Science Task Screener

Task Title: Engine Efficiency Simulation

Grade: High School

Date: April 2024

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?

Students must use reasoning to explain the tradeoffs between maximizing efficiency (by increasing the compression ratio) and avoiding engine knock. They must analyze simulation data to conclude why certain fuels allow for higher compression ratios.

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

SEP: Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions. Students demonstrate this by designing a device (engine settings) that works within constraints (avoiding knock) to convert energy, and explicitly justifying their design choices with simulation 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] [ ] [ ] The anchoring phenomenon involves the real-world observation of different fuel grades (e.g., standard vs. high-octane racing fuel) and their specific requirements in standard cars vs. high-performance race cars. This engages students by asking why a high-performance engine needs special fuel, leading directly to the constraint of engine knocking and thermal efficiency limitations in the simulation.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon (racing vs standard fuel) is commonly encountered at gas stations and in car culture.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is puzzling because premium fuel doesn’t automatically make a standard car faster; this counterintuitive fact sparks curiosity.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario requires no specialized prior knowledge of mechanics to engage with the initial question.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The text is concise and directs students immediately to the core questions of energy and efficiency.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon directly drives the need to investigate compression ratios and knock limits in the simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon is observable and relates to common real-world variables like fuel octane, efficiency, and knocking.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The connection between fuel types and engine performance applies universally to internal combustion engines globally.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario requires no specialized prior knowledge of mechanics to engage with the initial question.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The text is concise and directs students immediately to the core questions of energy and efficiency.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon directly drives the need to investigate compression ratios and knock limits in the simulation.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

No improvements needed at this time.

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.

CCC: Energy and Matter. Students demonstrate this by tracing the flow of chemical potential energy from the fuel into mechanical output and waste heat, using the Energy Balance Chart as evidence.

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: Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions. Students demonstrate this by designing a device (engine settings) that works within constraints (avoiding knock) to convert energy, and explicitly justifying their design choices with simulation data.

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

CCC: Energy and Matter. Students demonstrate this by tracing the flow of chemical potential energy from the fuel into mechanical output and waste heat, using the Energy Balance Chart as evidence.

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

DCI: PS3.D (Energy in Chemical Processes) and ETS1.A (Defining Constraints). Students demonstrate this by explaining that energy cannot be destroyed but is converted to waste heat, and that their engine design is bounded by the physical constraint of pre-ignition (knocking).

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 concept of Energy and Matter (CCC) to understand the thermodynamics (DCI), in order to construct a final engine design proposal that balances efficiency constraints (SEP).

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 Elaborate/Evaluate section requires students to draft a formal proposal where their thinking is made visible. They must explicitly state their design choices, provide scientific justification, and address the specific tradeoffs they balanced.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

No improvements needed at this time.

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 universally to transportation, vehicle efficiency, and the cost/environmental impact of fuel consumption, giving students a meaningful real-world context for their engineering 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 written data tables, simulation interaction, written sensemaking explanations, and a formal written engineering proposal; the task could also support oral presentations or peer discussion.

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 offers suggested procedures, a sample data table, and extension options.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses the 5E model, guiding students from a baseline test to a comparative test before moving to the open-ended optimization challenge.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The context of cars and engines is a familiar technological application that avoids relying on niche cultural knowledge.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The task provides a baseline entry point for all students, while the mystery fuel optimization and extension options challenge high-achieving students.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The language is direct, and technical terms (like Air-Fuel Ratio and Compression Ratio) are explored experientially in 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.

The task casts the student in the role of an automotive engineer solving a puzzle (Mystery Fuel X), which builds confidence in applying science to professional engineering scenarios.

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 energy conservation (energy cannot be created or destroyed), which is appropriate for a high school physics or chemistry unit.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation accurately reflects the thermodynamic principles of the Otto cycle, including the relationship between compression ratio, thermal efficiency, and the onset of engine knocking based on fuel octane.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

No improvements needed at this time.

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:

Assessment targets HS-PS3-3 through a design proposal.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • [ ] Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
    • [x] 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. To complete the proposal, students must design a device that converts energy within constraints (HS-PS3-3).

  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 or non-targeted ideas are strictly necessary. The simulation provides the data required for the sensemaking process.

  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 proposal directly assesses whether students can evaluate tradeoffs (efficiency vs knocking) and justify an engineering design using energy concepts.

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 produced are: 1) A completed data table showing systematic variable testing. 2) Written sensemaking responses explaining the physics. 3) A final engine design proposal. These artifacts make visible the students ability to integrate the SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs.

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:

Scoring guidance: A high-quality response must explicitly reference the energy balance chart (CCC/DCI) to justify the chosen compression ratio, acknowledging that the knock limit acts as the primary engineering constraint (SEP/DCI).

  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):

Scoring guidance: Partial understanding might focus solely on maximizing power without addressing the tradeoff of knocking, or might fail to explain where the “lost” energy goes (waste heat). Teachers should prompt students to look at the energy chart if they miss the waste heat component.

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

Scoring guidance: Teachers can connect the concepts of thermal efficiency and waste heat to future lessons on the second law of thermodynamics (HS-PS3-4) or environmental science impacts.

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 broken down into explicit steps (Baseline, Comparison, Optimization) to prevent students from being overwhelmed, while the final Elaborate/Evaluate prompt remains open enough to require analytical thinking rather than just filling in blanks.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

No improvements needed at this time.

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 uses an effective phenomenon, integrates the 3 dimensions, and uses the simulation natively.

Final recommendation (choose one):