Science Task Screener

Task Title: Virus Capsid Explorer

Grade: High School

Date: Today

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 phenomenon of viruses needing a specialized structural ‘package’ (capsid) to protect and deliver their genetic instructions.

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

Students cannot successfully write the final explanation without interacting with the 3D models of the capsids and genetic material provided in the simulation scenario.

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 simulation uses real Protein Data Bank (PDB) structures of actual viruses.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] Students specifically examine Satellite Tobacco Mosaic Virus, Bean Pod Mottle Virus, and Tomato Aspermy Virus.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The analogy of a fragile package delivery makes the microscopic structure of a virus more tangible and intriguing.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know the relationship between genome length and capsid proteins to answer the analysis questions.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario perfectly aligns with the HS-LS1-1 DCI (genes coding for proteins that form structures).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task relies heavily on an interactive 3D simulation paired with descriptive text and data tables.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] Genome length and protein count data are realistic properties of the specific viruses modeled.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Understanding virus structure is universally relevant to human health and biology.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The analogy of a cardboard box and the visual nature of the simulation make the complex biochemistry accessible.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The text is concise, focusing students directly on the simulation and the required sense-making.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The interactive controls (toggling RNA, slicing, visualizing) provide a deep well of evidence to draw from.
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-aligned and the scenario is robust.

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 reason about how the physical arrangement they observe (RNA inside, protein outside) is necessary for the virus’s survival, and predict the consequences of mutations on this structure.

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 Explanations (SEP) by writing a paragraph linking the genetic material, protein structure, and function based on the simulation evidence.

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

Students use Cause and Effect (CCC) reasoning to predict how a change in the genetic instructions (mutation) would alter the physical structure and impair function.

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

Students apply the DCI (LS1.A) that genes are regions that code for the formation of proteins, observing this relationship directly in the viral models.

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 explicitly requires students to use the SEP (explanation) to articulate the DCI (genes to proteins) through the lens of the CCC (cause/effect of structure on function).

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 ‘Elaborate’ and ‘Evaluate’ sections prompt students to write out their reasoning step-by-step, making their understanding of the connections visible.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None. The 3D integration is strong and explicit in the final deliverable.

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 highlights the universal mechanism of how genetic material is protected and delivered across biological systems.

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 3D simulation, analyze numerical data in a table, 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 5E structure scaffolds the learning from an everyday analogy to guided exploration, and finally to independent explanation.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The sequence from observing the virus to explaining its genetic-protein relationship flows logically.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The initial ‘cardboard box’ analogy is a culturally universal concept that grounds the abstract science.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The visual simulation provides an accessible entry point, while the elaboration question allows high achievers to demonstrate deeper cause-and-effect reasoning.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Complex terms like ‘capsid’ and ‘genome’ are defined clearly in context.

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 interactive nature of the 3D molecular viewer and the ability to control opacity and visualization styles cultivates engagement and confidence.

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 serves as an excellent introduction or application of HS-LS1-1, assuming basic prior knowledge of what RNA/DNA are.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation uses scientifically accurate data from the Protein Data Bank (PDB). The simplification of viruses as ‘machines on the edge of life’ is standard pedagogical framing.

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 assessment targets HS-LS1-1, specifically measuring students’ ability to construct an explanation of how genetic material codes for protein structures that carry out specific functions.

  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?

Yes, constructing the explanation and reasoning about the structure-function relationship are necessary to complete the Evaluate section.

  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.

No non-targeted ideas are required. The task strictly focuses on the target DCI.

  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)?

Yes, the written explanations will clearly show whether students understand the link between genes, proteins, and 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].

Students produce a completed data table, answers to analysis questions, and a final written explanation 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 align the required components of the student’s written explanation with the specific evidence statements of HS-LS1-1.

  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 scaffolded questions in the Explore and Explain sections allow teachers to identify exactly where a student’s understanding breaks down before the final paragraph.

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

The task sets a strong foundation for future instruction on gene expression, mutations (HS-LS3-1), and natural selection.

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 prompts are clear, step-by-step, and explicitly state the requirements for the final deliverable.

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 Virus Capsid Explorer task is a high-quality, fully integrated 3D learning experience. It effectively uses a rich simulation to allow students to gather evidence and construct a coherent explanation aligning perfectly with HS-LS1-1. The 5E structure provides strong scaffolding and clear assessment opportunities.

Final recommendation (choose one):