High School - Gateway 1
Back to High School Overview
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
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 Gateway 1 by consistently incorporating phenomena and problems to drive instruction. Phenomena and problems are introduced early—typically in Lesson 1—and revisited throughout the unit. Students engage with grade-appropriate DCIs through varied tasks such as investigations, data analysis, modeling, and simulations. Phenomena and problems are clearly presented using diverse media formats. While the materials regularly elicit students' prior knowledge and experiences, they are less consistent in leveraging that knowledge to shape instruction.
Lesson objectives, activities, and assessments integrate DCIs, SEPs, and CCCs. Students make sense of phenomena and solve problems by revising models, engaging in discussions, and using evidence-based reasoning. Learning objectives are clearly three-dimensional and usually addressed in instruction. A variety of formative assessments track student progress on targeted objectives, and summative assessments—such as Transfer Tasks and Exit Tickets—elicit observable evidence of learning aligned to claimed summative elements. These assessments 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 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.
Across the program, phenomena and problems in learning opportunities are consistently provided. Phenomena and problems are typically introduced at the start of a unit, often in Lesson 1 of a lesson set. The rest of the unit connects or references the learning sequence-level phenomenon or problem in some way. Phenomena are framed as observable events that are not immediately explained after they are presented. Students engage with videos, data sets, and readings throughout the unit and related phenomena may also be discussed. The presented phenomena are revisited across multiple lessons, with students using evidence gathered through investigations and activities to support an explanation. Problems are presented as challenges to be solved or needs to be addressed. They are accompanied by additional context to support students to understand the relevance and scope of the issue. Students are given opportunities to develop and propose their own solutions, and while a preferred or most effective solution may be suggested, multiple approaches are explored. Nearly all lessons in a unit return to the phenomenon or problem, although the depth of these connections varies. Some lessons maintain a close and explicit link, while others reference the phenomenon or problem more generally through tools such as the Driving Question Board (DQB) or a Progress Tracker.
Examples of phenomena in the materials:
In Unit B.4, Lesson Set 1: How is urbanization a driving force for change?, the phenomenon is that urbanization has changed environments over time and these changes impact nonhuman populations such as hawksbeard, juncos, and rats. In Lesson 1, students observe time-lapse imagery of urbanization, gather information about each population studied through case study analysis, and engage in discussion. In Lesson 2, students investigate how habitat fragmentation affects seed dispersal in hawksbeard, compare their findings to published studies, and use discussions and modeling to explain how urbanization drives natural selection in plant populations. Then, in Lesson 3, students read a historical study about rat populations, collect data from a rat modeling task, and engage in discussions. In Lesson 4, students watch a video about junco bird behaviors, conduct an investigation, develop initial models, and analyze hormone interactions. Finally, in Lesson 5, students create group and class consensus models explaining how urbanization drives change in nonhuman populations through natural selection and revisit the Driving Question Board to reflect on answered questions.
In Unit B.5, Lesson Set 1: What is happening with Arctic bear populations?, the phenomenon is that when different bear species (Black, Brown, and Polar) share the same habitat for the first time, their interactions are affected by environmental changes such as climate change. In Lesson 1, students observe images of three different bears, investigate adaptations, analyze climate change impacts, develop models, and engage in discussions. In Lesson 2, students investigate thermoregulation in polar bears to explain their submissive behavior toward brown bears, construct claims about future bear interactions, and begin tracking key ideas using a Progress Tracker. Then, in Lesson 3, students investigate anatomical traits—such as skulls, teeth, and claws—across three bear species to identify similarities and differences that may affect their survival, organizing evidence on a Bear Traits Organizer to explore how these traits relate to the bears’ evolutionary relationships and future interactions. In Lesson 4, students analyze data on past glacial and interglacial periods, fossil records, and genetic variations to construct and revise evidence-based arguments explaining how polar and brown bears split from a common ancestor due to environmental selection pressures. In Lesson 5, students build a consensus model about the interaction of bear species. Finally, in Lesson 6, students investigate how polar bears could adapt to the warming climate.
Examples of problems in the materials:
In Unit B.1, Lesson Set 3, Lesson 9: How do humans interact with the Serengeti ecosystem?, the design challenge is that three proposals for traversing the Serengeti must be evaluated. Students explore the intersection of wildebeest migrations and human interference in that migration by evaluating the current conservation plan for Serengeti National Park. They then compare three different road proposals. Students select criteria for choosing the best proposal and then evaluate how different stakeholders would rate each proposal. They engage in whole class discussion around the different options and eventually fill out an individual assessment that includes their choice of the proposals and their reasoning for that choice.
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 supporting Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in grade-level learning of phenomena. Although the curriculum is grounded in rich, observable phenomena and includes a range of scaffolds to support MLLs, these supports are inconsistently applied across lessons. As a result, MLLs at varying proficiency levels may encounter barriers to fully accessing and engaging with the content.
The materials sometimes provide supports sufficient for MLLs to fully and completely participate in learning phenomena. While the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidance may offer some support for MLLs during reading tasks, it lacks targeted language development strategies to support students as they engage in phenomena-based learning activities. For example, in Unit B.5, Lesson 1 Teacher Edition, in the section 9- Investigate Traditional Knowledge About Polar Bears, students examine quotes and build arguments in pairs. This activity supports content understanding and creates space for speaking. There is also an Attending to Equity - Universal Design for Learning sidebar that states, “Students who are not confident reading aloud may benefit from receiving a shorter quote in advance and holding onto it until it is their turn to read.” Reducing the length of a quote, while seemingly helpful for "struggling readers," can inadvertently reduce the linguistic and conceptual complexity of the text, thereby "watering down" the content and academic challenge.
A Progress Tracker supports students in breaking down and reflecting on complex phenomena, scaffolding cognitive demand without diluting rigor and promoting meaning-making through synthesis. However, such amplifications appear more frequently in investigative lessons than in text-dense ones, limiting consistent support across lesson types. For example, in Unit B.5, Lesson 2 Teacher Edition, section 17- Navigate: Introduce Progress Trackers, there is teacher guidance to support the implementation of progress trackers after they carry out a thermoregulation investigation. Phenomenon-based instruction is designed to build understanding over time. When support structures are uneven, students may make strong conceptual connections in one type of lesson (e.g., investigative) but falter in others (e.g., reading-heavy lessons). This disrupts continuity in their sensemaking and prevents full engagement with the phenomenon throughout the unit.
In some instances, guidance is provided; however, it lacks intentional design to effectively support MLLs across all levels of English proficiency. In Unit B.3, Lesson 1, students develop an initial consensus model in groups. They are given whiteboards or chart paper and markers. Although the guidance states, “Revisit your classroom agreements and ask students to recall what equitable participation looks like in small groups,” there is no teacher guidance present to support MLLs with this activity, which may create inequitable participation within the small groups. In Lesson 2 Teacher Edition, section Develop a Model to Explain How Cancer Causes Illness, there is an Attending to Equity sidebar that states, “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), especially as we develop these new ideas. This is particularly important for emerging multilingual students because making connections between written words and nonlinguistic representations helps students generate richer explanations of scientific phenomena.” Although this support is intended to provide access, it lacks sufficient embedded supports to ensure that MLLs at lower proficiency levels can fully engage and participate meaningfully.
