Science Task Screener

Task Title: Coal Mining: Economics & Environmental Impact Task

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-04-26

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?

The task is anchored in the phenomenon that the economic costs of land reclamation can make it unprofitable to carelessly extract natural resources, forcing mining companies to balance profit and environmental stewardship.

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

Students must interact with the Coal Mining simulation to obtain specific revenue and cost data necessary to complete the task. Without the simulation scenario, students cannot calculate the cost-benefit ratio.

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 is based on real-world economic and environmental interactions in coal mining.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The task centers on evaluating two specific mining strategies: Standard Seam Mine vs Premium Vein Mine.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] Students face an intriguing dilemma of trying to maximize profit while avoiding mandatory reclamation penalties.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know the resulting revenues and fees to evaluate which strategy is optimal.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario requires students to use HS-level cost-benefit analysis and logical arguments.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task utilizes textual descriptions, data tables, and an interactive computational simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation produces dynamic, well-crafted economic and environmental impact data.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario involves real-world consequences relevant to environmental stewardship and business operations.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The task language is accessible and the simulation instructions are clearly laid out step-by-step.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The 5E handout is concise, focusing heavily on interactive simulation use rather than long texts.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is robust enough to provide distinct datasets for comparing mining strategies.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The scenario fully meets the criteria for engaging students.

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 use reasoning to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of different mining approaches, requiring them to synthesize cost and revenue data.

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?)

Students engage in Argument from Evidence by using empirical simulation data to support a claim about which mining strategy is more effective.

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

Students use the crosscutting concept of Engineering/Technology Influence on Society by exploring how environmental regulations constrain design solutions.

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

Students use ESS3.A by examining the economic and environmental costs and risks associated with resource extraction.

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 requires students to integrate their SEP (Argument from Evidence) with the DCI (Natural Resources) to evaluate the scenario.

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).

The task makes thinking visible by requiring a written scientific argument containing a claim, evidence, and reasoning.

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

The task explicitly grounds the problem in a real-world dilemma: balancing the local environmental impact of mining in West Virginia against global economic demands.

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 have opportunities to express learning through data collection, interactive exploration, and written argument.

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 5E structure provides a clear, guided sequence from exploration to explanation and evaluation.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The flow from initial questioning to simulation use, data analysis, and final recommendation is highly coherent.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario focuses on universally understood concepts of cost and environmental impact without relying on culturally specific idioms.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The structured data collection aids lower-achieving students, while the final argument and extension challenge high-achieving students.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses grade-appropriate vocabulary and provides clear contexts for new 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.

The real-world role-play aspect (acting as a CEO) cultivates interest and agency.

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 aligns directly with HS-ESS3-2 and provides clear opportunities to learn the target material.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation and task prompts are scientifically and economically sound representations of modern mining tradeoffs.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None.

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 students’ ability to evaluate competing design solutions for resource extraction based on cost-benefit ratios (HS-ESS3-2).

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • [x] Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
    • [x] 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?

Understanding the target DCI and SEP is necessary to construct a valid final recommendation.

  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 non-targeted ideas or experiences are required to complete the task.

  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)?

The final written argument provides clear evidence supporting the purpose of evaluating cost-benefit analysis skills.

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 primary artifact is the one-paragraph scientific argument, which makes student reasoning directly visible.

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 instructions explicitly map the required components of the scientific argument to the 3D learning goals.

  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 scaffolded questions in the ‘Explain’ section allow teachers to identify partial understanding before the final essay.

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

The extension question explicitly connects the current learning to future engineering and problem-solving concepts.

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 5E sequence provides highly sufficient and clear directions for both the teacher and the students.

Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] 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 Coal Mining Economics task is a highly effective, 3D-aligned activity that successfully uses an interactive simulation to engage students in real-world cost-benefit analysis. It provides strong scaffolds and clear opportunities for students to make their reasoning visible.

Final recommendation (choose one):