Science Task Screener
Task Title: Cage of Energy: Why are some Molecules “Monsters”?
Grade: High School (9-12)
Date: 2026-04-17
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? Evidence: Yes. The task centers on the “Monstrous” properties of extreme carbon-based molecules like Cubane and Buckyballs. It poses a specific puzzling scenario: why are these molecules so different despite being made of the same element?
-
Is information from the scenario necessary to respond successfully to the task? Evidence: Yes. Students must use the 3D simulation to measure specific bond angles and count atoms in mystery samples. This data is required to construct the explanations and make the predictions in Parts 3 and 4.
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] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses real chemical compounds known as “Monster Molecules” (Cubane, Maitotoxin). |
| Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Focuses on the specific explosive nature of Cubane vs. Buckyballs. |
| Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Cubane is described as an “explosive cage” and a “ticking time bomb.” |
| Scenarios create a “need to know” | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Motivates students to figure out why the “C-C-C” angle matters for stability. |
| Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Explainsable using HS-level Periodic Table patterns. |
| Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses textual narrative and an interactive 3D simulation. |
| If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses real PubChem coordinate data for molecular visualization. |
| The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students | [ ] | [x] | [ ] | Relevance to advanced materials and explosives is mentioned but could be expanded. |
| Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses clear “LEGO brick” analogies and step-by-step instructions. |
| Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Concise instructions for simulation use. |
| Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Provides variety (Large molecules, small strained rings, mystery samples). |
| Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [ ] Adequate | [x] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A: Expanding on the real-world applications of these “Monster” materials in industrial nanotechnology would further enhance global relevance.
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. Evidence: Students must reason why a 90-degree angle in a carbon-carbon bond represents “strain” by comparing it to the “happy” angle of 109.5. They must connect the microscopic geometric measurement to the macroscopic property of explosiveness.
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?) Evidence: Analyzing and Interpreting Data. Students use the simulation to collect quantitative data (angles and atom counts) and interpret this to determine if a molecule is strained or stable.
Evidence of CCCs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?) Evidence: Patterns. Students identify the repeating pattern of 4-bonds-per-Carbon across all samples, regardless of complexity.
Evidence of DCIs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?) Evidence: PS1.A (Structure and Properties of Matter). Students identify valence electrons from the Periodic Table and use them to predict the number of bonds expected for Carbon.
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 multiple dimensions used together. Evidence: In Part 4, students must use the SEP (Analyzing Data from the simulation) and the DCI (Carbon’s bonding patterns) to identify the formula and stability of an unknown substance.
iv. The task requires students to make their thinking visible.
Consider in what ways the task explicitly prompts students to make their thinking visible. Evidence: The task requires students to write out their “Predictions” and “Reasoning” in Part 3 and Part 4, rather than just filling in numbers.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Suggestions for improvement for Criterion B: Require students to draw or build a physical model to supplement the digital one to further strengthen the “Developing and Using Models” SEP.
Criterion C. Tasks are fair and equitable.
i. The task provides ways for students to make connections of local, global, or universal relevance.
Evidence: The “LEGO brick” analogy makes the abstract concept of bonding accessible. The mention of industrial lubricants and explosives provides some real-world context.
ii. The task includes multiple modes for students to respond to the task.
Evidence: Students interact with a 3D simulation, record data in tables, and write evidence-based claims.
iii. The task is accessible, appropriate, and cognitively demanding for all learners.
| Features | Yes | Somewhat | No | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task includes appropriate scaffolds | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Provides “Rule of Four” guidance in Part 3 to assist with reasoning. |
| Tasks are coherent from a student perspective | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Follows the 5E instructional model. |
| Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural backgrounds | [ ] | [x] | [ ] | Uses neutral scientific language. |
| Tasks provide all students with opportunity to show what they know | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Accessible data collection leads to complex reasoning challenges. |
| Tasks use accessible language | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Clear analogies and defined scientific terms. |
iv. The task cultivates students’ interest in and confidence with science.
Evidence: Mystery samples provide a “gamified” investigative feel.
v. The task focuses on performances for which students’ learning experiences have prepared them.
Evidence: Assumes basic familiarity with the Periodic Table.
vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.
Evidence: Chemical structures and bond angles match real-world PubChem coordinates.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Criterion D. Tasks support their intended targets and purpose.
Before you begin:
-
Describe what is being assessed: HS-PS1-1: Prediction of properties (stability/explosiveness) based on electron patterns (valence bonds).
-
What is the purpose of the assessment?
- Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
- Determining whether students can apply what they have learned to a similar but new context
i. The task assesses what it is intended to assess and supports the purpose for which it is intended.
Evidence: The task directly requires applying Periodic Table patterns (DCI) to explain physical properties (explosiveness), which is the core of HS-PS1-1.
ii. The task elicits artifacts from students as direct, observable evidence of how best students can use the targeted dimensions.
Evidence: The completed data sheets and identifying the Mystery Samples serve as observable artifacts.
iii. Supporting materials include clear answer keys, rubrics, and guidelines.
Evidence: Part 3 provides internal check-points (“The Rule of Four”) to guide student thinking toward the correct answer.
iv. The task’s prompts and directions provide sufficient guidance for the teacher and students.
Evidence: The 5E structure provides a clear roadmap for lesson flow.
| Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No | [ ] Inadequate | [x] Adequate | [ ] Extensive |
Overall Summary
The “Cage of Energy” task is a strong, phenomenon-driven inquiry sequence. It provides an excellent use-case for the Monster Molecules simulation, transforming what could be a simple “viewer” into a data-collection tool for determining molecular stability.
Final recommendation (choose one):
- Use this task (all criteria had at least an “adequate” rating)
- Modify and use this task
- Do not use this task