Science Task Screener

Task Title: Optimizing the Haber Process: Designing for Maximum Ammonia Yield

Grade: 11th Grade

Date: October 2023

Instructions

Before you begin: Complete the task as a student would. Then, consider any support materials provided to teachers or students, such as contextual information about the task and answer keys/scoring guidance.
Using the Task Screener: Use this tool to evaluate tasks designed for three-dimensional standards. For each criterion, record your evidence for the presence or absence of the associated indicators. After you have decided to what degree the indicators are present within the task, revisit the purpose of your task and decide whether the evidence supports using it.

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?

Is a phenomenon and/or problem present?

Yes. The problem is designing optimal conditions for the Haber process to maximize ammonia yield while keeping costs reasonable (e.g., managing high temperatures and pressures).

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

Yes. Students must use the simulation to figure out how varying concentration, temperature, and volume shifts equilibrium.

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]	[ ]	[ ]	Modeling an actual industrial process with real operating trade-offs.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Specifically looks at the Haber-Bosch synthesis of Ammonia.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Students have to uncover the inverse relationship between yield and reaction rate via temperature.
Scenarios create a “need to know”	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	It frames optimization as an engineering challenge.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Le Chatelier’s principle and collision theory cover the reasoning perfectly.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions)	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Simulation visualizations and data graphing are used together.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	The simulation provides realistic equilibrium shifts based on Keq.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Global agriculture relies on ammonia fertilizers.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Visual representations simplify the complex abstract math.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Brief setup leading straight into the interactive investigation.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Rich enough to cover concentration, temperature, and pressure effects.

Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[x] Adequate

[ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None.

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 reason out why increased pressure favors the products by observing the number of moles of gas, and why temperature affects rate differently than equilibrium yield.

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?)

Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking, Constructing Explanations.

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

Stability and Change, Energy and Matter.

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

PS1.B: Chemical Reactions.

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 track how changes (CCC) in energy profiles and pressure affect chemical reactions (DCI) to construct a final optimization explanation (SEP).

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 must generate a final written recommendation justifying their chosen industrial conditions.

Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[x] Adequate

[ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None.

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.

Highlights the impact of chemical engineering on society (fertilizer and global food supply).

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.

Simulation interaction, written response, and data tables.

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]	[ ]	[ ]	Tests one variable at a time before combining them.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Progression from learning the concept to applying it works well.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Highly visual reliance over text.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	The final synthesis question requires high-level integrated thought.
Tasks use accessible language	[x]	[ ]	[ ]	Standard scientific terms without convolution.

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.

It empowers students to act as engineers choosing real-world parameters.

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.

Assumes students already know collision theory and basic reaction dynamics.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

No inaccuracies. The Haber process modeling is authentic.

Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[x] Adequate

[ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None.

Criterion D. Tasks support their intended targets and purpose.

Before you begin:

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

A high-quality 3D assessment of HS-PS1-6: Refine the design of a chemical system by specifying a change in conditions that would produce increased amounts of products at equilibrium.

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:

Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task?

Yes, they must refine the conditions to increase the amount of product.

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.

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.

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 engineering proposal balances cost and yield.

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:

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:

Provides expected parameter ranges for full credit.

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):

Clear differentiation between knowing what shifts equilibrium vs deciding on practical compromises.

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

Serves as a great finale for an equilibrium unit.

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).

Directions are supportive without revealing the underlying physical chemistry principle.

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.

This is a complete, high-quality, and equitable NGSS task that perfectly aligns with HS-PS1-6.

Final recommendation (choose one):

Use this task (all criteria had at least an “adequate” rating)
Modify and use this task
Do not use this task