Science Task Screener

Task Title: Stellar Life Cycle Simulation Task

Grade: High School

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 requires students to explain the phenomenon of the sun’s steady 4.6-billion-year burn using simulation data, demonstrating making sense of a natural phenomenon.

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

The task uses a 3D simulation to allow students to manipulate mass, observing core temperature and outcomes to answer the central phenomenon question.

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 phenomenon is explicitly grounded in the real-world observation of the Sun’s steady lifespan compared to other stars.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario focuses specifically on the Sun’s lifespan and nuclear fusion, not just general star facts.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is framed as a question: Why does our Sun burn steadily and what determines lifespan?
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] It creates a need to know by prompting students to explain a discrepancy in lifespans.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is explainable using HS-ESS1-1 (SEPs, DCIs, CCCs).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario uses a 3D interactive simulation with charts, visuals, and text.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation generates reproducible relative lifespan and temperature data.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario directly addresses the Sun, which provides Earth’s energy.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The task is written at an appropriate high school reading level.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario provides necessary instructions without overwhelming text.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario provides multiple variables (mass, temp) to drive exploration.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The scenario is highly engaging and appropriate.

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 develop a model showing the lifecycle of a 1.0 solar mass star, indicating hydrogen fusion and radiation via missing mass.

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?)

Students evaluate how core temperature affects the missing mass resulting from the fusion of protons into helium.

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

Students observe how a star’s initial mass produces an exponential effect on core temperature, fusion rate, and total lifespan, requiring them to reason about proportion and scale.

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

The task explicitly addresses PS3.D (Energy in Chemical Processes) regarding nuclear fusion processes in the center of the sun.

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 simulation allows for scaling inputs like protostar mass and observing the exponential effect on relative lifespan.

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 construct a model connecting mass to core temperature to fusion rate and total lifespan, integrating all three dimensions.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Ensure students explicitly label their final models with both the missing mass and the emitted radiation.

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 explicitly connects the scientific understanding of stellar lifespans to the real-world context of our Sun, which provides Earth’s energy.

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 task utilizes interactive simulation manipulation, data collection in tables, written explanations, and diagram construction as response modes.

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 provides clear scaffolds and instructions.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The task is coherent and builds conceptually from start to finish.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The task allows for multiple representations of understanding.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses clear, non-jargon language.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The task is highly accessible for high schoolers.

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 task includes formative questions in the Engage and Explore sections to assess prior knowledge.

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 provides clear data tables to scaffold the collection of simulation data.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

No scientific inaccuracies were identified. The simulation and task accurately represent stellar lifespans and nuclear fusion within the expected simplifications of a high school model.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Consider adding a peer-review step for the final models.

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:

Task used as a summative assessment.

  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): 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?

The Explain section uses the data collected in the Explore section to build toward the final Evaluate model.

  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 step-by-step 5E structure provides clear scaffolding.

  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 final Evaluate task provides an explicit checklist of required components for the model.

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 task requires students to produce a labeled diagram (model) as an observable artifact of their understanding of stellar lifespans and nuclear fusion.

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 final deliverable allows for varied representations (diagrams with captions) allowing diverse learners to show what they know.

  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 evaluates prior knowledge in the Engage section.

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

The task evaluates conceptual understanding in the Explain section.

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 task evaluates synthesis in the Evaluate section.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

None. The scaffolding is strong.

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 asks students to investigate stellar masses, lifespans, and fusion processes using the Stellar Phenomena Simulator. It aligns directly with HS-ESS1-1’s focus on the sun’s lifespan and nuclear fusion by requiring students to collect data across three tabs (Stellar Nursery, Core Fusion, Stellar Fate) and use that data to develop a model.

Final recommendation (choose one):