OpenSciEd Chemistry

The materials are explicitly designed so that every lesson includes one or more lesson-level performance expectations (LLPEs) structured as three-dimensional learning, combining SEP, DCI, and CCC elements, with font coding indicating each dimension's alignment ([E1], [E2]). Individual learning opportunities across multiple units consistently cite specific elements from all three dimensions — e.g., lightning-formation modeling (SEP 2.3; DCI PS2.B.3, PS3.A; CCC) in [E12], causal-relationship reasoning (SEP 2.4; DCI PS2.B.2; CCC 2.1) in [E9], salinity investigation planning (SEP 3.1; DCI PS1.A.3; CCC 1.5) in [E10], and element-organization modeling (SEP 2.3; DCI PS1.A.2; CCC 1.5) in [E11]. This pattern of element-coded three-dimensional opportunities recurs across the Structure & Properties of Matter, Thermodynamics, and Molecular Processes units, showing learning sequences consistently incorporate the three dimensions.

The materials consistently provide learning opportunities anchored in both phenomena and problems across multiple grade-10 units. Phenomena are explicitly introduced to drive learning—e.g., the sea level rise phenomenon ('INTRODUCE A PHENOMENON AFFECTING DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES,' E1, E2, E9) and asking science questions about phenomena (E4). Problems/design challenges are equally present—the oyster die-off problem is introduced, broken into subproblems, and addressed via competing design solutions (E5, E6, E7, E8, E12), and E3/E11 explicitly pair 'phenomenon and problem.' This structural evidence shows both elements are intentionally and consistently embedded as drivers of learning, meeting the 4-point criterion.

Materials are structurally designed for three-dimensional sensemaking: every lesson-level performance expectation explicitly combines SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs [E3, E8, E10], and 3D assessment/learning opportunities recur across multiple units [E2, E6, E7]. The indicator's required iteration component is consistently supported through Progress Trackers used to 'revisit, revise, and prioritize ideas' for progressive sensemaking [E1, E4] and repeated model/argument revision around phenomena [E6, E7]. Evidence of phenomena-driven sensemaking and iteration appears across the grade-10 sequence (Molecular Processes, Thermodynamics, Energy, Structure & Properties), meeting both the 3D-sensemaking and iteration criteria.

Across multiple units, phenomena and problems are explicitly and consistently tied to named grade-band HS DCIs and their elements: lightning connects to PS2.B.3 and PS3.A.2 [E1][E8], the vehicle-fuel problem to PS3.A.2/PS3.A.4 [E4][E6][E10][E11], sea level rise/human migration to ESS3.B.1 [E5][E9][E12], and the oyster die-off problem to PS1/ESS2/ESS3 with ETS DCIs appropriately paired to physical/earth-science domains [E2][E7]. All cited DCIs are from the physical and earth/space science domains at the HS grade band, and they are the ideas students actually use to explain the phenomena, satisfying consistent connection. This meets the 2-point criterion that phenomena/problems consistently connect to grade-band DCIs or their elements.

Materials consistently present phenomena directly to all students as a common experience: the anchoring phenomenon (sea-level rise affecting coastal communities) is introduced via shared videos and a sea-level graph displayed to the whole class [E1, E2, E5, E7], with teacher scripting on specific slides ('Display slide A... Let's get ready to explore a phenomenon') that gives every student the same firsthand entry point rather than assuming prior knowledge [E3, E5, E11]. Subsequent lesson-level phenomena follow the same direct-presentation design (e.g., the CO2/warming bottle system and fuel-combustion phenomena introduced via investigation and modeling) [E10, E12], and the teacher guide explicitly frames the course around exploring phenomena to build a common experience [E4, E6, E8]. This structural, repeated pattern across lessons supports consistent direct presentation.

Every OpenSciEd lesson includes Lesson-Level Performance Expectations (LLPEs) explicitly designed as three-dimensional objectives combining SEP, DCI, and CCC elements with font-coded source alignment [E1][E3], and the program states LLPEs 'detail the specific dimensions and elements used and assessed in each lesson' [E2]. The objectives consistently provide element-level specificity (e.g., 'SEP: 2.3; DCI: PS2.B.3, PS1.A.2; CCC: 1.1, 6.2' [E10]; 'SEP: 7.5; DCI: ESS1.C.2; CCC: 1.1' [E6]; 'SEP: 8.2, 8.5; DCI: ESS2.C.1, PS2.B.3; CCC: 1.5' [E11]). Materials also map matching student-facing opportunities to use those elements via 'when to check for understanding' slides and 'what to look/listen for' guidance [E4][E9][E12], satisfying both required components.

