Science Task Screener
Task Title: Investigating the Invisible: Gravity vs. Electrostatics
Grade: High School
Date: 2024-04-24
Instructions
- Before you begin: Complete the task as a student would. Then, consider any support materials provided to teachers or students, such as contextual information about the task and answer keys/scoring guidance.
- Using the Task Screener: Use this tool to evaluate tasks designed for three-dimensional standards. For each criterion, record your evidence for the presence or absence of the associated indicators. After you have decided to what degree the indicators are present within the task, revisit the purpose of your task and decide whether the evidence supports using it.
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?
- Is a phenomenon and/or problem present?
The task introduces the anchoring phenomenon of invisible forces acting at a distance, explicitly contrasting everyday electrostatic scenarios (rubbing a balloon) with the constant force of Earth’s gravity.
- Is information from the scenario necessary to respond successfully to the task?
In Part 4, students must construct a formal argument to determine which invisible force is the dominant interaction between an electron and a proton.
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] | [ ] | [ ] | Leverages universally understood analogies. |
| Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Specifically compares subatomic particles. |
| Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Contrasting macro vs micro forces is engaging. |
| Scenarios create a “need to know” | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Requires understanding to answer the final prompt. |
| Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Aligned to HS-PS2-4. |
| Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses simulation and text. |
| If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Calculates accurate physical forces. |
| The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Touches upon universal forces on all matter. |
| Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Accessible language and analogies. |
| Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Step-by-step guidance. |
| Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Deep mathematical connections. |
| Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:
None.
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.
The phenomenon grounds itself in universal everyday experiences (gravity pulling us downward, static balloons), making the baseline accessible.
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?)
The simulation’s Compare View challenges preconceived assumptions about the relative magnitude of forces, establishing an engaging puzzle.
Evidence of CCCs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)
The scenario requires identifying a common mathematical pattern (CCC), applying Coulomb’s/Newton’s laws (DCI), and analyzing data (SEP).
Evidence of DCIs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)
The reasoning requires students to synthesize qualitative observations of vector arrows with quantitative force calculations.
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 must mathematically reason to deduce the properties of invisible forces, extrapolating from macro to micro.
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).
They must iteratively process raw simulation data to isolate the inverse-square pattern.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:
None.
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.
Students utilize PS2.B (Newton’s and Coulomb’s laws).
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 demands Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking by defining objects in the model and predicting forces.
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] | [ ] | [ ] | Step-by-step guidance is provided. |
| Tasks are coherent from a student perspective | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Logical flow through the 5E phases. |
| Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Neutral and accessible. |
| Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | High ceiling on the argumentative portion. |
| Tasks use accessible language | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Scientific terms are clearly introduced. |
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 leverages Patterns, requiring students to recognize the shared inverse-square relationship.
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 final argumentation prompt requires combining the inverse-square pattern, the equations, and computational modeling.
vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.
Describe evidence of scientific inaccuracies explicitly or implicitly promoted by the task.
The dimensions are inextricably integrated into the single culminating synthesis argument.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:
None.
Criterion D. Tasks support their intended targets and purpose.
Before you begin:
- Describe what is being assessed. Include any targets provided, such as dimensions, elements, or PEs:
The Teacher Notes explicitly map expected student answers to the official evidence statements.
- 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
- [x] 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:
- Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task?
Students must explicitly cite evidence from simulation outputs and reference mathematical structure in their written claims.
- 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.
Connects to daily physical experiences like handling magnets.
- 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)?
The Explore section explicitly scaffolds understanding using the simulation.
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].
Students demonstrate knowledge through data tables and a formal written argument.
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:
- 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:
Students can run their own tests and explore edge cases independently.
- 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):
Honors initial curiosity by asking them to record “need to know” questions.
- Ways to connect student responses to prior experiences and future planned instruction by teachers and participation by students:
Focuses purely on abstract physical laws and mathematical representations.
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).
Assumes only basic algebraic substitution, a prerequisite for HS physics.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] 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 is a highly effective, rigorous task perfectly suited for a high school physics classroom aiming to integrate Disciplinary Core Ideas with deep mathematical modeling.
Final recommendation (choose one):
- [x] Use this task (all criteria had at least an “adequate” rating)
- [ ] Modify and use this task
- [ ] Do not use this task