Science Task Screener
Task Title: The Great Oxidation Event Task
Grade: High School
Date: 2024
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 relies on the Great Oxidation Event, a major real-world Earth systems shift.
- Is information from the scenario necessary to respond successfully to the task?
Students manipulate variables in the simulation to recreate this event and collect 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] | [ ] | [ ] | Task uses the historical geological record of Earth. |
| Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Focuses specifically on the Great Oxidation Event, not just ‘weathering’. |
| Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Contrasting a methane sky with today’s blue sky is highly intriguing. |
| Scenarios create a “need to know” | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Prompts students to discover how biology caused this change. |
| Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Aligns perfectly with HS-ESS2-7. |
| Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses textual description and an interactive visual simulation. |
| If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Simulation outputs reliable geochemical trends. |
| The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Relates directly to the existence of all modern aerobic life. |
| Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Language is targeted for HS Earth Science students. |
| Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Instructions are concise and bulleted. |
| Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Provides enough data to support a full CER argument. |
| Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:
Phenomenon is clear and engaging.
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.
Argumentation is central to Part 4, requiring CER from the simulation 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 construct a written scientific argument (CER) using evidence from their simulation data, demonstrating the SEP of Engaging in Argument from Evidence.
Evidence of CCCs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)
The task explicitly asks students to evaluate Stability and Change over geologic time.
Evidence of DCIs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)
Students trace the impact of early biology on the physical Earth, applying ESS2.D (Weather and Climate) and ESS2.E (Biogeology).
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 5E sequence and clear data tables make the complex concepts accessible.
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 CER argument is a direct, observable artifact of 3D sensemaking.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:
Sensemaking is well-supported by the simulation.
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 effectively uses phenomena to drive learning.
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 3D learning is deeply integrated and authentic to the discipline.
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] | [ ] | [ ] | 5E structure and data table provide excellent scaffolding. |
| Tasks are coherent from a student perspective | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Logical progression from observation to explanation. |
| Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Visual nature of the simulation aids ELL students. |
| Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Scaffolding supports lower achievers while the CER provides a high ceiling. |
| Tasks use accessible language | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Complex terms like ‘Banded Iron Formations’ are defined 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 task provides equitable access to high-level sensemaking.
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 simulation models Earth history with high fidelity.
vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.
Describe evidence of scientific inaccuracies explicitly or implicitly promoted by the task.
The phenomena effectively anchors the entire lesson.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:
SEP integration is strong.
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:
An NGSS-aligned task utilizing the Great Oxidation Event simulation to teach Earth systems coevolution.
- 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?
Students are actively engaged in sensemaking.
- 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 5E model provides a structured framework.
- 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 acts as a robust tool for investigation.
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 task relies on students using the SEP, DCI, and CCC dimensions.
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 CER argument is a strong artifact.
- 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):
No equity flags identified.
- Ways to connect student responses to prior experiences and future planned instruction by teachers and participation by students:
Instructions are clear.
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).
Accuracy is confirmed.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:
DCI integration is accurate and grade-appropriate.
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 an exceptional NGSS task that thoroughly evaluates HS-ESS2-7 through an engaging and accessible simulation.
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