The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 do not meet expectations that they are designed to elicit direct, observable evidence for three-dimensional learning in the instructional materials. Materials provide few three-dimensional learning objectives at the lesson level building toward the three-dimensional objectives of the larger learning sequence. 

The objectives for each module are found in the Assessment for the NGSS section and include bundles of three-dimensional performance expectations (PEs). Within each module, objectives are provided at the start of each investigation as Content and Practices statements. The Content objectives are typically one-dimensional. The Content statements provide objectives related to content students will learn during the investigation and typically indicate student learning connected to one or more DCIs. An example of a Content objective is: “Every cell has structures that enable it to carry out life’s functions.” The Practices objectives provide descriptions of student actions during the investigation and may connect to one or more SEPs. These objectives are primarily two-dimensional and in a few instances they are three-dimensional. Most often, the objectives incorporate SEP and DCI elements, but rarely include crosscutting concepts. A typical example of a Practices objective is: “Explain how experimental results provide evidence that air has mass.”

The Guiding the Investigation section for each part of each investigation includes objectives for each session within each part. These typically describe actions students will do throughout each session. Some of these objectives are procedural, “Review vocabulary; answer the focus questions”. The majority of objectives are one dimensional and relate to content learning, “Discuss sedimentary environments and compare them to ancient environments” or include practices, “Test force between magnets at various distances”. These objectives rarely incorporate crosscutting concepts or connect all three dimensions. 

Throughout the materials, most investigations have assessment tasks designed to reveal student knowledge and use of the three dimensions. The tasks are generally designed to support the targeted learning objectives. Additionally, many of the formative assessment tasks incorporate tasks for purposes of supporting the instructional process. However, the targeted learning objectives for the investigations are not three dimensional. 

Each module in the series begins with an Entry-Level Survey. These assessments are meant to elicit students’ prior knowledge of content. The survey is typically four pages long and is mostly comprised of open-ended questions. Teachers are directed to look at them for diagnostic purposes, but not to assign grades. They are intended to be used to “determine what students already know and what they need to learn,” so the teacher can plan what lessons need more time. Entry-Level Survey guidance is provided in “Coding Guides” and are only available on FOSSweb. The coding guides provide the answer sheets and item descriptions identifying dimensions of learning required to respond to all benchmark assessments for each course. Headings such as, “What students might say based on prior knowledge”, “How this item can inform instruction”, and “Contributes to [lists NGSS Performance Expectations codes]” give the initial appearance that the formative assessment process provides feedback on student learning of the associated three-dimensional objectives (PEs) for the module. However, the coding guides for the Entry-Level Survey questions only provide feedback for student performance on the DCIs associated with the PEs and do not assess or provide feedback on the SEP or CCC elements within the connected PE. 

At the end of every one to two investigations are I-Check Benchmarks, these can be used as summative or formative assessments. As noted in the materials, the I-Checks are “more powerful when used for formative assessment” and were evaluated as formative assessments. Investigation I-Checks contain item descriptions beginning with, “This item provided evidence that students…” and then describes the intended dimension for each item. Each item contains a code for the NGSS performance expectations the item contributes to at the module level and often connects to a Content objective for the investigation. While each dimension in the PE is color coded in the language of the I-Check key, the CCC is often shown in parenthesis but is not explicitly assessed in the I-Check. For each question in the I-Check, there are suggestions for next steps for how to review/reteach that concept (usually the DCI and seldomly the SEP) if students struggle with that question.

Student notebooks are a major component of formative assessment in the program. Science notebook masters are provided with question prompts for students to answer. Notebook entry assessment progress points are designed into the materials with guidance for teachers about what to look for. Additional embedded formative assessment tasks occur in each lesson while students are engaged in doing a science practice or group activity, They consist of a prepared review sheet or a more informal task where the teacher visits groups to ask questions about their understanding of the concepts and ability to explain it in terms of a CCC. The program provides examples of student responses and observations for the teacher in “What to Look for”, which helps identify the DCI and sometimes the CCC and SEP. These do not provide next-step suggestions with how to support the learning of the SEP or CCC if students have misconceptions or need additional support. 

Examples of investigations without three-dimensional learning objectives at the investigation level; assessment tasks are designed to reveal student knowledge and use of the three dimensions, but do not support three-dimensional learning objectives:

