Science Task Screener

Task Title: Investigating the Long Island Sound Lobster Collapse

Grade: High School

Date: 2023-10-25

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 task is driven by the authentic phenomenon of the catastrophic late-1990s die-off of the American Lobster in the Long Island Sound. Students are immediately presented with this scenario and tasked with figuring out what caused it.

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

Students must use the provided interactive simulation of the Long Island Sound to adjust specific environmental variables (fishing pressure, nitrogen, temperature) and collect data. The simulation data is absolutely necessary to answer the questions and construct the final argument.

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 scenario describes a real, documented collapse of the lobster population in the Long Island Sound, observed by local lobstermen.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It focuses on the specific event in the late 1990s in the Long Island Sound, rather than a generic lesson on ecosystem stability.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The sudden and severe nature of the collapse, despite ongoing fishing practices, creates a puzzle for students to solve regarding the unknown environmental factors.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to understand how the variables interact in order to explain the collapse and complete their deliverable.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is perfectly aligned with HS-LS2-6, allowing students to use ecosystem dynamics (DCI), stability and change (CCC), and argument from evidence (SEP).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses both a textual description of the phenomenon and a highly interactive computational simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides well-crafted, realistic data outputs (Lobster Population %, Dissolved Oxygen levels) corresponding to the variable inputs.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The economic and ecological devastation of the local fishing industry is highlighted in the Engage section.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario relies on accessible language and a clear, visual simulation, making it comprehensible to high school students without excessive jargon.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The background reading is concise (one paragraph) and directly sets up the investigation.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The complexity of the three interacting variables in the simulation provides enough depth to support the entire 5E sequence.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

The scenario is strong as is. Future extensions could include linking to primary source news articles from the 1990s regarding the collapse to deepen the real-world connection.

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 task requires students to construct a scientific argument (Elaborate section) where they must explicitly connect their simulation data (evidence) to their claim about the cause of the collapse using scientific reasoning about complex ecosystem interactions.

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?)

Engaging in Argument from Evidence: Students synthesize data from multiple simulation trials to support a claim about which combination of variables caused the ecosystem to collapse, defending their explanation of complex interactions.

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

Stability and Change: Students directly investigate how varying the magnitude of disturbances (fishing vs. nitrogen + temperature) dictates whether the ecosystem remains stable or changes into a new state (collapse).

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

LS2.C Ecosystem Dynamics, Functioning, and Resilience: Students observe that modest disturbances (like moderate fishing alone) allow the ecosystem to return to a stable state, but extreme fluctuations (combining high temperature and nitrogen) challenge functioning and cause a collapse.

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 Elaborate deliverable requires students to use the SEP (Argue from Evidence) to explain how the DCI (ecosystem resilience/complex interactions) operates within the context of the CCC (stability vs. change) using the simulation data.

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 5E structure prompts students to record their hypotheses, raw data from trials, answers to analysis questions, and a final written paragraph argument. These artifacts make their reasoning visible at multiple stages.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

To further support making thinking visible, teachers could require a peer-review step of the final argument paragraph before submission.

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 addresses an important local environmental and economic issue (the Long Island Sound lobster industry) that has broad global implications for understanding how climate change and pollution affect marine ecosystems.

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 reading text, interacting with a computational model, collecting quantitative data, and writing an argumentative paragraph.

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 Explain section breaks down the investigation into a structured data collection table and specific analysis questions before asking for the final synthesized argument.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The flow from the Engage scenario to the Explore simulation and the Explain data collection is logical and cohesive.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is grounded in an accessible real-world event without assuming prior obscure knowledge, and the simulation visualizes the concepts clearly.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The structured data table supports low-achieving students, while the open-ended Elaborate argument and Evaluate extension allow high-achieving students to demonstrate deep synthesis.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions and scenario avoid overly complex vocabulary, focusing instead on clear, direct language.

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 ‘mystery’ aspect of the unknown variable and the dramatic nature of a total ecosystem collapse provide an engaging hook for high schoolers.

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 allows for diverse responses in the final argument, depending on how students interpret the interaction of the three variables during their trials.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation and task accurately reflect the scientific consensus that the Long Island Sound lobster collapse was caused by a combination of warming waters and hypoxia (driven by nitrogen runoff), rather than overfishing alone.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Consider providing an optional vocabulary bank for English Language Learners if they struggle with terms like ‘benthic’ or ‘hypoxia’.

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:

This is an instructional task that uses the 5E model to guide students through an investigation of a simulated ecosystem, culminating in a written argument.

  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): 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?

The final deliverable directly requires students to apply the targeted SEP (Argument from Evidence) and CCC (Stability and Change) to explain the DCI (Ecosystem Resilience).

  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 task does not require significant non-targeted knowledge; everything needed is provided in the scenario and simulation.

  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 sequence of activities (Explore -> Explain -> Elaborate) clearly scaffolds the student toward the final instructional goal of writing the scientific argument.

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 produces a data collection table, answers to guided analysis questions, and a final 1-2 paragraph scientific argument.

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 Teacher Notes explicitly map the task deliverable to the HS-LS2-6 evidence statements, demonstrating how the task measures three-dimensional learning.

  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):

N/A - the task aims to provide evidence for the full PE in the context of this specific ecosystem.

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

Future instruction could build on this by having students design a solution to mitigate the nitrogen runoff (HS-LS2-7).

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 Teacher Notes provide clear alignment to NGSS standards and evidence statements, and the task includes step-by-step instructions for the students.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Include a rubric for grading the final argument paragraph based on the HS-LS2-6 evidence statements.

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 highly effective, three-dimensional instructional activity that uses a robust, interactive simulation to allow students to investigate a compelling real-world phenomenon. The structure scaffolds students effectively toward demonstrating proficiency in HS-LS2-6.

Final recommendation (choose one):