Science Task Screener

Task Title: Group Behavior & Survival Model Task

Grade: High School

Date: 2023-10-24

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 data analysis connects directly back to the anchoring phenomenon observed during the Engage phase.

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

The step-by-step 5E sequence and clear simulation instructions provide sufficient scaffolding for successful administration.

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] [ ] [ ] Flocking is a well-documented real-world phenomenon.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It models specific predator-prey encounters.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The rapid, coordinated movements are presented to spark curiosity.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students must run the simulation to discover the numerical advantage.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The survival advantage is fully explainable using the targeted DCI and CCC.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Uses textual description, videos, and an interactive simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] Simulation generates realistic survival data based on physical interactions.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Universal relevance of survival is implied, but could be made more explicit.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The visual nature of the simulation makes it highly comprehensible.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] Instructions are concise and direct.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The flocking vs solitary comparison provides rich data for the entire task.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Consider adding a specific video link of schooling fish in the Engage 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.

Students evaluate empirical data from the simulation to construct a scientific argument (Engaging in Argument from Evidence) supporting or refuting the claim that group behavior increases survival.

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?)

Students distinguish between cause and correlation regarding survival rates, using empirical evidence from multiple trials to make claims about the specific cause-and-effect relationship between flocking behavior and survival.

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

Students analyze how group behavior (LS2.D: Social Interactions and Group Behavior) affects individual and species survival by comparing solitary vs. flocking survival rates.

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

The task requires students to integrate empirical evidence (SEP) about group behavior (DCI) to determine causal relationships (CCC).

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 Explain section prompts students to analyze data to identify causal relationships before constructing the argument.

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 CER argument structure explicitly requires students to make their causal reasoning and evidence interpretation visible.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None. The 3D integration is explicit and well aligned.

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 synthesize data to explain the advantages of group behavior in their final argument.

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 focuses on a written scientific argument, but the Engage phase supports oral discussion and observation.

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 data table structure provides a good scaffold for data collection.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The 5E structure provides clear coherence from start to finish.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon relies on universal natural examples.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The argument construction allows for varying levels of depth.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions are clear and avoid unnecessary jargon.

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 student-driven investigation build confidence in scientific reasoning by allowing students to immediately see the results of their tests.

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 upon prior understanding of predator/prey dynamics and focuses on developing new understanding of group behavioral advantages.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation accurately represents the biological advantages of flocking without introducing common misconceptions about conscious intent.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

The sensemaking progression from data collection to argumentation is logically structured.

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 students’ ability to evaluate empirical evidence (survival rates) to construct an argument about the role of group behavior on survival chances (HS-LS2-8).

  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): None

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 CER argument structure requires students to incorporate all three dimensions explicitly.

  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 CER structure acts as an integrated rubric for teachers to assess the argument.

  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 data analysis connects directly back to the anchoring phenomenon observed during the Engage phase.

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 primary artifacts are completed data collection tables and a written scientific argument including claim, evidence, and reasoning.

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 CER structure requires students to explicitly incorporate empirical evidence (SEP) about group behavior (DCI) to determine causal relationships (CCC).

  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 scaffolding allows teachers to interpret various levels of understanding based on the thoroughness of the data table and argument.

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

The data analysis connects directly back to the anchoring phenomenon observed during the Engage phase.

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 step-by-step 5E sequence and clear simulation instructions provide sufficient scaffolding for successful administration.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Ensure visually impaired students have accommodations or a partner for the simulation.

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 Group Behavior and Survival Model Task provides a strong, 3-dimensional learning experience aligned to HS-LS2-8. The phenomenon is engaging, and the simulation allows for robust data collection.

Final recommendation (choose one):