6th to 8th Grade - Gateway 1

​The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 partially meet expectations that they are consistently designed to support meaningful student sensemaking with the three dimensions.

Within each disciplinary-specific module, the Teacher Edition provides an overview of the SEPs, CCCs, and DCIs that are addressed in the lessons that make up a larger unit. The overview details how individual lessons prepare students for mastery of two to three targeted NGSS Performance Expectations. While the materials consistently include three dimensions throughout each 5E lesson-level learning sequence, in some lessons, students are not explicitly using all three dimensions for sensemaking processes. Students are clearly and frequently using the SEPs to develop their understanding of the DCIs. However, in some lessons, the students are not using CCCs to make sense with the DCI or SEP. There are other instances in which neither an SEP nor a CCC is incorporated to support students’ sensemaking with a DCI.

Examples of student opportunities for sensemaking with the three dimensions present in the materials:

• In Module G: Earth & Human Activity: Unit 1: Earth’s Natural Hazards, Lesson 3: Engineer It: Reducing the Effects of Natural Hazards, students engage in a hands-on lab to develop and evaluate a mitigation solution for building new structures in a village located near a river that frequently overflows its banks after heavy rains. Students collaborate to undertake the engineering design process to define the problem (SEP-AQDP-M8). Students first identify mitigation needs that must be addressed by their solution, as well as, the relevant criteria and constraints (DCI-ETS1.A-M1).  Students brainstorm, evaluate, and test solutions using a table of various building materials and their characteristics to help determine which to use in their flood-resistant structure (CCC-SF-M2). As such, students are directly leveraging a CCC and SEP to make sense of how to design a solution to combat natural hazards (DCI-ESS3.B-M1).
• In Module I: Energy and Energy Transfer, Unit 2: Energy Transfer, You Solve It Simulation (Stand-Alone Activity; Digital Version Only): “How can you use the sun’s energy?”, students use SEPs and CCCs in a simulation to determine what materials should be brought on a backpacking trip when planning to use the sun’s energy to raise the temperature of water to cook food. Students manipulate the amount of time the material is exposed to the sun’s rays to make sense of how a model is used to represent energy inputs to a system (CCC-SYS-M2). Students then use the digital simulation to collect data to test and compare which materials and at what length of sun exposure, raise the temperature enough for two different volumes of water (SEP-MATH-M5). Engaging in both the CCC and the SEP deepens students’ understanding that the amount of energy transfer needed to change the temperature of a water sample to cook an egg depends on the nature of the matter, the size of the sample, and the environment (DCI-PS3.B-M2).
• In Module J: Chemistry, Unit 3: Chemical Processes and Equations, Lesson 3: Engineer It: Thermal Energy and Chemical Processes, students model energy flow in a system by drawing arrows to show the direction of thermal energy transfer and explain the direction of energy flow in a device that warms food without using a flame or electricity is from warm to cold. In this activity, students use their understanding of energy transfer in a closed system (CCC-EM-M4) to make sense of thermal energy transfer (DCI-PS3.A-M3). Students test and collect data, including temperature change, about combinations of different household chemicals (e.g., vinegar, water, calcium chloride, baking soda) to determine which resulting chemical processes would be the most useful in designing a cold pack (SEP-CEDS-M6). By using scientific principles of energy transfer to test and evaluate data against design criteria (DCI-ETS1.B-M2), students make sense of heat as thermal energy is transferred between two objects of different temperatures (DCI-PS3.A-M3) and some chemical reactions release energy, while other chemical reactions store energy (DCI-PS1.B-M3).

Examples of student opportunities where three dimensions are present, but only for sensemaking with two dimensions within a learning sequence:

