Science Task Screener

Task Title: Enzyme Docking Puzzle Task

Grade: 9-12

Date: 2024-05-15

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?

1. Is a phenomenon and/or problem present?

The task specifically targets HS-LS1-1 by having students explicitly construct an explanation for how protein structure (enzyme shape) is necessary for function, and connecting it back to DNA sequence.

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

The elaboration phase of the task requires students to Construct Explanations based on valid and reliable evidence obtained from the simulation.

ii. The task scenario is engaging, relevant, and accessible to a wide range of students.

Features of engaging, relevant, and accessible tasks:

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None at this time; the task is ready for deployment.

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 strongly reinforces LS1.A: Structure and Function, demonstrating that proteins carry out the essential functions of life and require a specific 3D shape.

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 construct an explanation based on valid and reliable evidence obtained from the simulation, connecting protein structure directly to function.

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

Students demonstrate understanding of the CCC (Structure and Function) by explaining how the physical geometry of the active site restricts binding, proving that structure determines function.

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

The task provides clear visual feedback (the flashing green meter) making the complex concept of protein folding and docking accessible to all learners.

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 instructions chunk the process: first translating, then rotating, providing necessary scaffolding before asking students to synthesize the concepts in their final explanation.

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 phenomenon of substrate-active site specificity is compelling and clearly drives the need to construct an explanation.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None at this time; the task is ready for deployment.

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.

Students must engage directly with the 3D model to understand the relationship between spatial alignment and reaction success.

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.

The task relies on the student’s direct manipulation of the simulation, not rote memorization.

iii. The task is accessible, appropriate, and cognitively demanding for all learners (including English learners or students working below/above grade level).

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 primary task is to construct an explanation (SEP) for how structure determines function.

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 simulation provides direct, valid evidence of structural alignment requirements.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The explanation focuses explicitly on how the physical geometry of the active site restricts binding.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None at this time; the task is ready for deployment.

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 is structured as a 5E inquiry cycle focusing on investigation and explanation.

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?

The task requires reasoning to connect the simulation’s visual evidence to the broader concept of DNA determining protein structure and cellular function.

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.

Students demonstrate understanding of the DCI (LS1.A) by connecting the 3D structure of the protein directly to its ability to carry out cellular functions.

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 simulation controls (translation then rotation) provide a stepped, scaffolded approach to solving the spatial puzzle.

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 final written explanation serves as an observable student artifact that teachers can evaluate using the provided rubrics to assess mastery of the 3D concepts.

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 task instructions clearly connect the abstract concept of protein folding to the observable docking puzzle.

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):

Students are prompted to use the specific data (XYZ coordinates, distance) from their investigation in their final explanation.

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

The task provides an opportunity for students to review and refine their explanations based on simulation feedback.

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 rubric and teacher notes provide clear guidance on how to evaluate student understanding of the core concept.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

None at this time; the task is ready for deployment.

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.

This task is a high-quality, 3D NGSS-aligned resource that effectively uses an interactive simulation to drive sensemaking about protein structure and function.

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