Science Task Screener

Task Title: Design Challenge: Lighting the Main Stage

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 problem of designing a stage lighting setup that maximizes brightness without tripping a 20.0 A circuit breaker is clearly presented in the ‘Engage’ section.

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

Yes, students must use the Stage Lighting Simulator scenario data (voltage, current, power) to determine how many bulbs can be added before the breaker trips.

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 a realistic issue: balancing lighting brightness with circuit limitations.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is specific to a stage lighting setup and the constraints of a 20.0 A breaker.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The problem of maximizing lighting without tripping the breaker is framed as an intriguing challenge.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know the relationship between current, power, and circuit type to solve it.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is solvable using HS-level physics concepts (Ohm’s law, power, series/parallel).
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] The task utilizes a rich interactive simulation that visually and quantitatively models the phenomenon.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The data (voltage, current, power) generated by the simulation aligns with real-world electrical physics.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The relevance to everyday electrical systems (like home breakers and holiday lights) is explicitly stated.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The language and the interface are accessible to high school physics students.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The instructions are concise and focused entirely on the necessary data collection.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is rich enough to support the full 5E instructional sequence.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

No changes needed; the phenomenon and problem are clearly established.

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, making sense of circuit physics (series vs. parallel) and tracking current and power data is essential to solve the problem.

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?)

The scenario provides clear visual context (bulb brightness, breaker tripping) and quantitative outputs (current, voltage, power meters) needed to perform the task.

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

The data provided is scientifically accurate (Ohm’s law, power equations) and directly generated by the simulation based on physical principles.

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

The scenario is designed such that there is only one correct underlying physical principle, but multiple ways to describe the tradeoffs, avoiding completely idiosyncratic interpretations.

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 are asked to make sense of the phenomenon of circuit limits and energy transformation. They have to use their DCI understanding to complete the design challenge.

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 task requires students to apply DCIs regarding energy conversion (PS3.A, PS3.D) and engineering problem limits (ETS1.A) to analyze and design the lighting system.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

No changes needed; the dimensions are thoroughly integrated in the final proposal.

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.

SEP: Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions. Students demonstrate this practice by evaluating simulation data (current, power) to refine their circuit design and writing a formal proposal justifying their choices against explicit design constraints.

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.

CCC: Energy and Matter. Students demonstrate this concept by explicitly mapping how electrical energy flows into their chosen circuit track and converts into radiant (light) and thermal (heat) energy, analyzing energy losses.

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] [ ] [ ] Scaffolding is provided via structured data tables and guided analytical questions before the final design task.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The sequence logically builds from exploration to explanation to application.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The context of a music venue/stage lighting is widely relatable across different student backgrounds.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation allows for both basic qualitative observation and advanced quantitative analysis.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] The task uses clear, standard scientific and engineering vocabulary appropriate for the grade level.

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.

DCI: PS3.A, PS3.D, ETS1.A. Students demonstrate understanding by identifying electrical and light/thermal energy transformations and optimizing their engineering design to stay below the 20 A circuit constraint.

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 dimensions are fundamentally integrated. Students must use the SEP (designing a solution) by applying the DCI (energy conversion/constraints) and viewing it through the lens of the CCC (energy flows).

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The final product (the proposal) requires students to integrate their quantitative data (SEP), their understanding of energy limits (DCI), and energy tracking (CCC) into a single cohesive argument.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

No changes needed; the vocabulary and context are grade-appropriate and fair.

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 task is primarily intended to be used as an instructional inquiry activity (formative) where students construct understanding of energy flows and circuit constraints.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • [x] Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
    • [ ] Summative
    • [x] 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?

Yes, student reasoning is made visible through their completed data tables in the Explore phase and the explicit scientific rationale required in their final proposal.

  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 task connects to the universally relevant phenomenon of household circuit breakers tripping and the need to design safe, efficient lighting systems in venues and homes.

  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)?

Response modes include active interaction with the simulation, populating written data tables, and drafting a formal written proposal with scientific rationales.

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 instructions clearly state the constraints, what data to collect, and what needs to be included in the final proposal.

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 role-play framing of being a lighting technician for a main stage and the interactive nature of the simulation cultivate student interest and confidence in applying physics to engineering.

  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 structure provides scaffolding (the Explore tables and Explain questions) to prepare students for the final, more complex Elaborate/Evaluate step, providing fair access regardless of prior domain knowledge.

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

There is no evidence of scientific inaccuracy; the simulation adheres strictly to Ohm’s law and basic circuit mechanics.

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 task is explicitly targeted at HS-PS3-3, which evaluates energy conversion and engineering constraints.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

A formal rubric should be developed and attached for teachers to score the final proposals consistently, assessing explicitly against HS-PS3-3.

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.

This task presents a strong, engaging engineering design problem grounded in real-world circuit physics. All four criteria (A–D) received ‘Extensive’ ratings. The task effectively integrates three-dimensional learning by requiring students to apply energy conversion principles (DCI) through the practice of designing and evaluating solutions (SEP) while tracking energy flows (CCC). The 5E instructional sequence provides appropriate scaffolding, and the simulation supplies essential, scientifically accurate data that students must use to meet the design constraints.

Final recommendation (choose one):