High School - Gateway 1
Note on review tool versions
See the series overview page to confirm the review tool version used to create this report.
- Our current review tool version is 2.0. Learn more
- Reports conducted using earlier review tools (v1.0 and v1.5) contain valuable insights but may not fully align with our current instructional priorities. Read our guide to using earlier reports and review tools
Loading navigation...
Designed for NGSS
| Score | |
|---|---|
Gateway 1 - Meets Expectations | 97% |
Criterion 1.1: Phenomena and Problems Drive Learning | 15 / 16 |
Criterion 1.2: Three-Dimensional Learning and Assessment | 18 / 18 |
The materials meet expectations for Criterion 1.1 by consistently including observable phenomena and relevant problems that are introduced early in each unit and revisited across lessons. These experiences are designed to engage students with grade-appropriate Disciplinary Core Ideas through tasks such as investigations, data analysis, readings, and modeling. Phenomena and problems are clearly presented using varied media formats. While student ideas are regularly elicited, particularly at the beginning of lesson sets, the materials are inconsistent in how those ideas are leveraged to inform instruction. Phenomena and problems generally guide instruction and support use of all three dimensions, though in some units the focus shifts more toward specific science content or activities.
The materials meet expectations for Criterion 1.2 by incorporating all three dimensions into student learning, lesson objectives, and assessments. Most learning objectives are three-dimensional and addressed through instruction. Students engage in investigations, modeling, simulations, and data analysis that support sensemaking and include opportunities to revise ideas. Formative assessments are varied and designed to monitor progress toward learning goals, though not every lesson includes one. Summative assessments, including Transfer Tasks and Exit Tickets, are aligned to the claimed assessment standards and elicit evidence of student understanding although some inconsistencies exist between learning objectives and what is assessed. Most assessments are two- or three-dimensional and incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems.
Criterion 1.1: Phenomena and Problems Drive Learning
Information on Multilingual Learner (MLL) Supports in This Criterion
For some indicators in this criterion, we also display evidence and scores for pair MLL indicators.
While MLL indicators are scored, these scores are reported separately from core content scores. MLL scores do not currently impact core content scores at any level—whether indicator, criterion, gateway, or series.
To view all MLL evidence and scores for this grade band or grade level, select the "Multilingual Learner Supports" view from the left navigation panel.
Materials leverage science phenomena and engineering problems in the context of driving learning and student performance.
The materials meet expectations for Criterion 1.1 by consistently incorporating observable phenomena and relevant problems to drive instruction across units. Phenomena and problems are introduced early in the unit, typically in Lesson 1, and revisited throughout subsequent lessons. These anchor experiences require students to engage with grade-appropriate Disciplinary Core Ideas, often through investigations, data analysis, readings, and modeling tasks. The presentation of phenomena and problems is clear and direct, utilizing varied media such as images, maps, videos, and demonstrations to support student engagement and understanding.
However, the materials are less consistent in how they leverage students’ prior knowledge and experiences. While there are regular opportunities to elicit students’ ideas—especially at the beginning of a lesson set—these ideas are not consistently used to inform instruction or shape learning tasks. Phenomena and problems generally serve as the central focus of lessons and provide a basis for three-dimensional learning, though in some cases, learning is driven more by specific activities or science content rather than the phenomenon or problem itself.
Indicator 1a
Materials are designed to include both phenomena and problems.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials are designed to include both phenomena and problems.
Phenomena and problems are typically introduced at the start of a lesson set. Phenomena are framed as observable events and not immediately explained after they are presented. Students are provided with videos, data sets, and readings that help them develop an understanding of the phenomenon, and there is usually an opportunity to discuss related phenomena. While a return to the phenomenon is always present within the learning sequence, the degree of return varies. Some lessons are very closely linked to the phenomena, while the connection for other lessons is simply a brief reminder of the phenomenon or problem at the beginning of the lesson, or a mention of the Driving Question Board (DQB) or Progress Tracker at the end of the lesson. In some cases, a unit will contain a new phenomenon within each lesson set and in other cases the phenomenon spans the entire unit or is just present across a few lessons. The single problem present in the materials spans a few lessons.
Examples of phenomena in the materials:
In Unit P.1: How can we design more reliable systems to meet our communities’ energy needs?, the phenomenon is that in February 2021, a winter storm caused mass power outages in Texas. In Lesson Set 1, students read articles and analyze data to understand what led to power outages across Texas. Students explore different sources of energy in Texas, how energy is transferred to businesses and homes for use, and ways that this system could be impacted in a winter storm. Students also analyze and build circuits to develop an understanding of where electricity comes from. Students develop a model to show the impacts of limited energy supply on homes and businesses, and students learn from different community members in Texas to better understand how the power outages impacted different regions and communities. In Lesson Set 2, students explore ways to make energy grid systems more reliable by determining how much energy would have been needed to prevent a crisis in Texas in 2021, and students design solutions to prevent another energy crisis from occurring.
In Unit P.2: How do forces in Earth’s interior determine what will happen to the surface we see?, the phenomenon is that, following an earthquake, there is a large crack in the Earth's surface in Afar, Africa. In Lesson Set 1, students observe a photo of a large crack in the Earth’s surface that was found in Afar, Africa following an earthquake. They also review a StoryMap that provides additional background information on the event. Students then explore models of plate motion and how increasing balanced and unbalanced forces can deform solids. They then relate these observations to the events in Afar. After recognizing that Afar is not situated along a plate boundary, students examine models of the mantle beneath Afar and relate it to mantle convection in general to further develop their understanding of how the large crack was created in Afar. In Lesson Set 2, students examine how radioactive material can allow scientists to determine how long ago certain rocky material on the Earth’s surface cooled and formed and then examine the relative ages of the rocks that make up the ocean floor as well as the area around Afar. Students use data and models about the movement of the crust along plate boundaries to develop an explanation for how the forces acting on plates can cause the Earth’s surface to change both along plate boundaries and away from them, like what happened in Afar.
In Unit P.4: How have collisions with objects from space changed Earth in the past, and how could they affect our future? The phenomenon is that in 2013 a rock from space, known as the Chelyabinsk meteor, hit Siberia and damaged windows in buildings when it made impact. In Lesson Set 1, students participate in a discussion about what information is needed to predict the orbital period of space objects. They investigate the orbital motion of the Chelyabinsk meteor and whether or not the shape of an object’s orbit could help predict if it will collide with Earth. After completing a simulation, students make predictions about the motions of the Chelyabinsk meteor along its orbit and complete an exit ticket by sketching a quick model of what they think the orbit of the Chelyabinsk meteor might have looked like in the solar system before it collided with Earth. They read about the Chelyabinsk meteor’s origin and look for evidence for what scientists think caused the redirection of the Chelyabinsk meteor from the asteroid belt. In Lesson Set 2, students create a line of best fit on a graph to account for incomplete data and use the best-fit line to predict how often other meteors the size of the Chelyabinsk meteor reach Earth. Students discuss what the outcome would have been if the Chelyabinsk meteor had hit land rather than a lake and if the mass or the speed of a meteor has a bigger impact on the damage it causes when it hits the surface. Students view images on a slide and read that scientists estimate that the Chelyabinsk meteor had a mass of 12 tons when it first reached Earth’s atmosphere. But, they recovered only 1 ton of solid remnants. Students construct an explanation for what happened to the 11 tons of missing matter.
Indicator 1a.MLL-1
Materials provide support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in grade-level learning of phenomena as included in the materials.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) to fully and completely participate in grade-level learning of phenomena. While the materials offer strategies to support MLL participation, these supports are not implemented consistently and therefore do not fully enable comprehensive participation for all MLL students.
The materials include a variety of strategies intended to support MLL engagement with grade-level phenomena and science practices. When present, these supports may consist of language scaffolds such as sentence stems to support discourse, visual aids like anchor charts, turn-and-talk opportunities, and differentiated readings. However, these strategies are often generalized and lack consistent differentiation to address the diverse range of English proficiency levels among MLLs.
An example of reading support related to a phenomenon is in Unit P.2, Lesson 7, Teacher Edition, 6. Develop a Mechanistic Explanation about Radioactive Decay section, where students are asked to read three different readings: one on energy, one on matter, and one on forces, and complete a cause-and-effect worksheet. Students are working to connect movement in the mantle with heat and how that movement impacted the large crack seen in Afar. The Attending to Equity sidebar for Supporting Emergent Multilingual Learners states: “There are two versions of the same cause-effect modeling handout, which vary in the level of scaffolding they provide. Cause-Effect Model A is a more scaffolded version with suggestions for building the causal chain, whereas Cause-Effect Model B only provides sentence frames. We recommend starting with the less-scaffolded version but having the other on hand. If a student needs extra support, offer them the more-scaffolded version in the moment as needed. However, if you have a class with many students who are multilingual or who need additional literacy support, consider starting with the more scaffolded version for all students.” While the more-scaffolded version may benefit some MLLs, the materials do not specify which students should receive which level of support. As a result, teachers may default to providing the more-scaffolded version to all MLLs, potentially diluting the rigor of the content.
