OpenSciEd Physics

Every OpenSciEd lesson is built around lesson-level performance expectations (LLPEs) whose structure is explicitly designed as three-dimensional learning combining SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs, with font/tagging indicating each dimension's alignment [E1][E2][E3]. This design appears consistently across every retrieved unit (Collisions & Momentum, Stars & the Big Bang, Energy/Forces & Earth's Crust, Energy Flow from Earth's Systems), with specific three-dimensional element codes attached to learning opportunities (e.g., SEP: 2.3; CCC: 3.1, 7.1, 7.3; DCI: ESS [E5]; SEP: 8.2; CCC: 5.2, 5.3; DCI: ETS1.A.2 [E7]; SEP: 1.8, 2.6, 6.5; DCI/CCC codes [E12]). The consistent, intentional integration of all three dimensions into learning sequences across the course satisfies the indicator's requirement for the 2-point band.

Materials consistently use phenomena to launch learning sequences — the Chelyabinsk meteor anchoring phenomenon (E1, E8) with a 14-card related-phenomena deck (E3, E4, E12) and the Afar crack anchoring phenomenon explicitly labeled and used to elicit initial models (E5, E6, E10). Engineering problems/design challenges are also present, e.g., the Collisions & Momentum unit framing vehicle safety as a 'major global challenge' students advocate solutions for in their community (E11, E2). Both phenomena and problems appear as intentional, structurally embedded drivers of learning across multiple units, meeting all required components.

The materials are structurally designed for three-dimensional sensemaking: LLPEs explicitly combine SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs ([E2]), and units intentionally develop dimensions like the CCC stability/change through explicit prompts alongside SEPs (developing/using models, asking questions, argument from evidence) and named DCIs ([E3], [E5], [E6], [E10]). Sensemaking is anchored in novel/uncertain phenomena (guest stars, the Big Bang) that students figure out using prior knowledge, new information, and evidence ([E8], [E10]). Iteration on thinking is consistently supported — students develop and revise models based on evidence ([E4]) and repeatedly update the M-E-F sensemaking poster across Lessons 2, 3, and 4 plus consensus discussions ([E7], [E9], [E11], [E12]) — satisfying both the three-dimensional and the iteration requirements for the top band.

Phenomena and problems consistently connect to grade-band HS DCIs across multiple units. The Meteors/Orbits phenomenon (Chelyabinsk meteor) is explicitly tied to grade-band life/physical/earth elements PS2.B.1, PS3.A.2, and ESS1.B.1 [E1][E2][E3][E5], the Collisions unit grounds its problem in PS2.A (Newton's second law) [E8], and the Energy Flow unit pairs ETS DCIs with physical-science DCIs PS3.A.2/PS3.B.2/B.4 [E12], satisfying the requirement that engineering DCIs co-connect to another domain. Named HS-level performance expectations (HS-ESS1-4, HS-ESS1-6, HS-PS2-4, HS-PS3-1/2) [E5][E12] confirm grade-band placement, demonstrating consistent rather than sporadic DCI connection.

The anchoring phenomenon (the February 2021 Texas blackouts) is presented to students directly and as a common shared experience: the teacher reveals it via slides read aloud with concrete details [E2][E3], students jigsaw a common set of articles [E1], and analyze a shared Texas Outages Map for noticings/wonderings [E4][E9]. The materials explicitly note the goal is to 'provide a concrete shared example for the class to consider and model' [E5], and later phenomena are presented through the hands-on Electric City demonstration [E8][E11], showing direct presentation is consistent across the unit's introductory lessons.

Materials consistently provide element-level three-dimensional learning objectives via Lesson-Level Performance Expectations (LLPEs): every lesson includes LLPEs designed to combine SEPs, DCIs, and CCCs ([E1], [E3]), and E6 confirms LLPEs 'detail the specific dimensions and elements used and assessed in each lesson.' Element-level specificity is explicit—e.g. E9 codes an LLPE as 'SEP: 2.3; CCC: 2.2, 3.2, 7.1; DCI: PS3.A.4, PS3.B.2, PS2.B.3...' Students are given opportunities to use these elements within sequences (planning/conducting investigations and modeling tied to the elements in [E7], [E8]) with assessment opportunities mapped lesson-by-lesson ([E1], [E9]), satisfying both required components.

