Science Task Screener

Task Title: Bumper Cars Conservation: Analyzing Momentum in Action

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-05-24

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?

Yes, the task is driven by the phenomenon of amusement park bumper cars interacting and colliding with varying amounts of bounce (“elasticity”), challenging students to uncover the mathematical rule defining the outcomes.

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

Yes, students must configure the simulation based on the scenario’s instructions (masses, velocities, bumper stickiness) and use the output data to calculate momentum. The task cannot be completed without this scenario-derived data.

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] [ ] [ ] Amusement park rides like bumper cars are real-world, widely understood phenomena.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The task gives explicit instances (specific masses and speeds for bouncy vs sticky cars) to model.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The hook emphasizes a “hidden rule” controlling collisions that students must uncover.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Framed as an accident investigation for safety engineering, giving students a reason to test the impacts.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario explicitly requires applying HS-level algebra ($p=mv$), defining system boundaries (CCC), and forces/motion definitions (DCI).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task utilizes textual instructions alongside a dynamic, visual physics simulation and data tables.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The computational simulation provides mathematically perfect data for ideal 1D elastic and inelastic collisions.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Amusement park rides like bumper cars are widely understood and globally recognizable.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions clearly define elasticity and inelasticity in plain terms (“bouncy” vs “sticky”).
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The task instructions are concise, utilizing bullet points for direct, actionable steps.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation’s real-time charting and calculation tables provide a rich, interactive data set for analysis.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None, the scenario effectively grounds the abstract mathematics of momentum into a tangible physical context.

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 collect data before and after the collisions, calculate momentum, and reason about how the total momentum is conserved while kinetic energy may not be, depending on the bumper type. They must make an overarching claim about the total momentum of a system.

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?)

Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking: Students must extract mathematical data from a computational simulation, use algebraic equations ($p = mv$) to calculate momentum, and synthesize these calculations to find the total momentum of a closed system.

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

Systems and System Models: Students are explicitly instructed to calculate the total momentum of the “system” (the two interacting bumper cars) and track this aggregate value across different initial conditions and collision types, emphasizing that the system’s boundary dictates the conserved quantity.

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

PS2.A: Forces and Motion: Students use the fundamental definition of momentum ($p = mv$) and observe how changes in the momentum of one object within a system are balanced by changes in the other object, leading to conservation of the total system momentum.

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.

To successfully answer the prompt about what happens to the momentum of the system, students must combine their computational data extraction (SEP) and their conceptual understanding of defined boundaries (CCC) to demonstrate the physical law of momentum conservation (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 task requires students to show their mathematical work, fill in step-by-step values (surfacing calculation errors), and write a paragraph explaining the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions using their generated data as evidence. The final application question requires them to articulate their reasoning in a novel scenario (child vs adult bumper car).

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Ensure students understand the vector nature of velocity (positive vs negative direction) by checking that they carry the negative sign into their calculations, which is critical for finding the correct total momentum.

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 is framed around safety engineering and amusement park ride design. Understanding how collisions affect velocity and momentum is highly relevant to automotive safety and civil engineering, making it a globally relevant scenario.

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 engage interactively via the simulation, record numerical data, and provide written explanations and arguments. It could easily be adapted for peer discussion during the analysis phase.

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] [ ] [ ] Formulas ($p=mv$, $P = p_1 + p_2$) are provided alongside the fill-in-the-blank steps.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from elastic to inelastic to kinetic energy analysis builds logically.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The context is generalized and does not rely on niche cultural idioms.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Step-by-step calculations assist struggling learners, while the open-ended application question challenges advanced learners to synthesize.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Scientific terms (elastic, inelastic) are immediately defined with accessible synonyms (bouncy, sticky).

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.

By allowing students to physically manipulate variables (mass, velocity, elasticity) and see the immediate visual and mathematical results, the task builds confidence in their ability to use computational models to test hypotheses.

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 assumes basic algebraic competence (multiplying two values, adding positive and negative numbers). The required science concepts are generated and practiced directly within the task.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

No inaccuracies. The task accurately represents the conservation of momentum in both elastic and inelastic collisions and correctly distinguishes between momentum conservation and kinetic energy conservation.

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:

HS-PS2-2: Use mathematical representations to support the claim that the total momentum of a system of objects is conserved when there is no net force on the system.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)

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, students must use the mathematical representation ($p=mv$) to calculate the momentum and make their claim about conservation.

  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. The task focuses tightly on the targeted DCI and SEP.

  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 final questions explicitly ask students to use their data as evidence to make a mathematical claim about the total momentum, directly fulfilling the PE.

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 artifacts include the completed mathematical calculations, the written comparison of total initial and final momentum, and the written claim applying the concept to a novel scenario. These reveal their ability to perform the math, conceptualize the system boundaries, and articulate the physics principle.

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:

Teachers can quickly assess understanding by checking the calculated Total Momentum values; if they match before and after the collision, the student has correctly applied the math.

  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 step-by-step nature isolates where a student might go wrong (e.g. failing to use a negative sign for opposing velocity vs. misunderstanding the system as a whole).

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

This formative assessment can immediately inform a follow-up lesson on impulse or more complex 2D collisions.

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 scaffolded calculation section guides students through the necessary steps without doing the reasoning for them. They must still execute the math, observe the results, and independently formulate the concluding claim.

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 “Bumper Cars Conservation” task provides an excellent, structured, and engaging formative assignment for HS-PS2-2. It effectively uses the interactive simulation to allow students to generate data, apply mathematical representations, and reason about system boundaries to construct evidence-based claims about the conservation of momentum.

Final recommendation (choose one):