The materials provide flexible entry points for learners, including SIFE/SLIFE students, primarily through visual support and experiential learning. However, there is no guidance for differentiation tailored to long-term MLLs or students literate in their primary language. Teachers are expected to modify instruction for varied proficiency levels without receiving support or explicit instructional direction.
The teacher guidance encourages authentic academic discourse and scientific reasoning, but does not always include scaffolds to support MLL’s full engagement. For example, in Unit P.6, Lesson 1, students are introduced to the phenomenon that guest stars appeared in the night sky and then suddenly disappeared. In the Teacher Edition, section 8. Individual Modeling, students work in their science notebooks, to: “Develop models to explain why the stars we see at night appear not to change, while historical accounts of guest stars describe them changing dramatically.” Students are to “Share models with a partner through the lens of our M-E-F noticings and then revise models if necessary. After five minutes, the teacher presents Slide R. Ask students to pair up. In pairs, they should compare models and discuss the prompts on the slide.” Students collaborate to construct meaning of each other’s models and are expected to describe, explain, and justify ideas using discipline-specific language, which supports both conceptual understanding and language development. There is an Attending to Equity sidebar to support MLLs stating, “Allowing students to use multiple languages allows them to use their full repertoires to make sense of phenomena.” However, if a student uses their own language, but is not paired with a student who understands the language, the guidance states, “use it as a learning experience and ask them to explain their sensemaking.” There is a missed opportunity to provide additional support for MLL students to fully engage in speaking during this activity.
Students also engage with both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary language, and are encouraged to differentiate between everyday and scientific meanings (e.g., “work,” “power,” “energy”). Vocabulary is typically introduced in context, after students have explored the underlying phenomena, which deepens understanding. For example, in Unit P.4 Lesson 4, section 10. Update Personal Glossary and Progress Tracker, there is guidance to ask what new terms the class has started using to describe the phenomena, such as eclipse, foci, semi-major, axis, and create a class definition from the previous activities within the lesson that is shared among everyone and recorded in their personal glossaries. Visual models, real-world contexts, and data help students internalize new terms meaningfully.
While the materials include several strong components that support MLL participation in grade-level science instruction, these strategies are not consistently embedded across all lessons and do not sufficiently address the full range of MLL needs. As a result, the program partially meets the criteria for fully supporting multilingual learners.
Indicator 1a.MLL-2
Materials provide support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in grade-level learning of problems as included in the materials.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in grade-level learning of problems. Materials provide strategies and supports for MLLs to participate in grade-level learning of problems as included in the materials, but these supports do not consistently provide for full and complete participation by all MLL students.
The instructional materials use real-world problems, such as developing a community plan for a reliable energy infrastructure that meets the community’s needs. These problems are revisited and developed across multiple lessons, building coherence and deeper understanding. However, MLL-specific scaffolds that support language development in the context of these problems, such as structured academic talk, modeled writing, or content-specific sentence stems, are rare within those problem-solving experiences.
The materials incorporate a variety of instructional routines and scaffolds to foster MLL engagement. These include:
Turn-and-talks and partner discussions to encourage verbal interaction,
Sentence stems, discourse frames, and anchor charts to support academic language use,
Science notebook tasks focused on claims, evidence, and reasoning, and
Visual models, hands-on investigations, and data tables that provide nonlinguistic access to content.
While these features promote listening, speaking, reading, and writing, their implementation is not consistent across units and is not tailored to MLLs’ varying English proficiency levels.
OpenSciEd’s routines, such as student-generated questions and co-constructed models, help support meaning-making by offering entry points that do not rely solely on language. For example, Scientist Circles provide structured opportunities for discourse, supporting collaborative sense-making and language development. Specifically, in the Teacher Handbook under the section titled, “How does a Scientists Circle support equitable science classrooms?” it states, “Changing this physical arrangement of the classroom (with students seated facing one another in a circle) coupled with utilizing moves that shift the authority of the classroom (e.g., Talk Moves or asking a student to publicly record the ideas the class is agreeing on, etc.) can lead to more opportunities for students to make meaning collaboratively through talk.” Furthermore, the guidance states that the circle seating arrangement “can make listening to each other and building upon ideas easier, and it can foster a sense of accountability…” While this routine is often used during the first lessons in a unit when “students are developing an initial classroom model or artifacts,” they are also embedded at “key points for building understanding or working toward consensus. While this is a valuable tool for building understanding of disciplinary concepts, supports such as word banks, sentence frames, and model responses appear inconsistently, limiting multilingual learners’ full and meaningful participation in the routine. In Unit P.1, Lesson 10 and 11, students engage in a Design Challenge developing a community plan about energy. The teacher guidance includes an Attending to Equity sidebar aligned with Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which encourages students to choose a modality that best fits their group. This approach is described as supporting “student ownership of their learning by giving them choice, access, and control in navigating their own understanding around the science ideas (Lesson 11, Step 6: Complete Part 3 of the Design Challenge)." While this approach may support group access, the materials do not offer intentional guidance for teachers on how to form groups that support the diverse needs of multilingual learners. In Lesson 10, when the Design Challenge is introduced, the guidance is vague, stating, “Then arrange students into purposeful groups of 3-4. These groups will work together for several days on the culminating project, so make sure each group represents a diversity of ability.” This general guidance does not address considerations such as language proficiency levels, peer language models, or opportunities for targeted language support within collaborative groups.
Furthermore, in Unit P.1, Lesson 1, students explore the design challenge of developing a plan to advocate for improving electricity infrastructure to increase reliability and meet a community’s needs in section 2. Read Articles and Identify Tradeoffs in Jigsaw Groups, the Attending to Equity sidebar advises teachers to create either random or intentional mixed-ability groups. It notes that while the articles Biomass Impacts, Gas Impacts, and Wind Impacts are of similar reading levels, the shorter ones may be more accessible. While offering a less complex reading can help MLLs access content, the lack of specific guidance may lead teachers to assign it to all MLLs indiscriminately, regardless of their individual proficiency levels. This is also the only reading support provided within this section. Students are also provided a sentence stem: “When choosing whether to use this source to produce electrical energy, there is a tradeoff between _____ and _________.” This scaffold supports discussion, but is limited to supporting beginner MLLs and does not provide flexibility for MLLs at more advanced levels. While OpenSciEd offers flexible entry points, such as visuals, investigations, and collaborative work, that can benefit students with interrupted formal education (SIFE/SLIFE) and emerging MLLs, it falls short in providing consistent, embedded strategies to support the full diversity of multilingual learners. Students who are long-term MLLs, literate in their home language, or positioned across a broad spectrum of English proficiency levels are often left without targeted support. The program’s strong emphasis on language-rich science discourse, encouraging students to construct explanations and models using precise academic language, represents a powerful integration of disciplinary thinking and language development. However, without consistent scaffolding or structured guidance for differentiation, the burden falls heavily on teacher discretion. As a result, many MLLs may find these cognitively demanding tasks inaccessible, limiting their ability to fully engage and thrive in rigorous problems.
Overall, the materials lay a strong foundation for integrating MLLs into science learning through problem-based instruction, structured discourse routines, and academically rigorous tasks. However, the supports for varying language proficiency levels are inconsistent, general, and insufficiently differentiated, resulting in only partial alignment with the criteria for effectively supporting MLLs.
Indicator 1b
Phenomena and/or problems require student use of grade-band Disciplinary Core Ideas.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that phenomena or problems require student use of grade-band Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs).
Across the program, all identified phenomena and problems are connected to grade-band DCIs. In some cases, while problems may emphasize an ETS DCI, connections to DCIs from life science, physical science, or earth and space science are still present. Students engage with the DCIs in a variety of ways, including through readings, investigations, viewing photos, and analyzing data.
Examples of phenomena or problems that require student use of grade-band DCIs:
In Unit P.1, Lesson Set 1: How does electricity transfer through systems to power communities, and what causes instability in these systems?, the phenomenon is that a winter storm caused mass power outages in Texas in February 2021. Throughout the lesson set, students read articles and analyze data to understand what led to power outages across Texas. Students explore different sources of energy in Texas, how energy is transferred to businesses and homes for use, and ways that this system could be impacted in a winter storm (DCI-PS3.A-H2). Then, students analyze and build circuits to develop an understanding of where electricity comes from and develop a model to show the impacts of limited energy supply on homes and businesses (DCI-PS3.A-H3, DCI-PS3.B-H4). Finally, students learn from different community members in Texas to better understand how the power outages impacted different regions and communities.
