Bright Minds Physical Science · Scope & Sequence

The course map.

Eight units — four per semester — the labs that anchor them, and the two-day rhythm that runs every week of the year. This is the planner’s view — the whole course on one page.

The weekly engine

Two days a week, and the work between them.

Every unit runs on the same rhythm: Concept Day → [student works at home] → Experiment Day → [student synthesizes at home] → next Concept Day. One day forces a choice between depth and breadth; two days allow both. More than two crowds out the at-home work where integration actually happens.

The solid path is the school week; the dashed return is the at-home synthesis that carries one week into the next.

Day one · ~2 hours

Concept Day

Arrival & warm-up — reconnect with the prior session
Pre-lecture discussion — surface what the at-home reading raised
Direct instruction — micro-lectures, worked problems, demonstrations
Problem set / model work — apply the concept, solo or in pairs
Misconception sweep & wrap-up — correct common errors, preview the lab

Guide's role: Socratic and diagnostic. Student's role: active participation; pre-reading required.

Day two · ~2 hours

Experiment Day

Pre-lab briefing — the question, the procedure, the safety
Safety check — goggles on, careful hands with springs and circuits; explicit, every time
Setup — balances, ramps, spring scales, circuit kits; partner assignment
Execution — the lab itself; the guide circulates and coaches
Debrief & lab notebook — completed before the student leaves
Cleanup & reset — equipment packed away to standard; non-negotiable

Guide's role: safety officer first, teacher second. Student's role: the lab notebook is THE artifact — predictions before results.

The concept spine

From matter to electricity and magnetism.

The sequence is deliberate: each unit assumes the one before it. Click any unit to open its mastery rubric — the standard a student demonstrates against to advance.

Each unit assumes the one before it — matter first, electricity and magnetism last.

The existing eight-unit survey sequence. Actual practical choices and equipment require instructor approval.

Unit	Big ideas	Anchor lab(s)	Integrates with
01 · Matter & Its Properties	Mass, volume, density, states of matter, physical properties, mixtures vs pure substances	Density & properties-of-matter measurement (balance, ruler, graduated cylinder)	Measuring and units, everyday materials (reading); applied math: density from mass and volume
02 · Atoms, Elements & the Periodic Table	Elements, compounds and mixtures; atoms as building blocks; reading the periodic table at a survey level	Element & mixture separation (sorting, filtering, evaporating)	The story of the atom, Dalton to Bohr (history, reading); pattern-finding across the table
03 · Chemical & Physical Changes	Physical vs chemical change, evidence of a chemical change, conservation of mass	Physical vs chemical change investigation (before-and-after observations)	Conservation of mass, how scientists learned matter is not lost (history); before-and-after measurement math
04 · Forces & Motion	Speed, distance-time, balanced vs unbalanced forces, Newton's laws at a survey level	Motion on a ramp & force measurement (spring scale, timing a cart)	Newton and the story of motion (history, reading); plotting distance-time data
05 · Energy & Its Forms	Kinetic vs potential energy, forms of energy, energy conservation	Energy transfer (pendulum swing, roller-coaster track)	The age of steam and machines (history, economics); graphing energy changes
06 · Heat & Thermal Energy	Temperature vs heat; conduction, convection and radiation	Simple heat-transfer investigation — measure heat moving between warm and cool water	Keeping warm and staying cool (geography, everyday life); temperature data math
07 · Waves, Sound & Light	Wavelength, frequency, amplitude; reflection of sound and light	Waves in a spring & sound-and-light demos (tuning forks, mirrors)	Music, how we hear and how we see (art, biology); measuring wavelength and frequency
08 · Electricity & Magnetism	Current, complete circuits, electromagnets, and changing magnetic flux inducing voltage	Approved circuit/electromagnet work plus the assigned synthetic induction analysis	Faraday (history, technology, writing); distinguish flux-change emf from current and state the model's limits

Every unit carries the core spokes — History, Reading, and Writing — anchored to the story in the integration guide. The column above names each unit’s distinctive spokes; geography and soft social studies run where they fit, and students pick from elective spokes (data, ethics, economics, technology, art). An applied-math lane runs through every unit too — math used in service of the science, never as a separate program.

