Science Task Screener

Task Title: Harmonic Symphony: Decoding 3D Wave Interference

Grade: 12

Date: 2024-03-24

Instructions

Before you begin: Complete the task as a student would. Then, consider any support materials provided to teachers or students, such as contextual information about the task and answer keys/scoring guidance.
Using the Task Screener: Use this tool to evaluate tasks designed for three-dimensional standards. For each criterion, record your evidence for the presence or absence of the associated indicators. After you have decided to what degree the indicators are present within the task, revisit the purpose of your task and decide whether the evidence supports using it.

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?

Is a phenomenon and/or problem present?

[Yes. The 3D visualization of wave interference serves as the driving phenomenon.]

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

[Yes. Students must interact with the simulation and interpret the resulting 3D visual outputs to answer the questions effectively.]

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]	[ ]	It presents a simplified, abstract model of real-world wave behavior.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The specific instances are the generated interference patterns.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The complex 3D patterns formed by simple waves are intriguing.
Scenarios create a “need to know”	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	Students need to understand the underlying principles to explain the complex patterns.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	Yes, it relies on HS level wave properties.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions)	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	It uses a 3D interactive simulation and textual descriptions.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data	[N/A]	[ ]	[ ]	The simulation generates data visually, but not raw numerical datasets.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students	[ ]	[X]	[ ]	The task hints at real-world applications of wave interference but does not explicitly frame them in everyday contexts.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	Visualizations and prompts are designed with clear language and supportive images, making the scenario broadly accessible.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	Explanations and prompts are concise and clear.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The 3D simulation allows for exploring multiple interference conditions and supports repeated investigation and discussion.

Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[X] Adequate

[ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

[None]

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 use reasoning to explain how combining individual waves produces complex shapes via superposition.]

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?)

[Yes. Practices: Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking.]

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

[Crosscutting Concepts: Patterns.]

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

[Core Ideas: PS4.A Wave Properties.]

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.

[Yes, the mathematical relationships are used to explain the patterns of the waves.]

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 are prompted to explain phenomena in questions like “Describe the resulting superposition wave. Why does this occur?”.]

Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[X] Adequate

[ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

[None]

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 connection to noise-canceling headphones grounds the abstract concept in everyday experience.]

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.

[Written responses and direct observation via the simulation are expected.]

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 simulation is visually intuitive, reducing dependency on complex vocabulary.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The tasks progress logically from single waves to constructive/destructive interference to complex patterns.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds	[ ]	[X]	[ ]	Connects to universal concepts but doesn’t explicitly draw on specific cultural backgrounds.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	The visual nature allows intuitive understanding, while mathematical explanations challenge advanced students.
Tasks use accessible language	[X]	[ ]	[ ]	Vocabulary is standard for high school physics.

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 real-world application of noise-canceling headphones cultivates interest by showing a tangible engineering application.]

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.

[Assumes basic prior knowledge of wave properties (amplitude, frequency, wavelength) from previous instruction.]

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

[None observed. The mathematical superposition model is scientifically accurate for linear wave theory.]

Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[X] Adequate

[ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

[None]

Criterion D. Tasks support their intended targets and purpose.

Before you begin:

Describe what is being assessed. Include any targets provided, such as dimensions, elements, or PEs:

[HS-PS4-1: Use mathematical representations to support a claim regarding relationships among the frequency, wavelength, and speed of waves traveling in various media.]

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): N/A

i. The task assesses what it is intended to assess and supports the purpose for which it is intended.

Consider the following:

Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task?

[Yes, understanding the mathematical relationships (frequency, wavelength) is essential to explain the interference patterns.]

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 significant non-targeted ideas are required.]

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, student explanations of constructive/destructive interference demonstrate their grasp of the standard.]

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].

[Students produce written explanations (artifacts) that make visible their reasoning connecting the mathematical representations to the physical phenomenon (patterns).]

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:

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:

[Teacher could use the simulation itself as a dynamic rubric to verify student claims.]

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 visual nature allows teachers to assess understanding even if the student struggles with the formal mathematical equations.]

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

[Responses can guide future instruction on wave mechanics, such as standing waves or diffraction.]

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 provide sufficient scaffolding without giving away the answers.]

Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No

[ ] Inadequate

[X] Adequate

[ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

[None]

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 successfully uses an interactive 3D simulation to engage students in three-dimensional learning around wave interference. It requires mathematical reasoning to explain the visual patterns, effectively integrating the SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs.]

Final recommendation (choose one):

Use this task (all criteria had at least an “adequate” rating)
Modify and use this task
Do not use this task