Science Task Screener

Task Title: DNA and Population Inheritance Model Task

Grade: High School

Date: 2026-04-23

SEP: Asking Questions and Defining Problems

DCI: LS1.A: Structure and Function; LS3.A: Inheritance of Traits

CCC: Cause and Effect

Task Purpose: To assess students’ ability to formulate empirically testable questions based on a model and to explain the cause-and-effect relationship between DNA (genes), environmental mutations, and resulting traits in a population.

Criterion A. Tasks are driven by high-quality scenarios that are grounded in phenomena or problems.

Features Yes Somewhat No Rationale
A phenomenon or problem is present and necessary to complete the task [x] [ ] [ ] The task requires students to explain the phenomenon of trait variation and unexpected offspring phenotypes.
The phenomenon/problem is puzzling and/or intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The discrepancy between parental phenotypes and offspring phenotypes, particularly regarding mutations, is puzzling.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Trait inheritance is universally relevant to biology and heredity.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation abstracts complex genetics into observable fur and eye colors.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The text is concise and directs action effectively.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The variables (genotypes and mutation rates) provide multiple pathways for exploration.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [x] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A: Consider expanding the introduction to explicitly connect the “creature” traits to human or known animal examples (like Mendel’s peas or eye color) to heighten relevance.

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.

The task does not merely ask for genotype definitions. Students must reason about why a homozygous recessive cross with 15% mutation yields dominant phenotypes, directly applying logic to a complex systemic outcome.

ii. The task requires students to demonstrate grade-appropriate dimensions:

Evidence of SEPs: Students must Ask Questions that arise from examining the simulation model to clarify relationships (HS-LS3-1). In Part 4, they formulate an empirically testable question about inheritance. Evidence of CCCs: Students must use Cause and Effect. They must explain how a change in DNA sequence (the cause, either via mutation or recombination) results in a specific phenotype (the effect). Evidence of DCIs: Students must apply LS1.A and LS3.A by articulating that genes on chromosomes code for traits, and that offspring receive a unique combination of these genes from their parents, which can be altered by mutation.

iii. The task requires students to integrate multiple dimensions in service of sense-making and/or problem-solving.

Students cannot succeed by applying these dimensions in isolation. To formulate their question (SEP) and write their final explanation, they must weave together their understanding of DNA’s structure (DCI) to explain the causal mechanism (CCC) behind their observed simulation data.

iv. The task requires students to make their thinking visible.

In Part 3 and Part 4, students are prompted to explicitly write out their reasoning, connecting their numerical data to theoretical Mendelian genetics and molecular mechanisms.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B: None. The integration is clear.

Criterion C. Tasks are fair and equitable.

i. The task provides ways for students to make connections of local, global, or universal relevance.

Heredity and genetic variation are universal human conditions, providing intrinsic relevance.

ii. The task includes multiple modes for students to respond to the task.

Students engage via direct manipulation (simulation), numerical data collection (tables), and written explanations.

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] [ ] [ ] Guided step-by-step explore phase precedes open-ended questions.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] Progression from Engage to Evaluate is logical.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Neutral terminology is used.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The evaluate phase allows for varying depths of student-generated questions.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Avoids overly dense jargon where possible.

iv. The task cultivates students’ interest in and confidence with science and engineering.

By allowing students to generate their own questions and test them instantly in the simulation, it builds confidence in the scientific method.

v. The task focuses on performances for which students’ learning experiences have prepared them (opportunity to learn considerations).

It assumes a basic pre-requisite understanding of dominant and recessive terms, which is grade-appropriate for a high school genetics unit.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

The Mendelian probability logic and the conceptualization of mutation as a random allele flip are accurate for this model level.

Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [x] Adequate [ ] 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: Assessing HS-LS3-1: Formulating questions to clarify relationships about the role of DNA in coding traits.

  2. 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):

i. The task assesses what it is intended to assess and supports the purpose for which it is intended.

  1. Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task? Yes.
  2. Are any ideas, practices, or experiences not targeted by the assessment necessary to respond to the task? No.
  3. Do the student responses elicited support the purpose of the task? Yes, the written explanations directly demonstrate their understanding of cause-and-effect in inheritance.

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.

The completed data tables and written explanations serve as direct artifacts of their sensemaking process.

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.

  1. Guidance for interpreting student thinking: Rubric for Part 4 (Question Formulation & Explanation):
    • 3 Points (Proficient): Student formulates a clear, testable question about inheritance. The explanation explicitly references DNA/alleles as the cause of observed physical traits (effect), and accurately interprets data to answer their generated question. Model Response: Question: “How does crossing two homozygous dominant parents affect the phenotype ratio compared to heterozygous parents?” Explanation: “When I crossed BB EE with BB EE, 100% of the offspring had purple fur and blue eyes. This is because both parents only have dominant alleles on their DNA to pass down. The DNA codes for the dominant proteins, so the offspring can only express those traits.”
    • 2 Points (Approaching): Student formulates a question, but it may be vague or difficult to test. The explanation connects DNA to traits but may lack explicit causal language or misinterpret the simulation data slightly. Model Response: Question: “What happens if mutation is 50%?” Explanation: “I set mutation to 50% and saw all four types of offspring. The DNA mutated so the traits changed from what the parents had.”
    • 1 Point (Developing): Question is not testable. Explanation is descriptive only, failing to connect the genetic cause (DNA/alleles) to the phenotypic effect. Model Response: Question: “Why do some have red eyes?” Explanation: “Some babies were born with red eyes even though the parents had blue eyes. There were 250 of them in the chart.”
    • 0 Points: No response or completely inaccurate. Model Response: Blank or “I don’t know.”
  2. Support for interpreting a range of student responses: The rubric allows differentiation between descriptive and causal answers.
  3. Ways to connect student responses to prior experiences: Misconceptions identified here can direct future instruction on meiosis specifics.

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.

Directions are explicit regarding simulation use, ensuring students don’t get lost in the interface.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D: None.

Overall Summary

The task provides a robust, three-dimensional learning experience aligned with HS-LS3-1. It effectively utilizes the simulation to bridge the abstract concept of Mendelian genetics with observable population-level data, requiring students to formulate questions and construct causal explanations.

Final recommendation (choose one):