Science Task Screener

Task Title: Protein Unfolding & Denaturation

Grade: High School

Date: 2023-10-26

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 begins with an engaging and observable phenomenon: how a high fever or severe blood pH changes can be life-threatening because they permanently alter the shape of essential proteins like hemoglobin.

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

Yes, making sense of how extreme temperature and pH affect hemoglobin is entirely necessary to answer the driving question about organ failure.

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 sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario sets up an engaging real-world medical observation (fever) and connects it to the necessary molecular understanding required.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The phenomenon is well-structured and relevant.

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 are required to reason how the simulation evidence (loss of 3D shape) connects to the inability of the protein to perform its function.

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 construct an explanation using evidence from the interactive simulation.

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

Students explicitly investigate and apply the concept of Structure and Function.

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

Students apply the DCI that specialized cells use proteins with precise structures to carry out essential functions.

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 deliverable requires the integration of the SEP (explanation), DCI (protein function), and CCC (structure and function) simultaneously.

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 data collection table and final written explanation make the student’s reasoning and synthesis visible.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None. The integration is strong.

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 focuses on fever, which is a universally understood human experience.

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.

The task uses textual descriptions, a tabular data collection format, and a 3D interactive simulation.

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 scenario is comprehensible, accessible, and not overly verbose.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is comprehensible, accessible, and not overly verbose.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is comprehensible, accessible, and not overly verbose.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is comprehensible, accessible, and not overly verbose.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is comprehensible, accessible, and not overly verbose.

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.

It leverages a common experience (fever) but frames it as a biological puzzle.

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.

It gives students the opportunity to construct their own evidence-based explanation rather than just reading about it.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The representation of hemoglobin denaturation via temperature and pH is scientifically accurate and appropriate for HS level.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None. The task is highly engaging and accessible.

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 provides a clear prompt for the final explanation, including specific criteria for what must be included.

  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 explanation requires understanding of all three dimensions to be successfully completed.

  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 is highly focused on the target PE (HS-LS1-1) and does not assess irrelevant knowledge.

  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 required elements of the explanation allow teachers to assess formative understanding of structure/function.

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 data table and final explanation explicitly assess what is targeted.

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 rubric guidance asks teachers to look for the integration of claim, evidence (structure loss), and reasoning (function loss).

  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):

Because the components are separated into claim, evidence, and reasoning, teachers can easily identify which part a student is struggling with.

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

Feedback can be directed toward either the gathering of evidence (simulation) or the reasoning (connecting structure to function).

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 task includes clear step-by-step directions for interacting with the simulation and analyzing the data.

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 Protein Unfolding & Denaturation task is highly aligned with NGSS expectations. It provides an engaging, relevant context that requires students to meaningfully use 3D learning to explain a phenomenon.

Final recommendation (choose one):