Science Task Screener

Task Title: Biodiversity and Population Dynamics Lab

Grade: High School

Date: 2025-05-01

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 presents the anchoring phenomenon of a local wetland ecosystem that collapsed after a drought, while a neighboring wetland survived. Students must investigate the simulation data to explain this discrepancy.

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

Yes, students must use the specific simulation data (population numbers, biodiversity index, carrying capacity estimates) generated from the scenario’s parameters to construct and revise their explanations about ecosystem resilience.

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 uses a real-world concept of wetland collapse post-disturbance to anchor the investigation.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario focuses on a specific local wetland that collapsed after a factory and new predator were introduced followed by a drought.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] It is puzzling why one wetland collapsed from the drought while a neighboring one survived.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know the underlying factors that caused the vulnerability.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon is explainable using the math representations of ecosystem capacity (HS-LS2-2).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario uses text and interactive simulation to explore the phenomenon.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The data generated by the simulation model reflects realistic population dynamics and scaling.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is set locally but explicitly asks students to relate it to a global scale in the extension.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The language is clear, using a simple local ecosystem to frame complex dynamics.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon is introduced concisely in one paragraph.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon serves as the basis for the entire 30-year simulation investigation and final explanation.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

The phenomenon is clear and drives the entire 5E sequence. Ensure students are given space to discuss their initial ideas.

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 use reasoning to evaluate the numerical data generated by the simulation, separating bottom-up factors from top-down factors to explain the wetland’s collapse. They cannot answer using definitions.

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?)

Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking: Students must identify and interpret mathematical representations (graph trends, population outputs, capacity estimates) from the 30-year model.

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

Scale, Proportion, and Quantity: Students explicitly change the scale of the ecosystem and must use proportional reasoning and orders of magnitude to explain how it affects carrying capacity.

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

LS2.A and LS2.C: Students must demonstrate understanding that an ecosystem’s capacity is constrained by limits, and that resilience determines recovery from disturbance.

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.

In the ‘Elaborate/Evaluate’ section, students must synthesize the simulation’s mathematical data (SEP) and the concepts of limits and resilience (DCI) to revise their explanation of the anchoring phenomenon.

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 task requires students to document their initial ideas in writing, fill out a specific data table, and write a final scientific argument revising their initial claims.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

The task successfully relies on reasoning using the data provided in the simulation.

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 anchoring phenomenon uses a relatable local context (a local wetland and factory pollution), but the extension explicitly connects this to a global scale (Global Marine System).

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 engage via written explanation, mathematical tables, reading graphs, and interactive computational modeling.

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 model scaffolds the learning by moving from engagement to directed exploration before expecting students to formulate explanations.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The entire task is logically linked back to the initial phenomenon of the wetland collapse.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The use of a generic local wetland allows students to project their own local environments onto the scenario.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The visual nature of the simulation helps low-achievers, while the complex argumentation and scale extension challenges high-achievers.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The task avoids unnecessary jargon and clearly defines terms like ‘disturbance’.

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 interactive simulation and real-world environmental stakes cultivate student interest.

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 builds logically from basic understanding of populations to complex mathematical modeling of ecosystem interactions.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation’s underlying math models standard population dynamics correctly without inaccuracies.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

The three dimensions are deeply intertwined in the final sensemaking and argumentation steps.

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 task assesses the student’s ability to use mathematical models to support/revise explanations about biodiversity and population limits (HS-LS2-2).

  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, understanding the mathematical relationships is absolutely necessary to generate the final revised explanation.

  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 non-targeted ideas are required.

  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 written responses clearly elicit the student’s progression in understanding the core concepts.

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, written answers to specific math-oriented prompts, and a final written argument.

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 the specific NGSS evidence statements directly to the expected student outputs, supporting 3D interpretation.

  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 separated data collection and sensemaking questions allow teachers to see where a student’s reasoning breaks down.

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

The final question on scale sets up future lessons on global carbon or biogeochemical cycles.

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 provide clear step-by-step guidance for manipulating the simulation.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

The instructions are very clear and provide an excellent data collection framework.

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 is a robust NGSS-aligned activity that uses a strong anchoring phenomenon (wetland collapse post-disturbance) to drive an investigation using a mathematical simulation. It seamlessly integrates the three dimensions required for HS-LS2-2 and provides clear scaffolds for students to synthesize the data into a revised explanation.

Final recommendation (choose one):