Science Task Screener

Task Title: Rollercoaster Energy Computational Model

Grade: High School (9-12)

Date: 2026-04-25

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 scenario introduces the phenomenon of a rollercoaster losing speed and stopping even without brakes, moving beyond textbook “frictionless” assumptions. Students cannot complete the Elaborate/Evaluate section (designing a custom rollercoaster track section and calculating final kinetic energy) without applying the mathematical model ($\Delta E_t = E_{flow} - (\Delta E_k + \Delta E_g)$) derived from the phenomenon.

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

The task requires students to interpret quantitative outputs from the computational model. In the Explain section, they must reason about why the mathematical output for $\Delta E_t$ makes sense when a cart loses 300J of potential energy but only gains 250J of kinetic energy, connecting the numbers back to the physical track conditions.

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] [ ] [ ] It notes that real rollercoasters eventually slow down even without brakes.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It uses the specific example of a cart dropped down a hill coasting along a track.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The idea that energy goes “missing” from the kinetic/gravitational system is presented as a puzzle.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know where the energy goes to balance the equation.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Using computational models to calculate thermal energy loss fits perfectly with HS-PS3-1.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] It uses text and an interactive graphical simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation calculates realistic, mathematically sound data for the system.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Rollercoasters are a universally recognizable context for discussing energy transfers and physics principles.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The task relies on intuitive concepts like “height” and “speed,” lowering the barrier to entry before introducing formal algebraic models.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The Engage prompt is concise, introducing the discrepancy between the ideal and real world in just a few sentences.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The concept of “missing energy” provides a strong motivation for using the computational model.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The phenomenon is strongly integrated and highly relevant to the target physics concepts.

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.

Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking: Students use a computational simulation to model the energy transfers. They also explicitly use algebraic descriptions to represent initial and final energy states and calculate changes in energy components.

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 use a computational simulation to model the energy transfers. They also explicitly use algebraic descriptions to represent initial and final energy states and calculate changes in energy components.

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

Systems and System Models: Students must explicitly define the boundaries of their physical system in the Evaluate section (e.g., cart, track, Earth). They must also analyze the limitations of the computational model.

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

PS3.A & PS3.B (Definitions and Conservation of Energy): Students apply the principle that the total change in energy is equal to energy transferred into or out of the system.

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 task seamlessly integrates all three dimensions: students use a computational model (SEP) of a bounded physical system (CCC) to track and calculate the conservation and transfer of energy (DCI) across different states.

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).

Students make their thinking visible by filling out a data collection table during the Explore phase, explaining the algebraic equation in their own words during the Explain phase, and explicitly showing their algebraic calculation steps in the Evaluate phase.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None. The alignment to HS-PS3-1 Evidence Statements is explicit and robust.

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 places the student in the role of a rollercoaster engineer designing a new track section. This highlights the real-world engineering and safety applications of modeling energy 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.

The task incorporates direct interaction with an interactive simulation, structured data recording in a table, written explanations, and formal algebraic mathematical representations.

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 task scaffolds the learning by starting with direct slider manipulation and data recording before asking students to interpret the abstract algebraic equations.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The 5E progression naturally moves from observation to structured exploration, conceptual explanation, and finally independent application.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The context of amusement parks is broadly accessible, and the visual nature of the simulation supports ELL students in mapping physical outcomes to numerical data.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Low-achieving students can succeed in the structured data collection, while high-achieving students are challenged by the custom design and limitations analysis in the Evaluate section.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Scientific terminology ($\Delta E_k, \Delta E_g$) is clearly defined in the instructions before use.

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 “Custom Scenario” in the Explore section and the open-ended engineering design prompt in the Evaluate section give students agency to test their own ideas and parameters within the computational model.

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 prior introduction to the basic definitions of kinetic and potential energy, which is appropriate for a high school physics curriculum applying HS-PS3-1. The simulation itself provides the visual scaffold linking the abstract variables to the physical cart’s movement.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The science is accurate. The task directly confronts the common pedagogical inaccuracy of “frictionless” systems by explicitly modeling thermal energy loss and the conservation equation $\Delta E_k + \Delta E_g + \Delta E_t = E_{flow}$.

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 task assesses HS-PS3-1: Create a computational model to calculate the change in the energy of one component in a system when the change in energy of the other component(s) and energy flows in and out of the system are known.

  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 must explicitly use the computational model’s equations to calculate missing variables and design their custom rollercoaster track.

  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 (like calculating exact friction coefficients) is required. The task strictly relies on the provided energy transfer equations.

  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 algebraic setup and calculations in the Evaluate section provide direct, observable evidence of whether students understand the conservation equation and can manipulate it.

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 completed 5E student handout. The key evidence is located in the Evaluate section, where students write out the algebraic boundaries of their system, explicitly declare initial and final energies, and solve the equation to find the final kinetic energy.

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 included Teacher Notes explicitly map the task sections to the distinct HS-PS3-1 Evidence Statements (Representation, Computational Modeling, Analysis), giving teachers a clear framework for what student success looks like.

  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 task breaks the mathematical modeling into discrete steps (Define boundaries -> Set initial energies -> Calculate), allowing teachers to identify exactly where a student’s misunderstanding occurred (e.g., conceptual boundary error vs. simple arithmetic error). The structured data table in Explore also reveals whether a student can correctly apply the equation even if they struggle with the written explanation in Explain.

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

The limitations discussion in the Explain section provides a natural segue into subsequent physics units on mechanical friction, sound waves, or material deformation.

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 highly explicit, including exact slider names and expected units. The scaffolding gradually fades, providing heavy support in the Explore data table and removing it for the Evaluate custom design task.

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.

This task is an excellent, classroom-ready formative assessment for HS-PS3-1. It leverages a highly interactive simulation to move students past textbook idealizations into realistic, mathematically modeled energy conservation scenarios. The 5E structure provides strong scaffolding, and the alignment to the specific NGSS Evidence Statements is rigorous and explicit. All criteria received an “Extensive” rating due to the deep integration of the three dimensions.

Final recommendation (choose one):