Science Task Screener

Task Title: Water Properties & Earth Processes Task

Grade: High School

Date: 2024

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 introduces the phenomenon of freezing water breaking rocks and rivers shaping landscapes, giving a clear investigative purpose. Students use the simulation to understand the underlying mechanisms.

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

By engaging with the simulation, students must explain the mechanisms behind the phenomenon using evidence collected from the simulated environments.

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 connects to universal processes like frost wedging and stream transport.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario uses easily understandable examples like potholes and river erosion.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] Asking how gentle water breaks solid rock introduces a puzzling contrast.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario prompts students to investigate the mechanisms breaking down the rock.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomena are directly linked to HS-ESS2-5 dimensions and easily observable in the simulation.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task utilizes textual descriptions and an interactive simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides realistic, proportional data for strain, pH dissolution, and stream transport.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomena (potholes, rivers) are universally recognizable.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The language is clear and grade-appropriate.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario description is brief but sufficient.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario drives the investigation across all three labs.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

No suggestions for improvement.

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 analyze data on rock strain, chemical mass loss, and particle movement to explain the phenomena.

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 plan and conduct investigations (SEP) by setting variables in the simulation and recording observations.

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

Students infer how the structure and properties of water (CCC) result in mechanical and chemical functions on Earth materials.

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

Students use their understanding of water’s roles in Earth’s surface processes (DCI ESS2.C) to explain weathering and transport.

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 argument requires students to integrate evidence from the labs with the properties of water to explain the phenomena.

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 record data in a table and construct a written scientific argument.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Ensure students clearly link the CCC to the DCI in their argument.

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 extension options allow students to connect the simulation findings to global issues like ocean acidification or local karst topography.

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 respond via data tables and a written scientific argument.

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 step-by-step instructions scaffold the investigation process.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The labs are logically sequenced from mechanical to chemical processes.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses universally observable phenomena (weathering, streams).
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The task allows for both basic observation and deeper sensemaking via the argument.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The language is clear and grade-appropriate.

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 simulation empowers students to independently test variables and form their own conclusions.

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 basic familiarity with reading graphs and following lab procedures.

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 found; the simulation models align with accepted scientific principles.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Consider adding a collaborative discussion component for peer reflection.

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 targets HS-ESS2-5, specifically the ability to plan/conduct an investigation into water’s properties and effects.

  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, students must conduct the investigation and analyze the data to construct the final argument.

  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 untargeted ideas are necessary; the task focuses strictly on the specified dimensions.

  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 argument directly demonstrates their understanding of water’s properties and effects.

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 data table and the written argument serve as direct, observable artifacts of sensemaking.

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 clear guidance on the intended learning targets and expected student deliverables.

  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 structure of the final argument (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning) helps teachers assess varying levels of understanding.

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

The extension options provide clear pathways for follow-up 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 step-by-step instructions are clear and support independent student work.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Teachers should review the arguments to ensure the connection between water properties and landscape formation is explicit.

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 strongly supports HS-ESS2-5 by providing a structured, interactive investigation into the mechanical and chemical properties of water. The 5E format guides students from phenomenon observation to evidence-based argumentation, effectively integrating all three dimensions.

Final recommendation (choose one):