In Unit P.3, Lesson Set 2: How are vehicles designed to keep people safe?, the phenomenon is that during a car collision, various vehicle features affect how long it takes for changes in motion to occur, which directly affects the safety of the passengers involved. Students use a video and simulation of car collisions with and without various safety features to create timelines of events during the collisions and compare how various safety/design features of the cars change the amount of time it takes for the car and passenger to come to a stop (DCI-PS2.A-H1). Then students analyze the role of force in a collision and brainstorm how the different features of seat belts and airbags improve survivability and how to optimize for those features (DCI-PS2.A-H1).
In Unit P.6: Why do stars shine and will they shine forever?, the phenomenon is that guest stars appeared in the night sky and then suddenly disappeared. Students are first introduced to the phenomenon of guest stars appearing in the night sky. They analyze the spectra of these stars and compare them to the sun (DCI-ESS1.A-H2). Then students develop a model of the sun (DCI-ESS1.A-H1) and understand how elements are formed within its core (DCI-ESS1.A-H4, DCI-PS1.C-H1) and how these different stars' life cycles compare.
Indicator 1c
Phenomena and/or problems are presented in a direct manner to students.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that phenomena and/or problems are presented in a direct manner to students.
All unit-level phenomena and problems are introduced in Lesson 1 and almost always within Part 1 of the lesson. In lesson-level phenomena and problems, presentations also usually take place within the first step of the lesson. The presentations of phenomena and problems vary in format and include images, maps, videos, teacher demonstrations, and readings. They include structures that support students to wonder, ask questions, and lead their own investigations in order to explain the phenomenon or solve the problem. An exception to this includes Unit 1, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 10: What decisions do we need to make to design more reliable systems to meet our community's energy needs?, where students receive a great deal of explanation about the process to solve the problem before it is introduced in Part 13.
Examples of phenomena or problems that are presented in a direct manner to students:
In Unit 1: How can we design more reliable systems to meet our communities’ energy needs?, the phenomenon is that a winter storm caused mass power outages in Texas in February 2021. In Lesson 1, students are presented with a slide that describes how, in February 2021, over 11.8 million Texans lost access to electricity to heat and light their homes, store their food, and charge their devices. Students then complete a jigsaw reading activity with six different articles about the outage. The slide and reading provides students the opportunity to engage with the phenomenon directly without assuming any prior understanding or providing distracting information.
In Unit 2: How do forces in the Earth’s interior determine what will happen to the surface we see?, the phenomenon is that there is a large crack in the Earth's surface in Afar, Africa, following an earthquake. In Lesson 1, students are presented with a StoryMap, a digital story with text and images, about the event in the Afar region and complete a Notice & Wonder chart. Students also explore visualized data that shows patterns of earthquakes around the world and read about other specific earthquake cases, considering how the data compares with the events in Afar and how it might help explain the phenomenon. The StoryMap, data, and reading provide students the opportunity to engage with the phenomenon directly without assuming any prior understanding or providing distracting information.
In Unit 5: How do we use radiation in our lives, and is it safe for humans?, the phenomenon is that microwave ovens are able to block signals coming from wireless devices placed inside of them and are also able to use invisible waves to heat up foods that contain moisture, like cheese on chips. In Lesson 1, students are presented with a news story about people storing electronic items in their microwave ovens for safety and security. They view a teacher demonstration of a phone connected to a bluetooth speaker playing music. The phone is placed inside a microwave and the music skips when the speaker is moved around the room. Finally, after reading the manual to build basic understanding of how microwave ovens work and what safety precautions are recommended, students watch a teacher demonstration as cheese is melted on nacho chips inside the microwave but doesn’t appear to melt evenly in all spots. The news story and teacher demonstrations provide students the opportunity to engage with the phenomenon directly without assuming any prior understanding or providing distracting information.
Indicator 1d
Materials intentionally leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences related to phenomena or problems.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet expectations that materials intentionally leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences related to phenomena or problems.
Across the program, eliciting is most consistently present in the first lesson of each lesson set, typically when a new phenomenon or problem is introduced. These lessons often include structured activities such as Driving Question Board (DQB) prompts, whole-class discussions, or initial model creation that allow students to share what they already know or wonder about the phenomenon or problem. Through Related Phenomena activities, students are given an opportunity to share related phenomena they have had experience with in their lives as related to the presented phenomenon or problem. Home Learning activities also provide options for elicitation of students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences when students draw on funds of knowledge from their own families and communities as related to the presented phenomenon or problem. Elicitation also occurs in other lessons through embedded questions, discussion prompts, and opportunities for students to share observations or reflect on previous learning. However, these instances are less structured and not always explicitly tied to surfacing prior knowledge and/or experience. Leveraging is present inconsistently. When it does occur, it tends to happen soon after elicitation, such as when students return to their initial models or questions later in the lesson set. In many lessons, however, there is no clear or intentional use of students’ prior knowledge and/or experience to guide instruction, modify tasks, or support new learning. In some cases, the term “elicit” is present in the materials and refers to asking for student responses, not necessarily connected to students’ prior knowledge or experiences.
Example where materials elicit and leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experience related to phenomena and problems:
In Unit P.2: How do forces in Earth's interior determine what will happen to the surface we see?, the phenomenon is that, following an earthquake, there is a large crack in the Earth’s surface in Afar, Africa. Students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences of the phenomenon are elicited in Lesson 1 when students learn that the people in Afar experienced several geologic disruptions; earthquakes, a volcanic eruption, and a giant crack in the ground and are asked if anyone has experience with those types of phenomena. The teacher is instructed to ask for a show of hands for each phenomenon to elicit whether students have had experiences with them. The resource notes that some students may have experienced all three, but most are likely to have seen or heard of earthquakes, perhaps some with cracks in the ground. Then students are asked about prior knowledge about earthquakes including what might cause them and why they occur in some places but not others. They are also asked if earthquakes happen in their region. Later in Lesson 1, students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences are leveraged when the teacher is instructed to point out that it seems the class has more experience with earthquakes than the other phenomena. The teacher suggests that in looking for the cause of this giant crack in Afar that the class should start with earthquakes, because they are more familiar. Students view a map of earthquakes and plate boundaries to collect data and identify patterns. They return to their responses to the question regarding if earthquakes happen in their region and use patterns in the data to support their knowledge and experiences related to earthquakes either occurring or not occurring in their region.
Example where materials elicit but do not leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experience related to phenomena and problems:
In Unit P.5: How do we use radiation in our lives, and is it safe for humans?, the phenomenon is that microwave ovens are able to block signals coming from wireless devices placed inside of them and are also able to use invisible waves to heat up foods that contain moisture, like cheese on chips. Students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences of the phenomenon are elicited in Lesson 1 when students are asked “What do you predict will happen when we try to connect to the device while it is inside the microwave oven (when it is off)? What experiences or ideas support your prediction?”. Students are then asked “What do you know about how microwave ovens function to heat food that could explain why the structure of a microwave oven affects wireless signals?” and “What experiences or ideas do you have that suggest microwave technology might pose a risk?” Later in the lesson, students are asked about related phenomena they have experienced or heard about in which a wireless signal is distorted. While the lesson demonstrates multiple examples of eliciting prior knowledge and/or experience from students about microwaves and wireless signals, the materials within the learning sequence do not support the teacher to leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences.
Indicator 1e
Phenomena and/or problems drive student learning using key elements of all three dimensions.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that phenomena and/or problems drive student learning using key elements of all three dimensions.
Across the program, phenomena and problems consistently drive student learning with most lessons being driven by the phenomenon or problem presented at the beginning of the unit. In some units, the connection to the phenomenon or problem throughout the learning progression is clear and explicit. In other units, specifically Units 3 and 5, the connection to the phenomenon or problem is unclear and in some instances, lessons are connected to each other in terms of progressions of science concepts related to answering questions on the driving question board, but there is no reference to the phenomenon or problem for multiple lessons. In all cases where a phenomenon or problem is driving learning, the lesson also utilizes all three dimensions.
Examples where phenomena or problems drive individual lessons using all three dimensions:
In Unit P.1, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 1: What can we learn from a blackout in Texas about producing reliable energy for our communities?, the phenomenon that a winter storm caused mass power outages in Texas in February 2021 drives instruction. Students consider how the energy grid is designed as a system to perform a certain task and how changes and stability in that system can cause events like power outages (CCC-SYS-H1, CCC-SC-H1). Students create an initial model of the system that they attempt to use to explain the phenomenon (SEP-MOD-H3). Then they explore how electrical energy is transported from one place to another and how the availability of that energy changing suddenly impacts the system (DCI-PS3.B-H2, DCI-PS3.B-H4).