The materials include a consistent, system-level formative assessment design connected to targeted learning objectives: every lesson has three-dimensional lesson-level performance expectations (LLPEs) that serve as the targeted objectives [E7], and a Lesson-by-Lesson Formative Assessment document identifies which lesson parts/activity sheets function as embedded formative assessments across units [E1][E4][E5]. Electronic Exit Tickets explicitly 'check for understanding of LLPEs' [E10][E12], Progress Trackers formatively assess individual student progress and self-assessment [E2][E6], and individual models are used for formative feedback [E11]. The Assessment System Overview describes a unit-wide structure spanning pre-, formative, summative, and self-assessment with formative assessments called out directly in lesson plans via an assessment icon [E3][E8] — structural evidence that formative assessments are consistently designed to reveal progress on the targeted objectives.

Materials consistently both elicit AND leverage students' prior knowledge and experiences related to the anchoring phenomena. Eliciting is direct and routine—show-of-hands polls about earthquake/volcano experiences [E1], uncovering student ideas about why earthquakes happen [E2], and predictions about car-crash safety [E9]. Crucially, the elicited knowledge is then leveraged: students interview family/community about earthquake experiences [E5], compare those stories to Afar [E7][E10], and feed ideas into the Driving Question Board and investigations [E8][E12], with explicit teacher guidance framing prior experience as a 'productive resource' [E3]. This eliciting-and-leveraging pattern recurs across multiple lessons and across two different units, meeting all required components.

Materials consistently anchor learning in compelling phenomena and design problems across units — the Afar crack in Earth's crust [E5][E7][E10], the Chelyabinsk meteor [E6][E8][E11], and the community energy design problem [E1][E4] — each driving multi-lesson investigation via Driving Question Boards and initial/consensus models. Learning targets explicitly integrate all three dimensions, with named SEP, CCC, and DCI codes tied to phenomena-driven performance expectations (e.g., [E4] SEP 2.3; CCC 7.1; DCI PS3.A.2 and [E5] SEP 2.3; CCC 2.2; DCI ESS2.B), and teacher-guide prose describes intentional development of practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas in context [E1][E2][E12]. This consistent, structural use of phenomena/problems to engage all three dimensions meets both 6-point criteria.

The materials include a clearly defined summative assessment system—Transfer Tasks (Motors, Jupiter, Sand and Mirrors), Presentation Rubrics, Design Challenges, and Electronic Exit Tickets—organized within an explicit Assessment System Overview [E5][E7] that distinguishes summative from formative/pre/self assessments. Standards are consistently identified for these assessments via lesson-level performance expectations tagged with specific three-dimensional element codes (SEP, DCI, CCC) [E8][E9][E10][E12], and the summative tasks are designed to elicit direct, observable evidence across all three dimensions [E2][E4]. This structural evidence shows the system consistently names the claimed standards and is built to measure achievement of all or nearly all of them.

The materials are structurally designed for three-dimensional assessment: every lesson includes lesson-level performance expectations explicitly built to integrate SEP, DCI, and CCC elements [E1][E2], and assessment guidance consistently tags element-level codes across the three dimensions [E3][E7][E8][E9][E10][E12]. Uncertain/novel phenomena are incorporated through transfer tasks (the Jupiter Transfer Task administered as the final assessment [E6]) and assessment callouts targeting uncertainties in students' models of stable stars and guest stars [E4] and puzzling phenomena students apply learning to in new contexts [E5]. This shows consistent incorporation of uncertain phenomena with integrated three-dimensional elements, meeting both required components.

Strong structural evidence shows the course intentionally develops claimed grade-band DCIs across units. Lesson-Level Performance Expectations 'detail the specific dimensions and elements used and assessed in each lesson' [E6], and named DCI elements are explicitly cited and developed (e.g., PS2.B.2 fields, HS-ESS2-3 mantle convection [E8], ESS1.A.2 [E10], HS-PS1-8/HS-ESS1-5/HS-ESS2-1/2 [E7]). Units articulate which three-dimensional elements are developed [E4][E12] and build coherently on DCIs from prior courses/units [E1][E2][E5][E11], indicating opportunities to fully learn and develop nearly all claimed DCI elements. Lack of a complete element-by-element coverage matrix in the retrieved chunks is a retrieval limitation, not evidence of absence.

