Science Task Screener

Task Title: Wave-Particle Duality of Light Task

Grade: High School

Date: Current Date

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 demonstrate ‘Engaging in Argument from Evidence’ by connecting the visual interference pattern and electron ejections to specific theoretical models.

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

Students demonstrate ‘Systems and System Models’ by using the interactive simulation as a model to observe light-matter interactions.

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 [ ] [ ] [ ] Making sense of the phenomenon is necessary because students cannot complete the CER without understanding both the wave interference and photoelectric effect models presented.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [ ] [ ] [ ] The interactive nature of the simulation makes the abstract concept of wave-particle duality immediately visible and engaging.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [ ] [ ] [ ] Students must reason about why red light won’t eject electrons regardless of intensity, directly confronting the limitations of the pure wave model.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [ ] [ ] [ ] The task seamlessly integrates the dimensions because explaining the DCI requires using the system model (CCC) and arguing from evidence (SEP).
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [ ] [ ] [ ] Integration is required because the task’s final product (a CER) demands students combine their understanding of the DCI with the practice of argumentation.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [ ] [ ] [ ] The data collection tables and final CER explicitly make student thinking visible for assessment.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [ ] [ ] [ ] The debate over light’s nature connects to universal questions about how we know what we know in science.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [ ] [ ] [ ] By structuring the task using the 5E model, students are gradually introduced to complex ideas.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [ ] [ ] [ ] The scenario uses accessible language and defines technical terms like ‘threshold’.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [ ] [ ] [ ] The task is concise and focused purely on the simulation phenomena.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [ ] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides visually rich evidence through interactive graphics.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

To enhance engagement, start the lesson with a historical context showing the intense debate between scientists over light’s nature.

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 demonstrate understanding of ‘PS4.B: Electromagnetic Radiation’ by evaluating how both wave and particle models explain different behaviors.

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 respond through multiple modes: manipulating the simulation, recording data in tables, and writing text.

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

The step-by-step instructions and visual scaffolds make the task accessible to learners working at different levels.

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

The interactive graphics cultivate interest by allowing students to see the immediate results of changing variables like slit spacing or wavelength.

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 task focuses on performances explicitly detailed in the HS-PS4-3 evidence statements.

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 simulation accurately models the physics of interference and threshold wavelengths according to accepted scientific consensus.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Provide a space for students to sketch the interference pattern to help make their thinking visible before writing.

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 task specifically assesses the HS-PS4-3 expectation by having students construct an argument using the simulation evidence.

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.

The completed student handout with data tables and CER paragraph serves as a direct artifact of learning.

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 [ ] [ ] [ ] The visual nature of the simulation supports ELL and SPED students.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [ ] [ ] [ ] Students interact visually, numerically (data tables), and textually (CER).
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [ ] [ ] [ ] The prompt options are open-ended enough to allow diverse expression of understanding.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [ ] [ ] [ ] The historical context of the debate provides a neutral, objective scientific framework.
Tasks use accessible language [ ] [ ] [ ] Cognitive demand increases appropriately from observation to synthesis in the CER.

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 Teacher Notes section explicitly maps the task activities to the NGSS dimensions and evidence statements.

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 5E sequence provides teachers with clear, step-by-step instructions for implementation.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

Scientific accuracy is maintained because the simulation dynamically uses accepted formulas (like E=hf for the photoelectric threshold) and visualizes accurate diffraction behavior.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Ensure students explicitly state which model (wave or particle) is more useful for describing the photoelectric effect in their final argument.

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:

Formatively assess student ability to argue from evidence regarding the dual nature of light.

  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): Instructional scaffolding and formative evaluation.

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?

The final Evaluate section explicitly requires students to write a CER evaluating claims using both the wave and particle evidence, matching HS-PS4-3.

  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.

Students must specifically cite observations (like slit interference or threshold wavelength) to succeed, not just recall definitions of waves or particles.

  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 data tables in the Explore section reveal whether students correctly identified the threshold behaviors, allowing teachers to diagnose specific misconceptions.

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].

Artifacts include completed data tables tracking variables (slit spacing, wavelength) and a written argumentative CER paragraph.

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:

A suggested 3-point rubric assesses the claim, the inclusion of specific simulation evidence, and the logical reasoning linking them.

  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):

While full student exemplars are not provided in the student-facing document, the teacher notes indicate the exact evidence statements required for mastery.

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

The Engage section provides prompts for teachers to draw out prior student ideas about whether light is a wave or a particle.

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 structure (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate) gives explicit, step-by-step guidance for both teachers and students.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Prompt students to specifically integrate the mathematical relationship $E=hf$ into their argument.

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 is a strong, NGSS-aligned resource that effectively uses an interactive simulation to tackle a complex physics concept. It provides clear guidance for teachers and engaging, multi-modal opportunities for students to build and demonstrate their understanding of wave-particle duality.

Final recommendation (choose one):