Science Task Screener
Task Title: Mantle Convection Explorer Task
Grade: High School
Date: 2024-05-18
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 is grounded in the phenomenon of how heat deep inside the Earth causes massive continents on the surface to move, as observed through seismic wave mapping.
- Is information from the scenario necessary to respond successfully to the task?
Students must use the simulation scenario to interact with core temperature and mantle viscosity to gather evidence for their models.
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] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses the real-world occurrence of tectonic plate movement. |
| Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence | [ ] | [x] | [ ] | It is a generalized model of mantle convection, but tied to specific physical properties. |
| Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Asks the intriguing question of how solid rock flows. |
| Scenarios create a “need to know” | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Students need to know the mechanism driving the plates. |
| Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses HS level modeling, ESS2.A, and Energy/Matter. |
| Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses textual descriptions and an interactive computational simulation. |
| If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Presents well-crafted simulated data representing physical properties. |
| The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Relevant globally as it explains Earth’s entire surface structure. |
| Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Simulation abstracts complex mathematics into visual color and vector cues. |
| Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The task prompt is concise and directly guides the investigation. |
| Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The simulation allows multiple variables to be manipulated to answer the prompt. |
| Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] 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 how changes in deep core temperature and viscosity propagate to the surface to affect plate speed.
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?)
Developing and Using Models: Students develop a conceptual model based on the simulation evidence.
Evidence of CCCs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)
Energy and Matter: Students track the outward flow of thermal energy and the resulting cycling of matter.
Evidence of DCIs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)
ESS2.A: Students explain how motions of the mantle occur primarily through thermal convection.
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.
Students integrate all three dimensions to produce their final conceptual model of the cycling of matter.
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 final deliverable explicitly requires a diagram with a written explanation to make thinking visible.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] 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 the abstract concept of mantle convection to the global phenomenon of moving continents.
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 and express understanding through a written and drawn model.
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] | [ ] | [ ] | Breaks down the investigation into manipulating one variable at a time before synthesis. |
| Tasks are coherent from a student perspective | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Moves logically from exploration of variables to explaining the mechanism to modeling the whole system. |
| Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds | [ ] | [x] | [ ] | The topic is universal, though specific linguistic scaffolds might be needed for some terms. |
| Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The modeling task allows for multiple levels of sophistication in the final explanation. |
| Tasks use accessible language | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Instructions are clear and direct. |
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 fosters engagement.
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.
Aligns well with typical HS Earth Science progressions on plate tectonics.
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 basic principles of thermal convection and viscosity.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:
None.
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:
Assesses students’ ability to model the cycling of matter by thermal convection (HS-ESS2-3).
- 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:
- Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task?
Yes, understanding the mechanism is necessary to build the model.
- 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.
- 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 drawn model directly elicits the required 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].
A conceptual model diagram with written 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:
- 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 model requires illustrating DCI components, CCC flow of energy, using the SEP of modeling.
- 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):
Teachers can identify misconceptions in specific parts of the model (e.g., source of heat vs flow).
- Ways to connect student responses to prior experiences and future planned instruction by teachers and participation by students:
Provides a foundation for understanding specific plate boundary interactions (convergent/divergent) in subsequent lessons.
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).
Clear, step-by-step instructions are provided.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] 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 successfully uses an interactive simulation to allow students to gather evidence for and build a conceptual model of mantle convection.
Final recommendation (choose one):
- [x] Use this task (all criteria had at least an “adequate” rating)
- [ ] Modify and use this task
- [ ] Do not use this task