The materials include a coherent, intentionally designed formative assessment system tied to targeted learning objectives (Lesson-Level PEs/LLPEs). The STAMP protocol links each LLPE to specific look-fors and structured feedback to track student progress [E1][E2][E9]; embedded lesson-level formative assessments are explicitly mapped to performance expectations via assessment guidance documents [E3][E4][E10][E12]; Progress Trackers serve as recurring formative and self-assessment tools across named lessons [E5][E6][E8][E11]; and Electronic Exit Tickets check understanding of lesson-level PEs and focal SEPs/CCCs [E7]. This structural evidence shows formative assessments are consistently designed to reveal progress on targeted objectives across multiple units.

Evidence shows the materials are structurally designed to both elicit and leverage prior knowledge/experience consistently across units. The Anchoring Phenomenon Routine explicitly includes a 'related experiences' component that elicits students' community/family/cultural connections [E4, E8, E9] and personal memories [E5, E10], with teacher prompts for sharing stories. Materials also intentionally leverage prior science learning by building on practices and DCIs from earlier units [E2, E3, E11, E12] and extend elicitation through home-learning interviews with family/community [E6]. E1 confirms an explicit design intent to surface prior experiences to drive student questions, satisfying both the elicit and leverage components consistently.

The materials consistently anchor each unit in a phenomenon or design problem that drives student learning — sea level rise/human migration [E1, E2, E3, E12], lightning [E4, E8, E11], fuel use and emissions [E5], and oyster die-off as a design problem [E6]. Crucially, this learning consistently engages all three dimensions, with explicit DCI/SEP/CCC tagging woven into the sense-making (e.g., SEP 1.2 asking questions, CCC 7.2/5.2 in modeling sea level rise [E3]; SEP 2.3, DCI PS2.B.3, DCI PS3.A.2, CCC 1.1/3.3 in the lightning model [E7, E10]; SEP 2.3, DCI PS3.A.2, CCC 5.3 in the fuels model [E5]). The Driving Question Board and consensus-model routines [E8, E11] show phenomena structurally driving instruction rather than ideas being front-loaded, satisfying both 6-point criteria.

Each summative assessment consistently and explicitly names the standard(s) assessed: the Heat Pumps Transfer Task assesses HS-PS3-4 [E1], the Airplane Transfer Task and End-of-Unit Assessment target HS-PS2-6 with full three-dimensional element codes (SEP 2.3; DCI PS2.B.3; CCC 1.1, 3.3) [E4][E7], and the exit ticket maps to SEP 8 [E12]. The Assessment System Overview documents an intentionally designed system of pre-, formative, summative, and self-assessment with a locator table [E8][E10], and mid-/end-of-unit transfer tasks are deliberately built around claimed PEs and dimensions [E3][E5]. This structural evidence shows standards are consistently identified and the system is designed to measure achievement of the claimed assessment standards.

Multiple end-of-unit summative transfer tasks are explicitly designed around novel/uncertain phenomena that students apply unit ideas to explain—the 'Heat Pumps Transfer Task' (E1) and the 'Ammonia Fertilizer Task' (E10), both described as engaging students with a 'novel phenomenon' that 'can be explained using ideas from the unit.' These assessments consistently integrate all three dimensions, as shown by element-level SEP/DCI/CCC coding throughout the LLPEs and assessment guidance (E5, E7, E8, E9, E12) and rubrics designed to track students' use of 'all three dimensions of the NGSS' (E6, E2-E4). This structural pattern—transfer tasks built on uncertain phenomena across units paired with consistent three-dimensional integration—satisfies both required components for Meets Expectations.

The materials show intentional, structural development of claimed grade-band DCI elements across the course, with lesson-level performance expectations (LLPEs) that detail the specific dimensions and elements used and assessed in each lesson [E3]. Numerous distinct DCI elements are explicitly developed with concrete 'what to look/listen for' criteria — e.g., ESS1.C.2 [E2], PS1.A.2/PS1.A.3 [E4][E7], ESS2.D.1 [E5], PS4.B.4/ESS1.A.2 [E9], and ESS2.A.1/ESS2.C.1/PS2.B.3 [E10][E11] — demonstrating students fully build and apply these ideas to anchoring phenomena rather than merely 'covering' them. The program also documents cross-unit progressions that build on prior DCIs [E1][E8], indicating coherent full-scope development consistent with the highest band.