In some lessons, there are supports such as sentence frames/stems to assist students in speaking. In Unit B.4, within Lesson 2, Slide O, sentence stems are present to engage students in speaking when comparing their explanations about the effect of fragmentation on seed dispersal. An example sentence frame is, “We used the term ___ to explain the same idea because…” These supports help students produce scientific explanations and bridge the gap between content and language. However, these supports are not intentionally designed to develop language forms and functions, nor are they explicit in promoting student language development.
Although there is guidance for teachers to engage students in interdisciplinary activities and discussions, there is no intentional guidance to develop language. For example, in Unit B.1, Lesson 4 Teacher Edition, there is a sidebar titled, Supporting Students in Engaging in Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking, and another sidebar to support discussion, titled Strategies for this Building Understandings Discussion. The lesson does not include any specific supports for multilingual learners as they engage in interdisciplinary activities.
There are opportunities for academic discourse in some lessons, but the materials do not provide scaffolds for MLLs. For example, in Unit B.3, Lesson 2 Teacher Edition, section Reading About Cancer, there is an Attending to Equity sidebar to support reading before a group discussion. Specifically, it states, “Have them circle any unknown words, highlight important takeaways, and write questions in the margins so that they have articulated their ideas before the whole-group discussion.” Students then discuss their notes in small groups. While opportunities for academic discourse are present, it lacks scaffolds such as sentence frames or modeled exchanges, limiting access for beginner MLLs.
Although lessons provide handouts with visuals connected to vocabulary and some guidance to bridge new vocabulary to prior knowledge, the guidance is ambiguous. For example, in Unit B.4, Lesson 2 Teacher Edition, in Handout Hawksbeard Garden Experiment, vocabulary terms appear in bold with visuals. In addition, the Attending to Equity sidebar suggests connecting new terms to cognates to help MLLs bridge existing linguistic knowledge. However, these supports are vague and do not include potentially helpful cognates, leaving it up to the teacher to research and determine what those are. The lack of clarity in the support may disrupt the progression of learning around the unit’s phenomenon, leaving MLLs without the comprehensive guidance needed to fully engage.
As stated in the report for Indicator 1a, phenomena are consistently used to organize instruction. However, the materials lack consistent language supports tied to phenomena. While the content is designed to include phenomena, the scaffolds that help MLLs engage in meaning-making through those phenomena are uneven. For example, while some lessons include multiple scaffolds and Attending to Equity sidebars, others, such as Unit B.5, Lesson 3 in the Teacher Edition, lack these supports entirely.
The materials are designed to include phenomena, and in some lessons, scaffolds such as sentence frames, visual supports, and structured partner work provide meaningful language access. However, these supports are not applied consistently or comprehensively. Specifically, in Unit B.4, Lesson Set 1 (Lessons 1-6), as students engage in the phenomenon and conduct investigations, there are some lessons with multiple Attending to Equity sidebars, like Lesson 1 with six, but do not specifically call out supports for MLLs. In other cases, specific supports for “Emerging Multilingual Learners” are called out multiple times, as in Lesson 2, with three callouts for MLLs. This results in inconsistent support for students as they engage in and investigate phenomena.
Opportunities to explicitly distinguish between everyday and academic meanings of vocabulary terms are notably limited. The curriculum frequently engages students in structured peer interactions tied to real-world phenomena. Sentence stems, visuals, and personal glossaries are present in multiple lessons, and Attending to Equity sidebars highlight key considerations for supporting MLLs. Multimodal resources (videos, infographics, graphs) and tools like Progress Trackers offer concrete support for making sense of phenomena.
Supports for listening, discourse, and vocabulary in context are uneven and sometimes missing. Scaffolds are often optional and not woven into core task design. Supports do not target the full range of language proficiency levels, like advanced MLLs and students at bridging proficiency levels. Opportunities to distinguish everyday from scientific language and to support interdisciplinary academic language use are underdeveloped.
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 fire management system and determining if polar bears should be protected from extinction to focus instruction. 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.
In Unit B.5, Lesson 8, students investigate a species as at risk for extinction with a group. The Teacher Edition guides teachers to “organize the class into groups of 3-5 students and allow them to choose one of the case studies.” The Attending to Equity bar guides teachers to reference the “UDL for Case Studies for differentiation guidance.” This separate document details the “text structures and design features that benefit all readers in this lesson” for each of the eight case studies. For example, the materials list the Manatee Case Study as having the following text features:
Images
Line Graph
The materials also include the following differentiation guidance: “Manatee Case Study may be most accessible due to previous exposure in Serengeti Unit. The reading level and easy-to-interpret graph may further support students’ comprehension.” This document also advises teachers that “The Google versions of these articles are accessible to screen-reading technology and online translator services. Some articles have additional features that may help when differentiating readings for students.” Differentiating texts for the case is an important step towards MLLs’ full and complete participation in this problem-focused activity. However, the materials provide no further supports for students. The absence of linguistic scaffolds for key components of the activity, such as the Research Notes Organizer, group discussions, poster development, and the gallery walk, limits MLLs’ ability to fully engage in and contribute to the lesson.
Similarly, in Unit 2, Lesson 10, students investigate four case studies of fire management. In part 2. Investigate Successful Fire Management, the Attending to Equity sidebar guides teachers to “allow students to self-select readings based on interest... or difficulty. Cultural Burn Case Study is most accessible, while Prescribed Burn Case Study is most challenging.” This sidebar also directs teachers to a separate document entitled UDL for Jigsaw Readings, which details Universal Design Features and Differentiation Guidance for each case study in the same manner as the previous example. MLLs are again supported in their access to the case study readings without receiving any further support or linguistic scaffolds for other activities in this lesson set.
The materials use real-world problems, such as developing a community fire management system and determining whether polar bears should be protected from extinction, to focus instruction and build coherence. Visual supports, Progress Trackers, and structured peer discussions offer entry points for meaning-making and discourse. Culturally relevant tasks, such as investigating Indigenous knowledge systems in Unit B.5, promote inclusivity and meaningful engagement with content.
While the materials incorporate real-world, culturally relevant problems to drive instruction and offer some differentiation through accessible texts and visual features, they lack consistent linguistic scaffolds to fully support MLLs throughout the learning process. Supports such as structured academic talk, modeled writing, and sentence stems are rarely embedded within key activities like group discussions, research, poster creation, and gallery walks. Although tools like UDL documents and Progress Trackers provide entry points for content access, the absence of integrated language development strategies limits MLLs’ ability to engage in and contribute to the full scope of these problem-solving experiences.
