Science Task Screener

Task Title: EM Radiation Effects: From Dentists to Wi-Fi

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-05-15

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 anchors on the observable phenomenon of wearing a heavy lead apron at the dentist for X-rays but not wearing one around everyday Wi-Fi routers. This is present in “Part 1: Engage”.

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

Yes, explaining the difference in safety protocols for the two scenarios requires students to use the specific data they generate from the simulation regarding the thermal vs. ionizing effects of different EM radiation frequencies.

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] [ ] [ ] X-ray safety protocols and Wi-Fi usage are common real-world experiences.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It specifically references the dentist visit and the home router, rather than just discussing “radiation.”
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The contrast between the two situations prompts curiosity.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] It creates a need to understand why the safety measures are different.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] It maps directly to HS-PS4-4, using the SEP of evaluating claims, the DCI of EM radiation effects, and the CCC of cause and effect.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses textual descriptions and an interactive web simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation accurately models the energy levels and ionization thresholds of the EM spectrum.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The relevance to personal health and everyday technology is explicitly clear.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The text is brief, clear, and uses familiar concepts.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The Engage section is concise and direct.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario naturally sets up the need to investigate the entire EM spectrum to understand the difference.
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-chosen and effectively drives 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.

Students must use the data they collect (temperature changes, DNA damage percentages) to reason about the validity of two specific claims in Part 4. They must construct a logical argument linking the frequency/energy of the wave to its physical effect to debunk or support the claims.

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?)

SEP: Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information. Element: “Evaluate the validity and reliability of multiple claims that appear in scientific and technical texts or media reports, verifying the data when possible.” Students evaluate two distinct claims (a blog post about Wi-Fi and a clinic website about UV rays) using the simulation data.

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

CCC: Cause and Effect. Element: “Cause and effect relationships can be suggested and predicted for complex natural and human-designed systems by examining what is known about smaller scale mechanisms within the system.” Students explain the cause-and-effect link between the frequency of an EM wave and its specific cellular mechanism (thermal heating vs. ionization/DNA damage).

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

DCI: PS4.B: Electromagnetic Radiation. Element: “When light or longer wavelength electromagnetic radiation is absorbed in matter, it is generally converted into thermal energy (heat). Shorter wavelength electromagnetic radiation (ultraviolet, X-rays, gamma rays) can ionize atoms and cause damage to living cells.” The task explicitly tests this by having students observe and apply the difference between low-frequency thermal effects and high-frequency ionizing effects.

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 dimensions by using the SEP (evaluating a published claim) to articulate the CCC (cause and effect relationship of energy levels) that demonstrates their understanding of the DCI (the physical effects of different EM wavelengths).

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 Evaluation Task in Part 4 requires students to write a paragraph for each claim stating whether it is valid, citing specific simulation data, and explaining the cause-and-effect reasoning. This requires them to explicitly document their analytical thinking.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Ensure teachers monitor the data collection phase to ensure students accurately log the transition from thermal to ionizing effects between the Visible Light and UV bands.

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.

Understanding radiation safety and the differences between everyday electronics (Wi-Fi) and medical/environmental hazards (X-rays, UV) is universally relevant to human health and safety.

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.

The task involves direct interaction with a visual/interactive simulation, structured tabular data recording, and written explanations/evaluations.

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 data table explicitly outlines what variables to look for in the simulation.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The flow from phenomenon to investigation to application is logical.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The contexts used (Wi-Fi, sunscreen) are culturally neutral and widely understood.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The data collection is straightforward, while the evaluation paragraph allows for deep argumentation.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The claims are written in simple, accessible language, avoiding overly 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.

By allowing students to use science to “debunk” a scary-sounding claim about Wi-Fi, the task empowers them to critically navigate misinformation in the real world.

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 is designed as an inquiry investigation; the simulation provides the necessary experience and data to answer the questions, assuming basic prior knowledge of what an EM wave is.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation and task accurately model the DCI: lower frequency waves (like microwaves) cause thermal heating, while higher frequency waves (like UV and X-rays) carry enough energy to ionize atoms and damage DNA.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Teachers could offer students the option to record their final evaluations as an audio clip or short presentation to increase accessibility.

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-PS4-4, specifically testing if students can evaluate claims regarding radiation effects using data to differentiate between thermal and ionizing mechanisms.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • [x] Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
    • [ ] Summative
    • [x] Determining whether students learned what they just experienced
    • [x] 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): N/A

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 cannot evaluate the claims accurately without applying the DCI and CCC based on the simulation data.

  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 external, un-targeted knowledge is strictly required; the simulation provides the threshold data (UV and above cause ionization).

  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 paragraphs will clearly demonstrate whether a student understands that frequency/energy is the cause of the specific physical effect (heating vs ionization).

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 primary artifact is the Evaluation Task response. A successful artifact will cite the simulation data (SEP) to explain the mechanism (CCC) of why the DCI concepts validate or invalidate the claim.

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 should look for the following: For Claim 1 (Invalid), students must note that radio waves are low energy/frequency and only cause thermal effects, not ionizing DNA damage. For Claim 2 (Valid), students must note that UV carries high energy capable of ionization, which causes the observed DNA damage.

  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):

A partial understanding might correctly identify Claim 1 as false but fail to articulate the reason (lack of ionization energy). Teachers should prompt these students to look at the energy level data column in their table.

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

This task serves as an excellent bridge to discussions about medical physics or the ozone layer in future lessons.

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 directions are explicit regarding how to use the simulation and what components to include in the evaluation paragraph, providing structure without giving away the scientific reasoning.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Ensure the rubric explicitly values the connection between the data and the claim, rather than just grading whether they got “valid/invalid” correct.

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 EM Radiation Effects task is a highly aligned, 3-dimensional inquiry that targets HS-PS4-4. By using an interactive simulation to generate data, it moves beyond rote textbook reading and requires students to actively evaluate claims using evidence they gathered. The scenario is relevant to students’ daily lives and effectively highlights the critical difference between thermal and ionizing radiation. All criteria received an “Extensive” rating.

Final recommendation (choose one):