In Unit P.2, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 6: How is temperature related to the behavior of the matter in the mantle?, the phenomenon that following an earthquake, there is a large crack in the Earth’s surface in Afar, Africa, drives instruction. Students draw a model of Afar's mantle based on data provided to demonstrate movement at the particle level under the mantle (DCI-ESS2.A-H2). Students watch a video to observe motion similar to what occurs below the mantle (CCC-EM-H4), update their M-E-F posters, and test new models of the motion below the mantle on the Afar models using Afar tomography data (SEP-MOD-H3).
In Unit P.6, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 2: How does the matter in guest stars compare to stable stars?, the phenomenon that guest stars appeared in the night sky and then suddenly disappeared drives instruction. Students examine images of guest star remnants and compare those to the Sun. They use spectroscopy to identify the similarity in the composition and temperature range of stable stars and then compare that to data for the guest star remnants (DCI-ESS1.A-H2, CCC-SC-H1). Students ask questions (SEP-AQDP-H1) about the differences in the data and add them to the Driving Question Board.
Criterion 1.2: Three-Dimensional Learning and Assessment
Information on Multilingual Learner (MLL) Supports in This Criterion
For some indicators in this criterion, we also display evidence and scores for pair MLL indicators.
While MLL indicators are scored, these scores are reported separately from core content scores. MLL scores do not currently impact core content scores at any level—whether indicator, criterion, gateway, or series.
To view all MLL evidence and scores for this grade band or grade level, select the "Multilingual Learner Supports" view from the left navigation panel.
Materials are designed for three-dimensional learning and assessment.
The materials meet expectations for Criterion 1.2 by incorporating all three dimensions of the NGSS into student learning opportunities, objectives, and assessments. Across the course, students consistently engage in activities that combine Disciplinary Core Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting Concepts. These integrated opportunities occur regularly, often through investigations, modeling, simulations, and data analysis. The materials also support meaningful sensemaking with the three dimensions, offering students multiple ways to revise ideas through progress trackers, posters, and consensus models.
Learning objectives are clearly three-dimensional and consistently represented within lesson materials. While most objectives are fully addressed in lessons, a small number include elements that are not completely developed in instruction. Formative assessments are varied and embedded throughout lessons, effectively revealing student progress toward targeted learning goals, although not every lesson includes a formal assessment opportunity. The summative assessment system includes Transfer Tasks and Exit Tickets that elicit observable evidence of student learning and are aligned with the claimed assessment standards. However, there is some inconsistency between the elements identified for learning, in learning objectives, and those directly assessed. Finally, the program incorporates uncertain phenomena and problems into both formative and summative assessments, offering students three-dimensional tasks that extend their thinking in new ways.
Indicator 1f
Materials are designed to incorporate the three dimensions in student learning opportunities.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials are designed to incorporate the three dimensions in student learning opportunities.
Throughout the materials, students are consistently exposed to learning sequences in which elements of all three dimensions are incorporated in at least one learning opportunity within the sequence. The activities that incorporate all three dimensions vary, including investigations and models (computer simulations, mathematical models, and student-created models). Across the course, elements from the SEP of Developing and Using Models are most common.
Examples of learning opportunities in which elements of all three dimensions are incorporated:
In Unit P.2, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 10: What is happening at plate boundaries?, students analyze a map and simulation to understand the motion of plate boundaries in order to predict what will happen in Afar based on their observations. Students analyze a map of plate motion rates. To explain this motion, students explore a simulation of plate boundaries. Students then read about magma to understand what happens at the plate boundaries (DCI-ESS2.B-H2). After the simulation and reading, students draft a prediction for what will happen to Afar based on what they have learned so far (SEP-CEDS-H2). This motivates students to build a consensus model to explain what happens at plate boundaries similar to Afar (CCC-SYS-H3).
In Unit P.3, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 6: Do our motion relationships help predict any of the interactions or outcomes in a collision?, students develop and test an equation for the outcome of two-vehicle collisions. Students develop an equation (SEP-MATH-H2) for the outcomes of two-vehicle collision systems (CCC-SYS-H2) and test it with data from a simulation of inelastic and elastic collisions (DCI-PS2.A-H1, DCI-PS2.A-H2). They develop and use alternate algebraic models to solve for the mass or velocity of an object before or after a collision and look for patterns in the data between the two sets of algebraic models (CCC-PAT-H4).
In Unit P.4, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 1: Why is stuff falling from the sky?, students watch a video of the Chelyabinsk meteor event, develop an initial model of what they believe happened, and explore various examples of related phenomena, ranking them by scale and using that information to inform further model development. After observing a video of the Chelyabinsk meteor and related phenomena, students develop initial models to explain the meteor event in terms of motion of space objects (SEP-MOD-H3) and ask questions to support their understanding of what happened in the video (SEP-AQDP-H1). Students consider the cause and effect behind the meteor event at various scales (CCC-CE-H2) to better understand what led to the releases of energy observed in the video (DCI-PS3.A-H2).
Indicator 1g
Materials consistently support meaningful student sensemaking with the three dimensions.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials consistently support meaningful student sensemaking with the three dimensions.
Across the program, the materials consistently provide students with opportunities to build understanding of disciplinary content through use of SEPs and/or CCCs. Students are presented with opportunities to engage in sensemaking activities with elements of all three dimensions in at least one learning sequence per unit. Elements of all three dimensions are integrated within most learning sequences. Where learning sequences are limited to two dimensions, sensemaking activities are generally a combination of a DCI and SEP. Opportunities for students to iterate on their thinking as they engage in sensemaking are also consistently present and happen in a variety of ways including through revision of models, driving question boards (DQB), and charts/posters related to scientific concepts. Specifically, the M-E-F poster spans across units as students connect the concepts of matter, energy, and force.
Examples where the materials are designed for the three dimensions to meaningfully support student sensemaking and provide opportunities for students to iterate on their thinking:
In Unit P.1, Lesson Set 1: How does electricity transfer through systems to power communities, and what causes instability in these systems?, students learn about a blackout on the Texas energy grid, understand what causes instability in energy grid systems, and explore the impacts of these blackouts on communities. Students start the sequence by modeling how energy transfers through systems when systems are stable and unstable (DCI-PS3.B-H2, SEP-MOD-H3, and CCC-SYS-H1). They analyze electricity supply and demand data in Texas as well as data about different energy sources that might have been connected to the drop in energy supply that Texas experienced (DCI-PS3.B-H4). Then they investigate how electricity is produced through different sources and how characteristics of an electrical system could influence the transfer of electrical energy. The sequence culminates when students develop a model showing how insufficient supply entering a system could lead to losing power during a crisis like the one in Texas (DCI-PS3.B-H4, SEP-MOD-H3). Students iterate on their thinking as they initially create a progress tracker to note initial ideas about the blackouts in Texas and then revise and update the tracker across the sequence.
In Unit P.4, Lesson Set 2: How can we know if Earth is at risk for future large-scale, high-energy collisions?, students explore the likelihood and outcomes of Earth experiencing another large-scale collision. Students start the sequence by constructing a line of best fit on a graph of different-sized objects that have entered Earth’s atmosphere over a time and use it to predict the frequency of larger-mass objects reaching Earth’s atmosphere (SEP-MATH-H2). They calculate the kinetic energy and estimate the potential damage these objects could inflict (SEP-MATH-H2, DCI-PS3.B-H3, DCI-ESS3.B-H1, and CCC-SPQ-H1). Students then plan and carry out an investigation to generate data about whether velocity or mass of a meteor will predict the size of the crater it forms (SEP-INV-H1), analyze their data to determine that velocity is a better predictor of crater size, and use this data to explain changes in matter and energy within the Earth-meteor system (DCI-PS3.B-H4, SEP-DATA-H2, CCC-PAT-H4, and CCC-EM-H2). Students develop an explanation for why only a relatively small amount of the Chelyabinsk meteor's matter was still in solid pieces when it reached the surface (SEP-CEDS-H3, CCC-EM-H2) and determine that most of the matter that enters Earth's atmosphere actually does not impact the surface (DCI-PS3.A-H2, CCC-SPQ-H2). Students develop a model of erosion to test ideas about older craters on Earth to explain why they have features that are less clear (SEP-MOD-H3, DCI-ESS1.C-H2, and CCC-SC-H1) and apply that information to explain why craters on Earth are much less defined than on the moon. Students then develop a model to explain how an impactor collision would have led to extinction of some organisms and not others (SEP-MOD-H3, DCI-ESS2.A-H3, and CCC-CE-H4). The sequence culminates as students gather and communicate information about matter changes, force interactions, and energy transfers related to the formation of the Chicxulub crater (SEP-INFO-H1, CCC-EM-H2) and discuss how past extinctions might help society prepare for events in the future (CCC-SC-H1). Students iterate on their thinking as they revisit their initial consensus models for the Chelyabinsk meteor to reflect on how their ideas have changed since the start of the unit as well as revisit mathematical models and alternate explanations for mass extinctions to decide if they want to revise their explanations. Throughout the unit, students update their progress trackers, M-E-F posters, and various models.
