Science Task Screener

Task Title: Crop Evolution and Selection: The Future of Farming

Grade: 10th Grade

Date: 2024-05-24

Instructions

Criterion A. Tasks are driven by high-quality scenarios that are grounded in phenomena or problems.

i. Making sense of a phenomenon or addressing a problem is necessary to accomplish the task.

What was in the task, where was it, and why is this evidence?

  1. Is a phenomenon and/or problem present?

Students must reason about why crop yields decrease when pest resistance increases naturally, explaining the biological trade-offs (e.g., the energy cost of defense mechanisms). They must also reason about the limitations of artificial selection regarding the pace of change, and the trade-offs regarding genetic diversity when using CRISPR-Cas9.

  1. Is information from the scenario necessary to respond successfully to the task?

Analyzing and Interpreting Data: Students analyze data from the simulation’s graphs to describe quantitative trends in crop yield and pest resistance across 10 generations. Constructing Explanations: Students construct an evidence-based explanation for their final recommendation for the global agricultural council regarding which method to prioritize.

ii. The task scenario is engaging, relevant, and accessible to a wide range of students.

Features of engaging, relevant, and accessible tasks:

Features of scenarios Yes Somewhat No Rationale
Scenario presents real-world observations [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario describes the real-world effects of climate change and pests on crop yields.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It focuses specifically on breeding a new strain of wheat resistant to a newly emerged pest.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The challenge of feeding 10 billion people despite environmental hurdles is intriguing.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] It creates an urgency to find a solution to maintain global food security.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The solution relies entirely on high-school level concepts of selection and adaptation.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses textual descriptions and a highly interactive visual simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation generates well-crafted, realistic ecological data trends over generations.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario explicitly states the global need to feed 10 billion people by 2050, highlighting universal relevance.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario uses clear language accessible to high school biology students.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The background context is concise, establishing the problem without unnecessary jargon.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario provides enough context to understand why farmers would use natural selection, artificial selection, or CRISPR.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [x] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The scenario is engaging and clearly sets the stage for the task.

Criterion B. Tasks require sense-making using the three dimensions.

i. Completing the task requires students to use reasoning to sense-make about phenomena or problems.

Consider in what ways the task requires students to use reasoning to engage in sense-making and/or problem solving.

Cause and Effect: Students use the concept of cause and effect to link the different selection methods (natural vs. artificial vs. CRISPR) to the resulting rapid or slow changes in population trait averages over time.

ii. The task requires students to demonstrate grade-appropriate dimensions:

Evidence of SEPs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)

LS4.C Adaptation and LS4.B Natural Selection: Students apply the DCI of Adaptation and Natural Selection to explain how specific selective pressures (pests) drive population shifts, how artificial selection relies on existing genetic variation, and how CRISPR bypasses these traditional constraints by directly editing the genome.

Evidence of CCCs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)

The final recommendation question (Part 4) explicitly requires students to integrate the SEPs (Constructing an Argument, Using Evidence), the CCC (Cause and Effect of different selection methods), and the DCIs (Adaptation, Genetic Variation) to propose a scientifically sound solution to the global food security problem presented in the scenario.

Evidence of DCIs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)

The task explicitly prompts students to explain “why” traits changed, what the mechanism of selection was, and to justify their final recommendation using “specific data points” from their simulation trials. This forces them to show their analytical process.

iii. The task requires students to integrate multiple dimensions in service of sense-making and/or problem-solving.

Consider in what ways the task requires students to use multiple dimensions together.

The task is framed around global food security and climate change, a universally relevant issue that students can connect to current events, grocery store prices, and their own understanding of agriculture.

iv. The task requires students to make their thinking visible.

Consider in what ways the task explicitly prompts students to make their thinking visible (surfaces current understanding, abilities, gaps, problematic ideas).

Students interact with a dynamic visual simulation, collect numerical data, analyze real-time graphs, and respond with written explanations and arguments.

Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None. The task requires deep, three-dimensional reasoning.

Criterion C. Tasks are fair and equitable.

i. The task provides ways for students to make connections of local, global, or universal relevance.

