Science Task Screener

Task Title: Gas Laws: Avogadro’s Law

Grade: High School

Date: 2026-04-23

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 explanation requires HS-PS3-2 level understanding of macroscopic volume and atomic-level kinetic energy.

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

The task combines textual framing with an interactive graphical simulation of gas particles.

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] [ ] [ ] Expanding a balloon is an observable, real-world physical event.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] Focuses on a specific physical balloon being inflated.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] Generates student questions about internal mechanisms maintaining constant pressure.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Motivates students to use the simulation to understand the relationship between moles and volume.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Explanations require HS-PS3-2 level understanding of particles, volume, and kinetic energy.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Combines textual framing with an interactive graphical simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides realistic volume responses to changes in gas amount.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Relates to a universally understood everyday action.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] Uses simple, grade-appropriate language.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] Concise framing without extraneous reading.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] Provides a foundation for the entire 5E sequence.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

No immediate suggestions; the balloon expansion phenomenon serves as a strong, relatable anchor for the investigation.

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 balloon expansion creates an immediate need to understand the relationship between moles of gas and volume.

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 the ‘Developing and Using Models’ SEP to illustrate the relationship between gas volume and amount.

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

Students trace the flow and relationship between ‘Energy and Matter’.

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

Students apply PS3.A to understand energy at the macroscopic scale.

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 synthesize the SEP, CCC, and DCI to predict volume changes under constant pressure.

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 progression from qualitative engagement to quantitative modeling is logical and coherent.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

No immediate suggestions; the task successfully integrates graphing, simulation, and modeling to build a cohesive 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 chosen phenomenon is culturally neutral and universally accessible.

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 can engage via slider manipulation, calculation, or advanced systems modeling.

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] [ ] [ ] Uses clear tables and explicit step-by-step instructions.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] Progresses logically from qualitative engagement to mathematical models.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Neutral, universally accessible phenomenon without culturally-gated knowledge.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Offers multiple entry points (slider manipulation, calculation, modeling).
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Explicit effort to avoid dense jargon.

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 text avoids unnecessary scientific jargon outside of the targeted vocabulary.

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.

Yes, students must apply their understanding of Avogadro’s Law to construct the final model.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

No scientific inaccuracies were found. The simulation mathematically enforces Avogadro’s constant ($V/n = k$) and correctly visualizes the proportional increase in volume.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

No immediate suggestions; the task is highly equitable, leveraging accessible language and multiple entry points.

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:

A highly-aligned, engaging task that leverages the interactive Avogadro’s Law simulation. Students progress from qualitative phenomenological questions to quantitative graphing and model construction.

  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): [Enter other purpose]

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, the generated models provide clear evidence of student understanding of the DCI and CCC.

  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.

Students produce a completed data table, calculations of V/n ratios, and a final explanatory model/diagram.

  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 prompt guides teachers to look for the integration of macroscopic properties (volume) and microscopic entities (particles).

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 modeling task allows for a range of acceptable artifacts, from diagrams to written explanations.

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:

Students trace the flow and relationship between ‘Energy and Matter’.

  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):

Prompts are clearly scaffolded and directions for the simulation are explicit.

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

The explanation requires HS-PS3-2 level understanding of macroscopic volume and atomic-level kinetic energy.

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 combines textual framing with an interactive graphical simulation of gas particles.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

No immediate suggestions; the formative assessment purpose aligns well with the generated student artifacts.

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 task is ready for classroom implementation. It seamlessly integrates the simulation, promotes three-dimensional sensemaking, and includes clear success criteria tied to HS-PS3-2.

Final recommendation (choose one):