Science Task Screener

Task Title: Intermolecular Forces Investigation

Grade: High School

Date: 2026-04-24

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 task is driven by the phenomenon of water forming a tall bead on a penny while acetone flattens out and evaporates quickly, prompting questions about molecular interactions.

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

Students must collect data from the simulation (boiling points, droplet shapes) to answer the questions in the ‘Explain’ and ‘Elaborate/Evaluate’ sections; they cannot answer them using general knowledge alone.

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 behavior of droplets on a penny and differing boiling points are observable, real-world phenomena.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario uses specific substances (water and acetone) rather than a general discussion of intermolecular forces.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The stark contrast in behavior between water and acetone creates cognitive dissonance and curiosity.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know what is different about the molecules to explain the macroscopic differences.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomena can be explained entirely using High School SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs regarding matter structure.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task integrates textual descriptions with the interactive simulation’s visual models and graphs.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation uses accurate relative boiling points and physically correct droplet shapes.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon relates to common liquids students encounter, providing local and universal relevance.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario avoids overly technical jargon in the introduction, keeping it accessible.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The ‘Engage’ section is concise and gets straight to the puzzling phenomenon.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario provides enough context to require the full 5E investigation to fully explain it.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Consider adding more varied substances to the simulation in the future to broaden the phenomenon.

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.

In Part 3, students must explain why a substance with stronger intermolecular forces requires a higher temperature to boil, reasoning about thermal (kinetic) energy opposing electrical attraction between 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 avoids rote naming of specific forces (like dipole-dipole vs London Dispersion) as the primary goal, aligning with the HS-PS1-3 clarification statement, and instead focuses on inferring general strength of electrical forces from bulk properties.

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

In Part 3, students apply the ‘Patterns’ CCC by identifying the relationship between the strength of intermolecular forces and a substance’s boiling point and surface tension.

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

In Part 2, students write an investigation plan detailing the data to be collected, what they will change, and what they will measure, directly applying the SEP ‘Planning and Carrying Out Investigations’.

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.

In Part 4, students construct a scientific argument (SEP) using their collected data to explain how electrical forces between particles (DCI) determine macroscopic bulk properties, noting patterns across scales (CCC).

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 task uses a combination of visual models (simulation droplet and particle views), quantitative data (boiling points), and written argumentation to represent science ideas and make student thinking visible.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Ensure students clearly identify which specific SEP elements they are using during their investigation.

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 phenomenon of water beading and acetone evaporating relates to everyday experiences students have with common liquids, establishing local and universal relevance.

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 uses a combination of visual models (simulation droplet and particle views), quantitative data (boiling points), and written argumentation to represent science ideas.

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 breaks down the investigation into clear steps and provides a data table structure.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The sequence progresses logically from observation (Engage) to data collection (Explore) to sensemaking (Explain/Elaborate).
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The use of a common, non-culture-specific phenomenon (water on a penny) respects diverse backgrounds.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The structured data collection provides a low floor, while the open-ended argumentation provides a high ceiling.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The language used is grade-appropriate and clearly defines terms when necessary.

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 phenomenon (water vs. acetone on a penny) is accessible and relies on common everyday experiences, providing a low-barrier entry point for all students.

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 ‘need to know’ questions generated in Part 1 drive the investigation, motivating students to use the simulation to figure out how molecule interactions lead to the observed phenomenon.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation models accurately reflect real-world physical properties (e.g., higher boiling points for hydrogen-bonded substances) and there are no identified scientific inaccuracies.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Provide more explicit language supports for English learners in the argumentation section.

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:

Formative or summative assessment of student ability to link bulk properties to molecular forces.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • [x] 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:

  1. Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task?

Students cannot successfully complete Parts 3 and 4 without linking bulk properties (boiling point, droplet shape) to intermolecular electrical forces, demonstrating that the targeted PE (HS-PS1-3) is central to task completion.

  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.

Graph reading skills (interpreting the vapor curve) and basic digital literacy for operating the simulation sliders are necessary but are not explicitly targeted by HS-PS1-3. These could present minor construct-irrelevant barriers for some students.

  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)?

Students produce a completed data table containing boiling points and droplet shapes, along with written responses and a scientific argument explaining their observations.

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 scoring guidance should look for students correctly identifying that higher boiling points correlate with stronger electrical forces between particles, as required by the Evidence Statements for HS-PS1-3.

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 scoring rubric provides guidance for interpreting partial understanding, such as when a student correctly identifies the trend (stronger IMFs = higher boiling point) but fails to explain the causal mechanism involving thermal energy overcoming electrical attractions.

  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 requires no specialized cultural or regional knowledge beyond common everyday liquids, meaning it respects and advantages diverse student backgrounds.

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

The use of the visual droplet model alongside quantitative boiling point graphs supports diverse learning styles and multi-modal learning.

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 ‘Teacher Notes’ section provides clear mapping of the task to the targeted SEP, DCI, and CCC.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Expand the teacher rubric to include examples of common student misconceptions.

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 successfully evaluates HS-PS1-3 by having students plan an investigation to infer IMF strength from bulk properties. The scenario is engaging and the required reasoning is grade-appropriate.

Final recommendation (choose one):