OpenSciEd Biology

Structural evidence consistently shows learning opportunities designed around the three dimensions: every LLPE is explicitly structured as three-dimensional learning combining SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs, with font coding indicating each dimension's alignment within the statements [E1][E2][E3]. Individual learning opportunities carry explicit three-dimensional element codes (e.g., 'SEP: 2.3; DCI: LS2.B, PS3.D; CCC: 4.3') [E12], and units describe intentional development of practices like modeling alongside CCCs (cause/effect, structure/function) across lessons [E11]. This consistent design across multiple grade-9 units (B.2, B.3) supports the indicator's requirement that learning sequences consistently incorporate the three dimensions.

Materials consistently include phenomena: the unit is anchored by a puzzling, observable Earth science phenomenon (zombie fires burning under Arctic ice, E7), structured into a phenomenon-driven storyline (E1, E9-E11) with student-generated driving questions (E4, E8). Materials also include engineering problems/design challenges: the unit question frames fire management ('how should we manage them?' E1), Lesson 10 explicitly shifts to 'How do we design solutions to manage the impacts of fires?' (E8), and the Ecosystem Interactions unit develops design criteria for conservation decisions (E6). This structural evidence shows learning opportunities that consistently include BOTH phenomena and problems across the course.

Materials are explicitly designed for three-dimensional learning: every lesson includes LLPEs structured to combine SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs [E3], and students consistently use prior knowledge, new information, and evidence to figure out novel/unexplained phenomena like zombie fires and wildfires [E2][E5][E8][E9][E11]. The materials provide repeated opportunities to iterate on thinking via Progress Trackers, consensus models, and prompts such as 'what evidence do you have to support changes in your thinking since Lesson 1?' [E2][E11], and matter/energy card sensemaking that surfaces and revises unseen mechanisms [E5][E8]. This meets both the three-dimensional sensemaking and iteration components required for the top band.

The anchoring phenomena (zombie fires, polar/brown bear competition) are consistently tagged to grade-band HS life and earth science DCIs—ESS2.D.3, LS1.C.3, LS2.B.3, LS2.C.1/2 [E1, E8, E9, E12]—and lesson framing explicitly builds toward HS performance expectations (HS-LS1-5/6/7, HS-LS2-6/7, HS-LS4-1/2/4/5, HS-ESS2-7) [E11, E12]. Students return to and figure out these DCIs across the sequence rather than receiving immediate explanations, with just-in-time DCI-specific teacher support [E3, E4, E5]. The connection to grade-band DCIs is consistent across the retrieved phenomena, satisfying the 2-point criterion.

Materials consistently present phenomena directly to students, creating a common shared experience as the entry point. Students view videos and receive distributed transcripts (banana task, [E1]), observe time-lapse satellite imagery of urbanization ([E2]), watch bear footage with Notice and Wonder charts ([E9]), and view burn-scar images then read shared texts about Arctic fires ([E7]). The unit storyline explicitly maps how every phenomenon is delivered through videos/images, data sets, readings, and hands-on labs ([E11], [E12], [E6]), confirming a deliberate design where all students engage the phenomenon firsthand rather than relying on assumed background knowledge.

The materials consistently provide element-level three-dimensional learning objectives via Lesson-Level Performance Expectations (LLPEs), which by design combine SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs and 'detail the specific dimensions and elements used and assessed in each lesson' [E1], [E2]. Element-level specificity is explicit—e.g., 'SEP: 2.3; DCI: ESS2.D.3; CCC: 5.4' with named elements [E7]—and students engage with these elements through model development, investigations, and assessments tied to the LLPEs [E5], [E6], [E10]. The unit narratives further show intentional, integrated development and use of the three dimensions across learning sequences [E2], [E4], [E8], satisfying both required components.

The materials include a deliberate, system-wide formative assessment design: each unit's Assessment System Overview defines pre-, formative, summative, and self-assessment types, with formative assessments embedded and flagged by an 'Assessment Icon' in teacher support boxes [E3][E10]. Formative tasks are explicitly tied to targeted learning objectives—Electronic Exit Tickets and Lesson Performance Expectation Assessment Guidance are linked directly to lesson-level performance expectations (LLPEs) [E5][E4][E7], and lesson-specific formative tasks (pedigree models, gene-expression keys, decomposition explanations) come with keys/rubrics to reveal progress [E6][E11][E12]. Progress Trackers further provide consistent embedded formative checkpoints across lessons [E1][E8], demonstrating the system consistently reveals student progress on the objectives.

