Science Task Screener

Task Title: From Sparks to Waves

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-05-18

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 phenomenon driving this task is the everyday observation of lightning and thunder, specifically why the flash of lightning is seen before the boom of thunder is heard. The simulation provides a controlled environment to explore this phenomenon.

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

The simulation allows students to trigger a lightning strike and visually track both the electromagnetic wave (light) and mechanical wave (sound). They are then required to use mathematical reasoning to explain the time delay.

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 simulation separates light and sound components of lightning, making abstract wave properties accessible.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The task focuses exclusively on the speed of propagation of lightning and thunder.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The delay between the flash and the boom creates a natural discrepancy to resolve.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students must calculate speeds to explain the phenomenon.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The task requires mathematical modeling (SEP), wave property knowledge (DCI), and identifying cause and effect (CCC).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] It integrates a visual interactive simulation with textual data collection.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] Data is generated from the simulation mimicking real-world constraints.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Lightning is a universally observed phenomenon, relevant globally.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The visual simulation scaffolds understanding for all learners.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] Instructions are concise and direct.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario naturally leads into the data collection and mathematical modeling required.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [x] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Consider linking the simulation to local weather phenomena discussions to enhance relevance.

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 collect raw data from the simulation and must apply reasoning and the formula v=fλ to calculate wave speeds and explain the differences in propagation.

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: Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking. Students must populate a data table, execute mathematical calculations to find the wave speed, and use this data as evidence for their final claim. Scoring guidance: full credit for mathematically accurate calculations showing v=3e8 m/s for light and 343 m/s for sound.

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

CCC: Cause and Effect. Students differentiate between the cause of wavelength changes (frequency adjustments) and the cause of speed changes (changing the medium/type of wave). Scoring guidance: Look for student claims that isolate the medium as the cause for speed changes.

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

DCI: PS4.A Wave Properties. Students apply knowledge that wave speed depends on the type of wave and the medium through which it is passing. Scoring guidance: Student must explicitly state that light and sound are different wave types traveling at different constant speeds.

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 their mathematical models (SEP) with their understanding of wave properties (DCI) to determine the causal relationships (CCC) governing the propagation of light and sound.

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 providing explicit sample calculations and constructing a claim supported by specific data points from their investigation.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Encourage students to discuss their claims with peers before writing the final response.

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.

Lightning is a universally recognizable phenomenon. By investigating it, students can connect abstract physics concepts to an everyday occurrence they have likely experienced directly.

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 via interactive simulation observation, tabular data recording, mathematical calculation, and written explanation.

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 simulation provides a slow-mo feature to visually scaffold the concept of fast-moving waves.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions follow a logical sequence from engagement to mathematical proof.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon is universally accessible regardless of cultural background.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Calculations provide a floor, while the final claim synthesis provides a high ceiling.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Language is direct, and scientific terms are clearly defined within the context of 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 cultivates interest by allowing students to actively trigger the phenomenon and manipulate the variables in real-time, seeing instantaneous results.

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 students have been introduced to the basic v=fλ equation prior to the activity, allowing them to focus on the application and analysis.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation uses scientifically accurate speeds for light in a vacuum (~3e8 m/s) and sound in air (~343 m/s). No inaccuracies are promoted.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Ensure teachers review the v=fλ equation before starting the task to ensure all students have an equal opportunity to learn.

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-PS4-1: Using mathematical representations to support a claim regarding relationships among the frequency, wavelength, and speed of waves traveling in various media.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • [ ] Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
    • [x] Summative
    • [ ] 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, calculating speed from frequency and wavelength is strictly required to answer Q2 and to provide evidence for the claim in Q4. Scoring: Check that calculation setups are correct.

  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 outside knowledge is strictly necessary, as the simulation provides the variables, and the prompt supplies the formula. However, basic algebraic skills are necessary to manipulate the formula.

  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 claim specifically requires students to articulate the relationship between wave type and speed, directly supporting the assessment purpose.

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 artifacts are the completed data table and the written responses to Q2-Q4, which provide direct, observable evidence of their 3D sense-making.

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 Teacher Notes section explicitly maps the 3D learning targets to the student deliverables. Scoring rubric: 3 points for correctly identifying cause vs correlation (CCC), 3 points for accurate math representations (SEP), 3 points for applying wave property differences (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):

The task design allows teachers to identify specific points of failure: calculation errors (SEP), conceptual misunderstandings of wave speed (DCI), or inability to link cause and effect in the final claim (CCC). Partial credit can be assigned if calculations are wrong but the conceptual claim is correct.

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

The Teacher Notes suggest implementation tips, such as ensuring students are comfortable with unit conversions (THz to Hz), which can connect to prior math instruction.

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 prompts are clear and sequential. The scaffolding is appropriate for a high school level, requiring students to synthesize their own claim rather than filling in a blank.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Consider adding an explicit rubric scale (e.g., 1-4) in the teacher materials for the final claim assessment.

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 “From Sparks to Waves” task is a highly effective, three-dimensional assessment for HS-PS4-1. It grounds the abstract mathematical relationships of waves in a concrete, universally accessible phenomenon. The task requires a genuine synthesis of SEP, DCI, and CCC to successfully complete, making it highly recommended for use.

Final recommendation (choose one):