Science Task Screener

Task Title: Human Impact & Biodiversity Solutions (HS-LS2-7)

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-05-15

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 is driven by the phenomenon of biodiversity loss due to urbanization, agricultural runoff, and invasive species in a localized ecosystem.

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

Students must interact with the simulation’s specific sliders and observe the resulting changes in the Biodiversity Index and canvas visualization to evaluate their solutions.

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 simulation uses variables like urbanization, deforestation, and agricultural runoff that correspond directly to real-world anthropogenic impacts.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The problem frames a localized ecosystem responding to human activities dynamically.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] Students face a budget constraint ($10.0M) preventing them from maximizing all solutions, creating a challenging optimization problem.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to discover which combination of solutions works best under budget.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The task targets grade-level expectations for LS2.C, ETS1.B, and systems thinking.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation integrates text, dynamic progress bars, and a canvas visualization.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation’s logic accurately reflects biological tradeoffs.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Biodiversity loss is framed as a universal consequence of human population growth.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The sliders and real-time visual feedback make the complex problem accessible.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation text is concise and focuses on variables.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The complex interplay between three impacts and three solutions provides enough depth.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None.

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 must reason about cause and effect by observing how mitigating one impact might leave others unchecked due to budget limits.

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 must use the SEP ‘Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions’ to propose a final mitigation plan supported by evidence from the simulation.

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

Students must apply ‘Stability and Change’ and ‘Cause and Effect’ to understand the ecosystem’s response to interventions.

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

Students demonstrate knowledge of LS2.C (Anthropogenic changes) and ETS1.B (Developing Possible Solutions with constraints).

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 asks students to generate an engineering solution (ETS) to an environmental problem (LS) and justify it using evidence of system stability (CCC).

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 student deliverable (a budget and action plan) requires explicit justification of tradeoffs.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None.

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 task focuses on the global problem of biodiversity loss through a localized, understandable lens.

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 engage via interactive simulation and written responses.

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 step-by-step 5E structure provides a clear path through the activity.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The flow from problem to solution design is logical and intuitive.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The problem is universal and presented without culturally specific barriers.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The visual simulation provides an accessible entry point, while the optimization problem allows for deep analysis.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation uses clear terminology and tooltips for complex terms.

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 engaging, game-like nature of balancing a budget against environmental disaster cultivates interest.

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 aligns well with expected prior knowledge of ecosystems.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation provides a scientifically sound representation of ecosystem responses to both degradation and mitigation.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None.

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 design, evaluate, and refine an engineering solution to mitigate biodiversity loss under budget constraints.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • [x] 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:

  1. Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task?

Understanding the core ideas of human impacts and mitigation is necessary to complete the task.

  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.

No non-targeted ideas are required.

  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 student artifact clearly supports the formative purpose of the task.

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 student deliverable makes thinking visible by requiring a justified budget allocation plan.

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 included teacher notes map student work to specific dimensions.

  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 task allows for multiple valid solutions, revealing nuanced understanding.

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

The task prepares students for broader discussions on climate change and global policy.

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 student instructions and teacher notes are clear and sufficient.

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

This task is a strong, 3D assessment of HS-LS2-7, using a robust computational model to drive engagement with real-world engineering constraints.

Final recommendation (choose one):