Science Task Screener

Task Title: Sustainable Resource Management Simulator Task

Grade: High School

Date: Current

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 scenario provides an authentic, high-interest problem: managing the energy and land resources of a simulated 10 million population city to prevent ecological collapse and starvation.

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

The simulation allows students to directly engage with the phenomena by altering policies. The feedback is immediate and demonstrates complex real-world dynamics.

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 [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides extensive opportunities for students to engage with the target SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs within a compelling, authentic scenario.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Ensure students understand the definitions of the policies before starting.

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.

The task requires students to collect detailed metrics (population, funds, biodiversity, pollution) and use them to construct an evidence-based argument.

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?)

The primary focus is on student sense-making through the investigation and explanation questions rather than rote vocabulary or procedural steps.

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

The 5E structure (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate) perfectly scaffolds student engagement and sense-making throughout the task.

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

Students use the computational simulation to collect data, which satisfies the target SEP of Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking.

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 elaborate phase requires students to synthesize their data and construct a scientific argument explaining their recommended policy plan.

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 directly addresses ESS3.C by requiring students to balance resource extraction (energy/food) with maintaining biodiversity and population sustainability.

Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None. The simulation provides clear visual and data-driven feedback.

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 task asks students to analyze the feedback loops within the simulation, showing how pollution and biodiversity changes affect population stability over time.

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.

The simulation itself represents the relationships between these systems, requiring students to understand the interconnected nature of human impacts.

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 5E structure provides significant scaffolding before the open-ended final policy challenge.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions logically follow from baseline exploration to complex optimization.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The universal nature of food and energy connects across backgrounds.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] All students can achieve a basic sustainable state; high-achievers can optimize for specific metrics.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Vocabulary is generally accessible; any complex terms are defined by their actions in 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.

The core of the task is answering the sense-making questions using evidence from their investigation.

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 requires reasoning to evaluate the effectiveness of different policy combinations.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

Students must evaluate trade-offs, such as accepting slower initial population growth in exchange for better long-term biodiversity outcomes.

Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Encourage students to test extreme scenarios to see bounds.

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 assessment evaluates students’ ability to synthesize simulation data into a coherent policy argument.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • 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): Formative assessment during the exploration phase.

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?

The task provides clear visual feedback and avoids overly complex jargon, making it accessible to diverse learners.

  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.

The use of multiple metrics (funds, population, environment) allows students to express understanding in different ways.

  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 scenario is open-ended enough to allow for multiple successful policy strategies, supporting varied student approaches.

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].

The elaborate phase provides a clear, challenging prompt that requires synthesis and argumentation, suitable for a summative assessment.

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 prompt is directly tied to the target PE (HS-ESS3-3).

  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 task provides a specific scenario and set of conditions for the final evaluation.

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

The questions are clear and unambiguously guide students to the desired learning outcomes.

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 rubrics provide clear expectations.

Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Review the sensemaking questions to ensure they aren’t overly leading.

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 an excellent, NGSS-aligned inquiry activity. It leverages the computational simulation to allow students to manipulate variables, observe complex feedback loops, and make evidence-based decisions about sustainable resource management, fully addressing HS-ESS3-3.

Final recommendation (choose one):