The three demonstrations

Where mastery gets proven in person.

Three times across the year, the student steps up to a demonstration that is hard to fake, outsource, or generate. These are the core of the course — understanding, shown in real time, against a rubric, in front of a guide.

After Unit 08

Build-and-test defense

Build a simple working device — a circuit, a ramp, or a lever — measure how it behaves, then defend your design and your data out loud, under questions.

After Unit 04

Timed prediction-and-test

Predict a physical outcome from a measurement, then run it live under time and explain why the result matched — or didn't.

End of each unit

Oral lab-notebook defense

Walk a guide through your own notebook: the question, the method, the data, the anomalies, the interpretation.

A note on pacing. The eight units split evenly across the two semesters — four units per semester, roughly four weeks each. That fills the school year’s ~36 instructional weeks: about 32 weeks of units, with the three demonstrations slotted at the natural seams and a short review-and-buffer window in each semester. Mastery-based progression means the calendar bends to the student, not the other way around — a unit is done when it is demonstrated, and the multi-section scheduling guide shows guides how to hold a cohort together when students master at different rates.

Assigned student learning

Open the eight learning pathways for specific reading sections, explanations, datasets, leveled practice, public practice answers (not assessment keys), and transfer evidence. Print the student unit pages alongside the separate assessment packets. Broad book recommendations do not replace the assigned sections.

What the standards connections do and do not mean

References checked 2026-09-28: NGSS middle-school Physical Science and Engineering Design. Targets below are our short descriptions, not reproduced assessment items. Existing local unit identities are retained.

This remains a grades 7-9 survey/bridge, not a chemistry or physics exam-prep course. A selected connection is not full NGSS performance certification or proof of every assessment boundary being met. Extra isotope bookkeeping, force/energy equations and error-probability calculations are optional challenges, not hidden middle-school requirements.

NGSS expectations that call for planning, constructing, testing or carrying out an investigation require their own appropriate learner evidence. Supplied records and paper designs are not proof of performed practical work. An educator must select the level, approve any actual activity and judge the actual evidence separately.

23 selected performance-expectation connections with real local assignments and explicit limits.

