Science Task Screener

Task Title: Nuclear Processes at Millstone Power Station

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-05-24

SEP: Developing and Using Models, Engaging in Argument from Evidence

DCI: PS1.C: Nuclear Processes, ESS3.A: Natural Resources

CCC: Energy and Matter, Stability and Change

Task Purpose: To assess students’ ability to model nuclear fission, compare energy scales of nuclear vs. chemical reactions, and perform a cost-benefit analysis of nuclear energy (specifically referencing the Millstone plant).

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

i. The task is driven by a high-quality scenario.

Features Yes Somewhat No Rationale
The scenario is real, or it is a highly probable and accurately represented fictional scenario [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario focuses on the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, a real power plant in CT, and uses a scientifically accurate simulation of U-235 fission.
The scenario describes a specific instance of a phenomenon or problem, and the scenario context is required to respond to the task [x] [ ] [ ] The task specifically asks students to evaluate Millstone in the context of carbon emissions vs waste storage.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The prompt frames Millstone as providing a massive portion of Connecticut’s electricity and situates it within the global need to reduce carbon emissions.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The language is straightforward and accessible to high schoolers.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The context is brief and leads directly into the simulation instructions and questions.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario provides both the scientific context (fission simulation) and the societal context (cost-benefit analysis).
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The scenario is clear, highly relevant locally, and tightly integrated into the tasks.

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.

Students must reason about the ratio of energy released in fission vs chemical reactions (comparing 200 MeV to ~4 eV) to understand the massive scale difference, and use reasoning to weigh the competing factors in the cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power.

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?)

Developing and Using Models: Students use the interactive MillstoneNuclearFission.html simulation to model the fission of U-235, analyzing inputs and outputs. Engaging in Argument from Evidence: Students perform a cost-benefit analysis and defend their position on nuclear energy using evidence from the simulation and societal context.

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

Energy and Matter: Students track the conservation of nucleons (protons/neutrons) during the fission process and analyze the enormous release of energy.

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

PS1.C: Nuclear Processes: Students demonstrate understanding of nuclear fission, the splitting of a heavy nucleus into lighter nuclei and neutrons, and the energy associated with it. ESS3.A: Natural Resources: Students evaluate the use of nuclear fuel as an energy resource, considering both environmental impacts and benefits.

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.

Students integrate the model of nuclear processes (SEP, DCI) with the concept of massive energy scale (CCC) to construct a reasoned argument (SEP) evaluating an energy resource (DCI).

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).

Question 6 explicitly requires students to “Defend your position using specific evidence”, forcing them to articulate their reasoning and how they weigh the competing factors.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None. The three dimensions are tightly woven together in the final evaluation prompt.

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 explicitly connects the abstract concept of nuclear fission to the Millstone Power Station in Connecticut, making it highly locally relevant to students in the state. Furthermore, it connects this to the global issue of climate change and carbon emissions.

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.

Students engage with an interactive simulation visually and then respond via written text. The evaluation could easily be adapted into a class debate or oral presentation.

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] [ ] [ ] Part 1 acts as a scaffold, ensuring understanding of the science before moving to the complex societal evaluation in Part 2.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The logical flow from basic mechanism -> energy scale -> societal impact is clear.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The context of local infrastructure affects all students in the region.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Low-achieving students can successfully analyze the simulation, while high-achieving students can construct highly nuanced arguments in the final question.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Scientific terms are clearly defined or contextualized by the simulation.

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.

The final cost-benefit analysis has no single “correct” answer for the overall conclusion; it allows students to reflect their own values regarding the trade-offs between climate change mitigation and long-term nuclear waste risks, empowering them to form scientific opinions.

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.

The task assumes some prior knowledge of chemical reactions (for the comparison in Q3) and basic knowledge of climate change/carbon emissions, which are standard for high school physical/earth sciences. The simulation provides the novel nuclear concepts.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation accurately models U-235 fission, the production of Ba-144, Kr-89, and 3 neutrons, and the ~200 MeV energy release.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None. The task is well-structured and highly 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-PS1-8 (modeling nuclear processes) and HS-ESS3-2 (evaluating energy resources).

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
    • Summative
    • Determining whether students learned what they just experienced
    • 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, students must use the simulation to understand the energy scale (HS-PS1-8) to inform their evaluation (HS-ESS3-2).

  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.

No.

  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)?

Yes, the final argumentative response clearly demonstrates whether the student can synthesize the scientific facts with the societal 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 written responses, particularly the calculation in Q3 and the argumentative essay in Q6, are direct observable artifacts of their three-dimensional learning.

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:

Teachers should look for the mathematical comparison in Q3 (~50 million times more energy) and evidence from both environmental (carbon-free) and safety (radiation) domains in Q6.

  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 two-part structure helps isolate errors. If a student struggles with Q6, the teacher can check Q1-Q3 to see if the root issue was a misunderstanding of the basic science or a struggle with the argumentative writing.

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

This could springboard into deeper discussions about renewable vs non-renewable energy sources or advanced nuclear reactor designs.

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).

The prompts are clear and provide the necessary scaffolding without giving away the final argumentative conclusion.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

None.

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 is a strong, multi-dimensional assessment that effectively bridges core physical science concepts (nuclear fission, massive energy release) with earth/environmental science evaluations (energy resources, climate change, waste management). By grounding the task in the local context of the Millstone Power Station, it increases engagement and relevance for students.

Final recommendation (choose one):