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, students engage with a DCI during the introduction of the phenomenon or problem in Lesson 1 and then return to the DCI throughout the lessons in the lesson set. The materials use multiple structures to engage students in the DCI connected to the phenomenon or problem including readings, case studies, data, graphs, tables, and charts.
Examples of phenomena or problems that require student use of grade-band DCIs:
In Unit B.2, Lesson Set 1: What causes zombie fires to burn under the ice and what are the consequences?, the phenomenon is that, in the Arctic, new fires are starting very close to old fires. Across the lesson set, students explore why zombie fires are taking place in the Arctic. Students develop an initial model to explain how energy and matter flow in a zombie fire system and then investigate burning peat and its connection to releasing carbon dioxide and energy (DCI-LS1.C-H3). Then students investigate decomposition and how its rate is impacted by temperature and oxygen levels, and therefore impacts the amount of matter and energy being released in the permafrost/peat system. Next, students investigate how solar radiation in the Arctic influenced how so much plant matter was stored as peat in the past and connect the amount of available solar energy, due to Earth’s tilt, to the amount of carbon dioxide stored in plants (DCI-LS1.C-H1, DCI-PS3.D-H2). Finally, students revise their explanation of the zombie fires, making connections between how the peat was formed and stored so much energy to how much energy and carbon dioxide is being released in the zombie fire system.
In Unit B.3, Lesson Sets 1-2, the phenomenon is that cancer varies among different human age groups, heights, and environmental factors. Across the unit, students explore the different components that contribute to cancer and what causes it. Students look at maps that display different rates of cancer throughout the United States. Then students investigate the genetic basis of cancer including how cells divide, mutations, and the role of DNA and gene expression (DCI-LS3.A-H1). Next, students use two case studies to engage with the importance of how family history, including passing down of genetic mutations and crossing over during meiosis, can influence someone’s likelihood of getting cancer (DCI-LS3.B-H1). They also explore how environmental factors such as exposure to UV radiation may also pose risks regarding cancer (DCI-LS3.B-H2). Finally, students develop a consensus model to explain all the different factors involved in whether or not someone gets cancer.
In Unit B.5: What will happen to Arctic bear populations as their environment changes?, the phenomenon is that when different bear species (Black, Brown, and Polar) share the same habitat for the first time, their interactions are affected by environmental changes such as climate change. Throughout the unit, students examine how changes in the Arctic ecosystem affect Arctic bear populations. Students examine how temperature and sea ice changes in Wapusk over time have affected Arctic ecosystems and polar bears (DCI-LS2.C-H1). Then students use data and video evidence to assess the effects of climate change on polar bears in separate ecoregions (DCI-LS2.C-H2) and discuss the stability of polar bear populations when differing amounts of sea ice is available due to seasons and temperature (DCI-LS4.C-H4). Finally, students develop an argument around if humans should intervene to save polar bears from extinction.
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.
Phenomena are introduced in the first lesson of the lesson set whereas problems are usually introduced in the second or third lesson set of the unit. 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.
Examples of phenomena or problems that are presented in a direct manner to students:
In Unit B.1, Lesson Set 3: How can we use what we learned about ecosystems to protect them?, the problem is that human activities, such as conservation efforts and proposed road construction, impact the stability of the Serengeti ecosystem and the wildebeest migration. In Lesson 9, students are given cards that contain various information about four different road proposals to be built near Serengeti National Park. The cards contain various factors such as travel time, cost, economic development, social services, healthcare, and education. Students then watch a video from a scientist who shares viewpoints of local interest holders. The proposals and video provides students the opportunity to engage with the problem directly without assuming any prior understanding or providing distracting information.
In Unit B.2, Lesson Set 1: What causes zombie fires to burn under the ice and what are the consequences?, the phenomenon is that, in the Arctic, new fires are starting very close to old fires. In Lesson 1, students view a map of new fires (Spring 2016) that are burning near old burn scars from previous wildfires (Fall 2015) in the Arctic Circle. They observe images of Arctic fires, read about Arctic fires, and analyze data on more common fires. The images, reading, and data provide students the opportunity to engage with the phenomenon directly without assuming any prior understanding or providing distracting information.
In Unit B.3, Lesson Set 1: What is cancer?, the phenomenon is that cancer varies among different human age groups, heights, and environmental factors. In Lesson 1, students look at graphs that display data about cancer rates including age, height, gender, location in the US, and prevalence of certain types of cancers. They also read about large mammals and the p53 gene. The data and reading provides 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 B.2, Lesson Set 3: How do we design solutions to manage the impacts of fires?, the design challenge is to develop a local fire management system. Students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences of the design challenge are elicited at the end of Lesson 10 and revisited in Lesson 11 with the Home Learning assignment. In Lesson 10, students investigate the fire risk in a community they care about by using the following question to gather information from their community, "What concerns you and others in your community most about the fire risk? Who are the knowledge holders we should consult in this community when planning to reduce fire risk?". At the beginning of Lesson 11, students share what they learned from the Home Learning assignment and then start developing criteria and constraints that should be part of a fire management plan. Students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences are leveraged later in Lesson 11 when they revise their list of criteria and constraints. The teacher prompts students with, “Now that we have more specific information about our community, how can we use this information to revise our criteria and constraints?” In the Prioritizing Criteria and Constraints handout, students respond to the prompt, “Look at the criteria and constraints from the home learning on the Engineering Design Organizer. Based on your research, revise your list of criteria and constraints specifically for your community in the table below.”
Example where materials elicit but do not leverage students’ prior knowledge and/or experience related to phenomena and problems:
In Unit B.5: What will happen to Arctic bear populations as their environment changes?, the phenomenon is that different bear species (Black, Brown, and Polar) share the same habitat for the first time. Students’ prior knowledge and/or experiences of the phenomenon are elicited in Lesson 2 when the teacher is directed to “..ask students to turn and talk to a partner about what happens when an animal overheats, using their own personal experiences.” Students answer questions related to how they keep themselves cool and what they know about what happens to other animals when they overheat. They turn and talk about these answers and write them in their science notebooks. While students go on to collect additional data and design an investigation about thermoregulation, 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 learning. In most cases, the phenomena or problem is introduced or referenced at the beginning of the lesson, oftentimes through the Lesson Set Question or Lesson Question, and students spend most of the lesson engaged with exploring the phenomenon or problem. In other cases, the phenomenon or problem is referenced at the beginning of the lesson and then students return to it at the end of the lesson, usually through a consensus discussion or model revision. In almost all cases where a phenomenon or problem is driving, students have opportunities to engage with all three dimensions. When a phenomenon or problem is not driving learning, the lesson is driven by an activity or science concept.