The materials carry explicit element-level SEP claims across a wide range of practices and contexts: SEP 2 (Developing/Using Models 2.1, 2.3, 2.4) in [E4][E6][E9][E12], SEP 3 (Planning/Carrying Out Investigations 3.1) in [E7], SEP 4 (Analyzing/Interpreting Data 4.1) in [E1][E2], SEP 5 (Mathematics/Computational Thinking 5.1) in [E10], SEP 7 (Argument from Evidence 7.1, 7.5) in [E3][E11], and SEP 8 (Obtaining/Evaluating/Communicating Information 8.2, 8.5) in [E1][E5][E10]. Each lesson structures multiple, repeated opportunities to use the claimed SEPs across varied contexts (e.g., 'across opportunities 1-5' in [E5], staged model revision in [E9], spectra analysis across partners/readings in [E1]), satisfying the consistent multiple-and-repeated-use requirement. Non-retrieval of SEPs 1 and 6 reflects a sampling limitation within this designed three-dimensional course, not evidence of absence, so it does not lower the score.

The materials embed element-level CCC codes directly into lesson-level performance expectations with explicit 'what to look/listen for' and 'when to check for understanding' guidance, showing intentional design for students to develop and use CCCs. Multiple grade-band CCCs appear repeatedly across varied contexts—Patterns (1.1, 1.5) in poster-building, claim defense, modeling, and investigations [E1, E2, E3, E6, E8, E11]; Scale/Proportion/Quantity (3.1, 3.5) tied to Coulomb's law [E10]; and Structure & Function (6.1, 6.2) in modeling polarity and material properties [E8, E9, E11]. STSE topics (Natural Resources, Human Impacts) are also connected [E12], and the consistent recurrence across lessons demonstrates multiple and repeated opportunities across various contexts. Retrieval did not surface every claimed CCC, but the structural integration is consistent and intentional, warranting the top band.

The materials present all three dimensions with proper standards coding and scientifically accurate content across learning opportunities and assessments. Thermodynamics is correctly stated—conservation of energy and that uncontrolled systems evolve toward more uniform energy distribution (E6); chemistry is accurate—electronegativity differences driving bond polarity and water's dissolving capacity (E10), conservation of matter limiting chemical reactions (E7), and electric/magnetic field interactions at the atomic scale (E12). DCIs match NGSS wording (E11), SEPs and CCCs are correctly identified and applied to phenomena (E3, E8, E9), with assessment guidance ('look/listen for') reflecting accurate science (E4, E9). No scientific errors are evident in any retrieved dimension.

The materials show intentional design to stay within grade-band DCIs and make meaningful connections to prior learning. Each lesson includes 'Where we are going' and 'Where we are not going' sections and 'Crossout explanations' marking when DCIs are/aren't fully developed [E1][E2], and below-grade-band MS/HS DCIs are explicitly carried forward with stated connections to current grade-band PEs [E3][E4][E5][E6][E7]. Notably, content beyond the grade band (AP Chemistry topics like resonance, VSEPR, hybridization) is explicitly flagged as 'outside the bounds of the NGSS' and offered only as optional extension, not as core science ideas [E8], and no non-scientific (moral/religious/aesthetic) ideas are presented as science. This structural evidence supports all required components.

The teacher materials explicitly document intentional progression in task sophistication: [E1] describes students optimizing designs across an entire unit (Lessons 5, 7, 8) and then in Lessons 9, 11, 14, 15 producing explanations/designs that 'get more complex as they increasingly account for values, ethics, student-generated sources of evidence, and tradeoffs.' [E2] and [E5] explicitly trace how Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions 'increases its sophistication from middle school,' establishing a deliberate grade-band progression. Within-course growth is corroborated by lesson PE coding ([E4], [E11], [E12]) and a culminating transfer task on novel phenomena ([E7], [E8]) that requires integrating modeling, mathematical thinking, and conservation reasoning—structural evidence the materials are designed for consistently increasing sophistication.

The materials regularly provide strategies and supports for special populations across every retrieved unit. Each unit integrates UDL principles to reduce barriers, community agreements, discourse supports, and specific strategies for emerging multilingual learners [E1][E2][E3][E4][E5]. These are operationalized through recurring teacher-guide callout boxes (Attending to Equity, Supporting Emerging Multilingual Learners, Supporting Universal Design for Learning, Additional Guidance, Alternate Activity) with concrete examples like the Coherent Reading Protocol for reading comprehension support and student-choice activities to support engagement [E6][E7][E9][E10]. This structural, regularly-recurring design across the series satisfies all required components.

