Science Task Screener

Task Title: Portland Brownstone Quarry Simulator (Middletown Area)

Grade: HS

Date: 2026-04-25

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 an observable phenomenon modeled in the simulation: the historical growth of the Portland Brownstone Quarries and the subsequent catastrophic flood of 1938.

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

Students must interact with the simulation, manipulate variables (extraction power, workforce), and collect quantitative data to successfully answer the sensemaking questions and construct the final explanation.

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 simulation models historical, real-world events (resource extraction and flooding in Connecticut).
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] Focuses specifically on the Portland brownstone quarries and the Great Hurricane of 1938, not generic flooding.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] Presents a tension between rapid wealth generation and an impending, catastrophic natural hazard.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students must run the simulation to discover how quickly the risk grows relative to wealth.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Fully explainable using HS-ESS3-1 concepts (cause/effect, constructing explanations, natural hazards/resources).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Uses a computational simulation, historical text descriptions, and data tables.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation generates coherent quantitative data for workforce, wealth, and flood risk over time.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Highlights the local history of Connecticut and New York, with extension options for global analogies.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The concepts of money, jobs, and weather hazards are universally understood.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] Instructions are concise and strictly limited to what is needed to operate the simulation.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The interactive nature of the simulation provides enough depth to support the final 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 use cause-and-effect reasoning to link their numerical simulation data to the qualitative changes in human settlement.

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?)

Constructing Explanations: Students construct an explanation supported by multiple independent data points generated during their simulation runs.

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

Cause and Effect: Students explicitly identify the causal relationships between the natural resource, the natural hazard, and human population changes.

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

ESS3.A (Natural Resources) and ESS3.B (Natural Hazards): Students evaluate how the brownstone resource guided societal development and how the flood hazard altered the population size.

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 prompt requires students to use the CCC (cause/effect reasoning) and the SEP (constructing an explanation) to explain the DCI (resources/hazards impacting society) simultaneously.

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 ‘Sensemaking’ questions and the final ‘Student Deliverable’ require explicit written explanations backed by specific data.

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 phenomenon is highly relevant to students in the Northeast US (local), while the underlying mechanisms of resource dependency apply globally.

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, quantitative data collection, and written explanation.

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] [ ] [ ] Provides a structured data collection table and guided sensemaking questions before the final prompt.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] Follows a logical 5E progression from observation to data collection to final explanation.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Builds on accessible concepts of labor and weather rather than obscure scientific jargon.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation allows multiple playthroughs to grasp concepts, while extension options challenge advanced students.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Vocabulary is grade-appropriate and simulation terms are clearly defined.

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 ‘high risk/high reward’ gamified aspect of the simulation cultivates strong student interest and 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.

The task relies entirely on data generated during the activity, ensuring equal opportunity regardless of prior knowledge of the specific history.

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 historical reality of the Portland quarries and the 1938 hurricane.

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-ESS3-1, specifically evaluating the student’s ability to construct a causal explanation using data regarding natural resources and hazards.

  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, an understanding of the relationship between resources, hazards, and populations is strictly required to complete 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 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 student explanations provide direct evidence of their ability to sense-make using the targeted DCI, SEP, and CCC.

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 populated data table, answers to sensemaking questions, and a final 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:

  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 explicitly map the components of the explanation to the specific NGSS evidence statements.

  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 sensemaking questions allow teachers to identify where a student’s reasoning breaks down before the final explanation.

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

The extension options provide clear paths for future instruction on modern climate hazards and mitigation.

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 instructions are step-by-step and clearly define the expected outputs for both the student and the teacher.

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 is a highly effective, three-dimensional assessment of HS-ESS3-1. It uses an engaging, historically accurate simulation to drive sensemaking, requiring students to construct explanations supported by quantitative data they generate themselves.

Final recommendation (choose one):