• In Grade 6, Module: Diversity of Life, Investigation 3, The Cell, the investigation includes four one-dimensional Content objectives and one two-dimensional Content objective focusing on two DCIs (DCI-LS1.A-M1, DCI-LS1.A-M2). An example of a one-dimensional Content objective is, “Some organisms can become dormant to survive in an unsuitable environment.” The two-dimensional Content objective is, “Every cell has structures that enable it to carry out life’s functions.” Additionally, the investigation includes three Practices objectives: “Use a microscope to observe and compare the structure of cells in multicellular and single-celled organisms”, “Describe differences between living cells that are organisms and living cells that are part of multicellular organisms”, and “Refine the working definition of life to include the cell.” While the objectives for this investigation build towards three-dimensional objectives for the module, they do not represent three-dimensional learning targets for the investigation. In Part 2, students observe Elodea cells with a microscope, making sketches reflecting accurate cell size, shape, and components (DCI-LS1.A-M1). Students fill out their notebook worksheet, comparing paramecia to the Elodea they observed in Part 1 of the investigation (DCI-LS1.A-M1). Students estimate the length of a paramecium (CCC-SPQ-M5, SEP-MATH-M4) and compare to the size of Elodea cells. The teacher circulates from group to group to assess if students are all looking at the same thing. Students are given an assessment progress sheet to respond to questions regarding if paramecia are living or not. Students are introduced to the idea of single-celled organisms and write a description of differences between a single-celled organism and a cell that is part of a multicellular organism.
• In Grade 6, Module: Human Systems, Investigation 2, Supporting Cells, the investigation includes three one-dimensional Content objectives and one two-dimensional Content objective connecting to two DCIs (DCI-PS3.D-M2, DCI-LS1.A-M3). An example of a one-dimensional content objective is, “The respiratory system supplies oxygen and the digestive system supplies energy (food) to the cells in the body.” The two-dimensional content objective is, “The human body is a system of interacting subsystems.” The investigation also includes two, two-dimensional Practices objectives: “Develop models to describe how food molecules are rearranged by chemical reactions forming new molecules to provide usable energy for cells” and “Construct explanations about organ systems interactions at different scales.” While the objectives for this investigation build toward three-dimensional objectives for the module, they do not represent three-dimensional learning targets for the investigation. Focus questions in students’ notebooks begin and end the lesson. A response sheet assesses student understanding about the structure and functions (CCC-SF-M1) of the respiratory, circulatory, and digestive systems, their interactions (CCC-SYS-M1) and their ability to use the information to construct an explanation (SEP-CEDS-M3). In Part 2, the embedded assessment gauges students’ ability to construct, revise, and use a model (SEP-MOD-M5) as they gain more information from videos and articles to explain how food, oxygen, and energy move through the human body (SEP-CEDS-M2, DCI-LS1.A-M3).
• In Grade 6 Module: Weather and Water, Investigation 6, Air Flow, the investigation includes four one-dimensional Content objectives and one two-dimensional Content objective connecting to six DCIs (DCIs: PS1.A-M3, PS3.A-M1,PS3.A-M4, ESS2.C-M2, ESS2.C-M3, ESS2.C-M1). An example of a one-dimensional content objective is, “Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles of a substance.” The two-dimensional Content objective is, “Local winds blow in predictable patterns determined by local differential heating.” There are also two Practices objectives: “Describe how the atmosphere is heated” and “Explain how differential heating of Earth by the Sun creates local winds and contributes to global winds.” While the objectives for this investigation build towards three-dimensional objectives for the module, they do not represent three-dimensional learning targets for the investigation. Students read about conduction as energy transfer between particles as a result of contact. They apply information from the reading assignment to discuss energy transfer in the atmosphere. Students summarize their thinking in a written response to the focus question, “How does the atmosphere heat up?”  Students discuss results from previous activities (from Investigations 1-5) before watching two animations; a land breeze and a sea breeze. Students analyze and explain the energy transfers producing the winds and work in groups to make diagrams explaining their reasoning (SEP-MOD-M5, CCC-EM-M2). In Part 3, a globe is used to develop a model of global wind patterns (SEP-MOD-M5) before a discussion where students give and receive feedback about their models (SEP-ARG-M2, CCC-SYS-M3). The teacher provides guidance to check for understanding as students progress through the investigation at checkpoints known as “Assess progress: notebook entry” points. The third “What to Look For” suggests the teacher look for student responses such as  “Air masses in the Northern Hemisphere tend to move south due to Earth’s large convection cells" and does not provide additional guidance. Investigation 6 culminates with an I-Check for Investigations 5-6. 
• In Grade 7, Module: Populations and Ecosystems, Investigation 2, Sorting Out Life, the investigation provides five one-dimensional Content objectives and one two-dimensional Content objective connecting to DCI-LS2.A-M1. An example of a one-dimensional content objective is, “Biotic factors are living factors in an ecosystem; abiotic factors are nonliving factors.” The example of the two-dimensional objective is, “An ecosystem is a system of interacting organisms and nonliving factors in a specific area.” The investigation also includes two Practices objectives, one of which is one-dimensional and the other is two-dimensional; “Analyze and categorize cards, using evidence to determine which represents individuals, populations, communities, and ecosystem”, and “Identify biotic and abiotic factors in an ecosystem” (DCI-LS2.A-M1). While the objectives for this investigation build towards three-dimensional objectives for the module, they do not represent three-dimensional learning targets for the investigation. Students are introduced to basic vocabulary used in ecological studies by participating in a card-sorting activity where they analyze and categorize pictures to help them understand the subsystems found within an ecosystem (CCC-SYS-M1). In the I-Check, found at the end of the lesson, question 1 assesses whether students can evaluate information to determine how the parts of an ecosystem interact (DCI-LS2.A-M2) and what scale determines the size of an ecosystem (CCC-SYS-M1). Students then watch a video of Jane Goodall's experience studying chimpanzees and make comparisons between their milkweed bug study and Jane Goodall’s study. In the “Assess Progress” notebook entry for this section, only content knowledge is assessed. In the last part of the investigation, students research different ecosystems focusing on the defining characteristics. Students briefly share what they found from their research with the class. The investigation objectives provided are mostly content-based. The I-Check assessment for this investigation focuses on knowing the key vocabulary, types of ecosystems and what they provide, and being able to determine if a study is a controlled experiment or observational study. While these objectives appear to build towards three-dimensional objectives (NGSS performance expectations) of the larger learning sequence, student use of the SEPs and CCCs are often prescriptive.
• In Grade 7, Module: Chemical Interactions, Investigation 4, Kinetic Energy, the investigation provides four one-dimensional Content objectives connected to four DCIs (DCI-PS1.A-M3, DCI-PS1.A-M4, DCI-PS3.A-M1, DCI-PS3.B-M1). An example is, “Kinetic Energy is energy of motion.” The materials also provide three one-dimensional Practices objectives: “Carry out an investigation to heat and cool gas, liquid, and solid matter to observe expansion and contraction”, “Develop a model of kinetic energy at the particle level”, and “Construct an explanation of how a thermometer works.” While the objectives for this investigation build towards three-dimensional objectives for the module, they do not represent three-dimensional learning targets for the investigation. This lesson checks for students’ understanding as they progress through the activities and provides teachers guidance at checkpoints known as “Assess progress: performance assessment” points. Students work with plastic bottles to find out what happens to air when it is heated and cooled (SEP-MOD-M2). They make a water thermometer to observe the contraction and expansion of liquid water, and observe a brass sphere-and-ring to investigate solid expansion and contraction. The first “What to Look For” suggests that “Students design a demonstration to show gas expanding when heated and contracting when cooled” (SEP-INV-M2, DCI-PS1.A-M4, CCC-EM-M2). The second part provides guidance about questions to ask students in a discussion about expansion and contraction of water in a syringe. The third “What to Look For” refers to a notebook entry about the expansion and contraction of the brass ball and ring.
• In Grade 8, Module: Waves, Investigation 1, Make Waves, the investigation provides three one-dimensional Content objectives and one two-dimensional Content objective related to one DCI (DCI-PS4.A-M1). An example of a one-dimensional Content objective is, “Key features of waves are crests, troughs, and nodes.” The example of the two-dimensional objective is, “If you know the frequency and wavelength, you can calculate the speed of the wave.” The materials also include three one- or two-dimensional Practices objectives, “Collect frequency data from multiple sources”, “Create and describe longitudinal and transverse waves”, and “Apply computational thinking when diagramming a wave, measuring its properties, and calculating speed.” While the objectives for this investigation build towards three-dimensional objectives for the module, they do not represent three-dimensional learning targets for the investigation. Students measure their pulse under different circumstances to investigate frequency (DCI-PS4.A-M1). This lesson first checks for students’ understanding as they progress through the investigations through notebook entries and provides teachers with guidance about “What to Look For” such as, “Students determine that the pulse count for 15 seconds must be multiplied by four to find the pulse rate in beats per minute.” In the second part of the lesson, students make longitudinal and transverse waves out of springs to investigate wavelength and amplitude. Then they make a diagram of a standing wave in their notebook and label the parts of the wave. The “Assess progress: performance assessment” supports instruction by providing guidance for the teacher about “What to Look For” to identify that “Students use precision in creating standing waves that can be reliably measured, and make adjustments to their techniques if data is not clear” (SEP-INV-M1, CCC-PAT-M2).

Examples of investigations without three-dimensional learning objectives at the investigation level; assessment tasks do not reveal student knowledge and use of the three dimensions or support three-dimensional learning objectives:

