Science Task Screener

Task Title: Frost Heaves and Connecticut Stone Walls Task

Grade: High School

Date: 2026-04-15

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?

Yes. The task is anchored in a specific, observable phenomenon: the mysterious annual appearance of new rocks in Connecticut farm fields every spring, which led 18th-century farmers to build over 50,000 miles of stone walls. This phenomenon is introduced in the Introduction and drives the entire 5-part investigation.

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

Yes. Students must actively use the interactive simulation to generate data — running controlled trials across different soil moisture levels, winter severities, and soil types. The Chart.js graph, Data Log table, and canvas visualization provide the only source of evidence for constructing their explanation. The task cannot be completed without the simulation data.

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] [ ] [ ] Frost heaving is a real geological process observable in New England every spring. The 50,000+ miles of Connecticut stone walls are physical evidence.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] Anchored in the specific historical context of Connecticut agriculture and the tangible stone walls that remain today.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] “Where are these new rocks coming from?” is a genuinely puzzling question — the Earth appears to be “growing” rocks.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students must investigate the mechanism to explain why rocks keep appearing, driving them to run the simulation and collect data.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon is fully explainable using HS-level understanding of water properties, investigation design, and cause-and-effect reasoning.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Uses an interactive HTML5 canvas simulation, Chart.js data visualization, auto-populating data table, animated SVG ice lens diagram, and textual descriptions.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation models realistic freeze-thaw physics with accurate seasonal temperature curves, ice lens formation mechanics, and soil-specific capillarity values.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Directly relevant to Connecticut students who can visit stone walls in their communities. Also connects to universal processes affecting infrastructure worldwide.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation uses intuitive sliders, visual feedback, and clear labeling. The phenomenon (rocks appearing in fields) is concrete and observable.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] Task instructions are concise with clear numbered steps and data tables for organization.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides 4 soil types, continuous moisture range (0–100%), 4 winter severity levels, a Mystery Soil for extension, and year-by-year data logging — providing extensive material for investigation.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The locally anchored phenomenon, interactive simulation, and multiple data representations create a robust scenario.

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.

The task requires multi-level reasoning throughout. In Part 1, students must reason about water’s properties to generate a testable prediction. In Part 3, students must reason about which variables to control and which to manipulate, then interpret patterns across 10+ trials to identify cause-and-effect relationships. In Part 4, students must use comparative reasoning to characterize an unknown material. Part 5 requires synthesizing all evidence into a coherent causal chain explanation.

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?)

Planning and Carrying Out Investigations: Students plan a systematic, multi-trial investigation by manipulating one independent variable at a time (moisture, winter severity, soil type) while controlling others. They use the simulation’s Data Log and Chart.js graph to collect quantitative data across 10+ trials structured in Trial Sets A, B, and C. Part 4 extends this by requiring students to design their own comparison trials for the Mystery Soil.

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

Cause and Effect: Students must identify the cause (water’s ~9% expansion upon freezing), trace the multi-step mechanism (ice lens formation → rock heaving → soil backfill → ratchet effect), and explain the cumulative effect (rock migration to surface over many cycles). Part 5 explicitly requires students to “Apply the crosscutting concept of Cause and Effect” and address whether the relationship is simple or complex.

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

ESS2.A: Earth Materials and Systems: Students must apply understanding of water’s anomalous density behavior (expansion upon freezing) and how this property interacts with Earth materials (different soil types with varying capillarity, drainage, and particle size) to drive a surface process (frost heaving). The Ice Lens Close-Up diagram provides a visual model of the microscale mechanism.

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.

Part 5 (Construct Your Explanation) requires all three dimensions simultaneously: students must use evidence from their planned investigation (SEP) to explain how water’s properties interact with Earth materials (DCI) through a multi-step cause-and-effect chain (CCC) to answer the anchoring phenomenon. The dimensions cannot be separated — the explanation requires data from the investigation, knowledge of water’s behavior, and causal reasoning.

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 make their thinking visible at multiple points: the prediction prompt (Part 1) surfaces prior conceptions; the prediction-vs-reality comparison (Part 2) reveals gaps between expectation and observation; the data tables (Part 3) document their investigative choices; the Mystery Soil claim (Part 4) requires explicit reasoning about soil properties; and the final CER explanation (Part 5) requires articulating the complete causal mechanism.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Consider adding an explicit rubric or checklist within the task so students know the specific criteria their Part 5 explanation will be evaluated against.

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 phenomenon is deeply embedded in Connecticut’s cultural and geological heritage. Students in Connecticut can walk through forests and find these stone walls, making the science personally meaningful. The process also has global relevance — frost heaving damages roads, foundations, and pipelines in cold climates worldwide, making it a real engineering problem.