The materials both elicit and leverage prior knowledge consistently. Eliciting is evident through Initial Ideas Discussions ([E3]), drawing on personal fire experiences to predict the phenomenon ([E1]), and the Fire Connections Home Learning that gathers students' family/community experiences ([E6], [E7], [E8], [E9]). Leveraging is structurally embedded: the related-phenomena poster is formally revisited in Lessons 6, 9, 10, and 11 ([E5], [E9]), teacher guidance pushes students to connect experiences to new contexts ([E4], [E10]), and lessons intentionally build on ideas figured out in prior OpenSciEd units ([E2]). This intentional, recurring elicit-and-leverage design across lessons and units satisfies all required components.

Materials consistently use anchoring phenomena to drive learning across multiple units — zombie fires [E4, E12] with a Driving Question Board and a multi-unit storyline progressing from small-scale chemistry to Earth-systems scale [E1, E2], plus the Wapusk bear phenomenon in a separate unit [E3, E8]. Learning is explicitly built around all three dimensions, with consistent SEP/DCI/CCC tagging tied directly to the phenomena (e.g., SEP 1.4, DCI ESS2.D.3, CCC 5.2 [E7, E12]; SEP 2.3, DCI LS1.C.3, CCC 4.3 [E11]; SEP 1.1, DCI LS4.C.4, CCC 3.1 [E8]). Practices are interwoven with crosscutting concepts and DCIs throughout, with intentional incremental development [E2, E6], satisfying both the 'drive student learning' and 'engage all three dimensions' criteria for the maximum score.

The materials present a coherent, intentional summative assessment system (E4 overview describing pre/formative/summative/self-assessment) with named summative tasks across multiple units — Dead Zone Transfer Task (E1), Zombie Fire Explanation with scoring rubric (E2), and Sample Interview Protocol (E5). Standards are explicitly identified for these assessments: E8 ties the Dead Zone summative task to specific NGSS elements ("Building toward 12.A... SEP: 2.3; DCI: LS2.B, PS3.D; CCC: 4.3"), and E7/E10 show every lesson is built on three-dimensional LLPEs with font-coding indicating alignment to each NGSS dimension. This structural evidence shows the system consistently identifies claimed standards and is designed to measure achievement of nearly all of them, satisfying both 4-point components.

Structural evidence shows assessments consistently integrate the three dimensions—LLPEs are explicitly designed to combine SEP, DCI, and CCC elements [E1][E2], with assessment items coded to all three dimensions throughout [E5][E6][E9][E12]. Summative tasks consistently center uncertain/novel phenomena: an end-of-unit transfer task on 'the novel phenomenon of engineering bananas resistant to fungus' [E8], the zombie-fire explanation requiring students to apply learning to 'explain a new phenomenon' [E10][E7], and tasks built around explicit 'uncertainty about what will happen to the black bear populations' [E5]. This pattern across multiple units satisfies both required components—consistent uncertain phenomena AND consistent three-dimensional integration.

Materials show strong structural evidence of intentionally developing claimed grade-band DCI elements: specific DCI elements are named, tied to individual lessons, and built incrementally toward 'a complete understanding' (e.g., LS1.C.3 [E1, E7], LS2.B.3 and ESS2.D.3 [E4, E9, E11], LS2.B.1/LS1.C.4 [E12], LS4.D.1/ESS2.E.1 [E10]). Units explicitly enumerate the suite of claimed DCIs (LS2.A, LS2.C, LS2.D, LS4.C, LS4.D, ETS1.B) and use 'Where We Are Going/NOT Going' teacher guidance plus SEP/CCC integration to ensure each element is figured out, not merely covered [E2, E5, E8]. Culminating lessons require students to 'put the pieces together' and apply collected evidence, demonstrating opportunities to fully develop the elements [E1, E6]. This structural design across multiple units supports nearly all claimed grade-band DCI elements.