• In Grade 6, Module: Diversity of Life, Investigation 2, The Microscope, the investigation provides four Content objectives that are not related to any DCIs. An example of one of the objectives is, “A microscope’s optical power is the product of the magnification of the eyepiece and the objective lens.” There are also three Practices objectives, of which two are two-dimensional. The two-dimensional objectives are, “Use computational thinking to estimate the size of objects based on field of view” and “Draw scale representations of images seen through a microscope.” The remaining Practice objective is not related to any SEP or CCC, “Demonstrate the proper use of a microscope.” While the objectives for this investigation build towards three-dimensional objectives for the module, they do not represent three-dimensional learning targets for the investigation. In Part 1 of the investigation, students watch a video to learn about how to carry a microscope. They take notes on how to care for the microscope which include labeling its parts. Students make a wet mount of a color photo and view it under the microscope. Students also make observations of the letter E under the microscope and draw what they see (SEP-INV-M2). Students are asked to respond to the focus question in their notebook, “How do objects appear when they are viewed under the microscope?” In Part 2 of the investigation, students are asked how they can estimate the size of objects by looking at them under a microscope (SEP-MATH-M4). The teacher guides students to measure the diameter of the field of view. Students complete an online activity called “Virtual Microscope” to confirm their results. Students practice estimating the size of objects using Amoeba proteus specimens and recording their results on a notebook sheet. Students also complete a response sheet to assess their progress. The content assessed in this sheet (magnification) is related to one of the Content objectives that is not aligned to a DCI. In Part 3, students use the microscopes to find evidence that brine shrimp are living organisms. The teacher conducts a performance assessment while the students are working and are provided bulleted “look fors” to use for assessment. One example is, “Students accurately estimate the size of brine shrimp” (SEP-MATH-M4). The others are not related to any of the dimensions. For example, “Students make detailed drawings of what they observe.” While students are assessed on the three Practices objectives, none the DCIs and CCCs specified for this module are included in the investigation, nor are they assessed.
• In Grade 6, Module: Weather and Water, Investigation 1, What is Weather?, the materials provide three one-dimensional Content objectives connected to one DCI (DCI-ESS2.D-M1), focusing primarily on definitions. One example is, “Air is matter; it occupies space, has mass, and can be compressed.” The investigation also includes three two-dimensional Practices objectives, “Collect data on atmospheric conditions such as temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity”, “Use a particle model to compare a gas at standard pressure and gas under increased pressure”, and “Explain how experimental results provide evidence that air has mass.” While these objectives appear to build towards three-dimensional objectives (NGSS performance expectations) of the larger learning sequence, student use of the SEPs are often prescriptive and CCCs are not reflected in the Content or Practices objectives. Students watch video segments of severe weather, generate questions based on the video and ensuing discussion, view local weather reports, and collect basic weather data for their community. Students work with syringes and flexible tubes to discover how air takes up space and is compressible. Students study the earth’s atmosphere using diagrams, photos from space, and reading informational text. The notebook entry assessment progress point for this investigation is not at grade-level (DCI-ESS2.D-P1). The assessment item coding guides depict that items were written to build towards three-dimensional objectives of the larger learning sequence, but the descriptions are sometimes vague. One example, Item 3 on Investigation 1 I-Check, “This item provides evidence that students describe why we record daily weather conditions through the lens of crosscutting concepts (Contributes to MS-ESS2-5).” This presumes that a crosscutting concept lens is applied, but there are no explicit instructions to do so. 
• In Grade 7, Module: Chemical Interactions, Investigation 10, Limiting Factors, the investigation provides three one-dimensional Content objectives and one two-dimensional Content objective. One example of the one-dimensional objective is, “Atoms are neither created nor destroyed during a chemical reaction, only rearranged; matter is conserved” and connects to (DCI-PS1.B-M2). The example of the two-dimensional Content objective is, “The quantities of reactants available at the start of a reaction determine the quantities of products.” The investigation also includes three Practices objectives, “Collect data by measuring the volume of gas produced in a reaction to develop explanations about the concentration of reactants”, “Use a model of the concept of limiting factor in chemical reactions”, and “Communicate key points from the entire course.” The first two of these are two-dimensional and the third does not align to any dimension. While the objectives for this investigation build towards three-dimensional objectives for the module, they do not represent three-dimensional learning targets for the investigation. In Part 1, students devise a plan for using the citric acid reaction, focusing first on the citric acid reactant, to answer the focus question, “What is a limiting factor in a chemical reaction?” After a class discussion, the teacher tells students what steps to take (SEP-INV-M4 ). The teacher completes a demonstration experiment to find out how much gas is produced when the baking soda is doubled. The teacher asks the class several questions about the results of the demonstration. In the notebook assessment at the end of the lesson, questions 1-3 assess whether students can explain the possible outcomes of four situations involving reactions with limiting factors. Students do not use the concept of conservation of matter, the disciplinary core idea related to this lesson, to answer any of the questions. Therefore DCI-PS1.B-M2 is not assessed. In Part 2, students review their notebook entries for the entire module to answer the focus question, “What have I learned about chemical interactions?” Students look for five key points and cite evidence from their work in class supporting each key point. They do not use any of the SEP-INFO elements. A spokesperson for the group presents their list of key ideas and evidence to the class. The teacher keeps track of key points on the board using the Chemical Reactions Key Points Master. This master contains bulleted statements which are DCI-focused only (DCI-PS1.A, DCI-PS1.B, DCI-PS3.A, DCI-PS3.B). For example one bullet point listed, “Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space.” The SEPs and CCCs from this course are not part of the key points list and students are not assessed on these dimensions. In this investigation, student understanding of the focus DCI and CCCs is not assessed.
• In Grade 8, Module: Planetary Science, Investigation 7, The Solar System, the investigation provides five one-dimensional Content objectives. A typical example is, ”The temperature on a planet depends on two major variables: distance from Sun and nature of the planet’s atmosphere.” There are three Practices objectives, “Design and construct scale models of the solar system”, “Compare the temperatures and atmospheres of the planets”, and “Analyze photographic images to search for evidence of the presence of water on planets and satellites.” While the objectives for this investigation build towards three-dimensional objectives for the module, they do not represent three-dimensional learning targets for the investigation. In the first part of the investigation, students review scale, then calculate the scaled proportions of size and distance of two or three of the planets (SEP-MATH-M4). The teacher works with groups to formatively assess who is progressing and who needs additional help. The teaching note walks the class through the math if students are struggling. Next, students share their data with the class and use this data to construct models of the solar system in groups. The teacher observes the groups’ models to assess progress and review samples of students’ Notebook Entry addressing the focus question, “Where are the planets in the solar system?” The program provides key points in the “What to Look Fors” to check if students achieved understanding about how patterns in the solar system can be explained with models (DCI-ESS1.A-M1). The Embedded Assessment Notes include what to do if there are any misconceptions or alternative concepts present. 
• In Grade 8, Module: Waves, Investigation 4,  Communication Waves, the investigation provides five one-dimensional Content objectives related to one DCI (DCI-PS4.C-M1). An example is, ”Many modern communication devices use digitized signals (sent as waves) as a reliable way to encode and transmit information.” There are also two two-dimensional Practices objectives, “Transmit data through optical fibers to test design constraints” and “Analyze graphical displays of carrier waves, sound waves, and modulated waves to understand their relationships and describe their properties.” While the objectives for this investigation build toward three-dimensional objectives for the module, they do not represent three-dimensional learning targets for the investigation. In the first part of the investigation students determine how far a fiber optic cable can bend and maintain total internal reflection (SEP-INV-M5). Students update their notebooks with any information they learned and answer the focus question, “What are some design constraints in fiber-optic communications?” Next, students discuss modern communication technology and learn about carrier waves through diagrams, lecture, discussion, and reading. In the last part of the investigation, students view images at various resolutions to learn understand the more pixels you have, the higher the resolution of a digital picture. The materials provide “What to Look Fors” to help the teacher determine whether students achieved understanding of concepts related to communication waves. The five items on Investigation 4 I-Check assess whether students understand the content in the investigation (DCI-PS4.C-M1), but do not assess student understanding of the cross-cutting concepts mentioned on the assessment map. Four items are one-dimensional and one item is two-dimensional. There are no questions assessing any grade-level SEPs.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 do not meet expectations that they are designed to elicit direct, observable evidence of the three-dimensional learning in the instructional materials. Materials provide three-dimensional learning objectives for the module in the form of performance expectations (PEs), but summative tasks measure student achievement of only some learning objectives (PEs) or their associated elements and few summative assessment tasks are three-dimensional in design. Although most of the assessments measure student achievement of the DCIs within the module objectives (listed PEs), every summative test was missing one or more of the SEPs and/or CCCs within the targeted PEs.

In the Assessment section of every module, the materials identify three forms of summative assessments: End-of-Module, I-Checks, and Portfolios. Portfolio entries were not evaluated as summative assessments since different assignments could be selected by students to include. Also noted in the materials, the I-Checks are “more powerful when used for formative assessment”. In a few instances, the I-Checks appeared more summative in nature and were considered summative assessments. However, in most cases, the I-Checks were considered as formative assessments. The End-of-Module Benchmark Assessments were evaluated as summative assessments.

