Science Task Screener

Task Title: Volcanic Eruptions and Global Cooling: The 1816 Year Without a Summer

Grade: High School

Date: 2025-01-01

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?

Yes — the task is anchored in the historically documented 1816 ‘Year Without a Summer,’ a real global cooling event with recorded crop failures, famines, and societal disruption caused by the 1815 Mount Tambora eruption. The phenomenon is specific, observable through historical records, and motivates the investigation.

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

Yes — students cannot reconstruct the mechanism connecting volcanic aerosols to temperature anomalies without engaging with the simulation. The scenario provides the historical context (specific eruption, year, global impacts) that is essential for interpreting the magnitude and duration of the simulated temperature anomaly.

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 references historically documented 1816 temperature anomalies, newspaper accounts of crop failures, and the specific VEI-7 magnitude of the Tambora eruption — all real-world observations.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The task focuses specifically on the April 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora (Indonesia) and its documented global climate impacts in 1816, not on volcanic eruptions as a general topic.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The concept of a ‘Year Without a Summer’ — snow in June, crop failures in July, famine — is immediately surprising and puzzling to students unfamiliar with volcanic climate forcing.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] The documented humanitarian consequences (mass starvation, mass migration, political instability) create genuine urgency to understand the mechanism and assess the risk of future eruptions.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The causal chain (eruption → aerosols → albedo → reduced radiation → cooling) is fully explainable using HS-level Earth science concepts of energy balance, albedo, and cause-and-effect reasoning.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses a dynamic interactive simulation (visual Earth globe, real-time charts), historical textual descriptions, and quantitative data outputs — at least three distinct modalities.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation generates temperature anomaly curves and aerosol depth values consistent with published paleoclimate datasets for VEI-6 and VEI-7 eruptions, including realistic 1–3 year recovery timescales.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario explicitly identifies global crop failures across North America, Europe, and Asia, and the task introduction connects volcanic climate forcing to contemporary concerns about abrupt climate disruption.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The historical framing (‘Year Without a Summer’) is accessible without specialized prior knowledge; simulation controls (VEI slider, latitude dropdown) are clearly labeled and require no technical background.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario provides essential historical context and a clear investigative question without excessive exposition; students are directed to the simulation promptly.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario supports multiple investigation threads (VEI magnitude, eruption latitude, aerosol duration) and connects to evidence statements for HS-ESS2-4 throughout the full task sequence.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [x] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The scenario is historically accurate, engaging, and provides sufficient context for the full task sequence.

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 reason about the full causal chain connecting volcanic eruptions to global cooling: how stratospheric aerosols scatter incoming solar radiation, reduce the percentage of solar energy reaching the surface, increase planetary albedo, lower surface temperatures, and how aerosol dispersal determines the duration of cooling. This multi-step causal reasoning cannot be completed by recall and requires students to interpret and explain simulation outputs.

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?)

Analyzing and Interpreting Data (primary): Students set VEI (3–8) and eruption latitude (equatorial, mid-latitude, polar) variables across multiple trials, record temperature anomaly (°C), aerosol depth, albedo, and surface radiation (%) outputs, and identify quantitative patterns and trends in the Chart.js time-series display. Constructing Explanations: Students synthesize their collected data into a final written causal explanation for how Mount Tambora caused the 1816 temperature anomaly, citing specific numerical evidence from their simulation trials.

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

Cause and Effect (primary): The central organizing concept throughout the task. Students explicitly trace the causal mechanism — eruption magnitude → stratospheric aerosol loading → increased albedo → reduced surface radiation → negative temperature anomaly → eventual return to baseline — and test how changing the cause (VEI, latitude) alters the magnitude and duration of the effect. Energy and Matter (secondary): Students track how aerosols intercept and scatter incoming solar energy, reducing the fraction of radiation reaching Earth’s surface and disrupting the energy balance.

