Science Task Screener

Task Title: Molecular Structures & Designed Materials: A Phenomenon-Based Inquiry

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-04-25

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?

Yes, the phenomenon of how materials like metal wires, stretchy polymers, and pharmaceutical drugs function differently based on their microscopic structure is present.

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

Yes, students must use the provided simulation modules to observe the atomic arrangements and electrostatic forces to successfully respond to the task.

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 scenario ties real-world materials to molecular models.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario looks at specific properties of metal wires, polymers under stress, and drug docking rather than generic chemical bonds.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario poses puzzling questions about why everyday things act the way they do (e.g., stretchy vs brittle).
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] It creates a need to know by assigning students the role of a Junior Materials Scientist tasked with explaining these differences to a client.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] It directly ties to the HS-PS2-6 standard.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses text, diagrams, and the interactive simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides accurate molecular behavioral models for data collection.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Reading level is high school appropriate and avoiding unnecessary jargon before sensemaking.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] It connects to common everyday materials relevant to many diverse learners.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] Scaffolding is provided through guided simulation exploration in a step-by-step manner.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] Options provided for final product format (text vs diagram) support diverse learners.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The task effectively engages students.

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.

Yes, students use reasoning and evidence from the simulation data to connect molecular structure (e.g. sea of electrons, lock-and-key) with material function.

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 communicate their findings in a technical report or diagram to a client in Part 4.

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

Students apply their understanding of electrostatic interactions and molecular arrangement to explain macroscopic material properties in Parts 3 and 4.

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

Students connect molecular structure (e.g., lock-and-key shape, polymer chains) to material function throughout the task.

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 all three dimensions to complete the final evaluation report, using the CCC and DCI to formulate their communication (SEP).

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 through their written explanation and final report/diagram.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None. Students make their thinking visible effectively.

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 task connects to universally relevant everyday materials (wires, stretchy plastics, medicine) that students encounter globally and locally.

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 are given multiple modes to respond, such as a written technical report or a labeled diagram.

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 starts with concrete observations and moves progressively to abstract explanations.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] Content focuses on the core phenomena without relying on unnecessary vocabulary.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Tasks use open-ended phenomena allowing varied cultural connections.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Differentiation is possible through the final product format.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Vocabulary is introduced only after conceptual understanding.

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 positions students as materials scientists solving a real-world problem, cultivating confidence.

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 relies on provided simulation data and scaffolding, not prior rote memorization.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The simulation and text accurately reflect real-world molecular principles.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None. Task is fair and equitable.

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 purpose of this assessment is to evaluate student ability to communicate scientific information about how molecular-level structure dictates the functioning of designed materials.

  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): Formative assessment of students’ ability to communicate scientific information.

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 task assesses the targeted HS-PS2-6 standard directly by requiring students to fulfill all evidence statements for that PE.

  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 final report/diagram serves as direct, observable evidence of three-dimensional learning.

  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 teacher notes provide clear alignment and explicitly list the NGSS evidence statements that should be used for evaluation.

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 5E structure provides a clear progression and explicit guidance for both teachers to administer and students to complete.

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 provides explicit NGSS evidence statements to guide the teacher in evaluating the student’s 5E report based on their integration of the SEP, DCI, and CCC.

  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 prompts provide specific questions that require the student to explain the lock-and-key model, the sea of electrons, and polymer chains, serving as a basis for expected answers.

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

The teacher notes describe how students must use at least two formats and explicitly identify molecular structures to demonstrate full understanding.

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 5E structure provides step-by-step guidance for exploring the simulation, scaffolding the complex molecular phenomena without over-scripting the final synthesis report.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

None. The task supports its intended targets and purpose.

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 is strongly aligned to HS-PS2-6, utilizing a 5E structure to guide students from engaging phenomena to deep sensemaking using an interactive simulation.

Final recommendation (choose one):