The End-of-Module Benchmark Assessments consist of multi-component questions with a combination of multiple-choice, true/false (yes/no), and open-ended questions. They range in length from 14-56 parts. Few of the summative tasks are three-dimensional in design. There is at least one three-dimensional question on each of the End-of-Module assessments, with some assessments having as many as six three-dimensional questions. The number of two-dimensional questions ranged from 1-25. Many of the summative questions were one-dimensional, frequently focused on assessing the DCIs.

Examples of summative assessment tasks that do not measure student achievement of the targeted three-dimensional learning objectives; few summative tasks are three-dimensional in design:

• In Grade 6, Module: Human Systems Interactions, End-of-Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of ten multi-component questions comprised of 17 parts; five parts are multiple-choice questions, two parts require sequencing a list from least to most complex, five parts are true/false (yes/no) questions, and five parts are open-ended questions. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed (PEs: MS-LS1-1, MS-LS1-3, MS-LS1-7; MS-LS1-8). Overall, the questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCIs: LS3.A, LS3.B, LS4.A, LS4.B, LS4.C, ESS1.C). The summative assessment for this module does not assess the following SEPs associated with the targeted PEs: SEP-AQDP, SEP-INV, and SEP-CEDS. It also does not assess the following CCCs associated with the targeted PEs: CCC-SPQ and CCC-SYS. While the end-of-module test assessed three dimensions, not all questions were three-dimensional. One of 17 parts was three-dimensional, one was two-dimensional and fifteen parts were one-dimensional as they assessed individual DCIs or PEs. This end-of-module test partially assesses students’ achievement of the four performance expectations, identified as objectives in the module.
• In Grade 6, Module: Weather & Water, End-of-Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of 18 multi-component questions which contain 53 parts; 14 parts are open-ended, five parts are multiple-choice, five parts are matching, and 29 are true/false (yes/no) questions. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed (PEs: MS-ESS1-1, MS-ESS2-4, MS-ESS2-5, MS-ESS2-6, MS-ESS3-2, MS-ESS3-3, MS-ESS3-4, MS-ESS3-5, MS-PS1-4, MS-PS3-3, MS-PS3-4, MS-PS3-5, MS-ETS1-1, MS-ETS1-2). Two of the bundled PEs (PE-MS-ETS1-3, PE-MS-ETS1-4) are not assessed on the end-of-module benchmark assessment, but one (PE-MS-ETS1-3) is assessed in the Investigation 5 engineering project. Overall, the questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCIs: ESS1.B, ESS2.C, ESS2.D, ESS3.B, ESS3.C, ESS3.D, PS1.A, PS3.A, PS3.B, ETS1.A, ETS1.B), SEPs, and CCCs but not all of the elements. The summative assessment for this module does not assess the SEPs elements associated with these PEs: MS-ETS1.C, SEP-DATA-M7, SEP-MOD-M7. These are assessed when including the investigation level I-Checks as summative assessments, rather than formative assessments. While the end-of-module test assessed all three dimensions, not all questions were three-dimensional. Most questions and parts were one- or two-dimensional with only one part fully-three dimensional. Twenty-five parts were two-dimensional and twenty-nine were one-dimensional. This end-of-module test partially assesses students’ achievement of 14 of the 16 performance expectations identified as objectives in the module.
• In Grade 6, Module: Diversity of Life, End-of-Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of nineteen items, three which are multi-component questions, for a total of 29 total questions. Six items are open-ended, 12 parts are multiple-choice, five parts are true/false (yes/no) questions, and one item is listing levels of organization from a word bank. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed (PEs: MS-LS1-1, MS-LS1-2, MS-LS1-3, MS-LS1-4, MS-LS1-5, MS-LS1-6, MS-LS1-7, MS-LS2-5, MS-LS3-2). Overall, the questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCIs: LS1.A, LS1.B, LS1.C, LS2.C, LS3.A, LS3.B). The summative assessment for this module does not assess the following SEPs associated with the PEs identified as objectives: SEP-AQDP, SEP-MOD, SEP-INV, SEP-DATA, and SEP-MATH. It also does not assess the following CCCs, associated with the targeted PEs: CCC-PAT, CCC-SPQ, CCC-SYS, CCC-EM, and CCC-SC. One End-of-Module test item showed evidence of three-dimensions, 11 were two-dimensional, and six items one-dimensional (DCIs). This end-of-module test partially assesses students’ achievement in relation to the nine performance expectations identified as objectives in the module. 
• In Grade 7, Module: Chemical Interactions, End-of-Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of twelve multi-component questions for a total of 35 parts; eight parts are open-ended, ten parts are multiple-choice, and 17 are true/false (yes/no) questions. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed (PEs: MS-PS1-1, MS-PS1-2, MS-PS1-3, MS-PS1-4, MS-PS1-5, MS-PS1-6, MS-PS3-3, MS-PS3-4, MS-PS3-5). Four of the PEs identified as objectives (PEs: MS-ETS1-1, MS-ETS1-2,MS-ETS1-3, MS-ETS1-4) are not assessed by the end-of-module test. Overall, the questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCI-PS2.A, DCI-PS2.B), SEPs, and CCCs, but not all of the elements. Seven elements are not addressed on the summative posttest (DCI-PS1.A-M2, DCI-PS1.B-M1, DCI-PS1.B-M3, SEP-INFO-M3, SEP-CEDS-M7, CCC-SF-M2, and CCC-EM-M4). These elements are assessed when including the investigation level I-Checks as summative assessments rather than formative assessments. While the end-of-module test assessed all three dimensions, only six of the 12 questions were three-dimensional. Of the remaining six questions, four were two-dimensional and two were one-dimensional. This end-of-module test partially assesses students’ achievement in relation to nine of the module’s thirteen performance expectations identified as objectives in the module. 
• In Grade 7, Module: Populations and Ecosystems, End-of-Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of 15 questions, of which seven are multi-component for a total of 20 parts; eight questions are multiple-choice, one is matching, seven are open-ended, three are true/false (yes/no) questions, and one is constructing a food web model. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed (PEs: MS-LS1-6, MS-LS1-7, MS-LS2-1, MS-LS2-2, MS-LS2-3, MS-LS2-4, MS-LS2-5, MS-PS3-4 (listed as foundational), MS-ESS3-3, MS-ESS3-4). Overall, the questions assess students’ understanding of six of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCIs: ESS2.C, ESS2.D, ESS3.B, PS1.A, PS3.A, PS3.A ). One DCI (DCI-ESS1.B) is not assessed even though the related PE is listed as an objective addressed in this course. Two DCIs (DCI-ESS3.C and DCI-ESS3.D) are assessed in the performance assessments in Investigation 8, but not in the post-test. Not all of the SEPs (SEP-AQDP, SEP-MOD, SEP-INV, SEP-DATA, SEP-MATH, SEP-CEDS, SEP-ARG, SEP-INFO) and CCCs (CCC-PAT, CCC-CE, CCC-SPQ, CCC-EM, CCC-SYS, CCC-SF, CCC-SC) associated with the PEs identified as objectives are fully assessed. While the end-of-module test included all three dimensions, only one question (Q5) required students to use all three dimensions to respond. The remaining questions were only two-dimensional because the questions were related to an SEP or CCC but the use of the SEP or CCC was not required to answer the question. This end-of-module test partially assesses students’ achievement of ten performance expectations identified as objectives in the module.