In Unit P.6, Lesson Set 1: How are stars born, and how do they die?, students examine the phenomenon of “guest stars” in comparison to visible stars that appear to be stable, learning about the forces, energy, and life cycle of stars that contribute to what we observe in the night sky. Students start the sequence by examining historical observations and measurements of light spectra related "guest stars", leading to questions about how guest stars might differ from more common stable stars that we regularly observe (DCI-ESS1.A-H2, SEP-AQDP-H1, and CCC-SC-H1). Students build on this idea as they integrate information from a variety of sources to understand how the flows of energy/matter in stable stars--like our sun --can help make sense of unstable stars, like guest stars (DCI-PS3.D-H1, DCI-ESS1.A-H4, SEP-INFO-H2, and CCC-EM-H2). The sequence culminates in students developing a model based on the gathered evidence that illustrates why some stars are stable but others present as "guest stars" (SEP-MOD-H3). Students iterate on their thinking as they develop initial consensus models of stable stars and guest stars. After learning about the Sun and the internal processes driving it, students work together to update their consensus model for stable stars. Students revisit their consensus models at the end of the sequence to finalize their explanation. Additionally, students co-construct a DQB based on a M-E-F triangle, which they revisit across the sequence as they gain greater understanding and identify new questions about the relationships of energy, mass, and forces within the system of a star.
Indicator 1g.MLL-1
Materials provide support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in sensemaking of the Science and Engineering Practices.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in sensemaking of the Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs). The materials include some supports intended to help MLLs access and engage in SEP-based practices; however, these supports are inconsistently integrated and often lack the explicit guidance needed to ensure full participation by MLLs.
For example, Unit P.1, Lesson 1 introduces students to the phenomenon of blackouts in the Texas energy grid and guides them through modeling electricity transfers, analyzing data, and developing explanations for instability in electrical systems. This opportunity meaningfully engages students in multiple SEPs, such as Developing and Using Models and Analyzing Data, while tying in DCIs and CCCs like Systems and System Models. For MLLs, the guidance in section 2- Jigsaw Blackouts Articles suggests multiple modes of communication; students are encouraged to use linguistic and nonlinguistic representations (e.g., drawings, graphs, mathematical equations). This support provides context when they engage in section 3 - Notice Outage Patterns aligned to the SEP of Analyzing Data. Although there is reading support and guidance for multiple modes of communication in section 2, there are only general supports for students engaging in the SEP in section 3. Specifically, when students are presented with a map of the Texas blackouts and capturing noticings and wonderings in a T-chart, the teacher guide states: “Ask students what the map represents and how to read it, making sure that everyone understands that the color gradient represents the percent of customers without power in that county. You can point to a county and check the class’s understanding by asking, How were the people in this county affected by the power outages? How can you tell?” This is a missed opportunity to provide specific linguistic support when students engage in an SEP.
When engaging in the SEP of Developing and Using Models, the Attending to Equity sidebar in section 8- Come to Consensus in a Scientists Circle suggests allowing students to use “everyday words and phrases” to discuss their ideas as the class is discussing their models and other models after a gallery walk. Specifically, the guidance states, “Switching back and forth between different registers is especially important for emergent multilingual students because it helps them draw on their full range of sensemaking resources.” This guidance may help MLLs engage in speaking about their model and encourage the use of everyday words, but there is a missed opportunity to provide guidance to scaffold up to the grade-level content-specific vocabulary.
The materials sometimes provide sentence stems and discourse supports that assist MLLs in developing language aligned to SEP participation. For example, in multiple lessons, sentence frames are provided for students to articulate observations or construct explanations. In other lessons, while there are opportunities for discourse, the sentence frames are not present. For example, in Unit P.5, Lesson 1, there are two turn-and-talks, but neither provides sentence frames.
The materials provide additional supports in response to the content. For example, Unit P.6, Lesson 1, focuses on the life cycle of stars and incorporates historical texts in multiple languages (e.g., Old Chinese, Coptic, Persian). The Attending to Equity sidebar for section 2- Read About Other Guest Stars suggests that students who speak these languages can share their interpretations with the class. It also includes the reading level of each of the readings. Although this connection to home language might engage some MLL students, it is not inclusive of engaging all MLLs. During a “mini-lecture” in section 7- 1987 Guest Star Deep Dive, in the Attending to Equity sidebar, the materials recommend pacing supports such as annotating printed slides and peer summarizing. While this guidance indicates support for the SEP of Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information, it lacks specific strategies to support speaking during summarization and does not clarify which information should be annotated to enhance comprehension.
These supports are not distributed consistently across the program. For example, Unit P.4, Lesson Set 2, Lessons 8-15, which investigates the likelihood of large-scale meteor collisions with Earth, offers a learning sequence engaging students in multiple SEPs (e.g., Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking, Analyzing Data, and Planning and Carrying Out Investigations). Students analyze the Chelyabinsk meteor event, plan and conduct investigations, and develop explanations for extinction events. Despite the rigorous SEP engagement and strong integration across all three dimensions, these lessons do not include any Attending to Equity sidebars specific to supporting MLLs.
Additionally, in Lesson 10, section 6- Analyze and Interpret Data, there are a few cross-disciplinary activities that make connections to math while supporting SEPs, such as Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking, and Analyzing Data. While there are opportunities to write ideas in their science notebook and share their ideas as the teacher discusses patterns in the data, there are no explicit connections to interdisciplinary language. This reflects a missed opportunity to scaffold participation for MLLs in a high-demand sequence where such supports would be particularly impactful.
Moreover, while sentence frames are available in several lessons and sometimes connect to the SEPs, they lack support for varying levels of language proficiency. For example, in Unit P.4, Lesson 3, section 5- Develop an Explanation About the Stability and Change of Orbits, there is embedded guidance specific to “English language learner students”, stating, “English language learner students might benefit from sentence stems that can help them organize their ideas.” An example sentence stem is “When____________ of an orbiting object is balanced with _______, it results in__________.” While there are sentence frames present in some lesson activities aligned to the SEPs, there is a missed opportunity to provide supports at varying levels of language proficiency, supporting a wide range of MLLs.
Despite many of these planned MLL supports, the curriculum does not fully support the regular and active participation of all MLL students in the SEPs. For example, SEP tasks rarely include guidance on providing additional context if a student doesn’t understand what is required of them. While speaking and writing tend to be highly structured with clear interventions and guidance for teachers, listening and reading have fewer specific strategies regularly included in lessons. Spanish translations are available for all materials, yet there is no guidance on strategically using these translated materials to amplify English structures/forms or push students to concurrently develop new language skills through leveraging current linguistic abilities. Finally, while targeted language is consistently modeled and presented in context, there are rarely explicit prompts or calls for students to use the new language.
Indicator 1g.MLL-2
Materials provide support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in sensemaking of Disciplinary Core Ideas.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in sensemaking of Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs). The materials include thoughtful attempts to support MLLs through select scaffolds and pedagogical strategies. However, these supports are uneven across the program and are not consistently integrated to ensure full participation of MLLs in DCIs.
