Science Task Screener
Task Title: High Altitude Weather Balloons and the Ideal Gas Law
Grade: High School
Date: 2026-04-24
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?
Yes, the phenomenon of a high altitude weather balloon expanding and eventually bursting as it rises is presented in the Engage section. This problem directly drives the need to understand how pressure and temperature affect volume.
- Is information from the scenario necessary to respond successfully to the task?
Yes, students must use the specific information provided in the Elaborate section—that the balloon rises into lower pressure and freezing temperatures—to synthesize the simulation data and predict the final outcome.
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 weather balloon expansion is an observable real-world phenomenon. |
| Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The scenario focuses on a specific instance (launching a weather balloon) rather than the generic topic of ‘gas laws’. |
| Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | It is intriguing because the balloon is intentionally under-inflated at launch, creating a puzzle about what happens later. |
| Scenarios create a “need to know” | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Students need to know how the gas responds to the changing atmospheric conditions to predict the balloon’s behavior. |
| Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The scenario is directly explained by HS-PS3-2 (macroscopic energy as a combination of motion and relative position) via kinetic energy concepts. |
| Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The task uses textual descriptions, data tables, and an interactive digital simulation (Ideal Gas Law Derivation). |
| If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The task prompts students to generate real simulation data (P, V, T, n) to inform their explanations. |
| The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Weather balloons are a globally recognized tool for atmospheric science, making the relevance clear. |
| Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The concepts are grounded in accessible language and a simple visual phenomenon. |
| Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The scenario description is concise and focused purely on the variables needed (P, V, T). |
| Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The scenario is rich enough to drive a full investigation of Boyle’s and Charles’s laws. |
| Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:
Consider adding a photograph or video link showing a weather balloon launch and its subsequent expansion at high altitude.
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 task avoids jargon and defines technical terms clearly within the context of the simulation (e.g., noting that Temperature represents the average kinetic energy of the particles).
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 task requires students to explain why the changes happen using microscopic particle behavior, rather than just reciting a memorized formula.
Evidence of CCCs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)
The Elaborate section allows for multiple valid student explanations regarding the net effect on the balloon, provided they back up their claims with their simulation data.
Evidence of DCIs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)
The task is explicitly designed to reveal student thinking about the connection between macroscopic properties and microscopic kinetic energy (HS-PS3-2).
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 evaluation peer-review criteria directly assess the three dimensions (e.g., explicitly mentioning kinetic energy/speed of particles).
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 peer-review criteria are simple, clear, and actionable for both the student author and the peer reviewer.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:
Provide an option for students to draw their microscopic particle models rather than just explaining them in text.
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 teacher notes map specific student actions (e.g., using simulation visuals, describing temperature changes) directly to the HS-PS3-2 evidence statements.
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 express their understanding through tabular data collection, written analytical paragraphs, and structured peer-to-peer discussions based on clear criteria.
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 investigation by breaking it down into Part 1 (Pressure/Volume) and Part 2 (Temperature/Volume) before synthesizing them. |
| Tasks are coherent from a student perspective | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The progression from Engage (phenomenon) to Explore (data collection) to Explain (reasoning) to Elaborate (application) provides a highly coherent student experience. |
| Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The weather balloon phenomenon does not rely on specific cultural knowledge; it is a straightforward physical scenario accessible to all. |
| Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The simulation allows low-achieving students to visually observe the relationships, while the Elaborate synthesis questions challenge high-achieving students to weigh competing factors. |
| Tasks use accessible language | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The instructions use plain language and clearly define dependent vs. independent variables in the context of the simulation controls. |
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 culminates in peer review, cultivating a sense of scientific community and giving students agency in evaluating arguments based on evidence.
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 knowledge of basic kinetic molecular theory (that particles move), which is standard for HS physical science before introducing mathematical gas laws.
vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.
Describe evidence of scientific inaccuracies explicitly or implicitly promoted by the task.
No scientific inaccuracies were found. The simulation correctly models the relationships between P, V, T, and n according to the Ideal Gas Law.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:
Include a sample ‘exemplar’ student response for the final deliverable to help teachers anchor their grading.
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 purpose of this task is to serve as an exploratory formative assessment where students build their understanding of the Ideal Gas Law prior to formal mathematical instruction.
- What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
- Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
- [ ] Summative
- [ ] Determining whether students learned what they just experienced
- [ ] 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:
- Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task?
Yes, students cannot write the final deliverable without connecting macroscopic changes to microscopic kinetic energy and collision theory, which is the core of HS-PS3-2.
- 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, non-targeted experiences are required. The entire reasoning chain can be built from the data generated directly within the simulation during the Explore phase.
- 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 specific peer review criteria (e.g., “Did the author explicitly mention kinetic energy”) directly measure whether the student has met the learning target for the formative assessment.
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 task produces two artifacts: data tables (showing ability to use the model/SEP) and a written paragraph (showing synthesis of DCI and CCC to explain the phenomenon).
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:
Rubric:
- High: Correctly predicts net volume change AND explicitly uses microscopic particle kinetic energy and collision rate to justify it.
- Adequate: Correctly predicts net volume change but relies only on macroscopic rules without referencing particle motion.
- Inadequate: Incorrect prediction or missing justification.
- 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):
- Model High Response: ‘The balloon expands because lower pressure means fewer outside collisions, and lower temp means slower inside particles, but the pressure drop dominates.’
- Model Adequate Response: ‘The balloon expands because pressure goes down.’
- Model Inadequate Response: ‘The balloon pops because it gets too cold.’
- Ways to connect student responses to prior experiences and future planned instruction by teachers and participation by students:
If students answer at the ‘Adequate’ level, instruction needs to pivot back to the simulation to explicitly focus on the particle animation, enforcing the connection between temperature and kinetic energy.
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 instructions clearly delineate the independent and dependent variables, guiding students to isolate variables before synthesizing them in the Elaborate section.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:
No further suggestions. The rubrics are well aligned to the standard.
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 robust, 5E-structured formative assessment that leverages an interactive simulation to help students discover and synthesize the relationships between macroscopic gas properties and microscopic kinetic energy, fully aligned with the intent of HS-PS3-2.
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