Examples where phenomena or problems drive individual lessons using all three dimensions:
In Unit B.2, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 2: What is peat and why does it burn so much?, the phenomenon that, in the Arctic, new fires are starting very close to old fires drives instruction. Students investigate how zombie fires persist in the Arctic by exploring the properties of wildfire fuel sources like peat (DCI-LS1.C-H3). They generate and revise an investigation plan, design a data table, and collect and analyze data from a fuel-burning demonstration (SEP-INV-H4, SEP-INV-H3), to work towards an understanding of the flow of matter and energy in combustion and its role in sustaining Arctic fires (CCC-EM-H4).
In Unit B.3, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 9: How do genes interact with the environment to affect who gets cancer?, the phenomenon that cancer varies among different human age groups, heights, and environmental factors drives instruction. Students review lung and skin cancer statistics and examine how the environmental factors of smoking and sunlight have contributed to cancer incidence and changes in cell DNA (DCI-LS3.B-H2). Students ask questions about yeast cells exposed to UV radiation (SEP-AQDP-H6) and develop an investigation. They read an article about the mechanisms of skin cancer and examine data related to the genetic factor of melanin levels and skin cancer incidence (DCI-LS3.B-H2). Students develop a claim about who gets cancer and why based on scientific knowledge and evidence from their investigation (SEP-ARG-H5).
In Unit B.4, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 1: What is the effect of increasing urbanization on nonhuman populations?, the phenomenon that urbanization has changed environments over time and these changes impact nonhuman populations such as hawksbeard, juncos, and rats drives instruction. Students read case studies that mention different survival rates due to urbanization (DCI-LS4.B-H2, DCI-LS4.C-H4). They create a list of components and interactions in cities and how those interactions might impact non-human survival rates (CCC-CE-H2, CCC-CE-H4). Then students develop preliminary models of how urbanization could impact nonhuman populations (SEP-MOD-H3).
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 consistently incorporating the three dimensions of the NGSS into instructional design, learning objectives, and assessments. Student learning opportunities across the program regularly integrate Disciplinary Core Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting Concepts through investigations, modeling, data analysis, and simulations. The materials support meaningful student sensemaking by using the three dimensions to explain phenomena and solve problems, with frequent opportunities for students to revise their thinking through tools such as progress trackers, consensus models, and Driving Question Boards.
Learning objectives are clearly three-dimensional and consistently reflected in lesson materials, with most objectives fully addressed through instructional tasks (1h). The program features a well-structured formative assessment system that includes exit tickets, discussions, model revisions, and performance tasks, designed to monitor progress on the targeted objectives. Summative assessments—primarily in the form of Transfer Tasks and performance-based tasks—are aligned to claimed standards and elicit direct, observable evidence of student learning. However, there is some inconsistency between the elements identified for learning, in learning objectives, and those directly assessed. Finally, both formative and summative assessments incorporate uncertain phenomena or problems that require students to apply their knowledge in new contexts while engaging all three dimensions.
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.
Across the materials, every learning sequence contains at least one learning opportunity that incorporates all three dimensions. The activities that incorporate all three dimensions vary, including investigations, data analysis, model development (computer simulations, mathematical models, and student-created models), and argument construction. Elements from the SEP of Developing and Using Models and the CCC of Cause and Effect are most common.
Examples of learning opportunities in which elements of all three dimensions are incorporated:
In Unit B.1, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 3: Why do the animals in the Serengeti migrate?, students collect numerical data about wildebeest food availability and disease prevalence in different areas of the Serengeti and then make displays of their data to share with their peers. Students explore limiting resources such as food and disease (DCI-LS2.A.H1), and work on a model that explains why wildebeest migrate (SEP- MOD-H3). They create data displays to share with others to communicate their understanding (SEP-INFO-H5) and use numerical data from their data cards to draw conclusions (CCC-PAT-H5) about why animals migrate.
In Unit B.3, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 8: Why do some cancers appear to run in families?, students analyze the genetic causes of cancer by watching videos of two cancer survivors, analyzing the survivors’ family pedigrees, and reading about how alleles are passed on. Students model cancer survivors' family pedigrees for the mutations that cause Li-Fraumeni syndrome and the BRCA1 gene and answer questions related to genetic inheritance patterns in the model (DCI-LS3.B-H1). Students read an article about how alleles are passed on and incorporate evidence from the reading into their family pedigree models (SEP-MOD-H4). Students use the pedigrees to determine the cause and effect of familial relationships and cancer and that some mutations can be passed down (CCC-CE-H2).
In Unit B.5, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 3: How similar/different are the polar, brown, and black bears?, students use a computer program to analyze DNA differences between species in order to build a bear evolutionary tree. Students explore various sources of information about each bear species and DNA sequences from each bear species and compare similarities and differences between the bears (DCI-LS4.A-H1, SEP-INFO-H2, and CCC-PAT-H5).
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. Elements of all three dimensions are integrated consistently across learning sequences in order to support sensemaking. Students engage in sensemaking activities predominantly through building and revising models. As students move through the sequence, they return to their models, updating them based on new evidence or ideas. 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, peer feedback, and incorporating new data.
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 B.2, Lesson Set 1: What causes zombie fires to burn under the ice and what are the consequences?, students create an initial model of zombie fires in the Arctic that they then go back and revise several times based on their observations from investigations. Students are introduced to images and data of Arctic zombie fires and develop initial models of how they release so much carbon (SEP-MOD-H3). Then students develop an investigation about what peat is and how matter and energy moves through an ecosystem (DCI-LS1.C-H3, SEP-INV-H3). Next, students plan and carry out an investigation about how temperature affects decomposition rates and cellular respiration (DCI-LS1.C4, SEP-INV-H2) and read about how peat accumulated in the Arctic to understand why so much peat is located there (DCI-LS1.C-H3, CCC-EM-H2). Later in the sequence, students plan and carry out an investigation to determine how the amount of solar radiation is related to the rate of photosynthesis and the amount of carbon stored in plant material (DCI-LS1.C-H1, SEP-INV-H5, and CCC-EM-H2). Finally, students use all the evidence they have collected to revise their initial model of the zombie fires using the concepts of energy matter transfer (DCI-LS2.B-H3, SEP-MOD-H3, and CCC-SYS-H3). Students have opportunities to iterate on their thinking when, after planning and carrying out each of the three investigations, students reflect and take notes using the prompt, "How does this help us make progress towards explaining the zombie fire system?". At the end of the lesson set, students revise their initial model for the explanation of zombie fires using the concepts of energy matter transfer and develop a class consensus model.
