Science Task Screener

Task Title: Gravitational Slingshot (Assist) Simulation

Grade: High School

Date: April 23, 2026

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/rubrics.
• Screen: Use the criteria below to evaluate the task.

Criterion A. Tasks are driven by high-quality scenarios or phenomena.

i. The task is driven by a high-quality scenario/phenomenon that grounds the task.

The task is grounded in the historical example of the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 probes utilizing Jupiter and Saturn for gravitational assists to leave the solar system. This is a real-world, highly relevant application of orbital mechanics.

ii. Scenarios are compelling, comprehensible, and provide a “need to know.”

| Features | Yes | Somewhat | No | Rationale | | :— | :— | :— | :— | :— | | Scenario presents real-world observations | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Voyager missions are a well-documented historical reality. | | Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The task is based specifically on the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 missions, not generic orbital mechanics. | | Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The idea that flying toward a planet can speed a spacecraft away from the sun is inherently puzzling. | | Scenarios create a “need to know” | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The Engage section directly poses questions that drive the investigation. | | Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The phenomenon is explainable using computational thinking, Newton’s laws, and proportional reasoning. | | Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses both textual description and the interactive simulation. | | If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Data is generated by the simulation and recorded in a structured table. | | The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Universal relevance is clear: it’s how humanity explores deep space. | | Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The concept of “slingshotting” is an intuitive analogy for high school students. | | Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The Engage section is concise and directly poses the “need to know” questions. | | Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | It perfectly sets up why students need to investigate mass, speed, and approach angles. |

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A: The phenomenon is strong. To improve further, a video clip or image of the Voyager trajectory could be linked in the teacher notes.

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.

Students must use the data they collect from the simulation to explain why a more massive planet or a specific approach angle results in a higher final velocity, connecting their observations back to the Voyager phenomenon.

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?) Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking: Students use the computational simulation to systematically alter variables (mass, velocity, angle) and generate a dataset to predict outcomes.

Evidence of CCCs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?) Scale, Proportion, and Quantity: Students analyze the proportional relationship between the mass of the assisting planet and the resulting acceleration/velocity of the probe by comparing runs with 100, 300, and 500 M⊕.

Evidence of DCIs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?) ESS1.B: Earth and the Solar System: Students investigate how orbits and trajectories change due to the gravitational effects of massive objects, directly applying Newton’s laws.

iii. The task requires students to integrate multiple dimensions in service of sense-making and/or problem-solving.

Students cannot complete the final proposal (Evaluate) without integrating the simulation data (SEP) to explain the proportional effects of gravity (CCC) on the probe’s trajectory (DCI).

iv. The task requires students to make their thinking visible.

The “Explain” and “Elaborate/Evaluate” sections require students to write explicit arguments, connecting Newton’s laws to their specific data points, making their reasoning visible to the teacher via a CER framework.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B: Ensure students are explicitly connecting the proportion of mass to the quantity of velocity gained in their final CER.

Criterion C. Tasks are fair and equitable.

i. The task provides ways for students to make connections of local, global, or universal relevance.

The task connects abstract orbital mechanics to the tangible concept of space exploration and mission design, linking to real universal physics concepts.

ii. The task includes multiple modes for students to respond to the task.

Students respond via data collection/tabulation, short answer explanations, and a structured CER (Claim-Evidence-Reasoning) proposal.

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 provides specific starting parameters to ensure early success before asking students to experiment independently. | | Tasks are coherent from a student perspective | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Follows the logical 5E progression. | | Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Uses straightforward language and a universal scientific achievement. | | Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | The data collection is accessible, while the CER proposal provides a high cognitive ceiling. | | Tasks use accessible language | [x] | [ ] | [ ] | Avoids overly dense jargon where possible. |

iv. The task cultivates students’ interest in and confidence with science and engineering.

By framing the final assessment as a “flight trajectory engineer” designing a mission to the Oort Cloud, students are given agency and an interesting role.

v. The task focuses on performances for which students’ learning experiences have prepared them (opportunity to learn considerations).

The task assumes prior knowledge of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, which is appropriate for a high school physics or earth science course addressing this PE.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

The simulation and task correctly model that an assist only works when the planet is in motion (though simplified in this interactive tool), and correctly scales gravitational force with mass.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C: Provide sentence starters for the CER section for students who struggle with scientific 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: Student ability to use a computational model to predict orbital motion and explain changes in trajectory using gravitational concepts (HS-ESS1-4).

2. 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

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

1. Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task? Yes, students must understand gravity to explain the simulation data.
2. Are any ideas, practices, or experiences not targeted by the assessment necessary to respond to the task? No, only basic algebra/tabulation skills are required.
3. Do the student responses elicited support the purpose of the task? Yes, the CER directly answers whether they can predict motion computationally.

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.

The completed data table, the answers to the sensemaking questions, and the final CER proposal serve as direct artifacts of learning integrating all 3 dimensions.

iii. Supporting materials include clear answer keys, rubrics, and/or scoring guidelines that are connected to the three-dimensional target.

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: Teachers should look for students explicitly citing the computational simulation data (SEP) to back up claims about Newton’s laws acting on orbits (DCI) and specifically referencing proportional effects of increased mass (CCC).
2. Support for interpreting a range of student responses: A basic response might just say “more mass = more speed”. An advanced response will discuss the acceleration changing dynamically as the distance between the probe and planet decreases.
3. Ways to connect student responses to prior experiences and future planned instruction by teachers and participation by students: Connects back to prior units on basic kinematics or Newton’s Laws on Earth.

Scoring Guidance for the Final Proposal:

• Claim: Identifies that maximizing the planet’s mass and finding an optimal approach angle yields the highest final speed.
• Evidence: Cites specific data from the table comparing the 100 M⊕ trial to the 300 M⊕ and 500 M⊕ trials, noting the quantitative increase in Final Speed.
• Reasoning: Explains that a larger mass creates a stronger gravitational field (Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation), causing greater acceleration as the probe approaches, allowing it to “steal” more momentum during the assist.

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.

The step-by-step exploration instructions are explicit, ensuring students know exactly which controls to use and what data to record, preventing frustration with the simulation interface, while leaving the sensemaking unscripted to maintain analytical thinking.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D: None at this time.

Overall Summary

The “Gravitational Slingshot (Assist) Simulation” task is a highly effective, NGSS-aligned activity. It uses a compelling historical phenomenon (Voyager probes) to anchor an investigation into orbital mechanics. The simulation provides the necessary computational environment for students to gather data on how mass and approach angle affect velocity, allowing them to construct evidence-based arguments about gravitational assists. The task is well-scaffolded, accessible, and provides clear artifacts for assessment across all three dimensions.

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