Science Task Screener
Task Title: Quenching the Thirst: Designing Sustainable Water Systems
Grade: High School
Date: April 19, 2026
Instructions
- Before you begin: Complete the task as a student would. Then, consider any support materials provided to teachers or students, such as contextual information about the task and answer keys/scoring guidance.
- Using the Task Screener: Use this tool to evaluate tasks designed for three-dimensional standards. For each criterion, record your evidence for the presence or absence of the associated indicators. After you have decided to what degree the indicators are present within the task, revisit the purpose of your task and decide whether the evidence supports using it.
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.
- Is a phenomenon and/or problem present?
Yes, the problem of urban water scarcity driven by population growth and limited resources.
- Is information from the scenario necessary to respond successfully to the task?
Yes, students must use the specific costs, yields, and environmental scores provided in the simulation’s project menu to build a valid plan.
ii. The task scenario is engaging, relevant, and accessible to a wide range of students.
| Features of scenarios | Yes | Somewhat | No | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario presents real-world observations | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Mention of Cape Town’s Day Zero. |
| Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Focuses on a 10-year city planning window. |
| Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | The trade-off between “Yuck factor” (recycling) and yield. |
| Scenarios create a “need to know” | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Students need to know how to reach 350 ML/day without failing. |
| Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Engineering design and societal impacts. |
| Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Text, dynamic charts, and interactive controls. |
| If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Projects have distinct, modeled attributes. |
| The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Global water crisis is a major UN goal. |
| Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Clear instructions. |
| Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Simulation UI is clean and information-rich. |
| Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task | [X] | [ ] | [ ] | Multiple paths to success/failure. |
| Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [X] Extensive |
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.
Students must reason that increasing supply via one method (e.g., desalination) might block them from meeting other constraints (e.g., environmental impact), requiring a balanced “mixed” strategy.
ii. The task requires students to demonstrate grade-appropriate dimensions:
Evidence of SEPs: Asking Questions and Defining Problems: Students translate a general goal (more water) into specific quantitative constraints (Budget < $180M).
Evidence of CCCs: Influence of Science/Engineering on Society: Students see how technical choices (recycling) have social consequences (approval drops).
Evidence of DCIs: ETS1.A: Defining criteria and constraints that account for societal needs (public approval) and environmental limits.
iii. The task requires students to integrate multiple dimensions in service of sense-making and/or problem-solving.
The final Engineering Report requires integrating the data (evidence) with the engineering constraints (DCI) to justify the final plan.
iv. The task requires students to make their thinking visible.
The “Refinement” question in Part 4 specifically asks students to identify their own failures and logic adjustments.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [X] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Criterion C. Tasks are fair and equitable.
i. The task provides ways for students to make connections of local, global, or universal relevance.
Water is a fundamental human need, making it universally relevant.
ii. The task includes multiple modes for students to respond to the task.
Interactive simulation outputs, tables, and narrative justifications.
iii. The task is accessible, appropriate, and cognitively demanding for all learners.
The tiered 5E structure allows students to build complexity, starting from simple observation to high-level multi-constraint optimization.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [X] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Criterion D. Tasks support their intended targets and purpose.
Before you begin:
-
Describe what is being assessed. HS-ETS1-1: Defining and refining engineering problems based on criteria/constraints.
-
What is the purpose of the assessment?
- Formative
- Summative
| Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [X] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Overall Summary
Excellent alignment with engineering standards. The simulation’s separation of “Setup” (Defining Constraints) and “Action” (Solving) perfectly mirrors the intent of HS-ETS1-1.
Final recommendation (choose one):
- Use this task (all criteria had at least an “adequate” rating)