Reference	Selected concept or practice	Actual local work	Limit
MS-PS1-1	Represent simple molecules and extended structures Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 2: atomic-structures, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	The connection is particle modeling. Optional isotope/electron work is not a required middle-school structural-model assessment.
MS-PS1-2	Use property and identity evidence to evaluate change Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 3: reaction-ledgers, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	Given identity cards and synthetic records support interpretation, not an actual unknown-product assay.
MS-PS1-3	Connect resources, synthetic materials and their uses Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 2: materials-resources, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 4. Design/evidence record.	The historical source and fictional performance comparison do not supply a complete life-cycle inventory or certify real materials.
MS-PS1-4	Relate energy changes to particle behavior and state Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 6: thermal-particle-models, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	The reference curve is an ideal model; pressure, purity and real heat losses need their own evidence.
MS-PS1-5	Account for atoms during a reaction model Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 3: reaction-ledgers, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	Foundation uses supplied token groupings; atomic masses and balancing new symbolic equations are not this NGSS assessment requirement.
MS-PS1-6	Evaluate and revise a thermal-process device design Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 3: chemical-energy-design, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 4. Design/evidence record.	The supplied chemical-device records support planning and evaluation, not actual construction, testing or safety approval.
MS-PS2-1	Use interaction pairs in a collision-design argument Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 4: motion-interactions, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	Average-force comparisons do not establish a peak or certify a real collision-protection device.
MS-PS2-2	Plan a one-dimensional force/motion comparison Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 4: motion-interactions, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	Given force and position models do not demonstrate actual measurement or a carried-out investigation.
MS-PS2-3	Ask controlled questions about electric/magnetic interactions Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 4: noncontact-models, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record. Unit 8: circuits-magnets, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	A local current-force or field trend is not a universal magnetic law or approval for an electrical setup.
MS-PS2-4	Explain gravitational interaction using source evidence Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 4: noncontact-models, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	Normalized model values illustrate the given relationship; they are not independent empirical proof or a required quantitative force-law derivation.
MS-PS2-5	Plan evidence for interactions across a gap Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 4: noncontact-models, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	Paper planning and reference field cards do not satisfy an observed field investigation by themselves.
MS-PS3-1	Compare kinetic-energy relationships with mass and speed Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 5: energy-transfers, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	The connection is the separate descriptive relationships; optional numerical formulas do not establish measured energy.
MS-PS3-2	Model stored energy as an interacting arrangement changes Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 5: energy-transfers, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	Given energy states support a two-object model; calculating real potential energy is not the middle-school assessment boundary.
MS-PS3-3	Use thermal ideas to evaluate an energy-transfer design Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 6: insulation-design, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	The data case does not replace the actual approved construction and tests required for a full performance claim.
MS-PS3-4	Plan a comparison of matter type/amount and temperature change Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 6: thermal-particle-models, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	The case supplies paired model comparisons and optional heat-capacity arithmetic; an actual controlled investigation and empirical material-property checks remain separate.
MS-PS3-5	Use an energy account to explain changing motion or transfers Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 5: energy-transfers, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record. Unit 8: circuits-magnets, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	A synthetic closed ledger is not empirical proof that every relevant real-world energy path was measured.
MS-PS4-1	Represent wave properties and energy relationships Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 7: wave-interactions, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	Amplitude-only ratios require matched conditions; a supplied table does not validate a real medium or instrument.
MS-PS4-2	Model wave interactions with materials Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 7: wave-interactions, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	The ledger assumes all relevant energy paths are accounted for; real scattering and wavelength dependence require further evidence.
MS-PS4-3	Explain supported reliability benefits of digitized signals Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 7: digital-signals, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 3. Design/evidence record.	The NGSS connection is qualitative information transfer, not required binary counting, a particular device mechanism or the optional probability model.
MS-ETS1-1	Define measurable criteria and constraints before designing Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 6: insulation-design, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	The sample requirements illustrate a process; real users, needs, risk and resource limits require their own investigation.
MS-ETS1-2	Compare alternatives against the agreed requirements Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 6: insulation-design, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	A nominal winner is not a universally optimal or commercially qualified product.
MS-ETS1-3	Use test comparisons to propose a better configuration Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 6: insulation-design, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	Whole-configuration differences do not isolate one causal feature; the records are explicitly synthetic.
MS-ETS1-4	Use model results to revise and test a design again Official reference and assessment boundaries	Unit 6: insulation-design, inputs and checked tasks; science criteria 2, 3, 4. Design/evidence record.	The provided revision illustrates iteration, not a learner-performed build, full optimization or an actual classroom pilot.

Ready-to-use paper investigations: 13 cases

37 supplied/reference datasets, 39 level-specific tasks with worked solutions, 78 numerical calibrations and 13 changed-input transfers. The previously published induction assignment remains intact and is additional to these counts.

All new records are supplied-data or reference-model work, not laboratory procedures. Do not improvise chemical mixtures, heating, impacts, laser or solar viewing, pressure systems, mains electricity or unreviewed wiring. An instructor must approve any real activity, equipment and accessible alternative separately. Paper calculations do not certify unobserved measuring or building skills; public solutions are nonsecure practice.

Start with the reading and explanation, attempt the chosen-level work, check the solution only after trying, then answer the changed case. Keep the original attempt and corrections. Some cases need several meetings; timing and readiness must be piloted rather than inferred from a page count.

Unit 1: What properties can tell us about a sample [density-separation]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. This is prerequisite practice, not a standalone performance-expectation completion claim. Science criteria: 2, 3, 4, 5.

materials: Use the supplied density-records, state-cards, matter-heating-preview, separation-properties records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain density-separation, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

review: An educator reviews prerequisites, source interpretation, reasoning and accessibility before assessment. A paper response does not certify unobserved practical technique; approved hands-on work requires a separate record.

question: Which property comparisons support a model classification, and which would need additional evidence before identifying a sample?

prerequisites: Subtract readings, divide mass by volume, compare ratios and distinguish a model from an actual observation.

variables: Compare three different-size pieces and property cards while retaining the same material and fluid assumptions.

controls: Keep units, compact volume, dry mass, fluid identity and the stated error bounds consistent within each calculation.

replication: The three fictional pieces are different samples, not three repeated readings of one piece; shared measurement bias could still remain.

analysis: Compute volume differences and densities, pool compatible amounts, test bounds and justify a separation property with a stated limit.

