Science Task Screener

Task Title: Little Poland Fermentation: Krakowska Dry Sausage

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-04-26

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 centers on a specific, real-world phenomenon: the successful fermentation vs. spoilage of traditional Krakowska dry sausage from New Britain’s ‘Little Poland’.

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

The scenario (manipulating environmental factors to achieve successful fermentation) is strictly necessary. Students must engage with the simulation to generate the specific data needed to answer the sensemaking questions.

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] [ ] [ ] Sausage fermentation and spoilage are easily observable phenomena linked directly to food safety.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario focuses specifically on making Krakowska sausage in a specific cultural context.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] Students must figure out exactly what combination of invisible environmental factors causes the meat to either cure safely or rot.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] The possibility of producing toxic, spoiled food creates a clear need to understand the underlying biological processes.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon is fully explainable by applying the high school concept of aerobic vs. anaerobic respiration and energy flow.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] It uses textual descriptions and an interactive simulation providing graphical population data.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation presents well-crafted, realistic growth curves for competing microbial populations.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] It explicitly grounds the context in ‘Little Poland’ and addresses universal food safety concerns.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] Food preparation and spoilage are universally understood concepts.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The introduction is concise, establishing the context quickly before moving to the simulation.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The complex interaction of three variables (Salt, Temp, O2) provides ample depth for investigation.
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 analyze the population graphs generated under different conditions and reason how oxygen availability caused one population (aerobic) to dominate over another (anaerobic).

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?)

Constructing Explanations: Students construct an explanation based on evidence (the simulation data) for the cycling of matter in different conditions.

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

Energy and Matter: Students must explicitly connect cellular respiration (energy release) to the active growth and matter rearrangement of the successful microbe population.

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

LS2.B: Cycles of Matter and Energy Transfer: Students apply the core idea that respiration (including anaerobic processes) provides the energy for life processes and drives matter cycling.

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 final prompt explicitly requires students to synthesize all three dimensions: they construct an explanation (SEP) about how specific conditions determine which respiration process provides energy (DCI), driving the flow of matter (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 ‘Explain’ and ‘Elaborate’ sections provide specific prompts requiring students to articulate their evidence and reasoning clearly.

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 connects a local cultural tradition (Krakowska in Little Poland) to universal biological processes (respiration) and global issues (food preservation).

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 interact with a visual simulation, read textual context, and produce a written explanation.

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 guides students from specific, directed simulation runs (Explore) to targeted sensemaking questions (Explain) before asking for a comprehensive explanation (Elaborate).
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from ‘how do we make this sausage?’ to ‘how does the environment select for specific microbes?’ is highly coherent.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The task honors a specific cultural heritage while making the underlying science accessible to all.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The step-by-step data collection provides a solid entry point, while the final argumentation allows for deep synthesis.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Scientific vocabulary (aerobic, anaerobic) is introduced in context after students have observed the phenomenon.

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.

By framing the biology within a culturally relevant, practical problem (making food safely), the task increases engagement compared to abstract textbook problems.

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 requires prior understanding of the basic inputs and outputs of cellular respiration to fully explain the simulation results.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The task accurately reflects the fundamental differences between lactic acid fermentation (anaerobic) and aerobic spoilage.

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 construct an explanation (SEP) about how environmental conditions determine whether aerobic or anaerobic respiration dominates (DCI), and how this drives the cycling of matter (CCC).

  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
    • [x] 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?

Yes, understanding the role of oxygen in determining respiration pathways is essential to successfully completing the final explanation.

  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 do not need detailed knowledge of the specific chemical equations of fermentation, keeping the focus tightly on the NGSS conceptual boundary.

  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 responses elicited in the final prompt directly demonstrate the student’s mastery of the targeted performance expectation.

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 artifact is a written scientific explanation supported by a completed data table.

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 evaluation implicitly requires checking that the student’s explanation correctly links the evidence (simulation data) to the core idea (respiration pathways) using the crosscutting concept (matter/energy).

  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 step-by-step ‘Explain’ questions allow teachers to pinpoint exactly where a student’s understanding breaks down (e.g., can they identify the dominant microbe, but not connect it to energy flow?).

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

The concepts of microbial competition and matter cycling can be extended into broader ecosystem dynamics in future lessons.

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-facing handout provides clear, actionable steps for the simulation investigation.

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.

The Little Poland Fermentation task provides an excellent, culturally relevant phenomenon to anchor an investigation into HS-LS2-3. It effectively guides students through an interactive simulation, requiring them to collect evidence and synthesize a three-dimensional explanation of how environmental conditions dictate respiration pathways and matter cycling.

Final recommendation (choose one):