Science Task Screener

Task Title: Thermal Equilibrium: The Blacksmith’s Quench

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-05-15

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?

Students must use the simulated sandbox to make sense of the temperature change of the components and reason why uniform distribution occurs.

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

Yes, students must extract specific simulation parameters (mass, specific heat, initial temperatures) to perform the calculations needed to construct their scientific explanation.

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] [ ] [ ] Grounded in the phenomenon of quenching hot iron
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] Specific instance of a blacksmith quenching a horseshoe
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The sudden hiss and steam provide a sensory puzzle
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know why the specific heat affects final temp
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Aligns tightly with HS-PS3-4
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Text description and an interactive dynamic graph simulation
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] Simulation provides highly accurate generated data based on real c values
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] The quenching phenomenon is universally relevant to understanding heat and energy exchange
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The language is straightforward and relates to a familiar, accessible physical action
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is brief and gets straight to the core physics problem
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario naturally leads into adjusting initial temperatures, mass, and materials
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

The phenomenon is well established. Further enhancement could include asking students to relate this to other real-world scenarios, like adding ice to a hot drink.

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 mathematically reason using $Q = mc\Delta T$ to verify that the thermal energy lost by the iron equals the thermal energy gained by the water, moving beyond superficial observation to causal reasoning.

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?)

Students use the simulation to plan an investigation by setting initial conditions, collecting data on the temperature of both materials, and tracking changes to provide evidence of energy transfer (Planning and Carrying Out Investigations).

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

Students define the boundaries of the system they are investigating (Substance A and Substance B within the insulated sandbox) and analyze the energy inputs and outputs between the two materials (Systems and System Models).

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

Students apply their understanding that uncontrolled systems evolve toward uniform energy distribution (DCI: PS3.B) by explaining that the iron’s thermal energy naturally transferred to the water until they reached equilibrium.

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 prompt in Part 4 explicitly asks students to construct an explanation using evidence from their investigation (SEP) of the system’s thermal exchange (CCC) to demonstrate uniform energy distribution (DCI).

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).

Students make their thinking visible by recording raw data in tables, showing their mathematical calculations for Q, and writing a comprehensive scientific argument mapping evidence to their claims.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

The integration is strong. Ensure the students recognize the difference between an open system (real bucket) and a perfectly closed system (sandbox).

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 concept of dropping something hot into something cold (like a blacksmith or ice in water) is universally understandable and explained simply in the Engage section.

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 mathematical calculations, data table entry, manipulating a simulation, and writing a structured scientific argument.

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 builds from observation to mathematical verification, scaffolding the complexity
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The 5E structure provides a natural narrative flow for the investigation
Tasks respect and advantage students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] Context is kept universally accessible without niche cultural references
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Accessible data collection paired with rigorous argumentation allows multiple entry points
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Technical vocabulary is explicitly defined

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.

By empowering students to act as scientists investigating a tangible phenomenon via an interactive sandbox, the task fosters engagement and confidence in experimental design.

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 assumes basic knowledge of temperature and mass but scaffolds the specific heat capacity concept directly within the activity.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

All specific heat values and calculations accurately reflect established thermodynamic principles.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Provide scaffolding options for the mathematical calculations for students who struggle with algebra.

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:

The task assesses students’ ability to use the thermal equilibrium sandbox to plan an investigation proving that thermal energy transfer in a closed system results in a 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): 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, understanding uniform energy distribution is essential to correctly answering the sensemaking and argumentation prompts.

  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.

Basic algebraic manipulation is required to solve the Q equation, which might act as a barrier if not scaffolded.

  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)?

The calculation of Q directly supports assessing whether students understand conservation of energy.

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 final argument explicitly ties the empirical data (SEP) from the closed system (CCC) to the core principle of energy conservation (DCI), providing an observable artifact of learning.

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 break down how student responses map to the SEPs, DCIs, CCCs, and the exact 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):

Multiple response modalities (math, table, writing) allow teachers to pinpoint exactly where a student’s understanding might be breaking down.

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

The elaboration section prompts students to test different materials, connecting their learning to the broader concept of specific heat properties in various substances.

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 5E layout and precise simulation settings guide students without providing the answers, ensuring high cognitive demand is maintained.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Ensure teachers have access to a fully solved mathematical key for the Q calculations.

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 “Thermal Equilibrium: The Blacksmith’s Quench” task is highly aligned with the NGSS. It effectively engages students with an anchoring phenomenon and guides them through an authentic investigation using the Thermal Equilibrium Sandbox simulation. Students must synthesize their understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (DCI), use a system model to collect data (CCC), and plan an investigation to verify the transfer of energy (SEP). The task scores extensive across all criteria due to its robust integration of three-dimensional learning and sensemaking.

Final recommendation (choose one):