Uncertainty: Wet surfaces, trapped air, solubility and instrument bias would alter a real result. The given bounds are limits for this exercise, not a 95% confidence interval. A pooled estimate does not make a shared calibration bias disappear. Solubility or magnetism needs separate evidence; a matching density does not establish an unknown substance or safe handling.

Evidence: Science criteria 2-5: density, state/particle descriptions, diagnostic-property limits and mixture-separation reasoning. Reading supplied measurements does not demonstrate the actual balance/ruler/displacement skill in criterion 1.

Unit 2: Atoms, molecules and extended structures [atomic-structures]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS1-1. Science criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4.

materials: Use the supplied atom-cards, structure-models records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain atomic-structures, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: What can a model’s particle grouping show that a total atom count or element list cannot?

prerequisites: Count repeated groups, read a table and distinguish an atom, molecule, extended structure and mixture.

variables: Compare model grouping, composition and the optional neutron/electron changes without relabeling the element arbitrarily.

controls: Retain the provided formula labels and meaning of a lattice site; models are not to-scale microscope images.

replication: Recounting a diagram checks arithmetic, not independent sample identity or a repeated molecular measurement.

analysis: Count by atom type, classify each supplied grouping, compare periodic patterns and state what arrangement information remains missing.

Uncertainty: Models omit scale, electron motion and many structural details. Identical element counts can describe different mixtures or structures; count matching is not unique chemical identification. Periodic groups help organize patterns, but carbon and silicon show why a group does not make all bulk properties identical.

Evidence: Science criteria 1-4: particle models, substance classification, periodic-table interpretation and material-class limitations. This does not establish the separate observed mixture-separation technique.

Unit 2: From resources to material choices [materials-resources]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS1-3. Science criteria: 4.

materials: Use the supplied material-pathways, material-performance records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain materials-resources, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: Which material choice meets the actual problem, and what additional evidence would be needed for a broader environmental claim?

prerequisites: Read multiple constraints, compare ratios and percentages, and distinguish sample performance from material identity.

variables: Compare the given sample configurations under one test context; change only B’s cost in the transfer decision.

controls: Keep the matched geometry, wet-test definition, requirement thresholds and fictional cost basis visible before comparing results.

replication: One supplied record per configuration cannot estimate production variability; repeat samples and uncertainty would be needed for real qualification.

analysis: Screen every constraint, calculate only interpretable ratios, document the trade-off and list missing life-cycle or safety evidence.

Uncertainty: Properties depend on processing, shape, moisture and conditions. A load-per-mass ratio is a screening measure for these samples, not a universal tensile strength. No life-cycle inventory or actual product safety test is supplied; transport, service life, production and end-of-life treatment could change an environmental comparison.

Evidence: Science criterion 4, material-property reasoning: connect resource/process history with a bounded property comparison and a defensible selection. This does not establish manufacturing skill or a measured life-cycle result.

Unit 3: Particles rearrange; the system boundary matters [reaction-ledgers]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS1-2, MS-PS1-5. Science criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4.

materials: Use the supplied reaction-particles, mass-boundaries, change-evidence records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain reaction-ledgers, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: How can a container lose mass while a complete particle and material account remains consistent?

prerequisites: Count grouped particles, add masses, subtract readings and distinguish observation from supplied identity evidence.

variables: Compare a closed versus open measurement boundary and change starting particle counts in the transfer.

controls: Keep the regrouping rule, atom identities, measurement units and stated bounds explicit; never invent escaped material without evidence.

replication: These are reference ledgers, not repeated student trials; real measurements need repeated controls and product/escape evidence.

analysis: Draw before/after groupings, count each atom type, compare mass with its bound and test whether the stated observations uniquely identify a change.

Uncertainty: A small before/after difference can be compatible with measurement bounds without proving perfect measurement. Gas loss changes the mass remaining on a balance, not conservation for a larger system that includes escaped material. Actual product identity would need appropriate evidence beyond a visual sign; no real chemical investigation is performed here.