Consider specific features of the task that enable students to make local, global, or universal connections to the phenomenon/problem and task at hand. Note: This criterion emphasizes ways for students to find meaning in the task; this does not mean “interest.” Consider whether the task is a meaningful, valuable endeavor that has real-world relevance–that some stakeholder group locally, globally, or universally would be invested in.

The task positions the student as an active agricultural scientist solving a real-world problem. By allowing them to control the “Artificial Selection” and “CRISPR” interventions, it fosters agency and demonstrates how engineering and biotechnology can directly address global challenges.

ii. The task includes multiple modes for students to respond to the task.

Describe what modes (written, oral, video, simulation, direct observation, peer discussion, etc.) are expected/possible.

The task assumes prior basic instruction on the mechanisms of natural selection and the concept of genetic variation, which aligns with standard 10th-grade biology curriculum sequencing before introducing advanced biotechnology.

iii. The task is accessible, appropriate, and cognitively demanding for all learners (including English learners or students working below/above grade level).

Features Yes Somewhat No Rationale
Task includes appropriate scaffolds [x] [ ] [ ] The task is broken down into three clear parts (Natural, Artificial, CRISPR) before asking for a final synthesis.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from natural to artificial to genetic modification makes logical sense historically and biologically.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The context of agriculture and food is culturally ubiquitous.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The initial questions rely on direct observation of data, while the later questions require deeper synthesis and argumentation.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The language is straightforward and grade-appropriate, with bolding to highlight key terms.

iv. The task cultivates students’ interest in and confidence with science and engineering.

Consider how the task cultivates students interest in and confidence with science and engineering, including opportunities for students to reflect their own ideas as a meaningful part of the task; make decisions about how to approach a task; engage in peer/self-reflection; and engage with tasks that matter to students.

There are no scientific inaccuracies. The simulation accurately models the constraints of natural and artificial selection (requiring existing genetic variation) compared to the direct editing capabilities of CRISPR. The inverse relationship between yield and resistance (biological cost of defense) is a realistic ecological principle.

v. The task focuses on performances for which students’ learning experiences have prepared them (opportunity to learn considerations).

Consider the ways in which provided information about students’ prior learning (e.g., instructional materials, storylines, assumed instructional experiences) enables or prevents students’ engagement with the task and educator interpretation of student responses.

Yes, students cannot successfully construct their final argument without understanding how natural selection leads to adaptation and how it compares to artificial methods.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

Describe evidence of scientific inaccuracies explicitly or implicitly promoted by the task.

Basic graph reading skills are required, but this is a prerequisite skill for 10th-grade science and does not interfere with the core assessment.

Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [x] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None. The task is accessible and relevant.

Criterion D. Tasks support their intended targets and purpose.

Before you begin:

  1. Describe what is being assessed. Include any targets provided, such as dimensions, elements, or PEs:

The task assesses HS-LS4-4: Construct an explanation based on evidence for how natural selection leads to adaptation of populations. It targets the SEPs of Analyzing Data and Constructing Explanations, the DCIs of Natural Selection and Adaptation, and the CCC of Cause and Effect.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • [x] Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
    • [ ] Summative
    • [x] Determining whether students learned what they just experienced
    • [x] Determining whether students can apply what they have learned to a similar but new context
    • [ ] Determining whether students can generalize their learning to a different context
    • [ ] Other (please specify):

i. The task assesses what it is intended to assess and supports the purpose for which it is intended.

Consider the following:

  1. Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task?

Yes, the final written argument provides direct evidence of whether the student understands the mechanisms, trade-offs, and causes/effects of the three different evolutionary pathways.

  1. Are any ideas, practices, or experiences not targeted by the assessment necessary to respond to the task? Consider the impact this has on students’ ability to complete the task and interpretation of student responses.

The completed student handout serves as the primary artifact. The written responses to the analysis questions make the students’ sense-making visible. The final recommendation paragraph forces them to synthesize all three dimensions (SEP: Explanation, CCC: Cause/Effect, DCI: Adaptation) into a single artifact.

  1. Do the student responses elicited support the purpose of the task (e.g., if a task is intended to help teachers determine if students understand the distinction between cause and correlation, does the task support this inference)?