For example, sentence frames, discourse prompts, and suggestions to use both linguistic and nonlinguistic representations (e.g., models, diagrams, and graphs) are present in some lessons. An example of a unit that provides such support is Unit P.1, where students engage in modeling energy transfers and use Progress Trackers to reflect on their evolving understanding of blackout phenomena in Texas. The Teacher Editions for lessons include guidance encouraging MLLs to represent ideas using visual and written modes. For example, in Lesson 1, Section 2. Jigsaw: Texas Blackouts Articles, the Attending to Equity callout box states, “Supporting emergent multilinguals: Students should be encouraged to record their ideas using linguistic (e.g., written words) and nonlinguistic modes (e.g., photographs, drawings, tables, graphs, mathematical equations, measurements). This is especially important for emergent multilingual students because making connections between written words and nonlinguistic representations helps students generate richer explanations of scientific Phenomena.” Although the guidance provides suggestions on what students are encouraged to do, it does not offer specific guidance to teachers on how to effectively implement these supports for MLLs or anticipate potential language demands. The materials also encourage students to draw upon their community and family experiences to support sensemaking, promoting equity and cultural integration. For example, in Lesson 1, Section 4. Navigate: Home Learning and Exit Ticket, after students have learned about a blackout in Texas, the teacher guide states, “Say, I bet there is a lot we can learn from your stories, and the stories of those in your families and communities. Let’s gather some of these stories for next time.” Students then collect stories from family and community members and bring them back to share with the class. While these supports are found within this lesson in Unit P.1, other lessons lack MLL supports for language development. For example, in Lesson 4 Teacher Edition, there are no Attending to Equity sidebars providing MLL-specific supports as students are engaging in understanding that methods of energy productions and resource extraction have trade-offs that can be influenced by technology and policy (DCI-ESS3.A-H2). This two-day lesson includes a gallery walk, turn-and-talks, Stand and Talk protocol, and class discussions, but does not include any teacher guidance specific to language development.
Where MLL supports are present, they help maintain the cognitive demand of tasks. For instance, in Unit P.5, Lesson 3, section 1- Navigate, an Attending to Equity sidebar to support “emergent multilinguals” suggests breaking down the word microwave. Specifically, it states, “Prompt students to reason about the first part by asking, What does ‘micro’ mean to you? What other words have you heard that use the prefix micro?” This guidance supports students after taking an exit ticket at the end of Lesson 2, section 5, when answering the question, “What do you think is happening between the magnetron antenna and the light bulb to transfer energy all the way across the microwave oven?” This exit ticket supports DCI-PS4.B-H1, which focuses on “The microwave oven is designed so the magnetron antenna changes electric fields near the oven’s cooking area. This energy transfers across space and somehow reaches the food.” While the guidance in Lesson 3 may help students negotiate the meaning of a content vocabulary term aligned to a DCI concept, there is a missed opportunity for the materials to provide guidance with interdisciplinary words and phrases.
Some units, such as Unit P.6 on star formation, include multimodal lectures and modeling activities where students are encouraged to use their home languages and annotate printed slides. This shows a thoughtful attempt to support comprehension and expression during cognitively demanding tasks. Yet, in many other units, such as P.4 and P.5, there are minimal or no targeted supports for MLLs. The reliance solely on instructional design to support MLLs leaves them without the necessary linguistic scaffolds to fully engage in the content.
The program misses opportunities to embed language scaffolds that promote extended, meaningful conversations about science content, particularly when crafting consensus. Specifically, in Unit P.4, Lesson 6 Teacher Edition, when students engage in DCI-PS2.B-H1 and develop models of Chelyabinsk meteor redirection from its orbit, they engage in a gallery walk. In section 3- Coming to Consensus, it states, “Ask students to justify their ideas if they disagree with a representation. Encourage students to respond to one another as you come to consensus.” While there is guidance for students to use the language function of justify, no language scaffolds support MLLs’ full engagement in this activity.
In conclusion, while the materials offer some thoughtful MLL supports, particularly in the form of multimodal engagement, occasional vocabulary scaffolds, and community-centered discourse, they fall short of enabling MLLs’ full and complete participation in the sensemaking of DCIs.
Indicator 1g.MLL-3
Materials provide support for MLLs’ full and complete participation in sensemaking of Cross Cutting Concepts.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School partially meet the criteria of providing support for Multilingual Learners' (MLLs’) full and complete participation in the sensemaking of Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs). While the design of the materials engages students in the Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs), they lack robust and consistent supports for MLLs in making sense of the CCCs.
Across units, teacher guidance sometimes encourages multimodal expression (e.g., visual, oral, written), supporting MLLs’ engagement in science discourse. For instance, in Unit P.1, Lesson 1 Teacher Edition, section 2-Jigsaw: Texas Blackouts Articles, guidance in the Attending to Equity sidebar for “supporting emergent bilinguals” states that students should “record their ideas using linguistic (written words) and nonlinguistic modes (photographs, drawings, tables, graphs, mathematical equations, measurements).” The guidance supports students to Stop and Jot, documenting ideas in their science notebooks as they read the articles. This strategy helps MLLs express ideas using their full communicative repertoires, mainly when engaged in activities aligned with the CCCs of Systems and System Models and Stability and Change.
For some lessons, the materials provide support for MLLs to engage in discussion. For example, in Unit P.4, students engage with multiple CCCs such as Patterns, Scale, Proportion, and Quantity, and Energy and Matter, as they analyze meteor collisions and crater formations. In Lesson 3, section 5-Develop an Explanation About the Stability and Change or Orbits, the Attending to Equity sidebar provides sentence stems for MLLs to organize their ideas around stability and change. For example:
The relationship between gravitational force and velocity is a key factor in determining ________.
When ________ of an orbiting object is balanced with _________, it results in ________.
Changes in _____________ of an orbiting object can impact the orbit stability by ________.
When the distance of the orbiting object increases, its _______ has to ________ in order to remain in a stable orbit.
While this lesson includes sentence frames, such supports appear inconsistently across the materials. An example of where sentence frames would benefit MLLs is in Unit P.4, Lesson 10, Teacher Edition, section 6- Analyze and Interpret Data. A call-out box states that this is an opportunity to “use the following CCC element: Mathematical representations are needed to identify some patterns.” Furthermore, students are prompted to answer the question, “What patterns do these graphs help us identify?” While this lesson involves six turn-and-talks and opportunities to discuss the relationship between the independent and dependent variable, it lacks language scaffolds to support MLLs’ full engagement in the multiple opportunities for academic discourse.
In some places, the materials provide supports that may benefit MLLs, but they do not intentionally develop language. For example, in Unit P.6, Lesson 1, when introducing the phenomenon, the materials encourage honoring students’ traditions and stories when describing the patterns for stars. For example, when engaging in the CCC of Stability and Change, students analyze ancient records of “guest stars” and construct explanations of how things change and how they remain stable. In section 2- Read About Other Guest Stars, the Attending to Equity sidebar prompts teachers to celebrate diverse linguistic backgrounds by inviting students who speak the original languages of translated texts, including Old Chinese, Italian, Egyptian (Coptic), and Persian (Farsi), to contribute their knowledge. While culturally affirming, this strategy does not offer direct linguistic scaffolds for CCCs or explicitly support MLLs. Additionally, although the lesson includes some reading supports, such as visuals on slides, handouts, and prompts for teachers to read aloud, it misses the opportunity to intentionally develop students’ use of disciplinary language.
Across the reviewed units, the presence of explicit, task-specific modeling or strategic integration of CCCs with language supports is inconsistent. For example, Unit P.5 heavily engages students in the CCCs of Patterns and Cause and Effect, but provides limited support designed explicitly for MLLs to engage with those concepts. Even where vocabulary scaffolds appear, such as breaking down the word “microwave” in Lesson 3, these are surface-level interventions that do not link directly to how MLLs can apply CCCs in their reasoning or communicate disciplinary thinking effectively. Furthermore, when students are engaging in the CCC of Patterns, there are multiple modes of engaging students to make sense of the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Specifically, there is a computer simulation in section 6, and then a discussion with a handout to help students identify wave variables in section 8. This section, titled Navigate: Identify Wave Variables, includes an Attending to Equity sidebar to support “emergent multilinguals” that states, “As students identify frequency as a variable, help them make connections to the everyday ways they use the word. Ask, ‘If you are getting a high frequency of text messages, what does that mean? Listen for ideas about how it means a lot of text messages coming close together. Help students see the connection between this everyday use and the scientific definition, which means almost the same thing.’” This guidance may help MLLs make sense of the word, frequency, and “multiple media, such as a simulation, handout, and chart of words and images” may help MLLs better express their ideas. However, this level of support is not present in all lessons and tasks.
In sum, while the instructional materials maintain cognitive rigor and provide some support for MLLs’ participation in CCCs and general science discourse, they do not consistently provide intentional or sustained guidance for supporting MLLs in using CCCs as tools for sensemaking. This limits the opportunity for MLLs to build coherent understanding and to use CCCs as analytical frameworks that support deep disciplinary learning.
Indicator 1h
Materials clearly represent three-dimensional learning objectives within the learning sequences.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials clearly represent three-dimensional learning objectives within the learning sequences.
