Science Task Screener

Task Title: DNA to Protein Structure and Function: The Mutation Challenge

Grade: 10th

Date: [Current Date]

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.

What was in the task, where was it, and why is this evidence?

Is a phenomenon and/or problem present?

Yes, the problem/phenomenon is that mutations in DNA sequence can lead to changes in protein structure which then alters the function of specialized cells (e.g., sickle cell anemia, or a premature stop codon preventing a protein from working). The student acts as a geneticist observing these changes.

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

Yes, the student must use the specific data points generated by the simulation (the sequence, the folded shape, the cell type result) to answer the analysis questions and construct their final explanation.

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]	[ ]	[ ]	Sickle cell mutation and premature stops are real-world genetic occurrences.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The challenges ask students to look at specific instances (Muscle cell function, Sickle Cell trait).
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The student must figure out how to mutate the DNA to create the desired (or undesired) outcome.
Scenarios create a “need to know”	[ ]	[X]	[ ]	The need to know is driven by the challenge goals.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	Fully aligned with HS-LS1-1.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions)	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	Textual instructions combined with an interactive visual simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The codons correctly translate to amino acids and the shapes follow basic biological rules for the simplified model.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students	[ ]	[X]	[ ]	It touches on universal human health (sickle cell) but isn’t explicitly deeply localized.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The language is straightforward and accessible.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The instructions are concise.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The simulation provides enough variables to explore deeply.

Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[X] Adequate

[ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None at this time; it serves its purpose well.

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.

The task requires students to synthesize observations: they must reason that a single letter change (DNA) cascades into an amino acid change, which dictates the folding pattern, which finally determines if the cell succeeds or fails.

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?)

Constructing Explanations: The final prompt explicitly asks the student to “Construct an Explanation” using evidence gathered from the simulation’s log to answer how DNA structure determines protein structure and cell function.

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

Structure and Function: This is the core of the entire task. Students must explicitly link the structure of the DNA to the structure of the protein, and then to the function of that protein in a specialized cell. Analysis Question #5 directly assesses this.

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

LS1.A Structure and Function: The task covers the DCI that DNA determines the structure of proteins, which carry out the essential functions of life through systems of specialized cells.

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 conclusion paragraph forces the integration. To write a successful paragraph, the student must construct an explanation (SEP) about how the molecular structure dictates the cellular function (CCC), which is the core disciplinary idea (DCI).

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 Evidence Log makes their data collection visible, and the 5 Analysis questions make their intermediate reasoning visible before the final synthesis paragraph.

Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[ ] Adequate

[X] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

The alignment here is very strong.

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 inclusion of the “Sickle Cell Challenge” connects the abstract concept of protein folding to a globally recognized genetic condition that affects real people.

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 logging (tabular format), short answer (analysis questions), and a long-form constructed explanation (paragraph).

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 simulation provides immediate visual feedback. The task breaks down the process before the final essay.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	It moves logically from exploration to specific challenges to synthesis.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds	[ ]	[X]	[ ]	It is neutral in this regard.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The visual log helps lower-achieving students, while the final explanation challenges high-achieving students.
Tasks use accessible language	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	Vocabulary is standard biology terms (transcription, translation, codon, etc.).

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.

By framing the activity as a “Challenge” (e.g., “Premature STOP Challenge”) rather than just a worksheet, it gamifies the learning process, allowing students to experiment confidently.

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.

Assuming standard 10th-grade biology pacing, students would have learned about DNA, RNA, and proteins prior to this synthesizing activity.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

Yes, the base pairing (A-T, C-G, A-U in RNA), the codon translation (using the standard dictionary), and the general concept of protein folding are scientifically accurate within the simplified scope of a high school model. There are no inaccuracies promoted.

Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[X] Adequate

[ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None.

Criterion D. Tasks support their intended targets and purpose.

Before you begin:

Describe what is being assessed. Include any targets provided, such as dimensions, elements, or PEs:

HS-LS1-1 (Construct an explanation based on evidence for how the structure of DNA determines the structure of proteins which carry out the essential functions of life through systems of specialized cells).

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):

i. The task assesses what it is intended to assess and supports the purpose for which it is intended.

Consider the following:

Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task?

Yes, the final prompt directly mirrors the language of HS-LS1-1. If a student can successfully answer the final prompt using the simulation’s evidence, they have met the standard.

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. Only basic understanding of the terms in the simulation is required to interact with it, which supports the targeted assessment.

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 structured questions followed by an open-ended explanation prompt give clear insight into whether the student grasps the causal chain from DNA to trait.

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 completed Evidence Log and the written explanation paragraph serve as the observable artifacts.

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:

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:

(Note: Answer keys/Rubrics are typically maintained separately by the teacher, but the task itself sets clear expectations for what should be in the final answer: evidence from the log, connecting nucleotide sequence to 3D shape, and cellular environment).

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 task breaks the reasoning down into multiple smaller questions, allowing a teacher to identify exactly where a student’s understanding breaks down (e.g., Do they understand translation, but not folding?).

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

This is a formative task, so teachers can use the resulting paragraphs to determine if further instruction on the Central Dogma is needed.

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 instructions are clear, step-by-step, and point out exactly which UI elements the student should interact with (e.g., “Goals & Challenges” buttons).

Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[X] Adequate

[ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

None.

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 strong, 3-dimensional, NGSS-aligned activity that perfectly pairs with the provided interactive simulation. It effectively uses the simulation as an exploratory tool to generate data, forcing the student to rely on evidence rather than rote memorization to construct their final explanation. The challenges are engaging and the progression of questions is logical.

Final recommendation (choose one):

Use this task (all criteria had at least an “adequate” rating)
Modify and use this task
Do not use this task