While a separate, formal grading rubric is not provided as a standalone document, the prompt for the final question acts as an embedded rubric for the student (and teacher), explicitly stating they must include: a claim, evidence (data points), reasoning (connections to DCI), and discussion of trade-offs.

ii. The task elicits artifacts from students as direct, observable evidence of how well students can use the targeted dimensions together to make sense of phenomena and design solutions to problems.

Consider what student artifacts are produced and how these provide students the opportunity to make visible their 1) sense-making processes, 2) thinking across all three dimensions, and 3) ability to use multiple dimensions together [note: these artifacts should connect back to the evidence described for Criterion B].

The step-by-step nature of Parts 1-3 allows a teacher to isolate exactly where a student’s understanding might be breaking down before they attempt the final synthesis in Part 4.

iii. Supporting materials include clear answer keys, rubrics, and/or scoring guidelines that are connected to the three-dimensional target. They provide the necessary and sufficient guidance for interpreting student responses relative to the purpose of the assessment, all targeted dimensions, and the three-dimensional target.

Consider how well the materials support teachers and students in making sense of student responses and planning for follow up (grading, instructional moves), consistent with the purpose of and targets for the assessment. Consider in what ways rubrics include:

  1. Guidance for interpreting student thinking using an integrated approach, considering all three dimensions together as well as calling out specific supports for individual dimensions, if appropriate:

The task naturally leads into future instruction on the ethics of biotechnology, GMOs, and modern agricultural practices.

  1. Support for interpreting a range of student responses, including those that might reflect partial scientific understanding or mask/misrepresent students’ actual science understanding (e.g., because of language barriers, lack of prompting or disconnect between the intent and student interpretation of the task, variety in communication approaches):

The instructions for using the simulation are explicit (e.g., “Set Pest Pressure to 50”, “Run for 10 generations”). This removes technical ambiguity, allowing the student to focus their cognitive effort entirely on the analytical thinking required by the subsequent questions.

  1. Ways to connect student responses to prior experiences and future planned instruction by teachers and participation by students:

Students must reason about why crop yields decrease when pest resistance increases naturally, explaining the biological trade-offs (e.g., the energy cost of defense mechanisms). They must also reason about the limitations of artificial selection regarding the pace of change, and the trade-offs regarding genetic diversity when using CRISPR-Cas9.

iv. The task’s prompts and directions provide sufficient guidance for the teacher to administer it effectively and for the students to complete it successfully while maintaining high levels of students’ analytical thinking as appropriate.

Consider any confusing prompts or directions, and evidence for too much or too little scaffolding/supports for students (relative to the target of the assessment—e.g., a task is intended to elicit student understanding of a DCI, but their response is so heavily scripted that it prevents students from actually showing their ability to apply the DCI).

Analyzing and Interpreting Data: Students analyze data from the simulation’s graphs to describe quantitative trends in crop yield and pest resistance across 10 generations. Constructing Explanations: Students construct an evidence-based explanation for their final recommendation for the global agricultural council regarding which method to prioritize.

Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [x] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

A formal teacher-facing grading rubric mapped to the NGSS evidence statements for HS-LS4-4 could be developed as a supplementary resource.

Overall Summary

Consider the task purpose and the evidence you gathered for each criterion. Carefully consider the purpose and intended use of the task, your evidence, reasoning, and ratings to make a summary recommendation about using this task. While general guidance is provided below, it is important to remember that the intended use of the task plays a big role in determining whether the task is worth students’ and teachers’ time.

The task “Crop Evolution and Selection: The Future of Farming” is a high-quality, three-dimensional NGSS assessment. It effectively leverages the Crop Evolution simulation to allow students to generate and analyze data regarding different selection mechanisms. The scenario is globally relevant, engaging, and directly targets the performance expectation HS-LS4-4. The task expertly scaffolds student learning, beginning with direct observation of natural selection and culminating in a complex synthesis argument evaluating the biological mechanisms and ecological trade-offs of natural selection, artificial selection, and CRISPR genetic modification for future food security.

Final recommendation (choose one):