Evidence: Science criteria 1-4: identity-based classification, a particle model, a bounded mass ledger and a qualified explanation. The supplied data do not certify an observed change investigation.

Unit 3: A cooling-device decision with evidence and limits [chemical-energy-design]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS1-6. Science criteria: 1, 2, 4.

materials: Use the supplied device-conditions, device-thermal-records records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain chemical-energy-design, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: Which fictional cooling design meets an agreed requirement even after the stated measurement bounds are considered?

prerequisites: Use signed temperature changes, multiplication with units, a budget threshold and conservative bounds.

variables: Compare the complete device configurations under one bath model; examine a separate changed-mass record in the transfer.

controls: Keep bath type, starting temperature, heat-capacity assumptions, reading bounds and acceptance criteria fixed for the main comparison.

replication: The single fictional record per design is not validation of reliability; repeated independent trials would be required for a real decision.

analysis: Compute bath and device energy signs, screen costs, apply bounds, compare the revision and list the missing actual construction/safety evidence.

Uncertainty: These are synthetic trial results, not real product tests or safety approval. Container heat capacity, heat loss, incomplete reaction and sensor bias would matter in an actual device. The proposed revision changes a whole configuration; better performance would not isolate one chemical mechanism. Paper analysis does not fulfill the standard’s actual construction/testing requirement.

Evidence: Science criteria 1, 2 and 4: distinguish identity evidence from a thermal sign, calculate a bounded energy transfer and justify a design decision. No observed chemistry or device-construction skill is awarded from these records.

Unit 4: Describe the motion before explaining its forces [motion-interactions]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS2-1, MS-PS2-2. Science criteria: 1, 3, 4.

materials: Use the supplied motion-track, force-balance, collision-duration records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain motion-interactions, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: Which motion and force claims are supported by positions, endpoints and a stated time interval, and which need more measurements?

prerequisites: Use signed differences, distances, ratios, a one-dimensional force sum and a defined system boundary.

variables: Compare frame-dependent position changes, an independent force model and fixed-endpoint stopping durations without combining unlike records.

controls: Retain the supplied interpolation, axis, masses and velocity endpoints in the appropriate situation.

replication: Calculating slopes twice does not create repeated physical trials; a real investigation must specify actual independent measurements.

analysis: Separate distance from displacement, draw the relevant force diagrams, compute allowed averages and state why an unmeasured peak remains unknown.

Uncertainty: Sparse positions do not reveal detailed motion between samples unless interpolation is specified. Collision duration and endpoint velocities do not determine every instantaneous force. Real measurement requires calibration, repeats and a defined reference frame. No rolling, impacts, launches or force measurements are assigned by these paper records.

Evidence: Science criteria 1, 3 and 4: the graph/calculation part of motion evidence, net-force reasoning and different-body interaction pairs. Actual timing, distance measurement or ramp technique needs its own observed record.

Unit 4: Forces can act across a gap [noncontact-models]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS2-3, MS-PS2-4, MS-PS2-5. Science criteria: 2, 3, 4.

materials: Use the supplied electric-force-model, gravity-model, magnet-current-model, field-direction-cards records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain noncontact-models, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: What controlled evidence could distinguish a noncontact interaction from a claim based only on appearance or proximity?

prerequisites: Distinguish force from motion, identify a pair of interacting objects and read ratios with a stated reference.

variables: Vary only the declared distance, mass or current in its own model, retaining sign/orientation where relevant.

controls: Name the held geometry, background, probe orientation and reference units before comparing patterns.

replication: The records are model inputs rather than repeated observations; actual claims need independent repeat readings and checks for other influences.

analysis: Draw the interacting pair and balancing forces, describe the pattern first, apply only its supplied ratio rule and propose a discriminating follow-up.

Uncertainty: Extended objects, alignment, induced magnetization, charge leakage and external fields can change actual patterns. Three synthetic points cannot prove a universal distance law. A real field investigation needs a measurement method, controls and repeated observations, and an approved practical remains separate from a model explanation.

Evidence: Science criteria 2-4: contact/noncontact identification, force balance and interaction-model reasoning. The analytical part of a force criterion is not proof that a learner measured with a spring scale or conducted a field practical.