Structural evidence shows intentional, full-course development of SEP elements: the program explicitly states 'All 46 SEP and 29 CCC elements are developed at some point in the high school OpenSciEd program' with LLPEs detailing specific dimensions/elements used and assessed per lesson [E10]. Multiple distinct SEPs are evidenced—analyzing/interpreting data [E1], planning/carrying out investigations [E2], constructing explanations & designing solutions [E3], engaging in argument from evidence with dedicated tools [E5], obtaining/evaluating/communicating information [E7], and developing/using models [E6, E12]—each explicitly described as building across multiple prior units (P.1 Electricity, P.2 Afar, Collisions), demonstrating multiple and repeated opportunities across various contexts. NOS connections are also intentionally developed and tied to SEPs [E4, E9]. This satisfies both the 'nearly all claimed elements' and 'consistent multiple/repeated opportunities' requirements for the top band.

The materials show intentional, program-wide development of grade-band CCCs with explicit articulation that all 29 CCC elements are developed across the high school program [E5][E6]. Multiple CCCs—cause and effect, scale/proportion/quantity, patterns, energy/matter flows in systems, and stability and change—are deliberately developed and revisited across units, with the M-E-F triangle frames used across the entire course [E1][E2][E3][E7][E9]. NOS topics are explicitly connected to the CCCs (empirical evidence, variety of methods) [E4][E10], and reflection lessons provide repeated, cross-context opportunities for students to use the CCCs throughout the course [E9][E11][E12]. This structural evidence supports near-full development of claimed CCC elements plus consistent multiple and repeated opportunities across varied contexts.

Across multiple units the materials present all three dimensions in scientifically accurate language that matches NGSS wording: EM radiation correctly modeled as both waves and photons (E1), energy conservation and field-stored radiation accurately stated (E2, E5), stellar fusion described correctly (high core heat causing nuclei to collide and fuse, E3), and gravitation presented accurately (always attractive, inverse-square relationship, Kepler's laws, solar system formation from a dust/gas disk) (E8, E9, E12). DCIs, SEPs, and CCCs are explicitly tagged and articulated per unit with no detectable scientific errors (E7, E9, E10, E11). I see no inaccuracies in any retrieved learning-opportunity or look-for content, supporting consistent accuracy across the three dimensions.

The materials show deliberate, granular alignment to grade-band (high school) DCIs, with every learning goal tagged to specific HS DCI elements such as ESS1.A.4, PS1.C.1, HS-PS4-1, and ESS2.A.2 [E2][E4][E6][E7][E9]. Below-grade-band (middle school) DCIs are not dropped in without connection but are explicitly framed as reinforced and built upon toward HS DCIs [E10], and prior HS Biology/Chemistry ideas are similarly carried forward with meaningful connections [E3]. Non-scientific or pre-conception ideas are handled as productive student ideas to build understanding rather than presented as science content [E8], and units include explicit 'Where We Are Going and NOT Going' boundary-setting [E2], indicating intentional scoping within the grade-band DCIs with no instances of inappropriately included out-of-band content.

The materials show intentional, course-spanning progression of explanation and problem-solving tasks. E3 explicitly traces the arc across units—students 'constructed explanations about how energy moves through systems and designed a community solution' in unit 1, built explanations about the Afar region in unit 2, and now 'think deeply about the design solutions at multiple grain sizes' in Collisions & Momentum—while E7 describes SEPs that 'build upon' practices 'previously developed in this course and in middle school' (e.g., analyzing complex graphs in the Electricity unit then applying that 'in a new context'). E6/E9 show recurring sensemaking tools (M-E-F) used 'over and over throughout this unit and other units' to deepen explanatory lenses, and E1/E10 show tasks escalating from basic kinematics graphs to deriving and applying conservation-of-momentum equations. This structural evidence of consistent, deliberately sequenced increase in sophistication supports the maximum.

The materials regularly provide integrated strategies and supports for special populations across units: UDL principles embedded in the design process to reduce barriers, classroom agreements, discourse supports, and specific strategies for emerging multilingual learners [E1][E2][E3][E5]. These are operationalized via consistent teacher-guide callouts (Attending to Equity, Supporting Emerging Multilingual Learners, Supporting UDL, Additional Guidance, Alternate Activity) [E6][E7][E12], with concrete examples like auditory/text-to-speech alternatives, StoryMap options, and SEL supports for struggling students [E9][E10][E11]. This recurring structural design across grade-11 units supports active, grade-band participation, satisfying all required components.