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

ESS2.D Weather and Climate (primary): Students apply the concept that Earth’s climate is determined by the balance of incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation, and investigate how volcanic aerosols shift this balance toward cooling. This directly addresses the HS-ESS2-4 performance expectation. PS3.B Conservation of Energy and Energy Transfer (supporting): The aerosol scattering mechanism illustrates how solar energy is redirected rather than absorbed, reducing the energy available to heat Earth’s surface.

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 explanation task requires simultaneous integration of all three dimensions: students must apply the SEP of Constructing Explanations (structuring a claim-evidence-reasoning argument), use the CCC of Cause and Effect (identifying the mechanism chain from eruption to cooling), and draw on the DCI of ESS2.D (Earth’s energy balance and climate drivers) to produce a coherent, evidence-based account of the 1816 temperature anomaly.

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 must record quantitative data (temperature anomaly, aerosol depth, radiation %, albedo) from at least three simulation trials (varying VEI and latitude), compare results across conditions in a structured data table, and write an explicit step-by-step causal explanation identifying each link in the mechanism chain. All written and recorded work directly reveals the depth and accuracy of student understanding.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None. The task requires deep, integrated three-dimensional reasoning at every stage of the 5E sequence.

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 1816 ‘Year Without a Summer’ caused documented crop failures and famines across North America, Europe, and Asia, with recorded mass migrations and political upheaval. The task explicitly connects this historical event to contemporary concerns about volcanic winter scenarios and climate resilience, providing both historical and modern global relevance for all students regardless of geographic background.

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 interact with a dynamic visual simulation (animated Earth globe showing aerosol layer growth, real-time Chart.js temperature and radiation graphs), collect and record numerical data in a structured data table, and compose a written causal explanation. The task supports kinesthetic (simulation interaction), visual (globe and charts), and expressive (written explanation) modes of engagement.

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 is structured into sequential phases: Engage (historical context), Explore (single-variable trials), Explain (multi-variable comparison), and Elaborate (synthesis explanation). Each phase builds on the previous with explicit step-by-step instructions for simulation use.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from historical mystery (why did summer not come?) to controlled investigation (how does VEI and latitude affect cooling?) to synthesis explanation mirrors authentic scientific inquiry and is logically coherent from a student perspective.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The 1816 event is globally documented across multiple cultures and continents; the task uses straightforward English without idioms or culturally specific references, and simulation controls are labeled with both technical terms and plain descriptions.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Initial data collection questions are accessible to all students through direct observation of simulation outputs; the final synthesis explanation requires higher-order causal reasoning that challenges advanced students while the structured framework supports those who need it.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Scientific vocabulary (aerosol, albedo, VEI) is introduced with brief operational definitions directly before use; directions are written in clear, active voice at an appropriate reading level for high school science.

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 positions students as climate scientists investigating a historical mystery that shaped the trajectory of human civilization — Byron’s ‘Darkness,’ Shelley’s Frankenstein, and the ‘Year Without a Summer’ famine all emerged from this event. The simulation’s interactive controls give students agency over the investigation, while the visual Earth globe provides immediate, tangible feedback that makes abstract atmospheric physics engaging.

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 assumes prior instruction on Earth’s energy balance (albedo, incoming solar radiation, greenhouse effect) at a conceptual level, which is standard in high school Earth science courses before introducing volcanic climate forcing. Students are not expected to know about stratospheric aerosols specifically — that causal mechanism is discovered through the investigation.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation accurately models the causal relationships between VEI, stratospheric aerosol optical depth, albedo change, and surface radiation reduction based on established volcanic forcing parameterizations. Temperature anomaly curves are consistent with published paleoclimate datasets for major eruptions. The latitude-dependent dispersal correctly differentiates hemispheric versus global cooling patterns. No scientific inaccuracies identified.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Consider adding a brief data table template in the student handout to scaffold systematic comparison across multiple VEI and latitude trial combinations.