Unit 5: Follow energy through a defined system [energy-transfers]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS3-1, MS-PS3-2, MS-PS3-5. Science criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4.

materials: Use the supplied speed-energy, energy-path, interaction-energy records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain energy-transfers, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: How can the same total energy be divided differently among motion, arrangement and internal energy?

prerequisites: Compare squares and ratios, add energy accounts, state a system boundary and keep separate examples separate.

variables: Change mass or speed one at a time, then compare the separate cart’s internal-energy allocation.

controls: Retain the defined energy zero, the rounded gravity convention and the absence of unspecified external transfers.

replication: Recomputing the ledger is an analytical check, not another physical trial or a measured efficiency result.

analysis: Use energy bars before equations, calculate compatible accounts, check their total and identify what the supplied states leave unknown.

Uncertainty: Actual losses, deformation, motion of other parts and measurement limits require a larger ledger. The simplified g value is not a high-precision local measurement. Two supplied energy states do not establish a complete force-distance law, and energy conservation does not mean kinetic energy alone stays fixed.

Evidence: Science criteria 1-4: relative energy patterns, system/arrangement models, an explicit transformation ledger and a changed-case explanation. Formula work is not an observed ramp or energy-transfer practical.

Unit 6: Warmer particles are not bigger particles [thermal-particle-models]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS1-4, MS-PS3-4. Science criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4.

materials: Use the supplied heating-curve, thermal-balance, thermal-capacity-models, transfer-mechanisms records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain thermal-particle-models, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: How do amount of matter, particle state and the chosen system affect the interpretation of temperature changes?

prerequisites: Read cumulative graph axes, subtract intervals, use a weighted mean and distinguish temperature from energy transfer.

variables: Compare phase intervals, unequal sample masses and a changed ice amount as separate stated models.

controls: Keep pressure, material identity and heat-capacity assumptions explicit; do not carry an insulation assumption into an uncontrolled real setup.

replication: These model points and mixing inputs are not repeated measurements; real investigations need calibrated sensors and independent trials.

analysis: Label state and energy intervals, draw particle models, balance the separate heat accounts and name which assumptions limit each prediction.

Uncertainty: Real phase intervals, purity, pressure, heat loss and sensor limits can change a heating record. Equal sample temperatures do not mean equal amounts of matter or identical total internal energy. The computed mixing temperature is conditional on equal material properties and insulation, not a measured result or a recipe for heating liquids.

Evidence: Science criteria 1-4: particle/temperature distinctions, transfer mechanisms, a correctly scaled heating curve and a conditional heat balance. Supplied values do not certify actual thermometer technique.

Unit 6: Choose and improve a design against agreed requirements [insulation-design]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS3-3, MS-ETS1-1, MS-ETS1-2, MS-ETS1-3, MS-ETS1-4. Science criteria: 2, 3, 4.

materials: Use the supplied insulation-constraints, insulation-trials records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain insulation-design, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: Which configuration meets agreed constraints, and how can a revision improve a margin without proving its individual cause?

prerequisites: Read repeated temperatures, calculate means and percentages, and distinguish a success criterion from a practical constraint.

variables: Compare complete configurations and then vary the uncertainty bound without changing the observed-model readings.

controls: Retain water amount, starting/ambient temperatures, duration and the original acceptance rules across comparisons.

replication: The three fictional trials illustrate independent repeats for each configuration, not observed learner work or a full reliability study.

analysis: Screen all constraints, apply worst-case bounds, calculate interpretable energy comparisons, evaluate D and propose the next controlled test.

Uncertainty: Three synthetic records do not validate a real container, safety or service life. Container capacity and heat loss paths would need more detailed evidence for an energy audit. D changes a whole configuration, so a better result does not uniquely establish which feature caused it. A real project needs an approved build, actual tests and further revision; the supplied-data case covers planning and evaluation, not performed construction.

Evidence: Science criteria 2-4: plausible transfer mechanisms, prediction under common conditions and an evidence-based design comparison. The paper record does not count as actual construction or thermometer skill.

