Science Task Screener

Task Title: Metacomet Ridge Formation: Geologic History

Grade: High School

Date: 2025-05-15

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 centers on the real-world observation of the Metacomet Ridge, a steep basalt cliff structure in Central Connecticut, and the adjacent flat brownstone valleys.

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

Students must use the simulation to observe the specific temporal sequence of rifting, sedimentation, lava flows, faulting, and differential erosion to explain the present-day landforms.

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 is based on the actual geological history and current topography of the Hartford Basin and Metacomet Ridge.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It specifically models the formation of the Metacomet Ridge (Higby/Beseck Mountains) near Middletown, CT.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] It presents the puzzle of how hard basalt cliffs ended up surrounded by softer brownstone valleys in the middle of a continent.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to understand the sequence of constructive and destructive forces to explain the topography.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] It aligns with HS-ESS2-1 involving modeling Earth systems and processes over time.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Uses a textual scenario description alongside an interactive visual simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] Simulation accurately represents the sequence and rock types (basalt, brownstone).
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Relevance is clear as it relates to understanding the formation of local/regional continental features.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation uses clear visual keys and step-by-step buttons to make complex geologic time comprehensible.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is concise, relying on the simulation for exploration.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides sufficient interaction and feedback to construct the explanation.
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 how the different hardness of rock types (basalt vs. brownstone) leads to differential erosion, forming ridges and valleys over time.

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 interact with a computational model and synthesize the data to show relationships between internal/surface processes and landforms.

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

Stability and Change: Students analyze how Earth changes over long periods, identifying constructive (rifting/volcanism) and destructive (erosion) processes.

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

ESS2.A: Earth Materials and Systems: Interacting dynamic systems. ESS2.B: Plate Tectonics: Plate movements responsible for 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.

Students use the model (SEP) to understand Earth systems and plate tectonics (DCI) to explain the long-term stability and change (CCC) of the ridge.

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).

Students make thinking visible by writing a final explanation tracing the causal mechanism from rifting to modern topography.

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.

Connections are drawn to a significant local/regional landform (Metacomet Ridge, CT).

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 through interactive simulation, written observations, and a final written synthesis.

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 200 million year process into five discrete, manageable steps.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from observing the phenomenon to modeling to explaining is logical.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Uses visual representations and color-coding alongside text to aid understanding.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The task allows for both basic descriptive answers and deeper mechanistic explanations.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Geologic terms (e.g., rifting, basalt) are introduced in context and visually demonstrated.

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 dynamic visual simulation and connection to a real-world puzzle cultivate 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 is designed as a standalone inquiry that builds necessary understanding through the simulation.

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 sequence of the Hartford basin formation and the differential erosion of trap rock.

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 HS-ESS2-1: modeling how internal and surface processes operate at different scales to form continental features.

  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): N/A

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 constructive and destructive forces is necessary.

  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)?

Elicited explanations of ridge formation directly support the assessment of HS-ESS2-1.

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 data table of observations and a final written causal 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 rubric focuses on the integration of the model evidence to explain the geologic changes.

  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):

Step-by-step observations allow teachers to identify where student reasoning breaks down.

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

Provides a foundation for further study of plate tectonics or local geology.

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 5E instructions guide both the teacher and the student.

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 task provides a strong, phenomena-driven, 3D learning opportunity utilizing a robust interactive simulation to address HS-ESS2-1.

Final recommendation (choose one):