Science Task Screener
Task Title: Connecticut Coastal Erosion & Sea-Level Rise Simulator Task
Grade: High School
Date: 2023-10-27
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?
The task centers on the real-world phenomenon of Connecticut coastal erosion, marsh migration, and sea-level rise.
- Is information from the scenario necessary to respond successfully to the task?
Without using the simulation and understanding the scenario, students cannot answer the prompts about mitigation strategies and erosion rates.
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 phenomenon relies on observed data regarding coastal erosion and flooding in CT. |
| Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Focuses specifically on the Connecticut coastline and historic beachfront communities. |
| Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Engages students by asking why marshes are migrating and how severe storms amplify the effect. |
| Scenarios create a “need to know” | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Prompts students to wonder what data is needed to figure out why this is happening. |
| Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Students use data analysis, climate change concepts, and stability and change to explain. |
| Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The task utilizes textual descriptions and a computational simulation. |
| If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The simulation provides realistic output data on sea-level rise and erosion. |
| The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | It explicitly discusses the relevance to Connecticut coastal communities. |
| Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The language is clear and scaffolded through the 5E structure. |
| Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The phenomenon is succinct and direct. |
| Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Yes, it drives the entire investigation and mitigation evaluation. |
| Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:
None. The scenario is well-crafted.
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 use the computational simulation to collect data on sea level, erosion, and marsh health across different emissions scenarios.
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 evaluate the stability of the ecosystem and whether changes are reversible based on the collected data.
Evidence of CCCs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)
Students apply their understanding of Global Climate Change (ESS3.D) by analyzing the impacts of different emissions trajectories.
Evidence of DCIs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)
The task requires students to construct an argument using their analyzed data.
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 successfully integrates the SEP of Analyzing and Interpreting Data with the CCC of Stability and Change and the DCI of ESS3.D.
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’s progression naturally leads students from exploring data to making sense of it through explanation and argumentation.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:
None. The scenario is well-crafted.
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.
Students are asked to identify a source of uncertainty in the computational models, explicitly targeting the Nature of Science.
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 argumentation section requires students to draw on all three dimensions to support their claims.
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 clear guidance. |
| Tasks are coherent from a student perspective | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The progression from explore to explain to elaborate is logical. |
| Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | It focuses on local CT issues, making it relevant. |
| Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The open-ended argumentation allows for varied depth of response. |
| Tasks use accessible language | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Vocabulary is grade-appropriate and clearly defined. |
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.
Students produce a data collection table and a written argument, which serve as artifacts demonstrating their sense-making.
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 rubric should evaluate how well students integrate simulation data to support their proposed mitigation strategy.
vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.
Describe evidence of scientific inaccuracies explicitly or implicitly promoted by the task.
The final written argument provides a clear opportunity for students to make their thinking visible.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:
None. The scenario is well-crafted.
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:
Assess student understanding of HS-ESS3-5 through data analysis and argument construction.
- 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): N/A
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?
The task connects directly to the driving phenomenon of coastal erosion and climate change impacts.
- 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 activity is well-scaffolded, ensuring students understand the data before asking them to draw complex conclusions.
- 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 simulation allows for ongoing peer review as students collaborate to find the optimal mitigation strategy.
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 data table generated by students serves as a concrete artifact of their data collection and analysis processes.
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:
The written argument artifact demonstrates the student’s ability to synthesize data and apply climate change concepts.
- 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):
Evaluating different mitigation strategies forces students to weigh trade-offs and consider complex system interactions.
- Ways to connect student responses to prior experiences and future planned instruction by teachers and participation by students:
The argumentative essay specifically measures the depth of understanding regarding the reversibility of climate impacts.
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 design of the task ensures that all three NGSS dimensions are inherently utilized when constructing the final argument.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:
None. The scenario is well-crafted.
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 robust NGSS-aligned activity that effectively uses a computational simulation to teach students about climate change impacts, data analysis, and stability and change.
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