Materials show element-level SEP claims developed across multiple units and lessons with explicit coding: planning/carrying out investigations (SEP 3.2, 3.3 in [E2], [E4], [E5], [E7], [E10] across Lessons 2,3,5,8), developing/using models (SEP 2 in [E4]), constructing explanations/designing solutions (SEP 6.5 in [E8]), engaging in argument from evidence (SEP 7.6 in [E9], [E11]), and obtaining/evaluating/communicating information (SEP 8.2, 8.5 in [E9], [E12]). NOS connections tied to SEPs are explicitly developed ([E1], [E3]). The evidence demonstrates multiple and repeated opportunities to use claimed grade-band SEPs across various contexts and units, satisfying both required components.

Structural evidence shows intentional, named grade-band CCC development across multiple units: E8 explicitly lists CCC elements a unit develops (e.g., Patterns — 'Different patterns may be observed at each of...'), and E10 states the program develops 'all 46 SEP and 29 CCC elements' with focal CCCs articulated per unit, indicating full-scope coverage across the course. Multiple grade-9 biology units (E2, E4, E5, E6, E11) provide repeated, varied-context opportunities, and the required NOS/STSE connections to CCCs are present (E7 costs/benefits of technology and three-dimensional progressions; E12 explicit NOS-CCC tagging). This satisfies both required components — fully developing nearly all claimed grade-band CCC elements AND multiple/repeated opportunities across contexts.

Across learning opportunities and embedded assessments, all three dimensions are presented in a scientifically accurate manner. The DCI content is correct—energy/matter flow through photosynthesis (LS1.C.1) [E1][E8], cellular respiration releasing carbon to the atmosphere (LS2.B.3) [E12], chemical reactions regrouping atoms into new substances (PS1.B) [E5], and the directional cause-effect relationship between rising CO2 and temperature (ESS2.D.3) [E2][E6]. SEPs (planning/carrying out investigations with identified independent/dependent variables, evaluating data accuracy) [E2][E5][E8] and CCCs (energy/matter flow 5.2, cause-and-effect 2.2, systems) [E6][E10] are accurately applied, and assessment guidance reflects the same accurate science [E7][E12], with no observed major or minor errors.

The materials show strong structural evidence of bounding content to grade-band DCIs: explicit 'Where We Are Going / NOT Going' sections frame each lesson's scope [E1][E3][E4], and beyond-grade content is deliberately excluded with rationale (e.g., bond formation and photosynthesis light-reaction pathways flagged as 'beyond the scope of the NGSS high school grade band' [E2]). All learning targets are tagged to HS-level DCIs (LS4.C.5, ESS2.D.3, LS1.C.3, LS4.C.4) [E3][E5][E6][E8][E12], and below-grade-band ideas are explicitly surfaced and connected with support (MS PS1.B in [E7]; 'from middle school and earlier grade bands' in [E4]). No non-scientific (moral/aesthetic/religious) content is presented as a science idea—ethical considerations are framed as SEP-3.3 decision-making, not as science content [E10][E11]. This satisfies all four required components for the top rating.

Multiple units show student explanation/modeling tasks intentionally increasing in sophistication: models are developed then revised with complexity added from small-scale to large-scale processes ([E1], [E2]), and explanation tasks progress from constructing to revising with new data connecting genetic-to-population scales ([E4], [E6], [E8]). The materials also build a scaffold-to-independence arc within and across units — students construct explanations with teacher feedback and scaffolding before an independent transfer task ([E3], [E9]) — and explicitly build on middle-school skills toward higher sophistication in high school ([E12]). This consistent structural design across several units supports the indicator.

The materials regularly provide strategies and supports for special populations across units. Every unit integrates UDL principles to reduce barriers and increase accessibility, supports classroom discourse, and includes specific strategies for emerging multilingual learners [E1-E5]. Teacher guides systematically surface these through recurring sidebar callouts—'Attending to Equity,' 'Supporting Emerging Multilingual Learners,' 'Supporting Universal Design for Learning,' 'Additional Guidance,' and 'Alternate Activity'—with concrete activity modifications (e.g., allowing graphing tools to keep focus on the learning goal) [E6-E10], plus guidance for recognizing and responding to struggling students [E11-E12]. This recurring, structurally embedded design across the grade-9 series demonstrates regular and active participation supports for special populations.

Materials provide comprehensive teacher guidance for enacting student/ancillary materials: just-in-time science background plus 'Where we are going/not going' sections and expected response keys [E1], detailed timed learning-plan steps with facilitation moves [E2,E7,E9,E12], and ancillary tools like the Discussion-Mapping Tool [E11]. Annotations are presented within the context of specific learning objectives — callouts are tied to named SEPs/DCIs and LLPEs (e.g., 'Building toward 12.A Develop a model...' with feedback-via-key guidance) [E6,E8] — and they explicitly attend to engaging students in figuring out phenomena and asking questions [E2,E3]. Both required components (comprehensive guidance AND sufficient, objective-anchored annotations) are clearly met.