• In Grade 7, Module: Earth History, End-of-Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of ten questions, five of which are multi-component for a total of 16 parts. Seven are multiple-choice (four of which contain an image or graph to analyze first), one is a model diagram of the rock cycle, five are constructed response, and three are true/false (yes/no) questions. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed, (PEs: MS-ESS1-4, MS-ESS2-1, MS-ESS2-2, MS-ESS2-3, MS-ESS3-1, MS-ESS3-2, MS-ESS3-3, MS-ESS3-4, MS-ESS3-5, MS-LS4-1). Overall, the questions address students’ understanding of six of the PEs identified as objectives. Four PEs were identified as objectives that were not assessed in the post-test (PEs: MS-ESS3-3, MS-ESS3-4, MS-ESS3-5, MS-LS4-1). Five of the eight SEPs (SEP-MOD, SEP-DATA, SEP-CEDS, SEP-ARG, SEP-INFO)  associated with these PEs are assessed within the post-test questions. Three SEPs are not assessed in the posttest but are included within the PEs identified as objectives for this module (SEP-AQDP, SEP-INV, SEP-MATH). Three questions were two-dimensional for SEP and DCI alignment, while six items were one-dimensional to only the DCI. Seven questions showed potential for three-dimensional assessment, but in each of these seven questions the CCCs (CCC-PAT, CCC-CE, CCC-EM, CCC-SYS, CCC-SC) were only connected or underlying to the question, and students were not required to use the CCC to answer the question. This end-of-module test partially assesses students’ achievement of ten performance expectations identified as objectives in the module. 
• In Grade 8, Module: Planetary Science, End-of-Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of 15 multi-component questions containing 56 parts; eight parts are open-ended, five parts are multiple-choice, 23 parts are matching, and 20 are true/false (yes/no) questions. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed, (PEs: MS-ESS1-1, MS-ESS1-2, MS-ESS1-3, PE-MS-ESS2-2, PE-MS-PS4-2). One of the PEs identified as an objective (PE-MS-ESS3-4) is not assessed on the end of module benchmark assessment. This PE is assessed when including the investigation level I-Checks as summative assessments rather than formative assessments. Overall, the questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCIs: ESS1.A, ESS1.B, ESS1.C, ESS2.A, ESS2.C, ESS3.A, ESS3.D, PS2.B, PS4.B), and some of the SEPs and CCCs, but not all of the elements. Three elements are not assessed on the summative posttest (DCI-ESS3.C, SEP-ARG-M3, CCC-CE-M2), but are assessed if investigation level I-Checks are included as summative assessments rather than formative assessments. Six questions on the end-of-module assessment showed evidence of three-dimensional alignment, six were two-dimensional, and two were one-dimensional. This end-of-module test partially assesses students’ achievement of five of the six performance expectations identified as objectives in the module.
• In Grade 8, Module: Gravity and Kinetic Energy, End-of-Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of 14 items, four of which are multi-component questions for a total count of 23 parts; six parts are open-ended and 17 parts are multiple-choice questions. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed (PEs: MS-ESS1-2, PE-MS-PS2-1, MS-PS2-2, MS-PS2-4, MS-PS2-5, MS-PS3-1, MS-PS3-2, MS-PS3-5). Four ETS PEs identified as objectives for the module (PEs: MS-ETS1-1, MS-ETS1-2, MS-ETS1-3, MS-ETS1-4) are not adequately assessed in the End-of-Module benchmark assessment, but are assessed in Investigation 4. Overall, the questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCIs: PS2.A, PS2.B, PS3.A, PS3.B, PS3.C, ESS1.B), with the exception of three (DCI-ETS1.A, ETS1.B, ETS1.C). Two SEPs were evident in five items on the End-of-Module post-test (SEP-DATA and SEP-CEDS); six SEPs aligned to PEs identified as objectives were missing. Five of seven CCCs were evident in six items; two CCCs aligned to the PEs (CCC-SF and CCC-SC) were not evident in assessment items. Five items assessed all three dimensions, and eight items were one-dimensional. This end-of-module test partially assesses students’ achievement of eight of the twelve performance expectations identified as objectives in the module.
• In Grade 8, Module: Waves, End-of-Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of fourteen multi-component questions containing 50 parts; eight parts are open-ended, four parts are multiple-choice, 29 are true/false (yes/no) questions, six parts are related to a word bank, and three parts are mathematical problems to be solved with wave equations. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed (PEs: MS-PS4-1, MS-PS4-2, MS-PS4-3). One ETS PE identified as an objective for this module (PE-MS-ETS1-1) is not assessed on the end of module benchmark assessment. Overall, the questions assess students’ understanding of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCI-PS4.A, DCI-PS4.B, DCI-PS4.C). In the summative assessment, there is one three-dimensional question for each PE, but not all elements within the targeted PEs are assessed. Two elements are not assessed on the summative post-test (DCI-PS4.2-M2 and CCC-SF-M2). While the end-of-module test assessed all three dimensions with one item per PE, five of the eight items identified by the program as three-dimensional required only two-dimensional skills of students. The assessment contained three three-dimensional items, eight two-dimensional items, and three one-dimensional items. This end-of-module test partially assesses students’ achievement of three of the four performance expectations identified as objectives in the module.
• In Grade 8, Module: Heredity and Adaptation, End-of-Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of 11 multi-component questions for a total of 18 parts; ten parts are multiple-choice questions, two parts order a list from least to most complex, two parts are true/false (yes/no) questions, and four parts are open-ended questions. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed (PEs:MS-LS3-1, MS-LS3-2, MS-LS4-1, MS-LS4-2, MS-LS4-3, MS-LS4-4, MS-LS4-5, MS-LS4-6, MS-ESS1-4). Not all of the SEPs and CCCs associated with the PEs identified as objectives are assessed. Overall, the questions assess student understanding of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCIs: LS3.A, LS3.B, LS4.A, LS4.B, LS4.C, ESS1.C). The summative assessment for this module does not assess three SEPs associated with the targeted PEs (SEP-AQDP, SEP-INV, SEP-CEDS) or two CCCs associated with the targeted PEs (CCC-SPQ and CCC-SYS). While the end-of-module test assessed all three dimensions, not all questions were three-dimensional. Two of the 11 questions were three-dimensional, six were two-dimensional, and three were one-dimensional. The end-of-module test partially assesses student achievement of the nine performance expectations identified as objectives in the module.
• In Grade 8, Module: Electromagnetic Force, End-of Module Benchmark Assessment, the summative assessment consists of 14 questions; six are multiple-choice questions, two are fill-in-the-blanks, one is a yes/no question, and five are open-ended questions. Not all dimensions of the performance expectations listed for this module are assessed (PEs: MS-PS2-2, MS-PS2-3, MS-PS2-5, MS-PS3-2, MS-PS3-5, MS-LS4-4, MS-ESS3-4, MS-ETS1-2). Three PEs (PEs: MS-ETS1-1, MS-ETS1-3, MS-ETS1-4) are not assessed in the posttest. Not all of the SEPs and CCCs associated with the PEs identified as objectives are assessed. Overall, the questions assess students’ understanding of most of the relevant DCIs for the module (DCIs: PS2.A, PS2.B, PS3.A, PS3.B, PS3.C, ESS3.A, ESSC.3, ETS1.B). The summative assessment for this module does not assess two DCIs associated with the targeted PEs (ETS1.A and ETS1.C). Five SEPs associated with the targeted PEs are not assessed (SEP-AQDP, SEP-MOD, SEP-CEDS, SEP-ARG, SEP-INFO). Four CCCs (CCC-SPQ, CCC-SYS, CCC-SF, CCC-SC) associated with the PEs identified as objectives are also not assessed. While the end-of-module test assessed all three dimensions, not all questions were three-dimensional. One of the 14 questions was three-dimensional, three were two-dimensional, and eight were one-dimensional. Two questions were not aligned to any dimension. The end-of-module test partially assesses student achievement of three of the four performance expectations identified as objectives in the module.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 do not meet expectations that phenomena and/or problems drive individual lessons (investigations) or activities (parts of investigations) using key elements of all three dimensions. 

