Science Task Screener

Task Title: Wave Technology: Information & Energy Task

Grade: High School

Date: 2026-04-25

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?

The task introduces a highly relevant phenomenon (solar energy capture and global fiber optic internet). It directly drives the simulation investigation, requiring students to answer how these technologies rely on wave-matter interactions.

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

Students use the SEP of ‘Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information’. The evaluate section explicitly requires them to use two different formats to communicate technical information about the devices, adhering to the NGSS evidence statements.

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] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No Powering homes with solar panels and using global internet are authentic, observable real-world applications of wave physics.    
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No Focuses specifically on the physical mechanisms inside a solar cell and a fiber optic cable rather than broad waves.    
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No The invisible nature of how light carries data or generates electricity prompts curiosity and a need to know.    
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No The task asks students to figure out how these common technologies actually function underneath the hood.    
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No Students use HS-level concepts of photon absorption and total internal reflection to explain the devices.    
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No Uses textual descriptions and an interactive physics simulation model.    
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No The simulation generates accurate, physics-based output data regarding thresholds and angles.    
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No The introduction explicitly states the global reliance on internet cables and solar energy.    
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No The abstract concepts are grounded in clear, observable simulation interactions appropriate for high school.    
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No The context is concise and directly transitions into the exploration.    
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No The scenario provides enough depth to sustain a multi-part investigation into two different technologies.    
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The phenomenon is well-chosen and drives the task effectively.

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.

The task aligns with PS4.A, PS4.B, PS4.C, and PS3.D. Students investigate the photoelectric effect (bandgap wavelength) and digitized information transmission via wave pulses.

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 task integrates the CCC of ‘Cause and Effect’ and ‘Influence of Engineering, Technology, and Science on Society’. Students must explicitly identify the cause-and-effect mechanisms (e.g., wavelength vs. electron excitation) and describe the societal impact.

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

The anchoring phenomenon is universally accessible (powering homes, using the internet). The scaffolded 5E structure provides clear entry points, and the open-ended communication task allows diverse expression of knowledge.

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

The scenario involves powering homes and global internet, both authentic issues.

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 scenario requires students to make sense of the photoelectric effect and TIR.

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 phenomenon is presented via a relatable context (internet and solar panels).

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Ensure students clearly separate their causal reasoning from their technical description of the devices.

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.

Students generate questions about how these technologies work during the Engage phase.

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 must communicate technical information utilizing two formats.

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] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No The structured data tables and targeted hints scaffold the sensemaking process.    
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No Students progress logically from initial questioning through guided exploration to final explanation.    
Tasks respect and advantage students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The chosen contexts (powering homes, using the internet) are universally relevant and relatable.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No The final Elaborate task explicitly offers choices for communication formats.    
Tasks use accessible language [x] Yes | [ ] Somewhat | [ ] No The task avoids overly dense jargon until necessary, using straightforward directions.    

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.

The task explicitly evaluates their ability to communicate findings technically.

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.

Students investigate core ideas related to wave properties and electromagnetic radiation.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The task specifically addresses HS-PS4-5 and related DCIs.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Provide additional support or vocabulary banks for students who may struggle with formal technical writing.

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:

Students investigate the mechanisms of solar cells and fiber optic cables, explicitly detailing their physical principles in a technical report.

  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?

Students must identify cause and effect relationships in their final evaluation.

  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 integrates the CCC of Cause and Effect directly into the sensemaking and communication phases.

  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 task provides clear guidance, tabular scaffolds for data, and explicit hints for abstract concepts.

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 task supports diverse sensemaking by allowing students to choose their communication format.

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 context is universally relevant to modern students who use internet and electricity.

  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 language is accessible while maintaining scientific rigor in its explanations.

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

The task includes opportunities to evaluate the societal dependence on these technologies.

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 integrates multiple modes of representation including data tables, interactive models, and technical communication formats.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Teachers could extend the lesson by having students research modern advancements in these technologies, such as multi-junction solar cells or multi-mode fiber optics.

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 provides a rigorous, 3D exploration of wave technologies and their societal impacts.

Final recommendation (choose one):