Unit 7: What moves with a wave, and where its energy goes [wave-interactions]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS4-1, MS-PS4-2. Science criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4.

materials: Use the supplied wave-records, wave-energy-ledger, spectrum-reference records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain wave-interactions, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: Which wave properties and interaction pathways must be held fixed before comparing speed or energy?

prerequisites: Read cycles per second, distances, amplitude ratios, simple energy balances and an angle measured from a normal.

variables: Compare frequency and amplitude in the stated sound medium, then treat the light panels as a separate fixed-boundary energy account.

controls: Use A/C for the matched-frequency amplitude comparison and retain the complete reflection/transmission/absorption assumption.

replication: The model rows are constructed comparisons, not repeated sound or light measurements or empirical proof of material behavior.

analysis: Sketch the disturbance and local motion, calculate f lambda, choose a valid ratio comparison and test the completeness of the energy ledger.

Uncertainty: Actual waves can disperse, attenuate or change waveform. Perceived loudness and brightness are not direct universal measures of amplitude. If scattering or other unmeasured energy paths exist, missing light energy cannot automatically be labeled absorption. A simplified water-wave picture also does not describe every real current or net drift.

Evidence: Science criteria 1-4: the analysis component of wave quantities, energy transfer, sound/light distinctions, spectrum context and interaction accounting. A supplied table does not demonstrate producing or measuring waves in a spring.

Unit 7: Why a digital message can survive some noise [digital-signals]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS4-3. Science criteria: 3.

materials: Use the supplied signal-samples, repetition-groups, analog-samples records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain digital-signals, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: What information about the signal and noise is needed before claiming a more reliable message?

prerequisites: Read two symbols, compare values with a threshold and use majority voting; probability multiplication is optional extension work.

variables: Compare stated decoding rules and then change only p in the separate independent-error model.

controls: Keep nominal levels, threshold, group boundaries and the known sent practice message explicit; do not mix unlike examples as repeated trials.

replication: One designed example demonstrates a method, not its real reliability; actual error-rate estimates need appropriate repeated independent records.

analysis: Decode before checking, count the explicit discrepancies and redundancy, distinguish detection from correction and test the model against burst errors.

Uncertainty: A deliberately chosen four-bit example does not estimate a real channel error rate. Burst errors can violate independence and defeat the three-copy code. Sampling and quantization can lose detail, and redundancy costs capacity and resources. Error correction cannot repair biased source measurements or guarantee correctness of every message.

Evidence: Science criterion 3, information carried by waves: explain physical signal states, a supported noise comparison and the limits/costs of correction. Binary counting, probability formulas and actual device mechanisms are not required NGSS middle-school assessment targets.

Unit 8: Charge keeps moving while energy is transferred [circuits-magnets]

Inputs, tasks, answers and changed case. Selected references: MS-PS2-3, MS-PS3-5. Science criteria: 1, 3, 4.

materials: Use the supplied circuit-inputs, field-current records, assigned source sections, calculator and an accessible graph or diagram. No physical apparatus is required.

record: Retain circuits-magnets, the selected level, original inputs and first attempt, source/date, system and axes, units, assumptions, calculation/graph, uncertainty, correction and fresh transfer. Link only to the stated science criteria.

question: How can energy be transferred and branch currents differ while charge remains conserved?

prerequisites: Distinguish current, voltage, resistance, energy and charge; identify a stated series versus parallel topology.

variables: Compare the two ideal resistor configurations and a separate fixed-axis field model; the transfer changes one series resistance.

controls: Keep steady operation, ideal source, resistor assumptions and the field-axis/background conventions explicit.

replication: These are supplied model states, not repeat electrical measurements or observations of a learner’s practical construction.

analysis: Label the configuration first, solve currents/voltage drops, reconcile charge and energy accounts, then relate but do not confuse field and induction records.

Uncertainty: Real sources and components may be nonideal, and a filament bulb’s resistance can change with temperature. A zero reading of one field component need not mean that every field component is zero. Field readings at different current settings do not by themselves supply a time-dependent flux or an induced current. Practical circuit and electromagnet evidence remains separate.

Evidence: Science criteria 1, 3 and the analytical part of 4: charge/energy distinctions, series/branch accounting and field-versus-induction reasoning. The complete-circuit and practical-build criteria still require approved observed work.