Science Task Screener

Task Title: Trophic Energy Pyramid Model

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-04-26

Instructions

• Before you begin: Complete the task as a student would. Then, consider any support materials provided to teachers or students, such as contextual information about the task and answer keys/scoring guidance.
• Using the Task Screener: Use this tool to evaluate tasks designed for three-dimensional standards. For each criterion, record your evidence for the presence or absence of the associated indicators. After you have decided to what degree the indicators are present within the task, revisit the purpose of your task and decide whether the evidence supports using it.

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 asks students to explain why ecosystems generally support far fewer apex predators than producers. This is driven by mathematical modeling of inefficiencies in energy transfer, allowing students to make sense of population size disparities.

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

Students cannot answer the prompt using rote memorization; they must collect explicit Joule outputs from the simulation’s data table and describe the 10% or 20% fractional transfer of energy.

ii. The task scenario is engaging, relevant, and accessible to a wide range of students.

Features of engaging, relevant, and accessible tasks:

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Ensure students explicitly connect the abstract Joules to concrete organisms.

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 final deliverable explicitly asks students to synthesize their data collection to support their claim regarding the anchoring phenomenon.

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 use Mathematics and Computational Thinking by manipulating simulation inputs and deriving the fractional relationship of energy transfer.

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

Students trace Energy and Matter, specifically analyzing energy loss to heat/waste and verifying conservation principles.

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

The task explicitly requires students to track energy flows across trophic levels, addressing LS2.B.

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.

Students integrate these dimensions by using math (SEP) to track energy transfer inefficiencies (CCC) to explain the biological limits of the ecosystem (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 final deliverable requires students to write a synthesis paragraph, making their reasoning and use of evidence fully visible to the instructor.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Provide varying efficiency rates to different student groups for richer whole-class discussion.

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 relates globally to all ecosystems, allowing students to map it to local examples like a nearby forest or lake.

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 respond via structured data tables, short answer math derivations, and a final written paragraph.

iii. The task is accessible, appropriate, and cognitively demanding for all learners (including English learners or students working below/above grade level).

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 task connects abstract math to a compelling survival question regarding animals students care about.

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 simulation provides an equal sandbox for all students, reducing reliance on prior factual knowledge.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The math aligns with accepted 10% ecological rules and accurate thermodynamic limits.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Could add a rubric specific to proportional reasoning errors.

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:

Formative 5E instructional task designed to gauge student mastery of HS-LS2-4 during an ecology unit.

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):

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 calculations and synthesis are strictly necessary for the formative assessment.

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 focuses solely on LS2.B and the explicitly targeted dimensions, avoiding unnecessary complexity.

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 outputs (data table, equations, paragraph) directly support evaluating 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 student produces a completed data table and a written summary paragraph.

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 integrate scoring guidance and expected outcomes.

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 notes describe what a fully successful answer looks like.

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

Extensions are provided in the teacher notes.

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).

Clear numbered steps are provided.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Consider adding sentence starters for ELL students in the Elaborate section.

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 strong, multi-dimensional instructional task that fully supports the requirements of HS-LS2-4 using a robust computational simulation.

Final recommendation (choose one):

• [x] Use this task (all criteria had at least an “adequate” rating)
• [ ] Modify and use this task
• [ ] Do not use this task