Science Task Screener

Task Title: Electric Boat Submarine Hull Bonding Investigation

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?

The task is anchored in the engineering problem of creating submarine hulls capable of withstanding extreme deep-sea pressures, which is explicitly detailed in Part 1 (Engage).

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

Yes, the task requires students to investigate specific welding parameters (alloy, gas, energy) introduced in the scenario and simulation, to find an optimal solution to the problem.

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 presents the real-world engineering challenge of deep-dive submarines requiring incredibly strong hulls.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario focuses specifically on the welding process of hull construction at Electric Boat.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The catastrophic consequence of a microscopic welding error creates intrigue.
Scenarios create a need to know [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know how atomic structure affects macroscopic strength to prevent hull failure.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs CCCs DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] It explicitly leverages HS structure/function and atomic interactions concepts.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides visual/interactive (microscope view, integrity bar) and text/data modalities.
If data are used scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The interactive simulation provides scientifically accurate cooling rate and microstructure data.
The local global or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The global context of ocean exploration and submarine engineering provides universal relevance.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation distills complex metallurgy into observable variables.
Scenarios use as many words as needed no more [x] [ ] [ ] The introductory text is brief and focused.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario logically drives the need to test and optimize the welding parameters.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The scenario is well-aligned with the task requirements.

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 through how changes in thermal energy and shielding gas affect the cooling rate and atomic interactions, leading to different microstructures and resulting structural integrity.

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?)

Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information: Students evaluate data from the simulation and communicate an evidence-based recommendation for optimal welding procedures in Part 4.

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

Structure and Function: Students explicitly connect the atomic/molecular structure of the weld to its macroscopic function (hull integrity) in their final recommendation.

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

PS2.B: Types of Interactions: Students explain how atomic-level interactions (affected by heat and gas) determine the properties of the designed material in Part 3.

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 the DCI (atomic interactions) and CCC (structure/function) to evaluate data and communicate a solution (SEP) to the engineering problem of hull bonding.

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 recommendation requires students to provide a written explanation and a simple model/drawing to make their understanding of the atomic structure visible.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Ensure students explicitly mention electrostatic forces in their final models if appropriate for their level of chemistry/physics understanding.

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 connects to real-world engineering and materials science used in significant technological applications (submarines), demonstrating universal relevance to human exploration and design.

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 data tables, written explanations, and drawn models, allowing for multiple modalities of expression.

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 step-by-step exploration guides students through data collection before asking them to synthesize.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from initial observation to data collection to final recommendation is logical.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The context is universally applicable and relies on observable simulation phenomena rather than cultural specificities.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The modeling component allows for varied levels of sophistication in student responses.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Technical terms are introduced in context or within the simulation.

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 placing students in the role of a metallurgical engineer solving a high-stakes problem, the task cultivates interest and confidence in applying scientific principles to real-world engineering.

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 prior knowledge of atoms and molecules but uses the simulation to explicitly build specific understanding of metallurgy and cooling rates required for the task.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation’s representation of heat, shielding gas, and resulting microstructures (like martensite formation vs. porosity) aligns with established metallurgical principles. There are no inaccuracies.

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-PS2-6: Communicate scientific and technical information about why the molecular-level structure is important in the functioning of designed materials.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • 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, students must communicate how molecular structure dictates functioning to formulate their final recommendation.

  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 extraneous concepts are required; the task remains tightly focused on molecular structure and macroscopic function.

  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 recommendation provides direct evidence of the student’s ability to communicate the core relationship.

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 final evidence-based recommendation and drawn model serve as direct artifacts of student understanding across the DCI, CCC, and SEP.

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:

Full Rubric for Student Recommendation (Part 4):

  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):

Model Responses

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

Teachers can use inadequate responses to revisit the concept of cooling rates and crystal formation before moving to more advanced materials science topics.

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 instructions are clear, step-by-step, and explicitly state what is required in the final deliverable without overly scripting the student’s reasoning.

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 task provides a highly engaging, simulation-based investigation into the metallurgy of submarine hulls. It tightly aligns with HS-PS2-6 by requiring students to collect data on how welding parameters affect atomic-level interactions and resulting microstructures, and then communicate how these structures determine the macroscopic strength of the hull. The provided rubric and model responses support clear evaluation of student understanding across all three dimensions.

Final recommendation (choose one):