Science Task Screener

Task Title: Planetary Defense: Asteroid Deflection

Grade: High School

Date: 2024-05-25

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?

An asteroid on a collision course with Earth is the anchoring problem, providing a clear context for investigating orbital mechanics.

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

Students must use the specific data from the simulation (eccentricity, semi-major axis, TTI) to formulate their answers.

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] [ ] [ ] The simulation models actual orbital mechanics based on Kepler’s laws.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [x] [ ] [ ] It focuses on a specific incoming asteroid rather than general planetary motion.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] The impending collision creates an immediate, engaging problem to solve.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Students need to know how velocity affects orbit to save Earth.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] Fits squarely within HS-ESS1-4 using Kepler’s laws.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Uses a visual computational simulation and numerical data outputs.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation uses accurate gravitational physics and standardized astronomical units.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Planetary defense has clear universal relevance to Earth’s survival.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] The interface simplifies complex physics into accessible sliders and readouts.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] Instructions are concise and focused on action.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation provides enough variables and data to support the full 5E sequence.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] 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 cannot guess the optimal impact angle and magnitude; they must deduce the relationship between velocity changes and the resulting ellipse.

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 simulation to represent how velocity vector changes modify ellipse parameters.

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

Scale, Proportion, and Quantity: Students predict the effect of a change in velocity magnitude/angle on the semi-major axis.

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

ESS1.B: Students observe that Kepler’s laws describe orbits and that orbits change due to collisions.

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.

Students must mathematically analyze data (SEP/CCC) to construct an argument about how the collision altered the orbit (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).

The final written scientific argument requires students to explicitly connect their data to Kepler’s first law.

Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] 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 task connects orbital mechanics to the global problem of asteroid impacts.

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 interact with a visual simulation, record numerical data, and write a 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 breaks down the investigation into guided tests before asking for independent optimization.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The progression from learning controls to applying them to solve the problem is logical.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The scenario is universally understandable without relying on culturally specific idioms.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] The basic tests are accessible to all, while the optimization challenge provides room for advanced problem-solving.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Technical terms like ‘prograde’ and ‘retrograde’ are immediately defined in context.

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 interactive, high-stakes nature of the simulation (preventing an impact) fosters engagement.

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 familiarity with the concept of orbits, which is grade-appropriate.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

The physics engine accurately models Keplerian orbits and instantaneous velocity vector changes.

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

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

None.

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:

HS-ESS1-4, focusing on Kepler’s first law, the relationship between velocity and orbit shape, and computational modeling.

  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
    • [x] 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):

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?

Understanding Kepler’s first law is required to explain why the collision avoidance strategy works.

  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.

No external or non-targeted ideas are required.

  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 final deliverable directly measures the targeted DCI, SEP, and CCC.

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 data table and final written argument.

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 final evaluation requires using simulation data to support a claim about orbital mechanics.

  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):

Data collection steps allow teachers to isolate whether a student struggles with simulation interaction vs. the conceptual physics.

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

Can be used to transition into discussions on Kepler’s third law or gravity.

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 clear guidance for completion.

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

This task provides an excellent, rigorous, and highly engaging computational modeling experience aligned with HS-ESS1-4. The planetary defense scenario effectively motivates the investigation of Kepler’s first law.

Final recommendation (choose one):