Learning objectives are provided at the learning opportunity level. In this program, a learning opportunity is represented by a lesson. Within the lesson-level teacher guide, learning objectives are provided at the beginning in the What Students Will Do section. Lesson-level Performance Expectations are coded with numbers and letters (e.g. 4.A) and written as a statement. The statement is color coded to reflect the dimensions being addressed and codes indicating the elements contained within the statement are listed at the end. Across the materials, lesson-level learning objectives are consistently three dimensional. Additionally, within the unit-level teacher guide, element level information for the unit is provided in the Teacher Background Knowledge section. A table lists the element language of the SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs addressed in the unit, along with strikethroughs of element language as appropriate. This same type of information can also be found in the Elements of NGSS Dimensions document where tables are included that list the SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs addressed per lesson. Element language is also included with rationale that uses strikethroughs to indicate the part of the element addressed (for DCIs) or how the element shows up in the materials (for SEPs and CCCs). Within each lesson, the materials consistently provide opportunities for students to use and engage with the elements of the three dimensions present in the objectives. In most cases, all elements from the learning objectives are addressed within the lesson. In some instances, students do not have the opportunity to engage with one or two of the elements from the learning objectives.
Examples of learning opportunities with three-dimensional learning objectives that provide opportunities for students to engage with the elements of the three dimensions present in the objectives:
In Unit P.1, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 10: What decisions do we need to make to design more reliable systems to meet our community's energy needs?, the learning objectives, “Define the problem, and then interview various interested parties in our community to identify criteria that can help make decisions to improve the electricity infrastructure, including how it is designed for reliability (stability) and its social, cultural, and environmental impacts” and “Analyze data generated by interviews with community members to specify criteria for success related to energy solutions, such as monetary cost, safety, and reliability, and weigh cost/benefit tradeoffs related to social, cultural, and environmental impacts”, are three dimensional. Students read articles and determine the trade-offs for different energy sources, including biomass, coal, gas, wind, solar, hydropower, and nuclear sources (DCI-ETS1.B-H1, DCI-PS3.D-H3). They create a decision matrix for evaluating different solutions, interview community members to determine priorities in solutions, and apply those priorities in a design challenge to develop a community plan involving renewable energy (SEP-AQDP-H8, SEP-DATA-H6, CCC-SC-H4).
In Unit P.2, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 6: How is temperature related to the behavior of the matter in the mantle?, the learning objective, “Develop a model to explain the relationship between energy transfer and the motion of matter in a solid material via thermal convection and the motion of particles”, is three dimensional. Students develop a model that predicts the movement of the mantle (DCI-ESS2.A-H2, SEP-MOD-H3). They analyze a video of a tank that contains a liquid and plastic pellets to simulate the matter in the mantle and use it to figure out what happens to the matter when heat is added (CCC-EM-H4). Students also create a model to explain the thermal convection in the mantle (DCI-PS3.A-H4).
In Unit P.3, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 8: What interactions happen during a vehicle collision, and when do they happen?, the learning objective, “Develop timeline models of vehicle collisions using animations and simulation data to illustrate and compare changes in motion for the systems of a vehicle and crash test dummies that are too fast to observe directly.”, is three dimensional. Students develop a timeline model of animated vehicle collisions to demonstrate the interactions in the system in order to study and compare the interactions accurately (SEP-MOD-H3, CCC-SPQ-H2). This model allows students to determine how the presence or absence of safety features affects the changes in motion of macroscopic objects involved in car collisions (DCI-PS2.A-H1).
Indicator 1i
Materials include a formative assessment system that is designed to reveal student progress on targeted learning objectives.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials include a formative assessment system that is designed to reveal student progress on targeted learning objectives.
Formative assessments exist across each unit in various lessons, as appropriate. In some instances, there is more than one assessment per lesson but a formative assessment does not exist for every lesson. Assessment opportunities are indicated in the Assessment System Overview table in the unit-level teacher materials and also in the lesson-level teacher guide with a check mark icon in the Learning Plan Snapshot. Assessment Opportunity boxes within the teacher guide provide information about what to look and listen for during the assessment as well as what to do if students struggle. The learning objective(s) that students are building toward is also indicated. In some cases, a separate key also exists for the assessment. The content of the key varies based on the assessment and may include suggested student responses, the elements being addressed, and ideas for support. Formative assessments can take a variety of forms and include exit tickets, model revisions, card sorts, gotta have it checklists, information organizers, data analysis, and other ways to check in on student understanding as they make progress within the lesson. Some formative assessments are individual while others are completed as a group. Overall, the formative assessments consistently reveal student progress on the targeted learning objectives. In some cases, when a large number of elements are represented within the learning objectives, elements claimed in the learning objectives are not addressed by the single formative assessment within the respective lesson. Additional types of assessments present within the assessment system include summative assessments, pre-assessments, self-assessments, peer assessments, and returns to the Driving Question Boards and Progress Trackers.
Examples of formative assessments that are designed to reveal student progress on the targeted learning objectives:
In Unit P.1, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 9: How can energy storage make our systems more reliable during an energy crisis?, the learning objectives are, “Develop an energy transfer model to predict the stability in the distribution of electric energy when batteries are present and absent from the system.” and “Apply ratios, rates, percentages, and unit conversions to calculate the costs and land area of use of a design solution to elevate its feasibility for preventing an energy crisis like the one in Texas in 2021.” and represent a total of eight elements: four DCIs, two SEPs, and two CCCs. The formative assessments are the Modeling Reliability assessment and the Testing Battery Storage Solutions assessment. In the Modeling Reliability assessment, students develop two energy transfer models, one before and one after energy drops, to show how adding a battery to a system could make it more reliable (SEP-MOD-H3). The models include the energy that will be transferred between the components of the system, how much energy will be available to the community , and how adding a battery to the system would make the system more reliable and increase the amount of energy available to the community (DCI-PS3.B-H1, DCI-PS3.D-H4, and CCC-SC-H4). In the Testing Battery Storage Solutions assessment, students solve a variety of math problems to evaluate different energy storage solutions and their costs and then determine the feasibility of each of the different solutions for a small community in Texas (DCI-PS3.B-H4, DCI-ETS1.B-H1, SEP-MATH-H5, and CCC-SPQ-H1).
In Unit P.2, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 6: How is temperature related to the behavior of the matter in the mantle?, the learning objective is “Develop a model to explain the relationship between energy transfer and the motion of matter in a solid material via thermal convection and the motion of particles.” and represents four elements: two DCIs, one SEP, and one CCC. The formative assessment is the Afar Mantle Model assessment. Using a cross section diagram, students create a model to explain why the mantle below Afar is moving at both macroscopic and particle-levels (DCI-ESS2.A-H2, DCI-PS3.A-H4). Students develop their initial model and then revise to incorporate additional information about how thermal energy drives the cycling of matter via convection in the mantle (SEP-MOD-H3, CCC-EM-H4).
In Unit P.6, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 4: How does running out of fuel cause a star to change?, the learning objectives are “Ask questions that arise from our research on fusion and from modeling the forces in stars when they are stable to clarify and seek additional information about how stars change when their fuel runs out.” and “Gather, read, evaluate, and integrate information from multiple authoritative internet sources, assessing the evidence and usefulness of each source in answering our questions about how stars (including our Sun) remain stable and can become unstable over their life cycles and communicate the information with graphics and text.” and represent twelve elements: four DCIs, five SEPs, and three CCCs. The formative assessment is a student poster that students research and present through a gallery walk. Students brainstorm questions about what they have explored so far related to how stars remain stable and then, over time become unstable and die (SEP-AQDP-H1, SEP-AQDP-H4). Then they gather, read, evaluate, and integrate information from multiple authoritative internet sources, assessing the evidence and usefulness of each source in answering those questions (SEP-INFO-H2, SEP-INFO-H3). Students share what they learn about how stars (including our Sun) remain stable and can become unstable over their life cycles (DCI-ESS1.A-H1, DCI-ESS1.A-H4, DCI-PS1.C-H1, and DCI-PS3.D-H1). Students research to understand the flow of energy and matter in stars through their lives (CCC-EM-H2), and then students must evaluate and discuss how the stars are stable and then become unstable, including through systems of feedback within the stars (CCC-SC-H1, CCC-SC-H3). Students present this information on posters for a gallery walk (SEP-INFO-H5).
Indicator 1j
Materials include a summative assessment system designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of student achievement of claimed assessment standards.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials include a summative assessment system designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of student achievement of claimed assessment standards.
