Science Task Screener

Task Title: Tectonic Landscape Modeler Task

Grade: High School

Date: Current Date

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?

Students use the SEP ‘Developing and Using Models’ by gathering evidence from the simulation and structuring a visual or written model.

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

Students use the CCC ‘Stability and Change’ to track how landscapes change over differing temporal scales (short vs geologic time).

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 requires students to explain the real-world observable phenomenon of why mountains persist despite erosion over geologic time.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The task focuses specifically on the interaction of constructive (uplift, volcanism) and destructive (weathering) forces rather than a general topic.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon is framed around the puzzling persistence of mountains despite constant erosion.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] The initial Engage questions prompt students to generate their own questions about mountain formation and decay.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The task is directly mapped to Developing and Using Models, ESS2.A/ESS2.B, and Stability and Change.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task utilizes the simulation, images, and text descriptions.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The data collected (mountain heights over 10M, 50M, 100M years) accurately reflects simulated geologic changes.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The global relevance is established by comparing the Himalayas and Appalachians.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The task is written with accessible language and clear scaffolding suitable for high school students.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions are concise and focus strictly on necessary actions to explore the phenomenon.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation allows for deep, multi-scale exploration of constructive and destructive forces.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The scenario is well-crafted.

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 use the DCIs (ESS2.A, ESS2.B) to understand and explain how tectonic uplift and volcanism (constructive) interact with weathering (destructive) to shape the landscape.

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 use the SEP ‘Developing and Using Models’ by gathering data from the simulation to construct a visual/written model explaining landscape changes.

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

Students use the CCC ‘Stability and Change’ to explicitly compare short-term changes (mass wasting) with long-term systemic stability (geologic time weathering).

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

Students use the DCIs (ESS2.A, ESS2.B) to identify and explain how specific constructive forces (uplift) and destructive forces (erosion) shape the 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 Teacher Notes explicitly list the exact evidence statements (1.a.i, 1.a.iii, 1.a.iv, 2.a.i, 2.a.ii, 2.a.iv).

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 student model serves as a clear artifact of learning that can be evaluated using the provided evidence statements.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None. The 3D integration is explicit.

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 draws a direct connection to universal relevance by framing the investigation around why all mountains (like the Himalayas or Appalachians) eventually wear down, providing a universally relatable geological context.

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 can respond through recorded data tables, written explanations of causal mechanisms, and by developing a sketched or written final model.

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 clear scaffolding, starting with real-world examples before introducing the simulation.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The task flows coherently from observing a phenomenon to exploring it, explaining it, and finally modeling it.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The open-ended modeling task respects diverse backgrounds by allowing varied expressions (written or sketched).
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The open-ended modeling task provides a high ceiling for advanced students while remaining accessible.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The language is clear, with complex vocabulary (e.g. constructive/destructive) introduced in context.

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 builds confidence by allowing students to instantly visualize the results of their decisions (e.g., clicking the uplift tool) and by valuing their own initial questions generated in the Engage phase.

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 only a basic foundational understanding of what mountains are, using the Engage phase (Himalayas vs. Appalachians) to build the necessary shared context before beginning the simulation.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

There is no evidence of scientific inaccuracies. The simulation correctly models the opposing dynamics of constructive and destructive tectonic forces.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None. The artifact is clearly defined.

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:

Formative Assessment / Performance Task

  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?

Yes, the assessment target (developing a model) is inherently required to complete the Elaborate/Evaluate stage of the task.

  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 extraneous ideas or practices are needed; the simulation provides all necessary context and tools to understand the constructive and destructive forces.

  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 artifacts produced (the sketched/written model) directly allow teachers to infer whether students understand the causal relationship between uplift and weathering.

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 primary artifact is a student-developed model (written or sketched diagram). It makes their sense-making visible by requiring them to link the temporal scale data they collected (CCC) to the physical forces (DCI) through the act of modeling (SEP).

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 provide a rubric that maps the required components of the student model to the specific observable features (e.g., 1.a.i, 1.a.iii) of the HS-ESS2-1 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):

The modeling task allows for a wide range of responses, from simple labeled diagrams to complex, multi-stage written explanations of temporal changes.

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

The 5E structure provides a clear progression. Reviewing the initial Engage questions alongside the final model helps connect prior experiences to future instruction.

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 prompts clearly distinguish between constructive and destructive forces and provide specific tool parameters (e.g., Intensity 5) to ensure students can successfully navigate the simulation without getting lost.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

None. The task fully aligns with its intended targets and purpose.

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 Tectonic Landscape Modeler Task is a high-quality, 3D learning experience fully aligned with HS-ESS2-1. It provides a robust, phenomenon-driven scenario where students use a simulation to gather evidence and develop a model of Earth’s constructive and destructive surface processes over geologic time.

Final recommendation (choose one):