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 primary modes are interactive simulation manipulation, quantitative data collection and recording, graphical data interpretation (Chart.js), visual observation of the canvas animation, and written explanation. The task could be adapted for peer discussion during the prediction and mystery soil analysis phases.

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 chunked into 5 sequential parts with increasing cognitive demand. Data tables with pre-labeled columns scaffold data collection. The simulation provides visual feedback.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The narrative flows logically: predict → observe baseline → isolate variables → analyze mystery → explain. Each part builds on the previous one.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon is locally relevant to Connecticut students and uses standard scientific terminology without cultural idioms. The visual simulation reduces language barriers.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Data collection provides an accessible entry point. The Mystery Soil analysis and CER explanation provide a high ceiling for advanced reasoning.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Instructions use clear, concise language with bolded key terms. Scientific vocabulary (frost heaving, ice lens, capillarity) is introduced in context.

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 prediction-comparison loop (Parts 1–2) validates students’ prior knowledge while creating cognitive dissonance that motivates investigation. The Mystery Soil challenge gives students agency to design their own comparison trials. The simulation’s visual feedback (rocks visibly rising through soil, stone wall growing) makes the science tangible and rewarding.

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 students have basic understanding of states of matter (freezing/melting) and can operate interactive web controls (sliders, buttons). The simulation itself teaches the mechanism through visual feedback, making it largely self-contained. The “Physics of Frost Heaving” information panel provides essential background directly within the simulation interface.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

No inaccuracies identified. The simulation accurately models: water’s ~9% volumetric expansion upon freezing, ice lens formation through capillary action in fine-grained soils, the differential heaving rates across soil types (silt/loam > clay > sand), and the “ratchet effect” where soil backfill prevents rocks from returning to their original position.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Consider providing an optional glossary of key terms (frost heave, ice lens, capillarity, ratchet effect) for English learners. Teachers could also allow students to present their Part 5 explanation as an oral presentation or annotated diagram.

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:

HS-ESS2-5: Plan and conduct an investigation of the properties of water and its effects on Earth materials and surface processes. The task specifically targets water’s expansion upon freezing and its mechanical effect on rocks in soil (frost heaving).

  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 cannot complete the task without planning a controlled investigation (SEP), understanding water’s expansion upon freezing and its effect on Earth materials (DCI), and tracing cause-and-effect relationships (CCC). The PE is directly and necessarily assessed.

  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.

Basic computer literacy (operating sliders and buttons) and the ability to read data tables are required but do not present an undue burden. No non-targeted science content is required.

  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 controlled variable design (Part 3) directly demonstrates whether students understand how to isolate variables. The CER explanation (Part 5) reveals whether students understand the causal mechanism versus merely correlating observations.

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].

Student artifacts include: (1) written predictions revealing prior conceptions, (2) completed data tables from 10+ controlled trials demonstrating investigation design skills, (3) Mystery Soil analysis claims with evidence-based reasoning, and (4) a comprehensive written explanation integrating all three dimensions. The data tables show the SEP in action, while the final explanation demonstrates DCI and CCC integration.

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:

Part 5 provides five explicit bullet points that serve as a student-facing rubric: identify the property of water, describe the mechanism, use data to explain variable effects, apply cause and effect, and connect to the phenomenon. Each bullet integrates multiple dimensions.

  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 5-part structure allows teachers to pinpoint exactly where understanding breaks down. A student who collects good data but writes a weak explanation may understand the SEP but struggle with the DCI. A student who skips the Mystery Soil may lack confidence in independent investigation design.

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

Understanding frost heaving connects to broader topics: weathering and erosion, the water cycle, soil science, and the impact of climate change on freeze-thaw processes. The prediction-comparison loop provides a natural formative assessment entry point.

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 task strikes a good balance. Parts 1–3 provide structured data tables that scaffold data collection without scripting the analysis. Part 4 (Mystery Soil) is deliberately open-ended, requiring students to design their own comparison strategy. Part 5’s bullet points guide the explanation without dictating exact answers. The simulation’s built-in “Physics of Frost Heaving” panel provides reference information without giving away the answer.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Develop a formal teacher scoring rubric with exemplar student responses at multiple proficiency levels to support consistent grading across classrooms.

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 Frost Heaves and Connecticut Stone Walls Task is a high-quality, three-dimensional NGSS task that authentically integrates a locally relevant phenomenon with systematic investigation design. The simulation provides rich, interactive data sources that make the invisible process of frost heaving visible and manipulable. The 5-part structure progresses from prediction through controlled experimentation to synthesis, with the Mystery Soil extension providing an additional layer of independent reasoning. All four criteria received at least “Adequate” ratings, with Criteria A and B rated “Extensive.” The task is highly recommended for use with Connecticut high school students studying Earth materials and water properties.

Final recommendation (choose one):