Science Task Screener

Task Title: Investigating Nuclear Processes: Fission, Fusion, and Decay

Grade: High School

Date: April 2025

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?

Evidence: The task is anchored in the phenomenon of massive energy production by the Sun (fusion) and nuclear power plants (fission).

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

Evidence: Students must use the simulation to count protons and neutrons before and after reactions to answer the questions.

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 [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The Sun and nuclear power plants are real-world phenomena students can observe or relate to.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The task focuses on the specific instances of the Sun and power plants, not just “energy”.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: Comparing the massive energy of the Sun to a campfire creates an intriguing contrast.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The contrast in energy scales naturally prompts students to wonder why the difference exists.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: Students must use models (SEP) and conservation of matter (CCC) to explain nuclear processes (DCI).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The task uses both textual descriptions and an interactive simulation to present the phenomenon.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The data gathered from the simulation represents actual nuclear properties of the elements.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The relevance of the Sun (universal) and power plants (global/local) is made explicit in the Engage phase.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The language used is clear, and the phenomena are broadly recognizable without specialized background.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The descriptions are concise and direct students quickly to the exploration phase without unnecessary jargon.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The scenario drives a full 5E instructional sequence, providing enough depth for inquiry.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Suggestions: Add a question comparing the lifespan of a star to a coal-burning fire.

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 develop distinct models of Alpha Decay, Fission, and Fusion to illustrate relationships (conservation) rather than just drawing pictures.

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: Students use PS1.C by tracking protons and neutrons across nuclear reactions and noting that total particles are conserved even as identities change.

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

Evidence: Tracking particle counts and mapping them to elements aligns with the HS level DCI expectation for nuclear processes.

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

Evidence: The Explore and Explain sections are framed around the CCC of Energy and Matter, specifically tracing total protons and neutrons.

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.

Evidence: Students use their collected simulator data to construct a model explaining the massive energy release and the conservation of total particles.

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).

Evidence: Students make their thinking visible by creating annotated models and answering specific synthesis questions.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Suggestions: Ensure students explicitly label the large energy release in their models.

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.

Evidence: The task focuses entirely on the specific phenomenon of nuclear energy generation and particle conservation.

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.

Evidence: Students respond in their science notebooks through written explanation, data table completion, and visual diagram/model drawing.

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 [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The data table scaffolds the data collection necessary for the final models.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The sequence from Engage to Elaborate builds logically from student perspective.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The contexts (Sun, power plants) do not assume privileged cultural or linguistic knowledge.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The modeling checklist provides a clear structure that can be achieved by all, while extensions offer further challenge.
Tasks use accessible language [ ] [ ] [ ] Rationale: The language is straightforward and avoids unnecessary complexity.

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.

Evidence: The relevance of the Sun (universal) and power plants (global/local) is made explicit in the Engage phase.

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.

Evidence: The task is designed as a foundational lesson on nuclear processes, connecting prior chemical process knowledge to the much larger energy scale of nuclear processes.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

Evidence: The scientific information regarding nuclear reactions, particle counts, and conservation is accurate and aligns with the simulation.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Suggestions: Consider adding a rubric specifically for the modeling component.

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 Assessment

  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?

Evidence: The simulation is essential because it allows students to visually track protons and neutrons during reactions, which they cannot do otherwise.

  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.

Evidence: Students manipulate the simulation to observe different types of decay and fusion.

  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)?

Evidence: The data gathered directly supports the purpose of developing explanatory models.

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].

Evidence: Students produce annotated visual models and a completed data table based on the simulation.

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:

Evidence: The teacher notes explicitly map the deliverables to evidence statements, supporting teachers in interpreting student models.

  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):

Evidence: The checklist serves as a scoring guideline that covers all three dimensions (Models, Nuclear Processes, Energy/Matter).

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

Evidence: The task includes an extension section for students to elaborate on stellar lifespans or nuclear medicine, connecting to broader topics.

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).

Evidence: The task provides explicit step-by-step guidance in the Explore section and clear criteria in the Modeling Checklist.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Suggestions: Allow students to create digital models as an alternative to hand-drawn ones.

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.

Overall Summary: The task is well-aligned with HS-PS1-8 and effectively uses the interactive simulation to develop models of nuclear processes. It is complete, 3D aligned, and ready for classroom use.

Final recommendation (choose one):