Science Task Screener

Task Title: Orbital Motion: Kepler’s Laws and the Dance of Planets

Grade: High School

Date: 2026-05-17

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?

1. Is a phenomenon and/or problem present?

The task opens with the real-world phenomenon of Pluto’s 2006 reclassification to dwarf planet, citing its highly elliptical orbit that crosses inside Neptune’s orbit. Students are asked to investigate what makes some orbits nearly circular and others wildly elliptical, driving all three investigations.

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

Students must use the orbital motion simulation to collect eccentricity, semi-major axis, and period data across three investigations. The scenario provides the context (Pluto’s orbit) that students revisit in the Elaborate section where they calculate Pluto’s perihelion and aphelion and confirm it crosses Neptune’s orbit.

ii. The task scenario is engaging, relevant, and accessible to a wide range of students.

Features of engaging, relevant, and accessible tasks:

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

Consider adding a brief historical context image of Pluto’s orbit compared to Neptune’s in the Engage section to visually anchor the phenomenon.

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 investigate eccentricity by systematically varying the Velocity Multiplier and interpreting the resulting orbit shapes. They then analyze the relationship between gravitational force and speed changes using $F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}$ and Kepler’s second law. Finally, they collect data to discover the $T^2 \propto a^3$ relationship, calculating ratios and making predictions (e.g., predicting period for a planet at 4 AU).

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 use mathematical and computational thinking by (1) calculating eccentricity from simulation readouts, (2) computing $a^3$ and $T^2$ values and analyzing the ratio, (3) using the T² vs a³ scatter chart to visualize proportional relationships, and (4) predicting orbital periods using $T^2 \propto a^3$.

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

Students explore Scale, Proportion, and Quantity by (1) observing how a doubling of semi-major axis leads to a more-than-doubling of orbital period, (2) analyzing the proportional relationship $T^2 \propto a^3$, (3) calculating how changes in velocity multiplier affect eccentricity (a continuous quantity), and (4) working with astronomical scales (AU, years).

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

The task directly addresses ESS1.B (Earth and the Solar System) by having students apply Kepler’s three laws and Newton’s law of gravitation to describe and predict orbital motion. Students discover that orbital periods depend on semi-major axis ($T^2 \propto a^3$) and that orbital shape depends on velocity relative to circular orbital speed.

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.

In the Evaluate section, students must construct an evidence-based explanation that integrates the SEP (using mathematical relationships $e = f/d$, $T^2 \propto a^3$), DCI (ESS1.B orbital motion governed by gravity), and CCC (scale and proportion — how changes in distance produce proportional changes in period). The Elaborate section ties all dimensions together by having students computationally verify Pluto’s orbit crossing Neptune’s path.

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).

Each investigation includes write-in spaces for student observations, calculations, and explanations. The Explain section prompts synthesis of all three investigations. The Evaluate deliverable requires a structured scientific explanation with a labeled diagram, making student thinking fully visible.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Provide a sample calculation for $T^2 \propto a^3$ in the student materials to ensure all students can access the mathematical reasoning.

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 explicitly connects to the real-world astronomical phenomenon of Pluto’s reclassification, which was widely reported in the media and relevant to students’ understanding of our solar system. The Voyager challenge in the Elaborate section also connects to real spacecraft navigation.

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 task utilizes interactive simulation manipulation, data collection in tables, written explanations, mathematical calculations, and diagram construction as response modes.

iii. The task is accessible, appropriate, and cognitively demanding for all learners (including English learners or students working below/above grade level).

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 begins with an engaging real-world puzzle (Pluto’s reclassification) that invites students to generate initial hypotheses. The interactive simulation allows students to test their predictions immediately, building confidence. The Challenge problem in Investigation 3 and the Voyager challenge in the Elaborate section provide opportunities for deeper 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.

The task assumes basic familiarity with the solar system and algebraic relationships. The mathematical demands are appropriate for high school: calculating $a^3$, $T^2$, ratios, and applying square roots. The simulation handles the complex physics computation, letting students focus on pattern recognition and interpretation.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

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

No scientific inaccuracies were identified. The simulation uses Newtonian gravity ($F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}$ with $G = 4\pi^2$ in AU-Yr-SolarMass units) to compute orbits with symplectic Euler integration. Kepler’s laws accurately describe the computed orbits. Pluto’s orbital parameters ($a = 39.5$ AU, $e = 0.248$, $T = 248$ years) are correctly cited. The relationship between velocity multiplier and eccentricity is physically accurate for orbits around a central mass.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Consider adding a glossary of key terms (eccentricity, semi-major axis, perihelion, aphelion) for English learners.

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 are assessed on their ability to use mathematical and computational thinking (SEP) to model orbital motion, apply Kepler’s laws and Newtonian gravity (DCI: ESS1.B), and reason about scale, proportion, and quantity (CCC) to explain the phenomenon of differing orbital shapes and periods. The PE targeted is HS-ESS1-4.

1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
   • [x] Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
   • [x] 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): 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?

The Explain and Evaluate sections require students to use the data collected in the Explore section to construct explanations that integrate all three dimensions. The mathematical relationships ($e = f/d$, $T^2 \propto a^3$) are essential to answering the driving question.

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 extraneous knowledge is required. The simulation provides all necessary data, and the task provides all necessary formulas and guiding questions.

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 Evaluate deliverable (evidence-based explanation with labeled diagram) provides a rich artifact that reveals students’ understanding of all three dimensions. Teachers can assess whether students can integrate Kepler’s laws with gravitational force to explain orbital motion.

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 produces multiple artifacts: (1) completed data tables from all three investigations, (2) written answers to guiding questions in the Explain section, (3) calculations for Pluto’s perihelion and aphelion in the Elaborate section, and (4) the final evidence-based explanation with labeled diagram in the Evaluate section. These artifacts collectively demonstrate students’ ability to integrate mathematical modeling with physical understanding of orbital motion.

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 deliverable allows for varied representations (written explanation with labeled diagram) allowing diverse learners to show what they know across all three dimensions.

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 structured 5E format with guiding questions scaffolds student understanding incrementally. The Evaluate section provides a clear checklist of required components.

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

The task connects prior knowledge (planetary motion, gravity) to new understanding (Kepler’s laws, mathematical modeling) and can inform future instruction on Newton’s universal gravitation, orbital mechanics, and space exploration.

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 strikes an appropriate balance between scaffolding and open-ended inquiry. The Explore section provides structured data tables to guide data collection, while the Explain and Evaluate sections require independent synthesis. The Challenge problem and Elaborate section provide extension opportunities without being required for all students.

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Consider providing a scoring rubric for the Evaluate section that explicitly maps each component to the three dimensions (SEP, DCI, CCC) to support consistent grading.

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 asks students to investigate orbital motion using the Orbital Motion & Kepler’s Laws Simulation, exploring eccentricity, Kepler’s second law (equal areas), and Kepler’s third law ($T^2 \propto a^3$). It aligns directly with HS-ESS1-4 by requiring students to use mathematical and computational thinking to model orbital motion, apply Kepler’s laws and Newtonian gravity (ESS1.B), and reason about scale, proportion, and quantity. The 5E structure provides a coherent learning progression from an engaging real-world phenomenon (Pluto’s reclassification) through structured investigations to a culminating evidence-based explanation. All four criteria received “Extensive” evidence ratings. The task is ready for classroom use.

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