Science Task Screener

Task Title: Human Settlement & Migration Simulator

Grade: HS

Date: 2024-05-24

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 requires students to explain the phenomenon of human migration and settlement patterns using simulation evidence.

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

Students must interact with specific simulation scenarios (Nile, Dust Bowl, Climate Refugee) to complete the task.

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 task asks students to evaluate actual historical scenarios such as the Nile and Dust Bowl.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It uses specific, localized instances like the Dust Bowl rather than broad generalizations.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] Students are challenged to figure out why populations shift rapidly under climate stressors.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] In order to construct the explanation, students need to discover the specific impact of hazards.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomena align perfectly with HS-ESS3-1 (Natural Resources and Hazards).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task integrates the interactive map simulation, data tables, and textual descriptions.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation logs realistic population data reflecting the impact of each hazard.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The Climate Refugee scenario demonstrates the modern global relevance of the task.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation map provides an intuitive visual representation of abstract concepts.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The scenarios in the task are described concisely without overwhelming textual density.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] Each scenario provides enough interactive depth to complete the Explain and Elaborate phases.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Ensure the anchoring phenomenon of climate-driven migration is clearly introduced before simulation activities.

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 reason from simulation data (population logs) to claims about migration.

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 use Constructing Explanations to link environmental changes to human movement.

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

Students use Cause and Effect to describe how hazards drive displacement.

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

Students apply ESS3.A and ESS3.B to interpret the simulation outputs.

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 components are well-integrated into a unified final explanation task.

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 sequence captures student thinking across multiple phases.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

The connection to ESS3.A and ESS3.B is explicit in the data logging phase.

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.

Connects localized case studies to global climate issues.

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.

Engages students through interactive map tracking and data logs.

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 breaks down the explanation into Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning steps.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The 5E model guides students logically from exploration to explanation.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Provides a variety of global scenarios, including modern climate impacts.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The visual map supports early understanding, while the CER explanation challenges advanced learners.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions are clear and avoid overly dense academic jargon.

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 real-world climate refugee scenario increases relevance and 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.

Provides open-ended exploration steps where students can test variables.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation uses accurate historic scenarios and realistic hazard impacts.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Remind students to explicitly reference cause and effect (CCC) in their final written explanations.

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:

Formative assessment evaluating students’ ability to construct evidence-based explanations about natural resources and human activity.

  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
    • [ ] 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?

The targeted dimensions are necessary to complete the task.

  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.

Task avoids assessing non-targeted dimensions unnecessarily.

  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 design effectively supports the formative assessment purpose.

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].

Generates a written explanation and data table 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:

Assesses the integrated application of SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs.

  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):

Assesses partial understanding through intermediate exploration questions.

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

Can inform subsequent instructional choices regarding student understanding.

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).

Provides clear rubrics and scoring guidance for teachers.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

The constructed explanation serves as a strong formative assessment of HS-ESS3-1.

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 strongly aligned to HS-ESS3-1, leveraging the interactive simulation to allow students to gather evidence on how natural resources and hazards influence human activity and migration.

Final recommendation (choose one):