Of the 74 investigations in the series, phenomena or problems drive learning across seven investigations, and these engaged students in learning all three dimensions. In an additional five investigations, a phenomenon or problem drives learning within a single part of the investigation, but not across the entire investigation. 

In the majority of the investigations in the series, a topic of focus was identified, and each part was organized around a Focus Question related to components of that topic. The Focus Question is primarily centered around developing student understanding of a core idea or topic in science, as opposed to making sense of a phenomenon. While multiple instances of these investigations incorporate illustrative examples of natural phenomena, the phenomena were not positioned for students to build and use the three dimensions to figure them out. These investigations do engage students with key elements of all three dimensions, but are not driven by phenomena or problems.

Examples of individual lessons or activities that are driven by phenomena or problems using key elements of all three dimensions:

• In Grade 6, Module: Diversity of Life, Investigation 5, Plants: The Vascular System, students are presented with the phenomenon when a cut piece of rootless celery is placed in a vial of water, the water seems to disappear over time. In Part 1, students collect data about water volume and celery mass during an investigation (SEP-INV-M4) to use as evidence to answer the question about where the water went. Students analyze the results (SEP-DATA-M4) to determine if the water was absorbed into the celery. Students conduct another investigation using water with red food coloring to visualize how water moves into the celery stalk (SEP-INV-M4). In Part 2, students figure out what is causing the water amounts to differ among groups by examining the number of leaves on different groups’ celery (CCC-PAT-M3). Students notice that both the stalks and the leaves look red after adding the food color to the water. Students observe xylem, phloem, and stomata and then conclude that water moved through the stem to the leaves (DCI-LS1.A-M3). Students observe stomata in images of tradescantia leaves and place bags over a branch of a plant growing outdoors to determine if water can exit leaves through stomata. In Part 3, students use this information and the pattern they noticed in Part 1 - that the more leaves a celery stalk has, the more water was lost to transpiration - to construct an explanation (SEP-CEDS-M4) for what happened to the water in the glass with the celery.
• In Grade 7, Module: Chemical Interactions, Investigation 6, Thermos Engineering, students are presented with the challenge of designing a container that can keep hot liquids hot and cold liquids cold. Before designing their thermos, students determine whether energy transfers between a cup of hot water and cold water through a hands-on investigation and a simulation. Students discuss how the change in temperature of the water is a result of the transfer of thermal energy between the two cups (DCI-PS3.A-M3). The term insulation is introduced along with the problem of reducing energy transfer in the thermos. Students brainstorm materials to use as an insulator for their thermos, construct, design, and test whether their insulating materials were effective for reducing energy transfer, and collect class data on all materials (SEP-INV-M2, SEP-CEDS-M2). Students analyze class data for evidence of the best insulators and the teacher guides a student discussion toward other properties of the materials (CCC-SF-M2) and how interactions at the particle level affect energy transfer between two substances and the impact on temperature (DCI-PS3.A-M3). Students use the class data, their discussion about particle interactions, and the density of the materials to modify their thermos design (SEP-CEDS-M7, DCI-ETS1.B-M1).
• In Grade 8, Module: Planetary Science, Investigation 4, Phases of the Moon, the phenomenon is the moon appears to change shape over the course of a month. Students analyze their moon log data collected during Investigation 1, Part 3 (SEP-DATA-M4), notice the shape of the moon changes over the course of a month, and realize the pattern then repeats (CCC-PAT-M4). Students look at moonrise data and compare it to sunrise data to determine the moon is moving around the Earth. The teacher provides students with materials to develop a model matching the pattern they have in their moon log (SEP-MOD-M5, CCC-SYS-M2). While developing and using their models, students find that half of the moon is always in the light of the sun and the other half is in its own shadow due to the position of its orbit (DCI-ESS1.A-M1). This investigation helps students make sense of the phenomenon and construct an explanation as to the reason the moon appears to be changing shapes is because of how much light/shadow we see from our point of view on the earth (SEP-CEDS-M4).

Examples of lessons or activities that are not driven by a phenomenon or problem but incorporate elements of all three dimensions:

• In Grade 6, Module: Weather and Water, Investigation 4, Radiation, the investigation is driven by a topic and students are asked the question, “How does weather differ between locations?” Students review the collected weather data from their local area and one other city to come up with questions that would help determine differences between the two locations (SEP-AQDP-M5, SEP-AQDP-M6). Students analyze and interpret six climate graphs, which show the average temperature, rainfall, elevation, latitude, and longitude (SEP-DATA-E2) from three cities in the Great Plains and three cities on the West Coast to determine the effect of latitude (and angle of the sun) on weather and climate in these six cities (SEP-DATA.M7, CCC-PAT-M3; CCC-CE-M2). Students confirm that latitude has the greatest effect on the weather and climate patterns for these six cities (DCI-ESS2.D-M1). 
• In Grade 6, Module: Weather and Water, Investigation 9, Climate over Time, the investigation is driven by a topic and students are asked the question, “How have climates changed over time?” Students look for patterns in rates of change (CCC-PAT-M2) and analyze and interpret data to provide evidence to support the claim, climate has changed in four cities in the United States from 1930 to 2010 (SEP-DATA-M4). Students use a simulation to identify effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as well as other greenhouse gases and connect it to increases in earth’s average temperature. Students read news articles to identify evidence that human activities serve as major factors in the current rise in earth’s mean surface temperature (DCI-ESS3.D-M1). 
• In Grade 6, Module: Diversity of Life, Investigation 4, Domains, the investigation is driven by a topic and students are asked the question, “Which of these am I most like: bacteria, bread mold, or archaea?” Students discuss questions they need to ask in order to gather information to respond to the question. Students select four surfaces to test and inoculate an agar plate and a slice of bread (SEP-INV-M4). While the samples are incubating, students engage in a card sorting activity and view an online animation to learn about the size of items on the cards (CCC-SPQ-M1). Students organize the cards according to the size of the items. Students taste foods made with bacteria and fungi, read about bacteria, fungi, and archaea to learn they are living organisms made of cells (DCI-LS1.A-M1), learn the history of the biological system of classification, and engage in a discussion to answer the original question by comparing information from the reading, class charts, and their prior notes. 
• In Grade 7, Module: Populations and Ecosystems, Investigation 3, Mono Lake, the investigation is driven by a topic and students are asked the question, “What are the different biotic and abiotic components of the Mono Lake ecosystem?” Students watch a video about the Mono Lake ecosystem explaining the unique features and history of the lake. Students ask and answer questions (SEP-AQDP-M1) as they view the video and read about the lake ecosystem. As students investigate the different interactions between organisms, they develop and use models of the feeding relationships in Mono Lake (SEP-MOD-M5) to create food chains and food webs. Students reorganize their models as information is presented about the trophic levels and the flow of energy in the ecosystem (CCC-SYS-M2). This example of an ecosystem drives the learning across all four parts of this investigation as students develop an understanding of how organisms are dependent on their interactions both with other living things and with nonliving factors in their environment (DCI-LS2.A-M1).
• In Grade 7, Module: Chemical Interactions: Investigation 8, Phase Change, the investigation is driven by a topic and students are asked the question, “What happens at the particle level when a substance melts?” Students plan and carry out an investigation (SEP-INV-M1) to determine whether margarine, sucrose, and wax melt at different temperatures, understand the changes of state that occur with variations in temperature (DCI-PS1.A-M6), and observe phase changes by determining the melting and freezing points of different substances. Students develop a model at the particle level to explain how the transfer of energy drives the motion of matter (CCC-EM-M2).
• In Grade 7, Module: Chemical Interactions, Investigation 9, Part 2: Limewater Reaction, this part of the investigation is driven by a topic and students are asked the question, “What happens at the particle level during a chemical reaction?” Following a class review of the difference between dissolving and melting, students are asked to reflect back to Part 1 and how they learned to identify whether a chemical reaction occurred. This part focuses on identifying the presence of bubbles as evidence of a reaction. Students observe air being pumped into limewater and then their exhaled breath. Students observe only their exhaled breath causes a color change in the limewater, indicating a chemical reaction between the limewater and carbon dioxide in their breath (CCC-CE-M2). Atom tiles are used to model the chemical reaction at the atomic level (SEP-MOD-M6) to show how the atoms rearranged during the chemical reaction. These activities help students make sense of how substances react chemically in characteristic ways (DCI-PS1.B-M1).
• In Grade 8, Module: Electromagnetic Force, Investigation 4, Energy Transfer, the investigation is driven by a topic and students are asked the question, “How does an electric motor work?” Students dissect the motor to get a better view of the component parts. Students identify the parts and record their initial ideas about the function of each part (CCC-SF-M2) before testing each part to test their ideas and learn that electromagnetic force is being used to make the motor spin (DCI-PS3.C-M1). Students compare the working motor to a dissected motor to figure out how energy is transferred in the system (CCC-EM-M4). They construct a model to explain how a motor works to create electricity (SEP-MOD-M6, SEP-CEDS-M2).
• In Grade 8, Module: Waves, Investigation 1, Make Waves, the investigation is driven by a topic and students are asked the question, “What is frequency?” Students engage in a series of activities to help them understand that waves have certain characteristics that can be measured. In Part 1, students work as a class to determine the best method for collecting data under four different conditions, what data to observe and record, and how to calculate their heartbeats per minute and convert to the frequency of beat/sec (SEP-INV-M1, DCI-PS4.A-M1). In Part 2 of the investigation, students use a large spring to observe and record similarities and differences of compression, transverse, and standing waves (DCI-PS4.A-E2). They also use the observed features of the spring to learn the associated vocabulary.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 do not meet expectations that they intentionally leverage students’ prior knowledge and experiences related to phenomena or problems. 