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:

Targets HS-ESS2-4: Use a model to describe how variations in the flow of energy into and out of Earth’s systems result in changes in climate. The task assesses students’ ability to use the Tambora simulation model to trace how volcanic aerosol loading alters planetary albedo and surface radiation, producing multi-year global temperature anomalies. Targeted dimensions: SEP — Analyzing and Interpreting Data, Constructing Explanations; DCI — ESS2.D Weather and Climate; CCC — Cause and Effect, Energy and Matter.

  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
    • [x] 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 — students cannot correctly identify or quantify the aerosol-driven albedo mechanism without engaging with the simulation’s radiation, albedo, and temperature outputs across multiple trials. The model is the primary source of evidence for all explanations.

  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 time-series graph reading skills are required to interpret the Chart.js outputs, but this is a prerequisite skill for high school Earth science and does not significantly burden the core assessment target. Simulation navigation (slider, dropdown, button) is explicitly taught within the task instructions.

  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)?

Yes — the final written explanation directly demonstrates whether students can use a model to connect variations in energy flow to climate change, which is precisely what HS-ESS2-4 requires. The formative purpose is supported by the sequential scaffolding, which allows teachers to identify breakdowns in understanding before students attempt the synthesis.

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 recording temperature anomaly (°C), aerosol optical depth, albedo, and surface radiation (%) for at least three VEI/latitude combinations, and a written causal explanation connecting eruption → aerosols → albedo → energy balance → temperature anomaly with specific numerical evidence cited from their trials. Both artifacts make three-dimensional sense-making directly observable and assessable.

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 map each deliverable to HS-ESS2-4 evidence statements, specifying that a complete causal chain (eruption → aerosols → albedo → radiation reduction → temperature anomaly → recovery) with at least two cited data points constitutes evidence of meeting the standard. The rubric distinguishes between identifying the mechanism (adequate) and quantitatively connecting VEI magnitude and latitude to anomaly size and duration (extensive).

  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 sequential data table structure and phased explanation prompts allow teachers to identify exactly where a student’s causal chain breaks down — for example, a student may correctly identify that aerosols increase but fail to connect increased aerosols to increased albedo. Each link in the causal chain is separately prompted in the Explain section.

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

The task naturally extends to instruction on other climate forcing mechanisms (greenhouse gas concentrations, solar variability, ocean heat capacity), situating volcanic forcing within the broader concept of Earth’s energy balance. It also connects directly to HS-ESS3-5 (analyzing geoscience data and the results of climate modeling) and to discussions of climate risk and resilience.

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 simulation controls (VEI slider 3–8, latitude dropdown with three options, Run and Reset buttons) are explicitly named in the student instructions with the exact values to set for each trial phase. Output metrics (temperature anomaly, aerosol depth, albedo, surface radiation %) are identified by their on-screen labels. This specificity removes technical ambiguity and directs student cognitive effort toward analysis and explanation rather than simulation navigation.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

A formal scoring rubric mapping each component of the causal explanation to specific HS-ESS2-4 evidence statements — with point values for each causal link — would strengthen scoring consistency and provide clearer student feedback.

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 ‘Volcanic Eruptions and Global Cooling: The 1816 Year Without a Summer’ is a high-quality, three-dimensional NGSS assessment anchored in a historically verifiable and globally significant phenomenon. It effectively leverages the Tambora 1816 interactive simulation to let students investigate how volcanic stratospheric aerosol loading alters Earth’s energy balance, producing multi-year climate anomalies. The task integrates Analyzing and Interpreting Data and Constructing Explanations (SEP), Cause and Effect and Energy and Matter (CCC), and ESS2.D Weather and Climate (DCI) to assess HS-ESS2-4. The scenario is historically accurate, engaging, and coherent from a student perspective. The assessment is accessible to a wide range of learners while providing sufficient depth for high achievers. Minor suggestions: add a structured data collection table template and a formal teacher-facing scoring rubric.

Final recommendation (choose one):