• In Module B: Cells & Heredity, Unit 3: Reproduction, Heredity, and Growth, Lesson 1: Inheritance, students engage in sensemaking with two dimensions to understand the foundations of genetic inheritance (DCI-LS3.A-M2). After students read about Mendel’s experiments on pea plants and the difference between dominant and recessive traits, they are asked to synthesize the information by constructing an explanation (SEP-CEDS-M4) about the connections between Mendel’s observations of pea plants and his hypothesis regarding inheritance. In a sidebar of the Teacher Edition, cause and effect is identified as the relevant CCC. However, while students observe the effects of cross-pollination through the previous activity, students are not directly using the CCC for sensemaking as they write their explanation.
• In Module F: Geologic Processes & History, Unit 2: Earth Through Time, Lesson 2: Earth’s History, students’ sensemaking is not supported by SEPs or CCCs as they examine rock layers to determine relative ages (DCI-ESS1.C-M1). Students are provided with detailed images of an undisturbed set of rock layers, accompanied by statements regarding the timescale of each rock layer. They are asked to use the images as evidence to support each of the statements. While the answer guidance in the Teacher Edition states students’ answers should include an explanation of geologic changes that happened in the area, students are not directly asked to provide an explanation. This lesson does not include a CCC for student sensemaking.

​The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 partially meet expectations that they are designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of the three-dimensional learning in the instructional materials. Although materials consistently provide three-dimensional learning objectives for learning sequences, the summative tasks are not consistently designed to measure student achievement of the targeted three-dimensional learning objectives.

The materials include several types of summative tasks in a consistent design across modules:

Lessons have an overall learning objective for the 5E sequence. Although the lesson-level learning objectives found on the Engage page are not specifically three-dimensional, the opening section of the Teacher Edition highlights the targeted three dimensions for each lesson. Each Exploration within the lesson has its own 3D Learning Objective as well. Lessons end with an Evaluate section in which students have the opportunity to explain the initial phenomenon presented in the Engage section, through a two-part prompt focused on claims, evidence, and reasoning. The Teacher Edition provides scoring guidelines for teachers to assess students’ answers to the prompts and lists the conceptual ideas students should have gathered from the lesson’s Exploration sections to use as evidence in their final explanation. Although these lesson-level assessments are consistently designed to measure student achievement of the lesson’s learning objective, they do not necessarily align to the specific three dimensions stated in the opening section of the lesson. The same SEP element (SEP-CEDS-M4) is consistently used across the materials and asks students to use evidence from the lesson to construct an explanation for the driving question.

Units are structured to prepare students for mastery of two to three performance expectations, and feature a table in the Teacher Edition outlining the targeted SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs for the unit, as well as, how they are addressed by each lesson within the unit. The Assessment Guide includes two alternate versions of 20-question Unit Tests and are purposefully designed to scaffold from one- and two-dimensional items to three-dimensional assessment tasks. For each item on the Unit Test, the Assessment Guide provides the targeted dimension(s), NGSS performance expectation, and a Webb’s Depth of Knowledge rating. For open-ended questions, multi-dimensional rubrics are provided to assess students' performance relative to each of the question's targeted dimensions. Across the materials, the majority of test items are multiple choice or short answer. There are numerous instances of Unit Test questions not relating to the listed dimension or performance expectation, nor to the unit’s three-dimensional learning objective. Additionally, individual items on Unit Tests are labeled as three-dimensional, but sometimes do not incorporate a CCC therefore making the item two-dimensional.

Each unit contains at least one Performance Task designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of students’ three-dimensional learning by requiring students to design a solution to a problem. All three dimensions are addressed as students engage in SEPs and use CCCs to make sense of the targeted DCIs. In contrast to the lesson-level Evaluate assessments and Unit Tests, which are generally three-dimensional but not always aligned to the stated three dimensions of the lesson’s learning objective, the Performance Tasks consistently align to the stated three dimensions of the unit’s learning objective.

At the module level, the Assessment Guide provides one Performance-Based Assessment, and some modules have additional Performance-Based Assessments that are digital only. Performance-Based Assessments give teachers opportunities to assess students’ understanding of key concepts from the module as they engage in a hands-on series of two to three tasks, either independently or collaboratively. The Performance-Based Assessments end with a three-dimensional set of analysis questions and clearly align to the stated learning objectives while consistently involving the three dimensions.

