Science Task Screener

Task Title: Environmental Change & Extinction Explorer: Evaluating Evidence of Extinction and Speciation

Grade: High School (9-12)

Date: 2024-05-18

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 provides a simulation where students manipulate environmental variables (drought, deforestation, fertilizer) to observe explicit effects on population dynamics and survival.

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

Students engage in Argument from Evidence by collecting population data from the chart and using it to write a CER evaluating how environmental disruption causes extinction and expansion.

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 [ ] [ ] [ ] The task introduces a drought phenomenon that causes specific species to thrive or go extinct.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [ ] [ ] [ ] Students investigate this phenomenon directly using the simulation.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [ ] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon is highly relevant to ecological impacts occurring in the real world.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [ ] [ ] [ ] The simulation accurately models the ecological consequences of these disturbances.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [ ] [ ] [ ] The task directly addresses the targeted learning goals of HS-LS4-5.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [ ] [ ] [ ] Students are required to record data from the simulation and use it as evidence.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [ ] [ ] [ ] The task asks students to construct a CER argument using their collected data.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [ ] [ ] [ ] Students must evaluate how well the data supports their claim.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [ ] [ ] [ ] The evidence is directly used to support or critique claims about survival.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [ ] [ ] [ ] The argumentation process is central to the Evaluate phase of the task.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [ ] [ ] [ ] This specific sub-criterion is fulfilled by the task’s explicit connection to the simulation data.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The phenomenon is strongly observable via the simulation and engages students directly in the mechanics of extinction and speciation.

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 simulation strictly models DCI LS4.C: changes in the physical environment contribute to the expansion of some species, emergence of new distinct species, and the decline of others based on survival thresholds.

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?)

The task requires students to explain these changes using the principles of adaptation.

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

Students observe extinction when a species cannot adjust to a fast or drastic change.

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

Students use the CCC of Cause and Effect to link specific disturbances (e.g., severe drought lowers water quality and increases temperature) to population changes (e.g., amphibian extinction).

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 task requires students to differentiate between correlation and causation in their 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).

Students use empirical evidence to make claims about specific causes and effects.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Consider having students peer-review each other’s CER arguments to further deepen the evaluation of evidence.

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 CER explicitly asks students to evaluate the simulation’s empirical evidence to support the claim that environmental conditions cause extinction and speciation, fulfilling HS-LS4-5.

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 must synthesize information across all three dimensions.

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 [ ] [ ] [ ] The task provides clear instructions for this sub-criterion.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [ ] [ ] [ ] Students are guided to perform actions matching this sub-criterion.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [ ] [ ] [ ] The sub-criterion is a core part of the Elaborate phase.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [ ] [ ] [ ] The sub-criterion aligns with the NGSS expectations.
Tasks use accessible language [ ] [ ] [ ] The task naturally integrates this sub-criterion.

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 task directly assesses the performance expectation in an integrated manner.

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 involves independent reasoning based on simulation data.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The task connects to real-world contexts and science concepts.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None. The task directly measures understanding of adaptation limits and environmental factors driving survival.

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:

Cause and effect relationships are used to explain how environmental changes affect populations.

  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): To model population dynamics and adaptation limits under environmental stress.

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?

The task represents a coherent learning progression.

  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.

The assessment is embedded within the instructional sequence.

  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 task provides clear guidelines for evaluation.

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].

Evidence of this is found in the specific student prompts in the task.

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 data collection table provides evidence for this.

  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 CER structure ensures this evidence is generated.

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

The comparison between events provides this evidence.

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 Teacher Notes explicitly describe this evidence.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Ensure students explicitly distinguish between correlation and causation in their CER.

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 robustly supports HS-LS4-5 by requiring students to use empirical simulation data to evaluate claims about the cause-and-effect relationship between environmental disruption, adaptation limits, and biodiversity shifts (extinction, expansion, and divergence).

Final recommendation (choose one):