In Unit B.3, Lesson Set 1: What is cancer?, students create an initial model about who gets cancer and why. They explore the role of the cell cycle, mutations, and chromosomal inheritance in how cancer is caused. Students are introduced to data around cancer incidence and cancer deaths and create a class consensus model and a driving question board related to the phenomenon (SEP-MOD-H3, SEP-AQDP-H1). Students create an initial model of how cancer causes illness and then play a game that models the cell cycle and how non-cancer cells turn into cancer cells (DCI-LS1.B-H1, SEP-MOD-H4). Students play a second round of the game that emphasizes the role of p53 in the cell cycle and illustrates how when p53 doesn’t work properly, cancer cells are more likely to develop. By examining underlying smaller-scale cause and effect mechanisms, students can see how cancer develops over time (CCC-CE-H2). Students then continue to explore how proteins are made by participating in a kinesthetic model of transcription and translation. They read a short article about gene expression in the cell and match the reading to the kinesthetic model (DCI-LS1.A-H2). Students have opportunities to iterate on their thinking when, across the lesson set, they continuously return to and revise their initial model of who gets cancer and why, based on their new understanding and feedback from peers. The lesson set culminates in students revising their explanation around the genetic basis for cancer.
In Unit B.4, Lesson Set 1: How is urbanization a driving force for change?, students develop an initial model about how urban environments influence nonhuman populations. Students watch a time-lapse video of two cities that have experienced urbanization, view data from a graph, and develop initial models about how urban environments influence the traits of hawksbeard, junco, and rat populations over time through natural selection (DCI-LS4.B-H1, DCI-LS4.B-H2). Students analyze case studies of the three populations to identify how certain heritable traits, such as seed type, poison resistance, and boldness, impact survival advantages in urban settings (DCI-LS4.C-H1, DCI-LS4.C-H2). As they carry out investigations and analyze data, students construct explanations for how traits affect reproduction and survival in these environments, applying cause and effect reasoning to link environmental pressures with trait prevalence (SEP-INV-H5, SEP-CEDS-H2, and CCC-CE-H1). Students compare traits across populations to identify patterns of inheritance and survival (DCI-LS4.C-H4, CCC-PAT-H1). They use this evidence to develop and revise models that explain how urbanization drives changes in populations over generations, including trait variation and the mechanisms of natural selection (SEP-MOD-H3). Students also explore how traits operate within larger systems and contribute to organism survival and reproduction, as well as how these traits change in frequency over time (CCC-SYS-H1, CCC-SF-H1, and CCC-SC-H1). Students have opportunities to iterate on their thinking when, across the lesson set, students share their models with peers, receive feedback, refine their explanations, and reflect on how evidence supports their claims. The lesson set culminates in students creating a class model aligned with Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
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 the sensemaking of 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 MLLs, the materials support learning through their intentional structural design. For example, the Teacher Handbook’s Universal Design for Learning (UDL) section describes how materials support all learners through embedded supports. Additionally, the handbook explains how MLL support is found through the intentional curricular design, pedagogical routines, and specific strategies for engaging MLLs in Attending to Equity sidebars.
While there are callout boxes that provide specific support for SEPs and Attending to Equity sidebars to support MLLs, there are also supports beneficial for all students, including MLLs, embedded within the curriculum design. However, the guidance does not support full and complete participation for MLLs. Specifically, in Unit B.2, Lesson Set 1 introduces students to the phenomenon of zombie fires and guides them through developing investigations about energy movement in an ecosystem to develop a model to explain zombie fires. This sequence allows students to meaningfully engage in SEPs, such as planning investigations, asking questions, and modeling. However, some supports do not allow students to fully engage in SEPs. For example, in Lesson 2, there is a Discussion Self-Assessment for students to complete, with directions that state, “Read each statement and mark YES or NO for whole-class discussions and/or small-group discussions.” Students self-assess whether they shared their thinking, listened actively to others, respectfully gave critiques, and invited others to share their thinking in both whole-class and partner/group discussions. Then, the activity states, “Choose one statement that you checked NO for or that you think you can improve on, and write down two ideas for what you can do to improve in the next discussion.” This activity comes after students engage in the SEP of Planning and Carrying Out an Investigation on burning fuels to answer questions about the role of peat in zombie fires. While this guidance may support awareness of discussions aligned with the SEPs, it lacks concrete strategies for how teachers can support students who are not actively participating in those discussions.
The materials sometimes guide teachers to encourage students to complete assignments in multiple modalities. In B.3, Lesson 5 Teacher Edition, section 10. Revise Explanations, a sidebar encourages teachers to allow students to present their knowledge in an accessible way, “verbally with you or with another student acting as a scribe to record their thinking on paper or through a voice recording.” In addition, the guidance suggests visuals, stating, “Some students may benefit from using gestures, images, or manipulatives to support their explanations instead of written text.” While these supports help MLLs access content, they do not intentionally promote language development and lack targeted guidance for using interdisciplinary language or varied language forms.
In Unit B.5, Lesson 8 Teacher Edition, section 3. Introduce Case Studies, the lesson focuses on various case studies based on the extinction of different species and what is happening to prevent extinction. An Attending to Equity sidebar directs teachers to a “Teacher Reference UDL for Case”. This document provides structures and design features within the case studies that benefit all readers, such as images and graphs, and chunked sections with titles and subtitles. There is also the option to access companion videos. The same side bar also states, “Students may choose which text to read based on reading level, familiarity with the species, text features, or the option to access companion videos.” The text engineering and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidance that allows students to choose their case study reading creates an opportunity to amplify text access without simplifying its complexity. While text features and general accessibility guidance are provided, there's no explicit mention of how the materials guide students to use language to do science (e.g., compare, analyze, describe, explain).
In some cases, the materials offer limited MLL-specific supports with linguistic scaffolds. For example, in Unit B.3, Lesson 11, Teacher Edition, section 5. Build a Class Organizer, all students are given a role to participate in creating a class organizer to understand how the cell cycle disrupts the cause of cancer. The class organizer is blank, and the guidance states, “Assign each group, pair, or individual student to be responsible for a row or cell in the organizer, depending on the size of your class. Try to ensure that everyone has a role.” Despite the SEP engagement in obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information, MLL supports are not present. This is a missed opportunity to provide scaffolds to support the full participation of MLLs in this group activity.
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, tasks involving SEPs 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 strategies and supports for Multilingual Learners (MLLs) to fully and completely participate in the sensemaking of Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs). The materials include strategies and supports that help MLLs engage in grade-level learning of the DCIs, but the supports are inconsistent throughout the program.
The materials intentionally support sensemaking with the three dimensions using Universal Design for Learning principles, embedded in the curriculum and sidebars. These supports provide general guidance for engaging in DCIs across the activities. In Unit B.5, Lesson 1 Teacher Edition, section 9-Investigate Traditional Knowledge About Polar Bears, there is an Attending to Equity sidebar to support matching quotes to students. Specifically, it states, “Students who are not confident reading aloud may benefit from receiving a shorter quote in advance and holding onto it until it is their turn to read.” While this reading support addresses MLLs who are uncomfortable reading aloud, it misses the opportunity to offer linguistic scaffolds tailored to individual student needs.