At the start of each module, students complete an Entry-Level Survey that elicits students prior knowledge of the core ideas within the module and includes selected and constructed response questions. Throughout the materials, students are frequently asked questions about what they know about science topics, concepts, or vocabulary or to anticipate what will happen during or as a result of an investigation. These questions consistently provide opportunities for students to share their ideas in their notebooks, with partners or small groups, and with the whole class. However; the materials rarely ask students about the reasoning for their answers or to relate to their prior experiences outside of the classroom, and miss opportunities to connect students’ prior knowledge and experiences to phenomena or problems. 

Only twelve investigations in the series engage students in sensemaking of phenomena or solving design problems, thereby providing limited opportunities across the series to elicit student prior knowledge or experiences related to a specific phenomenon or problem. When the materials do elicit students’ prior knowledge or experience related to phenomena, the materials provide little guidance for teachers to use this information beyond looking for misconceptions. There are missed opportunities for the materials to leverage students’ prior knowledge or experiences.

Examples where materials elicit but do not leverage students’ prior knowledge and experience related to phenomena:

• In Grade 6, Module: Human Systems Interactions, Investigation 1, Systems Connections, the phenomenon is a woman recently developed fever, fatigue, muscle aches, joint pain, and severe headaches. Prior to watching a case-study video of a doctor interviewing the patient about symptoms of her mystery disease, students are asked to think of a time they were sick and asked to describe the symptoms and diagnosis. This elicits prior knowledge and experience to help them better understand the context of the video presenting the phenomenon.
• In Grade 8, Module: Waves, Investigation 3, Light Waves, Part 2, the phenomenon is that light often appears white, but can be separated into different colors. Students are directed to share what they know about rainbows with a partner and come up with questions they have about them. A sidebar directs the teacher to project or show an image of a rainbow and the materials provide sample questions to help the teacher help guide the discussion. One example is, “Do you know how rainbows form?” This partner and whole class discussion elicits students’ prior knowledge about rainbows. 
• In Grade 8, Module: Planetary Science, Investigation 1, Earth as a System, Part 3, the phenomenon is the moon appears to change shape over the course of a month. To elicit student prior knowledge and experiences, students are asked, “When do you see the Moon?”, “Can you see the Moon during the day?”, and ”What color and shape is the Moon?” After sharing their ideas in small groups, students share their ideas with the whole class. These questions are asked prior to collecting data for their moon logs and prior to Investigation 4 where students make sense of the phenomenon the moon appears to change shape over the course of a month. 

Examples where materials do not elicit or leverage students’ prior knowledge and experience related to phenomena or problems:

• In Grade 6, Module: Diversity of Life, Investigation 5, Plants: The Vascular System, the phenomenon presented is a rootless stalk of celery is placed in water and a day later the water level in the container has decreased. Student ideas are elicited when they are asked the focus question, “What happened to the water?” Students record their ideas in their notebooks then discuss in small groups prior to a full class discussion. The materials provide no prompts for teachers during the small group or whole group discussions eliciting student reasoning for their answer or connect their answer to personal prior knowledge or experiences. 
• In Grade 6, Module: Weather and Water, Investigation 1, What is Weather?, Part 2, the phenomenon is air can be compressed in a syringe. At the start of this activity, students are asked the focus question, “What is air?” and are provided time to record their answers in their notebooks. Prior to providing syringes for students to experience this phenomenon, students are asked the question, “What happens to the air in the syringe when you push and pull on the plunger?” Students are then provided with a syringe and flexible tubing and investigate to see what happens as they push and pull on the plunger. The materials provide no prompts for teachers to elicit student reasoning for their answer or connect their answer to their prior knowledge or experiences. 
• In Grade 6, Module: Weather and Water, Investigation 2, Air Pressure and Wind, students are presented with the phenomenon when a pressure indicator apparatus is placed in a sealed jar and the jar is squeezed, the water level in the pressure indicator changes. At the start of this module, students complete an Entry-Level Survey which provides six true/false statements about properties of air. At the start of this investigation, students are asked to recall where they might have heard the term pressure applied to weather and then asked the focus question, “How does pressure affect air?” Students are then shown the apparatus and asked to answer, “What do you think will happen to the water in the clear tube when I squeeze the jar?” They record their answers in their notebooks. The materials provide no prompts for teachers to elicit student reasoning for their answer or connect their answer to personal prior knowledge or experiences. 
• In Grade 6, Module: Weather and Water, Investigation 5, Conduction, Part 2, students are presented with a challenge to insulate a model of a home to reduce energy transfer between a hot and cold environment. Prior to starting the challenge, the teacher is directed to ask the class, “Where have you heard of insulation before?” Students discuss their answers with a partner and the teacher is directed to call on a few volunteers to share. Then the teacher is directed to tell the class that “every home has an outside wall and an inside wall” and to ask students, “What is between the walls?” While these questions could elicit prior knowledge from students who contribute to the discussion, they are not structured to elicit or leverage prior knowledge from all students in the classroom. 
• In Grade 7,  Module: Chemical Interactions, Investigation 6, Thermos Engineering, students are presented with the challenge of designing a container that can keep hot liquids hot and cold liquids cold. Prior to introducing the design challenge, the teacher is instructed to ask, “What are some of the things you use in your everyday life that keep hot things hot and cold things cold?” Through a sidebar note, the teacher is instructed to focus on insulation and then follow up with the question, “Where have you heard of insulation before?” While these questions could elicit prior knowledge from students who contribute to the discussion, they are not structured to elicit or leverage prior knowledge from all students in the classroom. 