Evidence shows comprehensive, embedded teacher guidance: structured callout boxes (Attending to Equity, Supporting Emerging Multilingual Learners, UDL, Additional Guidance, Alternate Activity, Key Ideas, Discussion) annotate specific activities [E2][E3], and lesson-level guidance like 'What to do' / 'What to look/listen for' is tied directly to specific learning objectives and SEP/DCI/CCC codes [E5][E6][E11][E12][E10]. Annotations explicitly support engaging students in figuring out phenomena and solving problems—e.g., Progress Tracker enactment guidance for progressive sensemaking [E1][E7][E8], sample-question and modeling guidance for the chemical-engineering problem [E6][E9]. This satisfies both required components: comprehensive presentation guidance AND sufficient/useful annotations within the context of specific learning objectives.

Component 1 is clearly met: the materials provide just-in-time science content background specific to the DCIs figured out in each lesson, plus 'Where we are going/not going' sections, expected responses/keys/rubrics, and recommended adult-level learning resources to build teacher understanding [E1, E2, E3, E8, E12]. Component 2 is also met: the teacher materials reference the K-12 Science Framework 'including what students have learned previously and where they are headed in high school' for named DCIs [E3, E8], and explicitly discuss connections to middle school understandings and prerequisite/co-requisite math standards across courses [E10, E11]. Both required components (grade-level concept explanations AND cross-grade alignment) are structurally supported.

Materials provide multiple, purposeful extension opportunities across units that deepen engagement with grade-level content at higher complexity rather than simply assigning more work: built-in lesson extensions throughout units [E2, E3], spending more time on carbon cycle/sequestration thinking that links to additional DCIs [E3], investigating a wider variety of material properties at macro/microscopic scales [E2], researching metals/composites/electronic materials via Synthesis and Evaluation [E7], accessing open-access chemical research papers on cement structure [E7], student-choice community engineering projects [E4], and incorporating advanced math standards [E8]. These extend the grade-level topic at greater depth and are framed as enrichment for all/interested students, with no evidence that advanced students merely do more assignments than classmates. This satisfies both required components for full credit.

The materials provide systematic, multi-level NGSS standards correlation: every activity is tagged with specific DCI, SEP, and CCC codes [E1][E2], and each lesson includes lesson-level performance expectations (LLPEs) whose font-coding explicitly shows alignment to each of the three NGSS dimensions [E3][E4]. The lesson-by-lesson assessment-opportunity tables and LLPE design explanation demonstrate that the correlations are framed in the context of the overall unit/series, satisfying the structural requirement that the role of standards be explained. Explicit CCSS ELA/math connection tables were not present in the retrieved chunks, but this is a retrieval limitation rather than affirmative absence given the robust standards-correlation architecture evident throughout.

The materials explain the program's instructional approaches—the OpenSciEd instructional model with the teacher as community member, students figuring out scientific ideas motivated by phenomena, and iterative model-building integrated through named OpenSciEd routines [E6, E9, E12], with structured teacher-guide callouts (Attending to Equity, Supporting UDL, Additional Guidance) [E4, E7]. They also name and reference research-based strategies, most explicitly Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles integrated during unit design [E1, E2, E3, E10], alongside the K-12 Science Framework [E12]. Both required components—explanation of instructional approaches AND reference to research-based strategies—are supported.

The materials include comprehensive, structured supply lists for instructional activities. Every lesson contains a dedicated 'Materials List' organized into per student / per group / per class columns specifying exact quantities and items (e.g., [E1] '1 heat lamp, 1 16.9 oz. plastic water bottle, 1 100-mL graduated cylinder'; [E3], [E7], [E10]). Lessons also include 'Materials preparation' sections detailing copies and setup ([E4], [E5], [E11]), and complex labs provide station-specific material breakdowns ([E6], [E8], [E9]). This consistent, named, quantified listing across multiple units and lessons is exactly the structural evidence the indicator requires.

The assessment system provides consistent opportunities throughout the year: every lesson includes one or more LLPEs with summarized assessment opportunities, and these appear across multiple units (Structure & Properties, Chemical Reactions, Energy from Chemical & Nuclear Processes, Molecular Processes, Thermodynamics) [E2][E4][E8][E11], supplemented by recurring Progress Trackers and self-assessment rubrics [E6][E9][E12]. Teacher guidance for evaluating performance is sufficient—each LLPE is linked to specific look-fors and scoring guidance/keys [E3][E5][E6][E7]. Guidance for interpreting performance and determining next instructional steps is also present, including 'when to check for understanding' callouts and direction to ask probing questions and redirect students to relevant resources when criteria are unmet via the STAMP feedback protocol [E1][E4][E5]. All three required components are consistently supported.