Science Task Screener

Task Title: Puerto Rico Trench Gravity Anomaly

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-05-18

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 Puerto Rico Trench exhibits the largest negative free-air gravity anomaly on Earth (-380 mGal), serving as a specific and measurable anomaly.

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

Students must manipulate the subduction parameters provided in the scenario to reproduce and explain the massive mass deficit.

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 explicitly begins by anchoring on the Puerto Rico Trench’s -380 mGal observation.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It focuses on a single, extreme geographic anomaly, not just generic subduction.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The mass deficit is framed as a ‘mystery’ needing explanation via the simulation.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students cannot complete the deliverable without understanding the interacting variables.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Students use high school level modeling (SEP) and stability/change (CCC) to explain tectonic systems (DCI).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Utilizes an interactive 3D simulation alongside written text instructions.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation data correctly mirrors actual Earth system values (densities, angles).
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The specific anomaly relates to global subduction processes.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The 5E structure scaffolds the complexity appropriately.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] Instructions are concise and direct students to the interactive model.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario provides enough variables to support iterative modeling and refinement.
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 construct explanations for how varying crustal density, subduction angle, and trench depth interact to form a negative mass deficit.

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 systematically test parameter combinations to build an accurate model of the trench.

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

Stability and Change: Students model how tectonic subduction drives changes in ocean-floor topography and localized mass.

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

ESS2.A, ESS2.B: Internal and surface processes (convection, subduction, deposition) interacting.

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 must simultaneously apply core ideas regarding plate tectonics and modeling practices to match the observed gravity data.

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 Deliverable prompts students to write out the precise combination of mechanisms responsible for their model’s output.

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 a specific localized geographical extreme (Puerto Rico Trench) to global subduction principles.

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.

Interactive simulation, textual prompts, and numerical data tables.

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 Engage and Explore sections guide students before the open-ended Elaborate section.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The step-by-step logic directly ties the phenomenon to the deliverable.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Highlights a Caribbean geographic feature, providing localized relevance for regional students.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Data tables offer accessible entry points, while the written model pushes high achievers.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Technical terms are defined or observable within the simulation interface.

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 ‘mystery mass’ toggles invite gamified scientific inquiry.

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.

Draws on basic prior knowledge of plate boundaries, elevating it to quantitative modeling.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The physics and geology implemented in the simulation map accurately to the real anomaly.

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:

Assessment of HS-ESS2-1: Modeling internal/surface processes creating ocean-floor features.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • [x] Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
    • [x] 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 interplay of density and subduction is essential for the deliverable.

  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 external facts required; all necessary data is in the simulation.

  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 requested paragraph explicitly supports evaluating HS-ESS2-1 mastery.

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 populated data table and an explanatory paragraph modeling the anomaly.

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 directly map the written artifact to specific 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):

Data tables can reveal mechanical participation even if the final synthesized paragraph is incomplete.

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

Can launch discussions into other convergent boundaries or isostatic rebound.

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 5E steps provide unambiguous directions.

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 Puerto Rico Trench Gravity Anomaly task is an exemplary, fully-aligned 5E activity for HS-ESS2-1. It grounds learning in a specific, measurable phenomenon and uses the interactive simulation to drive student modeling of Earth’s internal and surface processes.

Final recommendation (choose one):