Summative assessments exist across each unit, mostly in the form of Transfer Tasks and Electronic Exit Tickets. Transfer Tasks take place at the end of a lesson set and/or unit and consist of multiple parts, often with some sort of scenario that students work with. Responses can include multiple choice as well as developing models, critiquing arguments, analyzing data, and constructing explanations. Electronic Exit Tickets are spread throughout the unit, usually at the end of lessons. They are delivered through a Google Form and usually consist of 5-6 questions in the form of multiple choice and short answers. Students respond to content related questions as well as reflections on their own learning. Assessment opportunities are indicated in the Assessment System Overview table in the unit-level teacher materials and also in the lesson-level teacher guide with a check mark icon in the Learning Plan Snapshot. A separate key exists for all Transfer Tasks and Electronic Exit Tickets. The keys contain information about the elements addressed per assessment question, suggested student responses, and what to look for. In the Transfer Task keys, the what to look for is split into three categories of responses: Foundational understanding, Linked understanding, and Organized understanding, and includes suggestions for instruction on how to move students forward in their learning. The Electronic Exit Ticket keys contain what to look for suggested responses per question as well as a what to do section if students need additional support.
The materials consistently identify the standards assessed for summative assessments. Within the unit-level teacher guide, the Lesson-by-Lesson Assessment Opportunities table lists each lesson, the lesson-level Performance Expectation(s) (PE), and assessment guidance including when to check for understanding around each of the lesson-level PEs. Summative assessments are called out in this table, as appropriate, usually with references to a key for that summative assessment. The Assessment Opportunity boxes within the lesson-level teacher guide also contain information about the PE(s) addressed by each assessment, usually with reference to the assessment key. All claimed summative assessment elements are assessed within the materials. However, there are differences between the claimed NGSS elements for learning, within the lesson-level PEs, and the claimed NGSS elements for summative assessments. Across the materials, each claimed DCI, SEP, and CCC component (such as PS3 or MOD) contains at least one claimed summative element, with the exception of the SEP Planning and Carrying Out Investigations. In all cases, over half of the claimed elements for learning for each dimension are summatively claimed and assessed.
Additionally, there are a few summative assessments where students select from different options to demonstrate mastery of claimed DCI elements. Based on the option that students select, they may not engage with all the claimed summative DCI elements. For example, in Unit P.6, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 6, students complete research on the Big Bang, looking at either spectra of stars, galaxies, or empty space. Students participate in a gallery walk to observe other students’ questions and answers. The teacher guide states, “Note that all students will not cover all parts of the DCIs in their individual projects. Just as the scientific community is collaborative, this project is designed to collectively compile the strands of evidence that support the Big Bang theory. All students will have a chance to learn about all components through the gallery tour and the reading.”
Examples of the types of summative assessments present in the materials:
In Unit P.1, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 8: Why do design solutions affect some people differently than others?, the summative assessment is the L8 Electronic Exit Ticket. In this assessment, students respond to a series of multiple choice and free response questions on a Google Form about energy, trade-offs, and correlations. Students select a response about energy available versus energy lost to an environment and where the supplied energy goes within a system (DCI-PS3.B-H4, CCC-EM-H2, and CCC-EM-H3). Then they use a graph to select a conclusion that supports the data about the relationship between sunburns and ice cream consumption (SEP-DATA-H2, CCC-CE-H1). Students explain how a decision can involve a tradeoff (DCI-ETS1.B-H1), consider energy scarcity, and then analyze the Texas blackout from multiple scales (CCC-SPQ-H3).
In Unit P.5, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 13: Is communication technology that uses radiation safe?, the summative assessment is the Evaluating 5G Safety Transfer Task. In this assessment, students engage with a reading about 5G and then respond to a series of prompts where they evaluate different claims and critique an argument. Students read about 5G and then examine two different fictional social media posts about 5G safety and evaluate the claims and evidence presented, determining which are valid and consistent with scientific evidence and ideas. Finally, students are asked to critique one of the posts, identifying both valid and problematic claims and suggesting improvements. After reading about 5G cellular signals, students consider 5G radiation's place on the EM spectrum and how that relates to its safety and potential ability to ionize particles in living tissues (DCI-PS4.B-H2). In doing so, students must consider the potential effects caused by 5G transmissions based on the smaller scale mechanisms of how electromagnetic radiation of that type interacts with matter on a particle level (CCC-CE-H2). They apply these concepts by examining two different fictional social media posts about 5G safety and evaluating the claims and evidence presented (SEP-INFO-H4). Finally, students are asked to critique one of the posts, identifying both valid and problematic claims and suggesting improvements (SEP-ARG-H3).
In Unit P.6, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 7: How can we use the practices and crosscutting concepts we have developed to figure things out on our own?, the summative assessment is the Jupiter Transfer Task. In this assessment, students are presented with data on Jupiter and the Sun and then create a model to compare them. Students use data about the mass, diameter, and volume of the Earth, the Sun, and Jupiter to develop a model (SEP-MOD-H3) that explains where the light that reaches Earth from each object comes from (DCI-PS3.D-H1), including that the difference in scale between Jupiter and the Sun affects their behavior (CCC-SPQ-H1). Students then use their model to predict what will happen to Jupiter over time and compare that to the Sun’s long term outcome (DCI-ESS1.A-H1).
Indicator 1k
Materials are designed to include three-dimensional assessments that incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems.
The instructional materials reviewed for High School meet expectations that materials are designed to incorporate three-dimensional assessments that incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems.
Within the materials, assessments that incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems are mainly present within the summative transfer tasks. These assessments take place at the end of a lesson set and/or end of the unit, with at least one transfer task in each unit. Students engage with an uncertain phenomena or problem at the beginning of the assessment, through a reading, data, graphs, etc. and then work through a multi-part assessment to answer questions about the uncertain phenomenon or problem. Multiple choice and short answer response types are included. Other student activities within the assessment include modeling, critiquing an argument, constructing an explanation, etc. Other assessments with uncertain phenomena include some exit tickets (identified as formative or summative) and other formative assessments connected to lesson ideas which ask students to extend their thinking to a new aspect of the phenomenon or problem through modeling or calculations. All assessments that contain an uncertain phenomena or problem are also three dimensional and across the assessment system, most assessments are two or three dimensional.
Examples of assessments that integrate the three dimensions and incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems:
In Unit P.1, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 9: How can energy storage make our systems more reliable during an energy crisis, the formative assessment is the Modeling Reliability assessment. In this unit, students explore the phenomenon of a blackout that occurred in Texas in 2021. In this assessment, students consider if using a battery to store energy could have prevented the blackout in Texas. This is a new part of the phenomenon that students have not engaged with yet. Students evaluate energy solutions and consider factors that would influence them (DCI-PS3.B-H4, DCI-ETS1.B-H1). They calculate the energy supply and demand during the Texas blackout to see if batteries could have prevented the blackout (SEP-MATH-H2). Students focus on a smaller community in Texas to determine how to meet energy needs (CCC-SPQ-H1).
In Unit P.3, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 11: How do the rigidity and length of the crumple zone influence the safety of the occupants during a collision?, the summative assessment is the Survivability versus Length assessment. Throughout the unit, students have considered ways to make driving safer, including through safety features, such as crumple zones. In this lesson, students start with an exploration of crumple zone rigidity and survivability. Then in the summative assessment, students use graphs of a new aspect of the phenomenon, crumple zone length, to write a claim about its relationship to safety during a collision. Students analyze the relationships between time of collision and length of crumple zone using graphical data (SEP-MATH-H2, CCC-PAT-H3). Then using what they have learned about Newton's laws and collisions (DCI-PS2.A-H1), students write a claim about how crumple zone length can optimize safety (SEP-DATA-H6, CCC-CE-H3).
In Unit P.4, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 7: What can we do if an orbiting object poses a significant risk for Earth?, the summative assessment is the Changing Asteroid Orbits Transfer Task. In this unit, students explore the phenomenon of the Chelyabinsk meteor that collided with Earth, causing only minor damage. In this assessment, students apply what they have learned through engagement with the Chelyabinsk meteor phenomenon to investigate two strategies that are being explored to divert larger asteroids that could potentially collide with Earth and cause catastrophic damage. The two strategies are the gravity tractor and Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART). Students use Newton’s law of universal gravitation to calculate the amount of gravitational force between the gravity tractor and an asteroid that is approaching Earth (DCI-PS2.B-H1, SEP-MATH-H2). They consider which time scale would be best to show if the gravity tractor is successful at moving the asteroid’s orbit by applying the results of their calculations (DCI-PS2.B-H2, CCC-PAT-H1). Students then explain how the energy from the gravity tractor transfers to the asteroid without touching it (DCI-ESS1.B-H1, DCI-PS3.B-H2). Students compare time and spatial scales to determine the impact of the observed change in time on the shape of the orbit using the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) and calculate how a light spacecraft could affect the orbit of a massive asteroid (DCI-ESS1.B-H1, DCI-PS2.B-H2, SEP-MOD-H3, SEP-MATH-H2, and CCC-SPQ-H5).