Science Task Screener

Task Title: Investigating Hypoxia in Long Island Sound

Grade: High School

Date: 2025-04-25

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 is driven by the observable phenomenon of summer fish kills in Long Island Sound caused by low oxygen near the bottom.

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

Students must use the specific data outputs from the simulation (stratification, algae blooms, bottom O2) to explain the phenomenon; generic knowledge is insufficient.

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 scenario describes real ecological events (fish kills, hypoxia) matching real-world Long Island Sound data.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] Focuses specifically on the summer hypoxic events in Long Island Sound rather than a general lesson on ‘water quality’.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The mystery of why fish die when no visible ‘poison’ is added sparks curiosity.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students must run the simulation to uncover the hidden mechanism (stratification and algae decomposition).
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Perfectly aligned to HS-ESS3-6 using Earth systems interactions and computational modeling.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Uses text descriptions and an interactive computational simulation with data charting.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation produces dynamic, realistic data for algae and dissolved oxygen based on physical parameters.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Links human activities on land (fertilizer/wastewater) to critical marine ecosystem health.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] Uses clear language and intuitive sliders to represent complex environmental variables.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The engage section is concise and quickly transitions students into the simulation.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The interaction between the three variables (runoff, temp, wind) provides rich, multi-layered data for analysis.
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 cannot just read an answer; they must manipulate variables, observe complex systemic interactions, and reason about causal chains.

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?)

Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking: Students use the simulation to observe and model interactions, extracting data to support their claims.

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

Systems and System Models: Students define inputs (runoff, heat) and analyze how they cascade through the ecosystem to affect outputs (algae, O2).

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

ESS3.D Global Climate Change (and Human Impacts): Students learn how human activities (nutrient runoff) and climatic factors (temperature) modify ocean/biosphere interactions.

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 Elaborate/Evaluate step explicitly requires students to weave all three dimensions together into a cohesive scientific explanation.

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 ‘Explain’ and ‘Elaborate’ questions prompt students to write out the chain of events and system interactions explicitly.

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.

Connects local terrestrial actions (lawn care, farming) to global issues of ocean dead zones.

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.

Includes written prompts, an interactive graphical simulation, data tables, and constructed written responses.

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 5E sequence moves logically from observation to guided exploration to independent synthesis.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] Every step directly builds toward solving the initial mystery of the fish kills.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Uses an observable phenomenon rather than relying on abstract, culturally specific prior knowledge.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides visual entry points for all students, while the final explanation allows for deep, nuanced responses.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Avoids unnecessary jargon, focusing on conceptual understanding of stratification and hypoxia.

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 interactive nature of the simulation and the relevance to environmental protection 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.

The task provides the necessary data and experiences within the lesson itself.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation accurately models the physical and biological mechanisms of hypoxia (stratification, nutrient loading, algal decay).

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 use a computational model (SEP) to explain how human activity modifies Earth systems (DCI and CCC) as aligned to HS-ESS3-6.

  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?

Yes, understanding the targeted dimensions is strictly necessary to construct the final explanation.

  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 significant non-targeted knowledge is required, minimizing construct-irrelevant variance.

  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 responses directly reveal student understanding of system interactions, supporting formative assessment.

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].

Students produce a completed data table, short-answer responses tracing causal chains, and a comprehensive final scientific explanation.

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 and rubric guidance clearly map the required evidence to the three 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 scaffolded 5E structure allows teachers to pinpoint exactly where student understanding breaks down (e.g., data collection vs. causal reasoning).

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

Provides a foundation for further instruction on climate change, ocean acidification, or environmental policy.

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 handout provides clear, step-by-step instructions for interacting with the simulation and completing the task.

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.

The Investigating Hypoxia task is an excellent, three-dimensional learning experience fully aligned to HS-ESS3-6. It uses a high-quality computational model to drive authentic sense-making about a critical environmental phenomenon.

Final recommendation (choose one):