Science Task Screener

Task Title: Habitat Fragmentation Mitigation Screener

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-04-25

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?

The Engage section asks students to predict what will happen when a highway splits a population.

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

Students must construct a recommendation to the city council based on simulation data.

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 highway scenario is a very common, real-world example of habitat fragmentation.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It focuses specifically on a highway splitting a forest, causing measurable genetic decay.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The rapid decline in genetic diversity and population size creates an intriguing puzzle.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know why the population is dying even if individuals aren’t directly killed by cars.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is perfectly explainable using LS4.C, LS4.D and ETS1.B.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses text, a data table, and a dynamic simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides realistic quantitative data on population size and heterozygosity.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Habitat fragmentation is a global issue with clear local relevance anywhere infrastructure is built.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation simplifies the complex math into clear visual and numerical trends.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions and scenario are concise and direct.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario provides all the necessary context to understand and use the simulation.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Consider adding more localized examples of affected species to deepen the engagement.

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 outputs explicit numerical data on N and Hz for both sides.

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 test baseline vs underpass vs overpass and analyze the outcomes. Students explicitly run computational simulations and analyze mathematical models of population growth.

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

Students use the CCC of Cause and Effect by directly linking the construction of the highway to the decline in heterozygosity and population size.

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

Students apply the DCIs LS4.C and LS4.D by observing how habitat fragmentation causes population decline and genetic decay.

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.

Students integrate the SEP of computational thinking with the CCC of cause and effect and the DCIs of LS4.C/LS4.D to make sense of the problem of genetic decay and evaluate engineering solutions.

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 task requires students to explicitly gather data on population size and genetic diversity over time to inform a recommendation.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Consider providing a starter graph for students who struggle with data organization.

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 use the simulation model to represent the phenomenon and generate actionable data.

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 directly requires the use of the simulation to evaluate solutions, which is the core of HS-LS4-6.

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 task includes clear step-by-step instructions and a structured data table.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The 5E structure provides a logical, coherent flow for students.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The focus on engineering solutions connects to community planning and local environments.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides visual feedback and clear data, supporting diverse learners, with an open-ended Evaluate section for high-achievers.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The language is straightforward, avoiding 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 task cultivates students’ interest and confidence by having them role-play as city planners making real-world decisions using an interactive simulation.

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 connects to prior learning on natural selection and human impact, providing scaffolding and instructions that prepare students for the final recommendation.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The task is scientifically accurate, correctly modeling the relationship between gene flow, heterozygosity, and population viability.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Provide a sample rubric for the city council recommendation.

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:

Formative assessment following a unit on biodiversity and human impact.

  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?

Student work demonstrates understanding when they correctly identify that the underpass or overpass is necessary to stabilize the genetic diversity index (Hz) and prevent it from falling below 0.5.

  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.

An adequate response includes a filled-out data table showing the Overpass maintaining the highest Hz, and a paragraph explaining that gene flow prevents inbreeding depression.

  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)?

A high-quality response uses specific numerical data (e.g., ‘Hz stayed above 0.9 with the overpass’) and explicitly connects it to the cost constraint.

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].

If a student claims the baseline is best because it costs nothing, the teacher should prompt them to re-examine the population sizes and ask what happens when the population hits 0.

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:

This task is easily graded using a standard CER (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning) rubric applied to the final city council recommendation.

  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 evaluation clearly aligns with the evidence statements for HS-LS4-6, specifically evaluating a computational model of a solution.

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

Students construct arguments using the generated data, fulfilling the expectations.

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 provided instructions directly relate to the observable simulation outcomes.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

No major suggestions. The task is well-structured.

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 provides a robust and highly aligned 5E experience for students to interact with the Habitat Fragmentation simulation, fully meeting the criteria for HS-LS4-6.

Final recommendation (choose one):