Component 1 (grade-level concept explanations for teachers) is supported: the materials provide just-in-time DCI-specific science content background, 'Where we are going/not going' sections, expected student responses, keys, and rubrics, plus K-12 Framework references as adult-level learning resources [E1][E2][E3][E4][E12], and even describe the math concepts students engage with [E10]. Component 2 (alignment across grade/course levels) is also explicitly supported: the materials map prior middle-school OpenSciEd units and the subsequent Biology/Chemistry/Physics units the DCIs build toward [E5][E8], identify specific middle-school band support units [E9], and reference what students learned previously and where they go next [E2]. Both required components are met by structural evidence, warranting the maximum.

Materials provide multiple, recurring 'To extend or enhance the unit' sections across every unit retrieved, offering advanced/interested students higher-complexity engagement with the three dimensions rather than mere additional work: quantitative predictions and modeling of next-generation allele changes [E2], genetic drift and allele-fixation simulations [E3], in-depth body-system/cancer-disruption exploration tied to HS-LS1.A.1 [E4], protein structure-function analysis based on amino acid charge [E5], and CODAP/spreadsheet statistical analysis using r² [E11]. These are framed as optional depth opportunities for 'motivated' or 'interested' students [E4, E8, E10] and extend grade-level content rather than assigning extra parallel work, with no evidence of advanced students simply doing more assignments than classmates. This satisfies both required components for the top band.

The materials provide explicit standards correlation information at lesson and unit levels, including formatted correlation tables mapping CCSS.MATH codes to domains, headings, standards, and specific lessons (E8, E9) and named NGSS performance expectations (E10). Connections to college- and career-ready math and ELA standards are documented with specific codes like CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HS.N-Q.2 and CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.9-10.2 (E1, E2). Crucially, the teacher materials explain the ROLE of these standards in the series context—describing math standards as 'co-requisites rather than prerequisites' developed alongside science sensemaking and advising explicit cross-subject connections (E3, E4, E5), plus 'What mathematics concepts will students engage with' framing (E6) and K-12 Framework references situating DCIs across grade levels (E11). This satisfies all required components for the maximum score.

The materials explain the program's instructional approach—OpenSciEd's phenomenon-driven, storyline-based sensemaking model with just-in-time content background and 'Where we are going/not going' guidance [E1, E3]—and they name and reference research-based strategies, most notably Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles integrated into unit design [E1, E9, E12] and named literacy routines like the Coherent Reading Protocol and teacher read-alouds [E2]. Both required components are structurally evident: explanation of instructional approaches AND inclusion/reference of research-based strategies. This satisfies the 2-point criteria.

The materials include explicit per-lesson 'Materials List' sections organized by per student/per group/per class for virtually every lesson across the unit (e.g., Lesson 2 [E3], Lesson 3 [E2], Lesson 7 [E10], Lesson 8 [E4], Lesson 10 [E12], Lesson 11 [E5]), specifying quantities and consumables (e.g., 4.5 tsp/15 g yeast, 250 mL beakers, digital thermometers in [E2]; balls of clay, Alka-Seltzer tablets, heat lamp in [E4]). Dedicated 'Materials preparation' sections [E1, E6, E8, E11] and investigation gather-lists [E7] further detail supplies needed for instructional activities. This structural, consistent supply-list design across the series satisfies the indicator's requirement for a comprehensive list of supplies.

The assessment system consistently provides opportunities to determine learning across the year: each unit includes pre-, formative, summative, and self-assessment, with formative checks embedded and flagged via an Assessment Icon, plus per-lesson tables mapping assessment opportunities to every LLPE (E1, E3, E4, E10). Teacher guidance for evaluating performance is consistently supplied through answer keys, scoring rubrics, and 'When/Purpose of Assessment/Guidance' tables (E2, E7, E8, E11, E12). Guidance for interpreting performance and determining next steps appears via in-lesson assessment guidance, progress trackers used to gauge individual progress, and feedback support directing teachers on how to support students in the moment (E3, E5, E9, E12). All three required components are structurally supported across multiple grade-9 units.