Science Task Screener

Task Title: Dating the Early Solar System

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 determining the absolute age of meteorites and continental crust, an authentic problem scientists face to reconstruct Earth’s history.

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

Students must use the Radiometric Dating Explorer to gather data on half-lives and decay curves to determine the age of the provided rock samples.

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 deals with radiometric dating of ancient rocks, mirroring actual scientific practice.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] Students analyze a specific “unknown” meteorite sample generated by the simulation to find its age.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] Students must solve the mystery of the rock’s age based on isotope ratios.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Determining the age is necessary to compare the sample against known Earth and solar system timelines.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Aligns with HS-ESS1-5 and involves modeling exponential decay to reason about Earth’s history.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Uses text descriptions and an interactive simulation with graphs.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] Simulated data accurately models established half-lives of real isotopes (U-238, K-40, C-14).
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Universal relevance—dating the age of our planet and solar system.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation visuals (decay graphs, parent/daughter particles) make the abstract concept of radiometric decay accessible.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions are concise and focus on data collection and sensemaking.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario provides ample material to investigate multiple isotope systems and compare them.
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 their understanding of half-lives and exponential decay curves to argue why certain isotopes are appropriate (or inappropriate) for dating Earth’s oldest rocks.

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?)

Engaging in Argument from Evidence: Students evaluate evidence from simulated radioactive decay to support claims about the age of rock samples.

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

Patterns: Students identify the exponential decay pattern to interpret the age of a sample.

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

ESS1.C (History of Planet Earth) and PS1.C (Nuclear Processes): Students use radiometric dating concepts to understand the age of rocks.

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 their understanding of exponential decay (PS1.C, Patterns) to generate evidence-based arguments (SEP) about the age of Earth materials (ESS1.C).

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 task asks students to explicitly construct an argument linking the decay evidence to their conclusion about the sample’s age.

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 to universal questions about the formation and age of the Earth and solar system.

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 with text, an interactive simulation, and produce written arguments.

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 task guides students from exploring basic decay to solving for an unknown.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from observing decay to dating an unknown sample is logical.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The use of visual simulation supports students of diverse linguistic backgrounds.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The task provides a baseline visual exploration and a higher-order argumentation component.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Scientific terms like isotope and half-life are contextualized within the simulation.

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.

Engaging in ‘Challenge Mode’ to solve for the age of an unknown sample acts as a puzzle, increasing student 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.

Assuming prior introduction to basic atomic structure, this task is an accessible application of exponential decay to Earth science.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation uses accurate half-life values for U-238, K-40, and C-14.

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 evaluate evidence and use radiometric dating (PS1.C) to explain the age of crustal rocks (ESS1.C) using patterns of decay (CCC).

  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 decay curve is required to determine the age.

  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.

Basic math skills (reading a graph) are needed, but this does not distract from the target constructs.

  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 arguments students construct directly demonstrate their understanding of how radiometric dating works.

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 and a written scientific argument.

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 questions require linking the visual pattern of decay to the scientific practice of making claims about rock ages.

  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 step-by-step nature allows teachers to see if students understand decay but struggle with the final argument, or vice versa.

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

Sets up future instruction on plate tectonics by establishing how we know the ages of different crustal regions.

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).

Directions are explicit and broken down into 5E phases.

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 Radiometric Dating Explorer task provides an excellent, NGSS-aligned opportunity for students to engage with HS-ESS1-5. It combines an interactive simulation with a structured 5E lesson to build understanding of how scientists determine the age of the Earth.

Final recommendation (choose one):