Science Task Screener

Task Title: Evidence of Common Ancestry Explorer: Investigating Evolutionary Relationships

Grade: High School (9-12)

Date: 2026-04-25

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?

Extensive Evidence: The task explicitly requires students to synthesize both qualitative observations (anatomical structures) and quantitative data (DNA/amino acid match percentages) from the simulation to construct and communicate a formal, evidence-based scientific argument.

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

Extensive Evidence: Students must actively identify evidence of evolution by analyzing the genetic overlaps (DNA and amino acid sequences) and anatomical similarities provided by the simulation, directly applying the core concepts of LS4.A.

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 is grounded in the real-world observation of anatomical homologies across diverse species.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario focuses strictly on comparing four specific species (human, chimp, mouse, chicken) to ground the broad concept of evolution.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] It poses an intriguing, puzzling question: why would animals with completely different lifestyles and outer appearances share the same internal bone structure?
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] This puzzling observation creates a genuine ‘need to know’ and motivates the investigation into their underlying genetic code.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is directly explainable using the targeted HS-LS4-1 dimensions, specifically the DCI regarding evidence of common ancestry.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] It effectively uses textual descriptions alongside an interactive simulation that provides both numerical data and structural diagrams.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides realistic, scientifically accurate DNA sequence matching and amino acid matching data for these species.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The relevance to broader evolutionary biology and the origins of these species (including humans) is made clear.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is written in clear, accessible language suitable for high school biology students.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The text avoids unnecessary jargon and remains concise, focusing students directly on the investigation.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The integration of three distinct lines of evidence (DNA, amino acids, anatomy) ensures the scenario is sufficiently rich.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

To further enhance the task, consider explicitly providing a formal scoring rubric to the students alongside the prompt in the Elaborate section.

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.

Extensive Evidence: The entire sensemaking portion of the task relies on the CCC of Patterns. Students must identify patterns of similarity across different data sets (DNA from one gene, amino acids from another, and anatomy) to infer the degree of evolutionary relationship, recognizing that different molecular datasets can show different levels of conservation.

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?)

Extensive Evidence: Students demonstrate the SEP of ‘Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information’ by interacting with the simulation to generate empirical data, synthesizing that data into a cohesive scientific argument, and communicating their findings in a structured format.

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

Extensive Evidence: Students must explicitly identify and use patterns in the empirical data (e.g., high vs. low sequence match percentages, structural homologies) as the core evidence in their argument for common ancestry.

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

Extensive Evidence: Students must articulate how genetic overlaps and anatomical similarities across different species serve as concrete evidence of descent from a common ancestor, demonstrating mastery of LS4.A.

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.

Extensive Evidence: The prompts are clearly written and directly guide students toward the expected 3D performance, outlining exactly what their final argument must contain (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning).

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).

Adequate Evidence: The sequence of activities logically builds student understanding. They begin with a macro-level observation, transition into micro-level data collection, answer sensemaking questions, and then synthesize it all.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

To further enhance the task, consider explicitly providing a formal scoring rubric to the students alongside the prompt in the Elaborate section.

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.

Adequate Evidence: Students collect their own original data from the interactive simulation and are required to explain the phenomenon using their own words and reasoning.

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.

Extensive Evidence: The final Elaborate prompt explicitly requires students to use the SEP (argumentation), DCI (common ancestry evidence), and CCC (patterns) to successfully complete the task.

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 structured data collection table and the sequential 5E instructional model provide excellent scaffolding for the analysis.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression is highly logical: it moves from initial Engage observations to Explore data collection, Explain sensemaking, and finally Elaborate argumentation.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The task relies purely on universal empirical scientific data (genetics and anatomy), avoiding reliance on specific cultural assumptions.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The step-by-step structured observations provide multiple entry points and support for all learners, while the final synthesis argument provides a rigorous challenge for advanced students.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The language used in the student-facing prompts is accessible, clear, and defines any necessary terms.

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.

Extensive Evidence: The task cultivates interest by using a puzzling phenomenon (shared bone structures) and allowing students to interactively discover the underlying genetic connections themselves, giving them agency in the investigation.

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.

Extensive Evidence: The task assumes basic prior knowledge of what DNA and amino acids are, but all specific evolutionary data needed to succeed is provided within the simulation, ensuring equitable opportunity to learn.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

Extensive Evidence: The information presented is scientifically accurate. The simulation correctly maps the real-world Cytochrome b DNA and Cytochrome c amino acid sequences for the species involved, and accurately represents their homologous bone structures.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

To further enhance the task, consider explicitly providing a formal scoring rubric to the students alongside the prompt in the Elaborate section.

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 primary purpose is a formative assessment to evaluate students’ ability to synthesize multiple lines of empirical evidence (DNA, amino acids, anatomy) into a coherent, 3D scientific argument for common ancestry.

  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?

Extensive Evidence: The target (HS-LS4-1) is absolutely necessary; students cannot construct the final argument without understanding common ancestry evidence.

  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.

Extensive Evidence: No extraneous ideas, practices, or experiences are required to succeed. The task strictly focuses on interpreting the empirical sequence and anatomical data provided directly by the simulation.

  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)?

Extensive Evidence: The elicited argument (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning) directly supports the purpose of evaluating whether students can communicate evidence of common ancestry.

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].

Extensive Evidence: Students generate a formal written argument (claim, evidence, reasoning) and a populated data collection table. Both serve as direct, observable artifacts of their 3D 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:

Adequate Evidence: Students receive clear qualitative feedback on their argumentation format based on the rubric elements provided in the prompt.

  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):

Adequate Evidence: The Explain section includes guiding sensemaking questions that prompt reflection on how DNA and amino acid data correlate before the final assessment.

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

Adequate Evidence: Feedback heavily focuses on the scientific accuracy of their claims and their ability to identify patterns in the data.

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).

Adequate Evidence: While the task does not explicitly mandate built-in peer review, educators can easily facilitate peer evaluation of the final arguments.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

To further enhance the task, consider explicitly providing a formal scoring rubric to the students alongside the prompt in the Elaborate section.

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.

Overall Summary: The Evidence of Common Ancestry Explorer task is a strong, highly aligned resource for HS-LS4-1. It effectively leverages an interactive simulation to drive a 3D performance, anchoring the learning in a puzzling anatomical phenomenon. The scaffolded 5E structure, clear instructions, and multi-modal data collection effectively support student argumentation. The task provides comprehensive opportunities for students to demonstrate their mastery of the target DCI, SEP, and CCC.

Final recommendation (choose one):