Science Task Screener
Task Title: Charting the Future: Analyzing Global Climate Impacts
Grade: High School
Date: April 19, 2026
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.
- Is a phenomenon and/or problem present?
Yes, the long-term impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on global systems.
- Is information from the scenario necessary to respond successfully to the task?
Yes, the specific contrast between temperature trends and pH trends under different mitigation strategies (Geoengineering) is critical for sense-making.
ii. The task scenario is engaging, relevant, and accessible to a wide range of students.
| Features of scenarios | Yes | Somewhat | No | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario presents real-world observations | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Climate change is the defining environmental problem of the century. |
| Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Focusing on the Year 2100 forecast. |
| Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | The mismatch between different types of technology (Geoeng vs CCS). |
| Scenarios create a “need to know” | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Students need to meet the 2.0°C policy goal. |
| Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Data analysis and atmospheric chemistry. |
| Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Four synchronous line charts and interactive sliders. |
| If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses standard climate sensitivity and logarithmic models. |
| The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Universal global relevance. |
| Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Clear instructions. |
| Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Dashboard style UI. |
| Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Multiple combinations of variables to test. |
| Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [X] Extensive |
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.
Students must reason that “cooling the planet” is not the same as “restoring the atmosphere.” The divergence between the Temperature and pH charts is the primary evidence for this.
ii. The task requires students to demonstrate grade-appropriate dimensions:
Evidence of SEPs: Analyzing and Interpreting Data: Comparing BAU vs Mitigated lines across four different variables to identify correlations and thresholds.
Evidence of CCCs: Stability and Change: Evaluating the rate of change and how “early action” impacts long-term stabilization.
Evidence of DCIs: ESS3.D: Understanding the greenhouse effect and how human activity alters the energy balance of the planet.
iii. The task requires students to integrate multiple dimensions in service of sense-making and/or problem-solving.
Creating a “Policy Recommendation” requires integrating the scientific data (SEP) with the understanding of Earth systems (DCI).
iv. The task requires students to make their thinking visible.
The Causal Chain flowchart and the Policy Recommendation require explicit modeling of student thinking.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [X] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Criterion C. Tasks are fair and equitable.
i. The task provides ways for students to make connections of local, global, or universal relevance.
Directly addresses the future of the planet they live on.
ii. The task includes multiple modes for students to respond to the task.
Data tables, flowcharts, and written advocacy.
iii. The task is accessible, appropriate, and cognitively demanding for all learners.
The tiered 5E structure allows students to start with simple observations before moving to complex system evaluation.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [X] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Criterion D. Tasks support their intended targets and purpose.
Before you begin:
-
Describe what is being assessed. HS-ESS3-5: Analyzing model results to forecast climate impacts.
-
What is the purpose of the assessment?
- Formative
- Summative (Earth Science exam/lab)
| Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [X] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Overall Summary
The task brilliantly identifies the educational value of “geoengineering” as a distractor that helps students differentiate between warming (symptom) and composition (cause).
Final recommendation (choose one):
- Use this task (all criteria had at least an “adequate” rating)