The materials support vocabulary development in context through Personal Glossaries, as outlined in each unit’s overview. Specifically, in Unit B.5, Unit Overview Materials, section Guidance for Developing your Personal Glossaries, the guidance states, “After students have developed a deep understanding of a science idea through these experiences, and sometimes because they are looking for a more efficient way to express that idea, they have co-developed that definition and can add the specific term to a Personal Glossary at the back of their science notebooks.” Additionally, it states, “It is best for students if you create consensus definitions in the moment, using phrases and pictorial representations that the class develops together as they discuss their experiences in the lesson. When they co-create the meaning of the word, students ‘own’ the word, it honors their use of language and connects their specific experiences to the vocabulary of science beyond their classroom. Emergent multilingual students need to have a reference for this important vocabulary, which includes an accessible definition and visual support.” Then, in Lesson 2, guidance is given about developing specific terms related to DCI-LS1.A Structure and Function. It states, “In this lesson, students will co-construct a definition for: homeostasis, thermoregulation, positive and negative feedback. Students encounter the term refute. Words should be defined and recorded in Personal Glossaries AFTER your class has developed a shared understanding of their meaning.” Later in the lesson, after engaging in an initial ideas discussion about overheating and viewing additional data about a polar bear on a treadmill, the teacher guidance states, “Update Personal Glossaries. Say, As you all have described the polar bear getting hot and finding ways to cool down, you have described what scientists call thermoregulation. Display slide N. Pause to give students a moment to add this definition to their Personal Glossaries. Definitions may look like: how the body maintains a constant temperature.” While the Personal Glossaries may help students develop conceptual understanding of vocabulary related to the DCIs, the materials lack explicit guidance for teachers on how to differentiate this support for students with varying levels of language proficiency. As a result, opportunities to tailor instruction to meet the diverse linguistic needs of learners may be missed.
The materials also incorporate interdisciplinary tasks that integrate math and ELA, but lack targeted support for language development. For example, in Unit B.3, Lesson 3 Teacher Edition, at the end of the lesson in the Additional Lesson 3 Teacher Guidance section under Supporting Students in Making Connections in ELA, it states, “CCSS.ELA - Speaking and Listening SL.11-12.5: Make strategic use of digital media (e.g., textual, graphical, audio, visual, and interactive elements) in presentations to enhance understanding of findings, reasoning, and evidence and to add interest. Teachers present a visual element (video, images), and guide students as they engage with an interactive element (Cell Game) in order to collect evidence and develop a model to explain how non-cancer cells can sometimes form cancer cells when p53 functions differently.” Although this guidance may support students in engaging in the DCI of identifying limits of the Cell Game model (DCI-LS1.B-H1), the guidance is vague and posed at the end of the lesson, making it difficult for teachers to integrate the cross-curricular connections with the DCI content.
Another missed opportunity to implement supports for language development is in the Assessment Opportunity look fors and listen fors in each lesson. Specifically, in Unit B.1, Lesson 9 Teacher Edition, the learning objective is “Use a model based on evidence to explain how the plan to establish the Serengeti National Park contributed to the stability of the ecosystem (SEP: 2.3; DCI: ESS 3.C.1; CCC: 7.1 )”. In section 5- Evaluate the Serengeti Conservation Plan, students are revisiting their Serengeti conservation plan and engaging in a discussion, and evaluating their plans using a Conservation Evaluation Tool in partners. The look for and listen fors under Assessment Opportunity are:
Creating the park protected the wildebeest migration and protected stability of the system. (DCI: ESS:3.C.1; CCC 7.1)
The whole system is more stable because the wildebeest are connected to so many things and protecting them protects biodiversity. (DCI: ESS 3.C.1; CCC 7.1 )
Some interest holders benefit, but others are harmed, and not all human connections in the system are stable. (DCI: ESS 3.C.1; CCC 7.1 )
Successful conservation that supports a stable ecosystem also involves relationships between the conservation managers and the broader community. (DCI: ESS 3.C.1; CCC 7.1 )
The What to Do guidance states to collect the conservation plan and “Provide written feedback with a focus on questions 5 and 6 using Conservation Plan Key as a guide. Provide an opportunity for students to revise their thinking and resubmit their responses either verbally or in writing. Point them to their consensus model and use the following prompts:
What did the park protect?
How did that protection contribute to stability in the ecosystem?
How were different interest holders impacted?”
While students are engaging in a whole-class and partner discussion, teacher guidance includes look fors and listen fors aligned to DCIs, but there is a missed opportunity to guide the development of language. In addition, the What to Do guidance is vague and does not support specific teacher guidance for language.
In conclusion, while the materials offer some thoughtful MLL supports, particularly in the form of vocabulary scaffolds based on conceptual development, listen fors and look fors, integration of ELA and math, 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 for providing support for Multilingual Learners’ (MLLs’) full and complete participation in sensemaking of the Crosscutting Concepts (CCCs). Materials provide strategies and support for MLLs to participate in grade-level learning of CCCs, but these supports are not employed consistently throughout the program.
Materials are structured with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) practices where supports are embedded in the materials to provide structured routines to engage all students, including MLLs. Additionally, guidance in the Attending to Equity sidebars engages MLLs in grade-level science instruction through speaking, reading, writing, and listening activities. In Unit B.1, Lesson 4, students study rainfall data in the Serengeti to investigate patterns relating to the wildebeest occupancy. Section 12- Data Excursion Part 2 has a callout relating to supporting students in developing and using cause and effect. Specifically, the guidance states, “Students use empirical evidence collected from observations of wildebeest occupancy and rainfall. Remind them that they used empirical evidence in Lesson 3 when they investigated mortality patterns. Here, students begin to distinguish between correlation, that rainfall pattern and wildebeest location are related, and cause, that the rainfall pattern causes wildebeest migration.” The teacher guidance for the activity states to “Organize students into small groups of 2-4; consider drawing on the exit ticket responses to form heterogeneous groups based on students’ abilities to support claims with adequate evidence.” However, there is a missed opportunity to provide support for varying English proficiency levels. In addition, the lesson has multiple turn-and-talks to discuss predictions and relationships of cause and effect, such as in section 10- Whole-class Discussion About Rainfall and Wildebeest Location. Teachers are guided to implement a turn-and-talk for the questions, “What additional data could help us answer our question about the relationship between rainfall and wildebeest location? Give students time to discuss these questions with a partner and call on a few pairs to share.” There are listen fors, such as “We need more rainfall data from more places,” and “We need a count of the wildebeest.” The guidance includes listen fors focused on content understanding but lacks prompts that attend to students’ language use or development. The guidance for the turn-and-talks does not include any language scaffolds, such as sentence stems, to support MLLs’ full and complete participation in the activities. The use of sentence stems is inconsistent across the program; while they are included in some lesson activities, they are entirely absent in others, resulting in uneven scaffolding for language learners.
