Science Task Screener

Task Title: Investigating Reaction Rates: Collisions and Energy

Grade: High School

Date: 2023-10-27

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?

The task centers on the phenomenon of glow sticks glowing brighter in hot water but lasting longer in cold water.

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

Yes, students must use the qualitative behavior of the glow stick (brightness/duration) and explain it using the quantitative data they gather from the simulation about reaction rates.

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 glow stick behavior is a real-world, highly observable occurrence.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It specifically cites putting a glow stick in hot water versus a freezer.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The dichotomy of bright/short-lived vs dim/long-lived creates intrigue.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students want to understand why temperature has this physical effect.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] It is perfectly aligned with HS-PS1-5 regarding temperature and reaction rate.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] It pairs textual descriptions with an interactive digital simulation.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides realistic relative rate data for simple reactions.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Glow sticks are a nearly universal childhood experience.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The phenomenon requires no specialized prior knowledge or background.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario introduction is brief and to the point.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] Yes, it drives the investigation into concentration and temperature.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [x] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Consider adding a prompt asking students if they have experienced the phenomenon firsthand.

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 deductive reasoning to connect their quantitative data (reaction rates) to the abstract concepts of kinetic energy and particle collisions to successfully explain the glow stick phenomenon.

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?)

SEP: Constructing Explanations. The task explicitly requires students to “Construct an Explanation” in sections 3 and 5 using the data they just gathered.

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

CCC: Patterns. The task requires students to analyze their data tables to identify the pattern that increasing concentration/temp leads to increased rates.

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

DCI: PS1.B Chemical Reactions. The task centers entirely on the concept that chemical reaction rates depend on the collisions of molecules and kinetic energy.

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 students synthesize the DCI (collision theory) and the CCC (data patterns) to construct their final SEP (explanation) for the glow stick behavior.

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 prompt explicitly asks students to explain why the data looks the way it does, forcing them to externalize their internal conceptual model.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Explicitly ask students to identify the pattern before constructing the explanation.

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 analogy of a crowded hallway provides a universally relevant connection to collision theory that all students can visualize. The glow stick phenomenon is also a globally recognizable occurrence.

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 by collecting and organizing quantitative data in tables, engaging directly with a digital simulation, and by writing qualitative explanations in paragraph form.

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 breaks down the variables (concentration first, then temperature).
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from single variables to integrated explanation is clear.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The hallway analogy is universally understood.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The structured data tables give entry points, while the final explanation provides ceiling.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Explanations are clear and avoid unnecessary jargon.

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.

Using an interactive simulation allows students to take control of their learning, generate their own data, and experiment freely in a low-stakes environment, building 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 directly builds the necessary evidence within the lesson itself (via the simulation) so extensive prior background knowledge is not a barrier to engagement.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The relationships modeled in the simulation and requested in the explanations (temp vs rate, concentration vs rate) are fundamental, accurate chemical principles.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None required.

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:

This is a formative assessment task designed to evaluate student understanding of how temperature and concentration affect reaction rates through the lens of collision theory.

  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):

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, the task’s final prompt explicitly requires students to explain reaction rates using their own collected data, precisely matching the target PE (HS-PS1-5).

  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 just the relationship between temperature, concentration, and collision theory.

  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 explanations provide clear, observable evidence of a student’s conceptual understanding of kinetic energy and collision frequency.

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 step-by-step instructions for the simulation are clear without giving away the conceptual answers, keeping the analytical burden high.

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 clearly outline the NGSS alignment and explicitly map the student tasks to the specific evidence statements for HS-PS1-5.

  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 separation of concentration and temperature into two distinct exploration phases helps teachers pinpoint exactly where a student’s partial understanding might lie.

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

The final “Elaborate” prompt connects the simulation concepts back to the real-world glow stick phenomenon introduced at the beginning.

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 step-by-step instructions for operating the simulation are clear, but the analytical burden of constructing the explanation from the generated data remains entirely on the student.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Provide an explicit scoring rubric for the final paragraph explanation.

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.

Strengths: The task tightly aligns to HS-PS1-5 by providing a low-barrier, interactive environment for students to generate their own quantitative evidence about reaction rates. It effectively integrates all three dimensions by having students use those data patterns (CCC) to construct a causal explanation (SEP) about kinetic energy and collision theory (DCI). The framing around the glow stick phenomenon provides an excellent real-world hook. Weaknesses/Revisions: While robust as a formative assessment, the task relies heavily on written explanations. For ELL students or those struggling with written expression, teachers might consider allowing the final “Elaborate” response to be submitted as a diagram or verbal explanation. Additionally, the task does not explicitly prompt students to modify the “Activation Energy” slider during the main data collection phases, meaning it only partially assesses that specific sub-component of collision theory.

Final recommendation (choose one):