In Grade 7, Module: Earth History, Investigation 1, Earth is Rock, the phenomenon is the walls of the Grand Canyon appear to contain horizontal stripes. After introducing students to this phenomenon with posters and a video of a flyover, students are asked the Focus Question, “Why do there appear to be stripes on the walls of the Grand Canyon?” Students record their answers in their notebooks and then engage in a class discussion. The materials provide no prompts for teachers to elicit student reasoning for their answer or connect their answer to personal prior knowledge or experiences visiting the Grand Canyon.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 6-8 do not meet expectations that they embed phenomena or problems across multiple lessons for students to use and build knowledge of all three dimensions. While the materials provide a limited number of phenomena that drive student learning across multiple parts of an investigation, they do not include phenomena or problems that drive learning across multiple investigations. Each module or course is organized around a large topic or concept, comprised of multiple investigations building towards student understanding of the topic or concept for the module. While students engage in the three dimensions and develop an understanding of the larger concept or topic, they have limited opportunities to use and build knowledge of the three dimensions in the context of making sense of a phenomenon or solving a problem. When they do, that occurs within a single investigation. 

Examples of modules across the series that do not use phenomena or problems to drive student learning across multiple investigations:

• In Grade 6, Module: Weather and Water, students engage in a series of ten investigations to answer the guiding question, “What makes weather happen?” In Investigation 1, students engage in discussions about their local weather, learn that air can be compressed, and view the earth from space to observe and describe complex atmospheric weather patterns. While one part of this investigation is driven by a phenomenon, the phenomenon does not drive learning across the entire investigation or across multiple investigations. In subsequent investigations, students build deeper understanding of air pressure and wind, convection, radiation, and conduction. Students also explore global wind circulation, atmospheric moisture, and ocean circulation to track the movement of water in the atmosphere and oceans, and climate data to aid in interpreting and predicting weather. While the driving question helps provide context for the unit and developing knowledge weather, students are not using it to make sense of a phenomenon across multiple investigations.
• In Grade 6, Module: Human Systems Interactions, students engage in a series of three investigations to answer the guiding question, “How do humans live, grow and respond to their environment?” Investigation 1 is driven by a phenomenon a woman recently developed fever, fatigue, muscle aches, joint pains, and severe headaches. After being presented with a patient’s symptoms, students collect information about organ systems and their interactions to support a diagnosis of the mystery disease. This phenomenon is not revisited or used to drive learning in the subsequent investigations in this module. In Investigation 2, students learn more detail about cells in the body as they relate to transfer of food and oxygen, and then using those components during aerobic cellular respiration. In Investigation 3, students learn more detail about the nervous system and how it is sends and receives messages used by the senses and how it is involved in learning and memory. While the driving question helps provide context for the unit and developing knowledge about human systems and their interactions, students are not using it to make sense of a phenomenon across multiple investigations.
• In Grade 6, Module: Diversity of Life, students engage in a series of nine investigations to answer the guiding question, “How do you know that something is living?” Most of the investigations are driven by a concept and question and not a phenomenon or problem. In Investigation 1, students conduct an investigation to determine whether an unknown material is living. In the subsequent eight investigations students engage in activities such as using microscopes to observe microorganisms and make bacteria cell cultures and bread molds. Investigation 5 is driven by the phenomenon a rootless stalk of celery is placed in water and a day later the water level in the container has decreased. This phenomenon contributes to the understanding of cells and tissues and how that contributes to the life of an organism. This phenomenon is not revisited or used to drive learning in any of the subsequent investigations in this module. In the remaining investigations, students determine how the environmental factor of salinity affects plant germination and growth. They dissect flowers to investigate plant reproduction, and conduct a bioblitz to look at local biodiversity. Finally, students explore if viruses are living and answer the focus question using what they have learned by participating in the investigations. Although students continue to refine their ideas about living and nonliving things across the investigations, this learning is driven by the larger concept. While the driving question helps provide context for the unit and developing knowledge about characteristics of living organisms, students are not using it to make sense of a phenomenon across multiple investigations.
• In Grade 7, Module: Populations and Ecosystems, students engage in a series of nine investigations to develop an understanding of the driving question, “How do organisms, matter, and energy interact in an ecosystem?” No phenomenon or problem drives learning across multiple investigations or within a single investigation. Investigation 1 and Investigation 7 both use classroom populations of milkweed bugs to develop an understanding of factors needed for this insect to survive and reproduce, and how the availability of those factors impacts population sizes. Investigations 2-4 focus on developing understanding of ecosystems, their components, and interactions within ecosystems. Investigations 5-6 focus on understanding how energy and matter interact within ecosystems. Investigations 8-9 focus on developing student understanding of human impact on ecosystems and strategies for mitigating the impact. While the driving question helps provide context for the unit and developing knowledge about interactions between organisms, energy, and matter, students are not using it to make sense of a phenomenon across multiple investigations.
• In Grade 7, Module: Chemical Interactions, students engage in a series of ten investigations to answer the guiding question, “How does matter interact?” Most of the investigations are driven by a concept and question and not a phenomenon or problem. Investigations 1-3 focus on developing student understanding of substances and their properties, elements and their properties, and the particulate nature of matter. Investigations 4-6 focus on understanding energy among particles, energy transfer, and factors impacting energy transfer. Investigation 6 is driven by the challenge of designing a container that can keep hot liquids hot and cold liquids cold. This design challenge is not revisited or used to drive learning in the subsequent investigations in this module. Investigations 7-10 focus on developing student understanding of particles in solution, phase changes, chemical reactions and factors impacting chemical reactions. While the driving question helps provide context for the unit and developing knowledge about chemical interactions, students are not using it to make sense of a phenomenon across multiple investigations.
• In Grade 8, Module: Planetary Science, students engage in a series of nine investigations to develop an understanding of the driving question, “What is my cosmic address?” Seven of the investigations are driven by a concept and question, and two investigations are driven by a phenomenon; neither of these phenomena drive learning across multiple investigations. Investigation 1 develops student understanding of earth as a system. The last part of this investigation provides an opportunity for students to collect first-hand observations about the shape of the moon that will be used as the phenomenon in Activity 4. Investigation 2 develops understanding of the relationship between the earth and the sun, including the causes of day and night, seasons, and day length. Investigations 3-5 collectively develop student knowledge and understanding of the moon. In Investigation 4 students use the moon log data they collected at the end of Investigation 1 to observe the phenomenon that the shape of the moon changes over the course of a month and the pattern then repeats. To make sense of this phenomenon, students develop a model matching the pattern they have in their moon log. In Investigation 5, students observe the phenomenon there are craters on the moon. Students collect evidence to figure out that impacts are the cause of these craters. The remaining investigations in this module support students in building knowledge of the history and details of the solar system. While the driving question helps provide context for the unit and developing knowledge about the earth’s place in the universe, students are not using it to make sense of a phenomenon across multiple investigations. 
• In Grade 8, Module: Heredity and Adaptation, students engage in a series of three investigations to develop an understanding of the driving question, “How can we explain the diversity of life that exists on Earth?” No phenomenon or problem drives learning across multiple investigations or within a single investigation. Investigation 1 focuses on developing student understanding of the fossil record, how it can be used to understand past life on earth, and how it has changed over time. Investigations 2 and 3 focus on developing an understanding of the core ideas of heredity and natural selection. While the driving question helps provide context for the unit and developing knowledge about the diversity of life on earth, students are not using it to make sense of a phenomenon across multiple investigations.
• In Grade 8, Module: Gravity and Kinetic Energy, students engage in a series of four investigations to develop an understanding of the driving question, “How can we explain the motion of objects?” No phenomenon or problem drives learning across multiple investigations or within a single investigation. Students engage in four investigations to develop an understanding of forces and motion and how energy is transferred and conserved in collisions. Students test the effect of mass and height of a falling ball, describe the relationship between stopping time in a collision and force applied, and apply the concept that energy transfers between objects in a collision. While the driving question helps provide context for the unit and developing knowledge about forces and motion, students are not using it to make sense of a phenomenon across multiple investigations.