Furthermore, the guidance for Personal Glossaries in Lesson 4 provides a chance for students to negotiate the meaning of “limiting factors” when engaging in the CCC of Cause and Effect between rainfall and grass growth. The materials provide guidance for all students to develop personal glossaries as a key component of developing scientific language. In the Teacher Handbook, the section Supporting English Language Arts (ELA) provides guidance for teachers as to how to support student creation of Personal Glossaries. The guidance includes the importance of the co-creation of definitions as well as stating, “It is especially important for emergent multilingual students to have a reference for this important vocabulary, which includes an accessible definition and visual support.” This guidance encourages teachers to support students in negotiating the meaning of key vocabulary related to the content; however, it is limited to individual words and does not extend to broader language structures or forms essential for deeper understanding. This is a missed opportunity to provide specific support, such as sentence stems, for MLLs, or to support the interdisciplinary language function of cause and effect.
In Unit B.3, Lesson 3 Teacher Edition, section 12- Navigate, the materials support the CCC of Systems and System Models. During this activity, students “reflect on the limitations of the cell game model”. The guidance states, “ask students to turn and talk with a partner about where the model helped us make progress and the limits of the model.” Students record their answers in their science notebooks. Then, in section 14- Interpret Data About the Cell Cycle, the activity prompts teachers to, “Say, We are going to look at three different pieces of evidence for non-cancerous cells to see if we can better understand the Cell Game model. For each piece, I would like you to briefly record what you think the evidence is showing and how this might be related to the Cell Game. Ask students to create a T-chart to record their thinking.” There is an Attending to Equity sidebar with scaffolds for all learners. Specifically, it states, “Consider adding or removing scaffolding for your students to support them as they use the data to provide evidence of mechanistic accounts. Some examples of scaffolding may include metacognitive techniques to think about how we interpret figures and/or discussing as a class different parts of the figures like legends, keys, axes, and labels before students interpret figures. Some examples of less scaffolding may include removing visual cues like arrows from the slides for Figure 1 or the cell diagrams from Figure 2, or separating images like the microscope images from the model images in the M Phase Card Sort (featured in section 15).” Although the supports have the potential to benefit MLLs, the guidance is vague and places the responsibility for effective implementation on the teacher.
Overall, while the materials offer some support for language development and content access for MLLs, these supports are applied inconsistently, limiting their effectiveness. For instance, in B.4, Lesson 3, students are engaging in the CCC of Patterns, “observing how patterns at different scales (genetic, physiological, and geographic) provide evidence for poison as a selective pressure in rat populations.” While this lesson involves turn-and-talks and a Scientist Circle discussion, and revision of thinking with sentence frames “I used to think ___. Now I think ___ because ___”, there is a missed opportunity to provide teacher guidance to support MLLs when engaging in the CCC of Patterns. Many supports are general for all students and lack guidance for varying English proficiency levels.
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 a few instances, students do not have the opportunity to engage with one 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 B.1, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 8: What other components of the Serengeti system interact with the migration?, the learning objectives, “Use a mathematical representation to model the interactions between components connected to wildebeest migration in the Serengeti ecosystem.” and “Develop and test a complex model for how ecosystems are resilient and the numbers and types of organisms relatively constant (stable) in response to disturbance (change).” are three dimensional. Students investigate eight additional groups that may be impacting the Serengeti ecosystem and use a mathematical modeling software to organize all the interactions they have investigated (SEP-MOD-H6, SEP-MATH-H2, and CCC-SYS-H4). Then students make predictions about and use the mathematical model to determine how disturbances, such as rain, disease, or fire may impact the ecosystem. Through this modeling, students determine that wildebeest are a keystone species and that the more diversity present in the ecosystem, the more stable and resilient it is (DCI-LS2.C-H1, CCC-SC-H4).
In Unit B.4, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 5: How can we make sense of the way urbanization could have caused changes in hawksbeard, rat, and junco populations?, the learning objective, “Develop and revise a model to explain how urban environmental factors could cause the evolution of populations by natural selection.” is three dimensional. Students develop a Gotta-Have-It Checklist to identify all the components and interactions that need to be present in a revised model of how urbanization impacts nonhuman populations, including ideas about genetic variation, favorable traits, and natural selection (DCI-LS4.C-H1, DCI-LS4.C-H2, and SEP-MOD-H3). Students revise their models in groups, conduct a gallery walk for feedback, and share ideas to revise a class consensus model, using what they learned about smaller scale mechanisms with hawksbeard, juncos, and rats to connect to larger ideas about urbanization and nonhuman populations (CCC-CE-H2). Then students read about other theories for why or how populations change over time and revise their co constructed definitions of evolution and natural selection based on additional information from the reading (DCI-LS4.C-H1, DCI-LS4.C-H2).
In Unit B.5, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 3: How similar/different are the polar, brown, and black bears?, the learning objective, “Integrate empirical evidence, including anatomical and genetic information, to infer evolutionary relationships in bear species.” is three dimensional. Students organize what they already know about the similarities and differences between the polar, brown, and black bear species. Then they participate in a station investigation to gather additional information about different traits such as skulls and claws, which they share in a whole class discussion (SEP-INFO-H2, CCC-PAT-H5). Students look at DNA data to identify patterns that might provide more information about how the different bear species are related and use the data to build a bear DNA tree (DCI-LS4.A-H1, SEP-INFO-H2, and CCC-PAT-H5).
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 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. In these instances, a CCC element is usually not addressed. The SEP elements for Developing and Using Models and the CCC elements for Patterns are often present. 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 B.1, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 5: How does food affect the population size?, the learning objectives are, “Develop and use a kinesthetic and mathematical model to generate evidence to explain how grass is a limiting factor that affects carrying capacity of wildebeest populations within the conditions of the Serengeti ecosystem.” and “Use mathematical representations of data to quantify rates of population change over time to support explanations about the effect of limiting factors on population size.” and represent five elements: one DCI, two SEPs, and two CCCs. The formative assessments are the Serengeti Kinesthetic Model assessment and the Wildebeest Population Data assessment. For example, in the Serengeti Kinesthetic Model, students track how changes in resource availability affect wildebeest population growth and survival and develop and use a model to explain the relationship between resources and population dynamics (DCI-LS2.A-H1, SEP-MOD-H4). They represent and analyze data about population growth using tables, graphs, and algorithms and investigate how interactions between wildebeest and grass influence outcomes in the system (SEP-MATH-H2, CCC-SYS-H3). Finally, students explore patterns of change to predict future population trends (CCC-SC-H2).
In Unit B.3, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 5: How do cancer cells end up with differences in their chromosomes and what is the role of p53 in preventing the differences?, the learning objective is, “Construct an explanation based on evidence about how mutations can occur during DNA replication, resulting in differences in chromosomes, and the role of p53 in their repair.” and represents three elements: one DCI, one SEP, and one CCC. The formative assessment is the Student Explanation assessment where students compile an evidence checklist and then use it to write an explanation to the lesson question that they share with peers. Students write an explanation about how mutations occur during DNA replication, including that p53 can help repair mismatched bases (DCI-LS3.B-H1, SEP-CEDS-H2). In their response, students must establish a clear line of causation between genetic mutation and cancer. (CCC-CE-H2).
