by treating it as a document-your-teaching project, not a test. Read the task prompts and the scoring rubric before you plan a single lesson, then build your unit, your assessments, and your written commentary so that every rubric row has clear, specific evidence tied to your own students and your own decisions. Follow the prompts literally, cite the sources they ask for, and revise based on evaluator feedback.

This course matters because it is the closest thing to a licensure gate you will face in your program. Your written submission is reviewed by trained evaluators who are looking for direct evidence that you can plan instruction, assess learning, make in-the-moment adjustments, and reflect honestly. Anxiety around it is normal, and much of that anxiety comes from not knowing what "good" looks like. The goal of this guide is to make the target concrete so you can prepare deliberately rather than guessing.

What C871 Actually Asks You to Produce

C871 is built around a connected set of tasks that document one instructional unit from start to finish. WGU's teacher performance assessment structure organizes this evidence into components that, together, tell the full story of a unit. Expect to address areas like these:

• Contextual factors: a description of your school, classroom, and learners, including how student characteristics inform your planning.
• Learning goals: measurable objectives aligned to relevant science standards.
• Assessment plan: pre-, formative, and post-assessments that actually measure the goals you set.
• Design for instruction: a sequenced, multi-week unit with activities, materials, and rationale.
• Instructional decision-making: evidence of how you adjusted teaching based on what students did.
• Analysis of student learning: data showing whether students met the goals, disaggregated to individuals and subgroups.
• Self-evaluation and reflection: an honest account of what worked, what did not, and what you would change.

The exact prompt names, number of tasks, and any use of a standardized instrument can differ by program version and cohort, so always work from the current task instructions in your own course of study rather than from any secondhand summary, including this one.

How Demanding Is It, and How Long Should You Plan For?

Many students report that C871 is one of the more demanding requirements in the program, not because the concepts are hard but because it is long, detailed, and dependent on classroom access. You cannot cram it. The writing alone is substantial, and it has to be backed by a unit you genuinely taught. Students commonly describe spending several weeks on it, with the timeline driven mostly by the length of the unit they teach and the turnaround on evaluator feedback.

A realistic expectation is to give yourself the full teaching window plus dedicated writing time, and to assume at least one revision cycle. Submissions frequently come back for revision on a specific rubric row, which is routine, not a failure. Building in slack for that back-and-forth is far less stressful than assuming a single perfect submission.

A Study and Preparation Plan That Fits a Performance Task

Traditional test-prep tactics still help here, but you apply them to your own writing and planning rather than to a question bank.

• Reverse-engineer from the rubric. Before planning, read every rubric row and rewrite each one in your own words. This is active recall applied to the assessment itself, and it prevents the most common failure: strong teaching that the write-up never actually evidences.
• Draft against the prompts, not around them. Paste each task prompt into your document as a heading and answer it directly underneath. Evaluators score what maps to the prompt.
• Space out the work. Break the submission into components and complete one every few days rather than marathoning it. Spacing keeps quality high across a long document.
• Use real student data. Your analysis section is only as strong as the assessment data you collected, so design your pre- and post-assessments carefully and keep clean records as you teach.
• Cite what you claim. When you reference standards, research, or pedagogical methods, name the source. Unsupported assertions are a frequent weak point.
• Get eyes on a draft early. Your course instructor or program mentor can flag gaps before you submit, which is faster than waiting for an evaluator to return it.

Because C871 rewards clear alignment between goals, instruction, and assessment, the same disciplined thinking that helped you in courses like D184 Standards-Based Assessment pays off directly here. If you found the classroom-climate and student-support ideas in D090 The School as a Community of Care useful, lean on them when you write your contextual factors section.

Where Students Most Often Lose Points

• Vague, non-measurable learning goals. If a goal cannot be assessed, the whole chain of evidence weakens.
• Assessments that do not match the goals. Post-tests that measure something other than the stated objective break your analysis.
• Describing teaching instead of showing decisions. Evaluators want the "why," including how student responses changed your next move.
• Thin analysis of student learning. Reporting an average without looking at individuals or subgroups misses the point of the task.
• Surface-level reflection. "It went well" is not reflection. Name specific changes you would make and why.
• Ignoring the prompt structure. Answering in a different order or skipping a sub-part is an easy, avoidable revision trigger.

C871 Readiness Checklist

Before you submit, work through these self-checks:

• Can you point to the exact rubric row that each part of your submission satisfies?
• Can you state each learning goal as a measurable outcome tied to a science standard?
• Can you show pre- and post-assessment data for the same students?
• Can you give a concrete example of an instructional adjustment you made and the student evidence that prompted it?
• Can you analyze results for individual students and at least one subgroup, not just the class average?
• Can you name specific sources for the standards, research, or methods you cite?
• Can you identify at least two concrete changes you would make if you taught the unit again?
• Have you answered every prompt in the order and structure the task requires?

FAQ

Is C871 an objective assessment or a performance assessment?

It is a performance assessment. There is no proctored multiple-choice test. You submit written tasks and instructional artifacts documenting a unit you planned and taught, and trained evaluators score them against a rubric.

How hard is WGU C871?

Many students describe it as challenging mainly because of its length and its dependence on real classroom teaching, rather than difficult content. The workload is heavy and detailed, so most people succeed by starting early and staying organized rather than by rushing.

How long does C871 usually take?

It varies widely because it depends on how long your taught unit runs and how quickly feedback comes back. Many students report spending several weeks on it and often going through at least one revision cycle, so plan for a generous window rather than a single sitting.

What does the assessment cover?

It covers your ability to plan a standards-based science unit, assess student learning, make instructional decisions in response to data, analyze results, and reflect on your practice. The evidence is organized into connected components that document the full unit.

Do revisions mean I failed?

No. Getting a submission returned for revision on a specific rubric row is a normal part of the process. Evaluators tell you what needs strengthening, you address it, and you resubmit. Treat feedback as a roadmap, not a verdict.

What should I do first when I start the course?

Read the current task instructions and the full rubric before planning anything, and confirm your classroom placement and timeline. Aligning your unit to the rubric from day one prevents most of the rework students run into later.

For related study guides, browse the School of Education hub or the full index of WGU course guides. You can also review WGU's official teaching degree information for program context. This site is an independent study resource and is not affiliated with or endorsed by WGU.