Finally, each module concludes with an End-of-Module Test, which is similar in structure to the Unit Tests, but are comprised of 40 items intended to address all of the focal performance expectations for the module. The Assessment Guides include two alternate versions of the tests, which are designed to consist primarily of one- and two-dimensional multiple choice or short answer items, with one or two open-ended three-dimensional assessment tasks. The Assessment Guide provides the targeted dimension(s), performance expectations, and a Webb’s Depth of Knowledge rating for each assessment question, with multi-dimensional rubrics provided for open-ended questions. Across the materials, the End-of-Module Test items vary in how they align with the targeted dimensions listed by the publisher and with the embedded dimensions of the focal performance expectations for the module.

Examples of assessments that address the targeted three-dimensional learning objectives:

• In Module E, Unit 1: Circulation of Earth’s Air and Water, Performance Task, students analyze authentic data to determine if a dam should be built in an area bordering Georgia and South Carolina. By completing the activity and describing the benefits and consequences of the dam, students are assessed on the three dimensions that align to the unit-level learning objectives (PE-MS-ESS2-4, MS-ESS2-6).
• In Module H, Unit 1: Patterns in the Solar System, Performance Task, students design and construct a working model of the earth-sun-moon system and use the system to explain moon phases, eclipses, and seasons to a third-grade class. By completing the activity and describing their process of intentional design, students are assessed on the three dimensions that align to the unit-level learning objective (PE-MS-ESS1-1).
• In Module C: Ecology and the Environment, the “Bone Detectives” Performance-Based Assessment consists of two tasks that are intended to address three different performance expectations (PE-MS-LS2-1, PE-MS-LS2-5, PE-ETS1-2). In the first task, students initially generate a hypothesis about the number and types of prey animals they expect to find in a barn owl pellet and what kind of resources are required by the different prey and and owl populations. After students dissect owl pellets in groups and identify the prey animals they found, students use their dissection notes as evidence to revisit their hypothesis and write a conclusion about the resources available to the owl that produced the pellet. In the second task, students use a provided time series of animal bones found in owl pellets in a cave to determine the fluctuations in biodiversity over time and evaluate different design options for a road that is planned to be constructed near the cave.
• In Module J: Chemistry, the “Ice Cream Energy” Performance-Based Assessment consists of two tasks that are intended to address two different performance expectations (PE-MS-LS1-6, PE-MS-PS3-3). In the first task, students address a design challenge of creating a device to make ice cream using chemical processes and no electricity. Students conduct a series of investigations to determine which kind of salt they want to use in their device and the ideal ratio of ice to salt, using temperature data they collect during the investigations. Throughout the process, students document their design decisions and describe relevant criteria and constraints as they learn more about the chemical reactions that occur. In the second task, students critique the design of a hot box and cold box meant to keep picnic food at different temperatures, using chemical processes.
• The End-of-Module Test A for Module A: Engineering & Science assesses students’ achievement in relation to the module’s focal performance expectations (PE-MS1-1, PE-MS-ETS1-2, PE-MS-ETS1-3, PE-MS-ETS1-4). Overall, the 40 questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCI-ETS1.A, DCI-ETS1.B, DCI-ETS1.C). Two- and three-dimensional items generally assess the embedded SEPs (SEP-AQDP, SEP-MOD, SEP-DATA, SEP-ARG) and CCC (ENG-INFLU) of the focal performance expectations, which are the same as those identified by the publisher for individual assessment tasks.

Examples of assessments that do not address the targeted three-dimensional learning objectives:

• In Module B: Cells and Heredity, Unit 3: Reproduction, Heredity, and Growth, Unit Test A does not assess students’ achievement in relation to the focal performance expectations that serve as the learning objectives for the unit (PE-MS-LS1-4, PE-MS-LS1-5, PE-MS-LS3-2). The 20 questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the unit (DCI-LS1.B-M1, DCI-LS1.B-M2, DCI-LS1.B-M4, DCI-LS3.A-M2, DCI-LS3.B-M1, DCI-LS3.B-M2), but do not address the targeted CCC (CCC-CE) or SEPs (SEP-MOD, SEP-ARG, SEP-CEDS). Of the four questions designed to assess cause and effect, only one question actually assesses cause and effect. Similarly, only one question on the assessment has students engaging in the stated SEP.
• In Module G: Earth & Human Activity, Unit 1: Earth’s Natural Hazards, Unit Test A does not assess students’ achievement in relation to the focal performance expectations that serve as the learning objectives for the unit (PE-MS-ESS3-2, PE-MS-ETS1-1). The 20 questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the unit (DCI-ESS3.B-M1, DCI-ETS1.A), but do not address the targeted CCC (CCC-PAT) or SEPs (SEP-AQDP, SEP-DATA). Of the three questions that are designed to assess patterns, none of the questions actually assess patterns. Similarly, only one question on the assessment has students engaging in the stated SEP.
• In Module K: Forces, Motions, & Fields, the End-of-Module Test A assesses students’ achievement in relation to the module’s focal performance expectations (PE-MS-PS2-1, PE-MS-PS2-2, PE-MS-PS2-3, PE-MS-PS2-4, PE-MS-PS2-5), although not all of the SEPs (SEP-AQDP, SEP-INV, SEP-CEDS, SEP-ARG, NOS-BEE) and CCCs (CCC-CE, CCC-SYS, CCC-SC, ENG-INFLU) associated with these performance expectations are fully assessed. Overall, the 40 questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCI-PS2.A, DCI-PS2.B). However, one-third of the questions identified as two-dimensional by the publisher were only one-dimensional, with three additional questions only partially relating to the stated SEP or CCC. Additionally, the only item that is identified by the publisher as three-dimensional does not address the listed CCC (SYS-M2), so therefore is only two-dimensional.

​The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 partially meet expectations that materials intentionally leverage students’ prior knowledge and experiences related to phenomena or problems. Materials consistently elicit, but do not leverage, students’ prior knowledge and experiences in the Can You Explain It? section that introduces the phenomenon or problem during the Engage phase of each lesson. These prompts encourage students to describe their prior knowledge and experiences related to a phenomenon or problem, or prompt teachers to do so, but support for the teacher to build on students’ responses during subsequent instruction is absent.

The materials do not provide opportunities for follow-up prompts for teachers to leverage students' knowledge and experiences as students make sense of phenomena or problems.  

Examples of eliciting, but not leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences related to phenomena or problems:

• In Module B: Cells & Heredity, Unit 2: Organisms as Systems, Lesson 1: Levels of Organization in Organisms, the lesson-level Can You Explain It? phenomenon asks students to consider how the digestive tract of a cow and a worm can have the same function with such different structures. The Collaboration section in a sidebar of the Teacher Edition, prompts the teacher to direct students to talk with a partner about what the two systems have in common and how each organism’s diet might affect the way the system is structured. Students’ prior knowledge of these organisms’ diets and how a digestive system works is elicited. The Alternative Engage Strategy section in a sidebar of the Teacher Edition has students list known body systems, parts of each system, and the functions of each part. While this activity elicits students’ prior knowledge of human body systems, prior knowledge is not leveraged throughout the lesson.
• In Module F: Geologic Processes & History, Unit 1: The Dynamic Earth, Lesson 3: Earth’s Plates, the lesson-level Can You Explain It? prompts students to consider how an island off the coast of Japan could have formed overnight. Students’ prior knowledge is elicited by asking students more specifically if this phenomenon could “happen anywhere, or might there be something special about the location that made it possible?". Additionally, the Collaboration section in a sidebar of the Teacher Edition prompts the teacher to show students a video (included in the digital version of the materials) of the island emergence and discuss as a whole class “in order to assess prior knowledge.” Through the course of the lesson, students accumulate and record evidence that they use to revisit their explanation at the end, but there are not opportunities in the materials to share or leverage their initial thinking.
• In Module L: Waves & Their Applications, Unit 1: Waves, Lesson 4: The Behavior of Light Waves, the lesson-level Can You Explain It? phenomenon is about why the amount and quality of light from a flashlight in a dark room changes depending on the surface on which it is shone. The accompanying question to students elicits their prior knowledge about the phenomenon by asking, “What could explain how the same light source in the same room can produce such different results?”. There is also an Alternative Engage Strategy in a sidebar of the Teacher Edition that prompts teachers to ask students to observe the source and amount of light in their classroom. Students write an explanation about how varying amounts of light impacts how objects appear. Through the course of the lesson, students accumulate and record evidence to use as they revisit their explanation at the end.  Opportunities to share or leverage initial thinking are not evident.