Science Task Screener

Task Title: Mitosis and Cellular Differentiation Model (HS-LS1-4)

Grade: High School

Date: 2026-04-26

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 introduces a highly relevant anchoring phenomenon: how a single fertilized egg with one set of genetic instructions develops into a complex organism of over 30 trillion specialized cells.

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

The scenario is necessary. Students cannot simply recall facts to explain the phenomenon; they must collect data from the model on both the organism and cellular levels, noting changes in ‘Total Cells’, ‘Process’, and ‘Genetic Info’, and then synthesize these observations to explain the phenomenon of growth and differentiation.

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 human development from a single cell is a deeply real-world biological process.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It focuses on the specific instance of a zygote developing into differentiated tissues.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The contradiction between identical DNA and drastically different cell types is presented as a puzzle.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to understand mitosis and gene expression to solve the puzzle of identical DNA creating specialized cells.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] It perfectly aligns with HS-LS1-4 requirements.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] It uses an interactive simulation model and textual descriptions.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation outputs structured, realistic biological data for different stages.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Human development is universally relevant to all students.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The language is accessible and the simulation makes abstract concepts concrete.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The Engage section is concise and direct.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The single phenomenon drives both the cellular and organismal investigations.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

The phenomenon is strong. To strengthen sense-making, ensure the teacher prompts students to consider real-world examples of differentiation (like muscle vs. nerve cells) during the initial class discussion.

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 use reasoning based on DCI LS1.B: Growth and Development of Organisms. Students use the model to observe that multicellular organisms begin as a single cell, which divides via mitosis, passing identical genetic material to both daughter cells.

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?)

The task explicitly requires students to use the SEP ‘Developing and Using Models’ by interacting with the simulation to gather evidence.

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

The task explicitly requires students to use the CCC ‘Systems and System Models’ by analyzing the inputs, outputs, and interactions between the cellular and organismal levels.

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

The task thoroughly assesses the targeted DCI (LS1.B), focusing on growth through mitosis and tissue specialization through differentiation.

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 dimensions are tightly integrated. Students must use the model (SEP) to observe the system (CCC) in order to construct their final explanation of mitosis and differentiation (DCI).

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 written scientific explanation) and the data tables require students to document their observations and reasoning, making their understanding of the connection between identical DNA and specialized tissues clearly visible.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Ensure students are prompted to explicitly reference their data tables when writing their final explanation.

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 phenomenon of human development from a single cell is universally relevant and inherently interesting to students learning about their own biology.

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 express their understanding through initial brainstorming, data collection (tables), and a structured written scientific 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 is well-scaffolded, moving from broad phenomenon to specific data collection, sense-making questions, and finally a synthesis argument.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from zygote to specialized tissues makes logical, biological sense.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Universal biology connects to all backgrounds without cultural bias.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The scaffolded tables support lower-achieving students, while the final argument allows high-achieving students to excel.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Scientific vocabulary (zygote, cleavage, blastula, gastrulation, differentiation, mitosis) is introduced organically.

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 investigation of cancer treatments (Colchicine and Hydroxyurea) in the extension deeply cultivates student interest by connecting abstract biology to real-world medical challenges.

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 provides clear opportunities for students to demonstrate their ability to use a model and explain growth and differentiation, directly reflecting the performance expectation.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The scientific principles represented in the task and simulation are accurate. It correctly avoids rote memorization of mitosis phases in favor of understanding inputs and outputs, as per the HS-LS1-4 boundary.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

The extension activity is a strong addition. Consider providing links to brief articles about chemotherapy to support students who want to explore this further.

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 a formative assessment task designed to evaluate students’ ability to use a model to explain how mitosis and cellular differentiation produce and maintain a complex organism.

  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?

The task directly assesses the components and relationships outlined in the HS-LS1-4 Evidence Statements, specifically the understanding of identical genetic transfer and subsequent differentiation.

  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 strictly avoids rote memorization of mitotic phases (e.g., prophase, metaphase), which is explicitly excluded by the assessment 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 structured 5E format perfectly supports its instructional and formative purpose, providing clear milestones for teachers to check student understanding.

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 task elicits completed data tables, answers to sense-making questions, and a final written scientific explanation. These artifacts provide clear evidence of student understanding of the DCI, SEP, and CCC.

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 section provides clear alignment information, explicitly listing the targeted evidence statements and how student work demonstrates them.

  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 is highly scaffolded, allowing teachers to see exactly where a student might be struggling (e.g., if they understand mitosis but not differentiation).

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

By reviewing the answers to the sense-making questions, teachers can adjust instruction to clarify misconceptions about gene expression versus genetic material before the final evaluation.

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 are clear, sequential, and unambiguous, minimizing confusion and focusing student effort on sense-making.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

The task is well-designed. Teachers should use the responses to the question about how cells differentiate despite identical DNA as a key formative check.

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 is a high-quality, NGSS-aligned task suite that effectively uses an interactive simulation to model mitosis and cellular differentiation. It is well-structured following the 5E sequence, strongly integrates the three dimensions, avoids assessment boundaries, and includes a compelling extension connecting the concepts to real-world medicine.

Final recommendation (choose one):