Science Task Screener

Task Title: New Haven Apizza Thermodynamics

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?

Yes, the phenomenon is the unique baking process of New Haven apizza in a high-heat coal-fired oven.

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

Yes, students must use the specific simulation variables (fuel temp, oven material specific heat, pizza thickness) to gather data.

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 presents the real-world observation of how pizza cooks in a coal-fired oven.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It focuses specifically on New Haven apizza, not just “cooking” in general.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] It asks how a thin crust can be charred without burning completely.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know how variables affect the outcome to explain the phenomenon.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Thermodynamics and specific heat are HS appropriate.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] It uses text and an interactive simulation interface.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation generates physically accurate temperature data.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Connecting thermodynamics to everyday cooking makes it universally relevant.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario uses accessible language and a clear simulation interface.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The engage section is brief and directly sets up the investigation.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides multiple interdependent variables (temp, specific heat, thickness, time).
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [x] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None needed.

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.

Students must use reasoning in Part 3 to connect their specific data (temperature changes) to the abstract concepts of specific heat and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

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?)

Planning and Carrying Out Investigations: Students must plan their data collection by identifying independent, dependent, and control variables in Step 2.2.

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

Systems and System Models: Students analyze the closed system of the oven, noting how energy moves across boundaries between components (floor to pizza).

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

PS3.B/PS3.D: Students track energy transfer from hot to cold components resulting in a more uniform energy distribution.

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 must use the data they collected from their investigation (SEP) to construct an explanation of how the system (CCC) transfers thermal energy (DCI) to bake the pizza.

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 final task in Part 4 requires a written scientific explanation that explicitly links specific data to scientific reasoning, making their sensemaking visible.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

None needed.

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 abstract physics to the very real and localized tradition of New Haven pizza making, showing how physics governs everyday cooking.

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 respond via structured data tables (quantitative) and written scientific explanations (qualitative/written).

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 scaffolds the investigation before asking for the final explanation.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from initial observation to data collection to sensemaking is logical.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The context of food and cooking is universally accessible.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The open-ended explanation allows for varying levels of sophistication.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Complex terms like ‘specific heat’ are defined in the text.

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.

Students make their own decisions about which variables to manipulate in Step 2.2, giving them agency in the investigation.

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 entirely on data generated within the simulation, so no extensive prior background knowledge of thermodynamics is required to begin.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The science regarding heat capacity, radiation, and conduction is fully accurate and aligns with the simulation parameters.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None needed.

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:

HS-PS3-4: Planning an investigation to show that thermal energy transfer results in a more uniform energy distribution.

  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):

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?

Yes, students cannot write the final explanation without understanding the targeted DCI (energy transfer).

  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.

No, the task is tightly scoped to the targeted dimensions.

  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)?

Yes, the written explanation provides clear evidence of their understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

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].

Yes, the task uses accurate scientific terminology (specific heat capacity, thermal energy, Second Law of Thermodynamics).

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 explicitly map the components of the final task to the specific NGSS evidence statements.

  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 structured checklist in Part 4 ensures students know exactly what needs to be included, making grading more straightforward.

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

The task can serve as an anchoring phenomenon for a broader unit on thermodynamics and specific heat.

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 prompts provide enough structure (data table) to get them started, but leave the final explanation open enough to require true analytical thinking.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

None needed.

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 high quality, providing an engaging scenario that seamlessly requires three-dimensional thinking to solve.

Final recommendation (choose one):