100% gap, 74.3% map error: energy taught as transferable substance across 5 learning sets with zero atomic-molecular content. 26 errors in 35 student passages. Practices are 100% (3-5, Deep) but built entirely on the substance model. Shallow by design.
| Program | Sprocket Learning — Grade 4: Energy |
| Lesson Title | Energy (5 learning sets, 20 lessons) |
| Publisher | Sprocket Learning |
| Author | Sprocket Learning Team |
| Grade Band | Grade 4 (3-5 calibration) |
Foundation Errors: The primary issues are the complete absence of atomic-molecular content and the high rate of errors that result from it. Every mechanism passage lacks any connection to atoms or molecules, and nearly three-quarters of student-facing passages teach energy as a substance that flows between objects. This is not a gap waiting to be filled — it is a model that will need to be unlearned. When a curriculum teaches “energy is transferred from place to place” across five learning sets, students leave with a substance model of energy installed through repetition.
Five learning sets on energy transfer, collisions, electricity, renewable energy sources, and engineering design. Students build water wheels and windmills, connect generators to light bulbs, investigate how speed and volume affect energy transfer, compare renewable and non-renewable sources, and design devices to meet community energy needs. All explanations frame energy as a substance that moves between objects — atoms, molecules, and electrons are never mentioned.
“Energy of motion can be transferred from one place, a moving water system, to another place, a water wheel, to cause something to happen.” — LS1 L1.2
The unit’s foundational claim. Energy framed as a mobile substance that travels from water to wheel. The molecular correction: water molecules collide with wheel molecules, transferring momentum through contact. Energy measures that change — it does not travel.
“When a moving object collides with another object it transfers energy via a force.” — LS2 L2.4
Force given causal power over energy transfer. Force is a measurement of the rate of momentum change between interacting objects — it does not “transfer” anything.
“Energy can be transferred from place to place by sound, light, heat, and electric currents.” — LS3 L3.1
Four different physical mechanisms reduced to “ways energy transfers.” Sound is molecular collisions propagating through matter. Electric current is electron flow. Each has a distinct mechanism that this framing obscures.
“We use electricity as we think this term will be recognizable by 4th-graders who have not yet learned about electron transfer or electric currents.” — LS3 Design Note
The designers know the molecular level exists and chose to defer it. The consequence is not neutral — students learn the substance model instead.
Practices: 100.0% — Deep (3-5 calibration). All seven practices score PRESENT. Students design and build water wheels and windmills with student-controlled variables, collect quantitative data across trials, construct CER explanations with rubrics, revise models through gallery walks with peer critique, and complete full engineering design cycles with prototyping and iteration. The capstone integrates all practices into an extended community design challenge. Practices are informational and do not affect the verdict.
The curriculum would need to reframe energy from a transferable substance to a measurement of molecular change. At Grade 4, this means introducing atoms as the objects that move, collide, and interact — energy is the score that tracks those changes. The existing investigation structure and practices are strong enough to keep.
| Total Passages Scored | 36 |
| Raw Gap Error | 100.0% (30 of 30 mechanism passages FALSE) FALSE = atoms/molecules not present before students are asked to explain. The student is navigating without a starting point. |
| Adjusted Gap Error | 100.0% (30 UNSCAFFOLDED FALSE; 0 SCAFFOLDED) UNSCAFFOLDED = no atomic grounding at all. LESSON_ATOMS = atoms mentioned elsewhere in lesson but not connected to this concept. |
| Substance-Model Errors (REI) | 24 Curriculum treats a process or outcome as a substance - "heat flows," "energy is stored," "electricity flows like water." Student builds a substance ontology. |
| Label-as-Explanation (LAE) | 2 Curriculum provides a name and treats it as an explanation - "this happens because of gravity." Student believes knowing the name IS understanding the concept. |
| Vague-Entity Errors (AEC) | 0 Curriculum uses vague entities ("tiny particles," "building blocks") without specifying atoms or molecules. Student invents their own model with macroscopic properties. |
| Factual Science Errors (FSE) | 0 Statements that are scientifically incorrect - not imprecise framing, but wrong. Any confirmed FSE = Not Recommended. |
| Practices | 100.0% - Deep Seven practices scored PRESENT, PARTIAL, or ABSENT and averaged: asking questions, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics, constructing explanations and designing solutions, and argument from evidence. Higher is better, the opposite direction from gap and map errors. Reported but not part of the Foundation Score or the verdict. |
Substance-model pattern: the curriculum actively installs energy-as-transferable-substance across all 5 learning sets. 100% gap combined with 74.3% map error because the substance framing is the curriculum's central explanatory framework, not an incidental omission.
Practices are genuinely strong — 100% across all seven categories at 3-5. Student-designed water wheels and windmills, systematic data collection, CER with rubrics, model revision through gallery walks with peer critique, full engineering design cycles with iteration.
Pairs with the Grade 4 Waves unit (also 0% foundation, 100% gap). Both units share 100% practices and the same structural pattern: strong investigations built on substance-model framing. The Energy unit has the higher map error rate (74.3% vs 20.0%) because energy-as-substance is its central framework rather than incidental.
shallow by design - Design note states: "We use electricity as we think this term will be recognizable by 4th-graders who have not yet learned about electron transfer or electric currents." Designers are aware of the molecular level and chose to defer it. Follows NGSS-aligned sequencing that places particle theory in middle school.
Evidence for every entry is published at three levels. Each level states what it contains and what it leaves out.
Scores, verdict, and the full pattern count for this unit are above: adjusted gap, REI / LAE / AEC counts, FSE status, and the seven-practice score. The analysis quotes 4 passages verbatim from the curriculum.
This file covers the unit scored on this page.
The complete classified evidence table for this unit, every extracted passage with its classification, is available to researchers, journalists, and to the publisher of the program being scored. This is a standing offer with no conditions attached and no agreement to sign.
If you think a score is wrong, say so. Challenges and our responses to them are published on the evidence and challenges page, including the ones we lose.
Have a curriculum, kit, or program you'd like us to review? Drop us a note, tell us what you want to see, we'll test it and post the results.