Science Task Screener

Task Title: Hartford Basin Rift & Dinosaur Tracks Modeler

Grade: High School

Date: 2025-04-26

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 features a specific, localized phenomenon: the preservation and exposure of 200-million-year-old dinosaur footprints at Rocky Hill, Connecticut.

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

Students must actively use the simulation controls and resulting data to determine the sequence of events that preserves the tracks, demonstrating that the scenario is necessary.

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] [ ] [ ] It focuses on the observable physical exposure of ancient tracks.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] Specifically uses Dinosaur State Park tracks, not just generic ‘fossils’.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The contradiction of soft mud tracks surviving miles of ice and millions of years is presented as a puzzle.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students must iteratively solve the simulation to figure out ‘how’ the tracks survived.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Fully explained by HS-ESS2-1 (Plate tectonics, interaction of processes over time).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Uses text descriptions, an interactive visual simulation, and data outputs.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation outputs realistic spatial and temporal scales for these geological events.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] It highlights a major local geological feature (Hartford Basin) and universal principles of fossil preservation.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] Concepts are introduced sequentially with clear feedback.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions are concise and action-oriented.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon supports a full 5E lesson sequence.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None.

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 reason about cause and effect: what happens to sediment if there’s no basalt cap, or what happens if erosion is too deep.

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 develop and use a computational model to illustrate the relationships between internal (volcanism) and surface (erosion) processes.

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

Students apply ‘Stability and Change’ to quantify how long-term tectonic and erosional changes interact with rapid volcanic changes.

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

Students apply ESS2.B by modeling how plate movements (rifting) and subsequent geological forces form and modify continental features.

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 final deliverable (a comic strip/narrative) requires students to integrate the model outputs (SEP) to explain the geologic history (DCI) across varying timescales (CCC).

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 5E structure explicitly prompts students to collect data and write out their explanations of constructive vs. destructive forces.

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 focuses on a highly specific local context (Connecticut geology) that models global tectonic principles.

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 engage via interactive simulation, data collection tables, and a creative written/visual final deliverable.

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 simulation breaks the millions of years into four distinct, manageable epochs.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from ‘find out how’ to ‘explain how’ is logical.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The context is accessible without requiring prior specialized cultural knowledge.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The interactive iteration supports trial-and-error learners, while the final explanation challenges advanced reasoning.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Technical terms (like ‘half-graben’) are contextualized within the simulation narrative.

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 engaging ‘puzzle’ format of trying to expose the tracks without destroying them cultivates interest.

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.

Students should have a basic understanding of plate tectonics before starting, which fits the standard progression.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation accurately reflects the current geological consensus on the formation of the Hartford Basin and CAMP volcanism.

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 model how Earth’s internal and surface processes operate at different spatial and temporal scales to form features (HS-ESS2-1).

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • [x] Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
    • [ ] Summative
    • [ ] Determining whether students learned what they just experienced
    • [x] 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, understanding the interplay of these processes is strictly necessary to solve the simulation puzzle.

  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 are 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)?

The data table and final narrative directly support assessing the students’ three-dimensional understanding.

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 student data table, answers to explanation questions, and final comic strip/narrative serve as artifacts.

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 teacher notes provide an integrated checklist of what to look for (components, relationships, scales) in student work.

  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 data table allows teachers to see where a student might have struggled (e.g., eroding too much) even if their final explanation is incomplete.

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

The task sets up future discussions on other types of fossil preservation or other rift valleys globally.

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 student-facing instructions are clear and step-by-step.

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.

This task is a strong, highly engaging application of HS-ESS2-1. By gamifying the preservation of the Rocky Hill dinosaur tracks, it forces students to actively manipulate and understand the balance between constructive and destructive Earth processes across deep time.

Final recommendation (choose one):