The materials provide comprehensive, embedded teacher guidance: time-stamped learning plans with materials lists and step-by-step facilitation [E3, E11], 'ALTERNATE ACTIVITY' suggestions and modeling moves [E2], detailed handout/scaffolding annotations with color-coding keys [E1], teacher reference pages explaining the rationale behind tools like the M-E-F poster and Discussion Mapping Tool [E4, E9, E10]. Crucially, the guidance ties directly to specific learning objectives and to engaging students in figuring out phenomena—formative 'what to look/listen for' callouts coded to SEP/DCI/CCC [E8, E10], feedback prompts for building cause-effect models [E5], and storyline narratives showing how lessons build toward explaining anchoring phenomena and solving design problems [E6, E12]. This satisfies both required components: comprehensive enactment guidance AND useful annotations within the context of specific learning objectives.

Materials provide explanations and examples of course-level concepts to deepen teacher content knowledge—'Where we are going/not going' sections, expected student responses, keys, rubrics, and science content background, plus K-12 Framework references to specific DCIs ([E1], [E3], [E5]). They also explicitly address vertical alignment, noting for each unit's DCIs 'what students have learned previously and where they are headed in high school' ([E1], [E3], [E5]) and naming CCCs 'students should have previously developed in this course' from prior units ([E7]), alongside math co-requisite connections ([E2], [E6], [E9]). Both required components—grade-level concept explanations AND cross-grade alignment—are clearly supported.

Multiple units contain dedicated 'To extend or enhance the unit' sections with lesson-specific extensions that raise complexity rather than just adding volume: researching/experimenting with capacitors, inductors and LC oscillations at a university level [E1, E4], having students design and build solutions or community protection projects [E2, E11], applying a momentum-change perspective to assess additional DCIs [E11], and inspecting/modifying/recompiling simulation code for interested students [E8, E9]. The teacher guide structurally supports this with a recurring 'Extension opportunity' heading [E7] and a consistent 'Remove scaffolds provided with SEPs to give students more independent work' option across all lessons [E7, E9, E11], indicating intentional design for advanced engagement at greater depth. Extensions emphasize deeper sensemaking with the three dimensions rather than advanced students simply doing more assignments, satisfying both required components.

The materials provide NGSS science correlations at the lesson level via Lesson-Level Performance Expectations that explicitly tag SEP/DCI/CCC dimensions ([E6], [E7], [E9]) and list named performance expectations (HS-PS2-1/2/3 in [E3]). Connections to CCR ELA standards are explicitly cited and explained through dedicated 'Supporting Students in Making Connections in ELA' callouts that name specific CCSS RST standards and describe their role in sensemaking ([E1], [E2]), and mathematics connections are integrated with explanation ([E4], [E12]). Unit-organization narrative ([E5]) plus the structural LLPE design situate these standards within the broader series, satisfying all required components.

The materials explain the program's instructional approach—the OpenSciEd instructional model where the teacher is a member of the classroom community supporting students to figure out phenomena through iterative, incremental sensemaking (E4, E5)—and reference a structured set of routines with teacher-guidance headings (E4, E5) and an OpenSciEd Teacher Handbook (E9, E11). They also identify research-based strategies, most notably the explicit integration of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Principles in the unit design process, alongside classroom discourse and equity strategies woven through the routines (E1, E2, E3, E6, E7). Both required components—explanation of instructional approaches AND reference to research-based strategies—are structurally supported.

The materials include detailed per-lesson 'Materials List' sections organized by 'per student / per group / per class' across multiple units and lessons (e.g., [E4] Unit P.5 Lesson 3, [E6] Unit P.1 Lesson 1, [E8] Unit P.1 Lesson 2, [E9] Unit P.3 Lesson 1, [E12] Unit P.2 Lesson 1). They enumerate specific quantities and supplies (spring scales, alligator clips, D batteries, masses, chart paper, sticky notes) and include 'Materials preparation' time and setup guidance ([E2], [E5], [E10], [E11]). This structural evidence demonstrates a comprehensive, consistently formatted supply list supporting instructional activities.

Multiple assessment types (pre-, formative, summative, self-assessment) are embedded and explicitly flagged across lessons throughout the year, with assessment-opportunity tables tied to lesson-level performance expectations appearing consistently across multiple grade-11 units [E1][E2][E3][E4][E7]. Teacher guidance for evaluating performance is provided via rubrics, self-assessment discussion rubrics, and three-dimensional scoring keys (e.g., the Electronic Exit Ticket Key to score across all three dimensions) [E5][E8][E11]. Guidance for determining instructional next steps is also present, e.g., collecting models to 'provide feedback and identify areas that may need additional instruction before building the consensus model' and providing written feedback students apply in the next research cycle [E10]. All three required components are structurally supported consistently across the series.