In Unit B.5, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 4: How did polar and brown bears become different species?, the learning objectives are, “ Construct an argument based on data and evidence to explain how and why speciation of polar and brown bears occurred over geologic time due to environmental changes caused by glaciation.” and “Construct an argument based on the mechanism of evolution by natural selection to explain how and why speciation of polar and brown bears occurred over geologic time.” and represent five elements: three DCIs, one SEP, and one CCC. The formative assessments are the Bears and Glacial Cycles assessment, the Developing an Argument assessment, and the Genetic Bear Data assessment. In Bears and Glacial Cycles, students place chips on glacial maps to model where a common ancestor of bears was located during glacial and interglacial periods of time. They answer questions related to why environmental factors would cause bear populations to move during glacial and interglacial periods and result in polar and brown bears splitting from their common ancestor (DCI-ESS2.E-H1, DCI-LS4.C-H4). In Developing an Argument, students individually use evidence to construct an argument for how polar and brown bears became different species (DCI-LS4.C-H1, SEP-ARG-H4). In Genetic Bear Data, pairs of students analyze data on three gene variations found between polar and brown bears and reason which form of each gene would be selected for in Arctic and warmer environments, addressing the fact that the evolution of these bears happened over 100,000 years and, therefore, can not be directly observed (CCC-SPQ-H2).
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, most claimed DCI, SEP, and CCC components (such as LS1 or MOD) contain at least one claimed summative element, with the exception of the DCIs for all claimed Earth and Space Science elements, Asking Questions and Defining Problems, Planning and Carrying Out Investigations, and Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information for SEPs, and Structure and Function for CCCs. For DCIs, SEPs, and CCCs, less than half of the claimed elements for learning are summatively claimed and assessed.
Examples of the types of summative assessments present in the materials:
In Unit B.1, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 5: How does food affect the population size?, the summative assessment is the L5 Electronic Exit Ticket. In this assessment, students respond to a series of multiple choice and free response questions on a Google Form about the rate of change in population dynamics, focusing on the relationship between food availability and population size, as well as their learning from the lesson. Students select explanations regarding how food availability affects population growth, specifically related to the wildebeest population (DCI-LS2.A-H1). They analyze population graphs to interpret how changes in food availability and environmental conditions influence population size (SEP-MOD-H4). Students then use rates of change from the graphs to identify drought periods and interpret how these impact predictions of the population's carrying capacity (SEP-MATH-H2). A systems thinking component is also present, where students consider how changes in the ecosystem, such as a reduction in park area, affect the wildebeest population (CCC-SYS-H3). Additionally, students also analyze population change over time using rates of change and other factors to interpret population dynamics (CCC-SC-H2).
In Unit B.3, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 10: Who gets cancer and why?, the summative assessment is the Genetics Transfer Task. In this assessment, students respond to a series of prompts about genetics concepts through the lens of genetics tests. Using a pedigree, students predict the inheritance patterns of lactose intolerance and celiac disease, taking into consideration whether crossing over occurs or does not occur (DCI-LS3.B-H1). Students choose evidence that supports a claim between environmental factors that are correlated to an increase in AMD in specific regions of the world (DCI-LS3.B-H2, CCC-CE-H1). Students also make a claim based on evidence on whether a person developed AMD because of a random mutation or exposure to the environment (SEP-ARG-H5).
In Unit B.5, Lesson Set 2, Lesson 9: Can we use everything we have figured out about speciation to explain a new phenomenon?, the summative assessment is the Bumble Bee Transfer Task. In the assessment, students respond to a series of prompts where they evaluate evidence and claims related to factors affecting the survival of bumble bees. Using multiple forms of data, students evaluate the significance of the declining patched bumble bee population (CCC-SPQ-H1). They examine claims about human actions that alter the bee environment (DCI-LS4.C-H5), including pathogens, pesticides, and climate change (DCI-LS2.C-H2). They consider how other aspects of the ecosystem are disturbed if the bee numbers are reduced (DCI-LS2.C-H1), the significance of human dependence on bees as pollinators for food (DCI-LS4.C-H2), and the impact on bee species if scientists' recommendations to reduce pesticide and use intelligent commercial hive farming are followed (DCI-ESS3.C-H1, SEP-ARG-H2).
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 B.1, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 6: Can we apply what we figured out about limiting factors and carrying capacity to a new scenario?, the summative assessment is the African Wild Dog Transfer Task. In this unit, students explore the phenomenon of wildebeest migration. In this assessment, students apply what they have learned about factors impacting migration to investigate African wild dog populations. Through informational text, data, and graphs, students evaluate the different factors that impacted the success of an African wild dog population in Kruger National Park in order to consider the success of populating dogs in a new national park in Malawi. Students use data to evaluate the growth of the wild dog population over time, determine carrying capacity, and consider territory size (DCI-LS2.A-H1, SEP-MATH-H2). They evaluate the relationship between prey biomass and dog pack size, as well as the impact of predators, such as lions, to make claims about how wild dogs in Malawi could be supported (DCI-LS2.A-H1, SEP-MATH-H2). Students then review data about the results of wild dog introduction in Malawi and make predictions about how the wild dog population will fare in the future, including making recommendations about how to replicate the project at scale (CCC-SPQ-H1).
In Unit B.4, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 6: Can we apply what we know about evolution by natural selection to another phenomenon?, the summative assessment is the Antibiotic Resistance Transfer Task. In this unit, students explore the phenomenon of urbanization and how it has changed environments and impacted nonhuman populations. In this assessment, students apply what they have learned through engagement with the urbanization phenomenon to investigate antibiotic resistance. Through informational text and images of petri dishes with bacteria and antibiotics, students make a claim about bacteria growth and answer multiple choice questions about how bacteria and antibiotics interact over time (DCI-LS4.C-H2). Then students read about antibiotic resistance as a heritable trait and use images of bacteria growth, a graph of antibiotic use over time, and data from an investigation of antibiotic resistant bacteria to predict how antibiotic resistance develops in bacteria and explain the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance (DCI-LS4.C-H2, SEP-CEDS-H2, and CCC-CE-H1).
In Unit B.5, Lesson Set 1, Lesson 3: How similar/different are the polar, brown, and black bears?, the formative assessment is the L3 Electronic Exit Ticket. In this unit, students explore the phenomenon of different bear species that share the same habitat in the Arctic. In this assessment, students apply what they have learned about species interactions and environmental changes to investigate the relatedness of two bee species. Students compare and evaluate multiple types and sources of information including images, DNA data, and tree models to explain the relatedness of bee species and divergence from their common ancestor (DCI-LS4.A-H1, SEP-INFO-H2). Students consider how patterns in the tree models of bear species and bee species help explain how species today are different from their common ancestor (CCC-PAT-H5).