Science Task Screener

Task Title: Macroscopic Energy vs. Microscopic Particles

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-04-24

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?

Students must investigate the relationship between temperature/stretch and internal kinetic/potential energy to explain why stretching a rubber band generates heat.

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

The scenario uses common phenomena—boiling water and rubber bands—that connect abstract physics to everyday life.

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] [ ] [ ] Rubber bands and boiling water are observable real-world phenomena.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] Focuses on snapping a rubber band and observing a pot of boiling water.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] Creates intrigue by asking how invisible particles cause visible heat.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Prompts students to figure out the microscopic mechanism behind the heat.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Aligns perfectly with HS-PS3-2 expectations.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Uses text scenario and interactive digital simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] Simulation provides clear, trackable data for temperature, stretch, and energy.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Stretching and boiling are universally experienced actions.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] Written in accessible language for high schoolers.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] Concise Engage section moves quickly to the Explore phase.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] Provides enough context to anchor the data collection and CER.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Consider having students present their final explanations to peers to enhance the argumentation practice.

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 requires students to correlate numerical data (temperature, stretch) with visual observations of particle motion and bonds to draw conclusions.

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?)

Students actively ‘Develop and Use Models’ (SEP), define energy forms at different scales (DCI), and track ‘Energy and Matter’ (CCC).

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

In the final CER prompt, students must use their simulation data (SEP/CCC) to support a claim about macroscopic and microscopic energy forms (DCI).

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

The data tables and the written CER explanation explicitly capture the student’s reasoning and evidence mapping.

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 anchor phenomena are common experiences that do not require specialized background knowledge.

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 record quantitative data, write qualitative observations, and draft a formal scientific explanation.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Consider having students present their final explanations to peers to enhance the argumentation practice.

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 5E model scaffolds the experience, breaking the complex modeling task into manageable, step-by-step investigations.

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.

Connecting difficult physics concepts to an interactive simulation lowers the barrier to entry and builds scientific confidence.

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 5E structure and specific data points (e.g., 20, 40, 60) guide the student.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] Logical progression from phenomena to data to explanation.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Uses culturally neutral, universally accessible phenomena.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Simulation is accessible, while the CER allows for deep synthesis.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Limits complex physics jargon where possible.

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 aligns with expected high school physics modeling capabilities without introducing complex quantitative math.

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 simulation accurately represents the proportional relationship between macroscopic properties and microscopic particle behavior.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The task explicitly asks students to model energy at two scales, directly addressing the core requirement of HS-PS3-2.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Consider having students present their final explanations to peers to enhance the argumentation practice.

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:

Assess student understanding of HS-PS3-2 using a simulation model.

  1. 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:

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

The completed 5E handout, particularly the CER response, provides clear, gradable evidence of 3D learning.

  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.

The Teacher Notes map the task to the NGSS Evidence Statements, providing a framework for evaluating the student’s CER response.

  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)?

The step-by-step instructions ensure teachers can implement the task smoothly without needing to learn the simulation beforehand.

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 actively ‘Develop and Use Models’ (SEP), define energy forms at different scales (DCI), and track ‘Energy and Matter’ (CCC).

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:

In the final CER prompt, students must use their simulation data (SEP/CCC) to support a claim about macroscopic and microscopic energy forms (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 data tables and the written CER explanation explicitly capture the student’s reasoning and evidence mapping.

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

The anchor phenomena are common experiences that do not require specialized background knowledge.

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).

Students record quantitative data, write qualitative observations, and draft a formal scientific explanation.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Consider having students present their final explanations to peers to enhance the argumentation practice.

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 aligns to HS-PS3-2, integrating all three dimensions through a clear, engaging scenario. The 5E structure provides strong support for sense-making. The rubrics and instructions ensure it is implementable and assessable.

Final recommendation (choose one):