78.6% gap with 9 AEC errors: 21 lessons on matter and chemical reactions build a particle model but define particle as “the smallest part of a material.” Carbon dioxide named in the plant growth context (4 TRUE passages), but atoms and molecules never anchor the particle concept. 100% practices.
| Program | Sprocket Learning — Grade 5: Chemistry of Taste |
| Lesson Title | U5.2 — How can we create new tastes? (5 learning sets, 21 lessons) |
| Publisher | Sprocket Learning |
| Author | Sprocket Learning Team |
| Grade Band | Grade 5 (3-5 calibration) |
| NGSS Alignment | 5-PS1-1, 5-PS1-2, 5-PS1-3, 5-PS1-4, 5-LS1-1 |
Foundation Score: 0.0%
Twenty-one lessons on matter, taste, chemical reactions, and plant growth. The unit builds a particle model across five learning sets, but “particle” is defined as “the smallest part of a material that can be observed or measured” — a definition that does not name atoms or molecules. Four passages in the plant growth context name carbon dioxide as a molecule and carbon as an element. Everywhere else, the sub-visible world stays at “particles.”
Foundation = max(0, 100 − 78.6% gap − 30 map error pts) = 0.0%
Students investigate taste, smell, mixtures, chemical reactions, conservation of matter, and plant growth across 21 lessons. They build and revise a particle model, design investigations, and construct explanations from evidence. The unit connects science to food insecurity through an engineering design challenge.
The particle model is the structural backbone of the unit. Students create it in Learning Set 1, revise it in Learning Sets 2–4, and apply it in Learning Set 5. But the model is built on “particles” without identifying those particles as atoms and molecules. In Learning Set 4, the curriculum names carbon dioxide and carbon in the plant growth context — the only place where atomic-level entities appear.
What we found: 28 mechanism passages scored. 4 name atomic-level entities (all in the plant growth context). 24 do not. 78.6% adjusted gap after scaffolding credit.
The curriculum defines its core entity this way: “A particle as the smallest part of a material that can be observed or measured.” At Grade 5, the expected entity is atoms and molecules, not an undefined “particle.”
Chemical reactions are described as matter rearranging: “Gas must have been created when matter in the materials was rearranged through a chemical reaction.” This is close to the atomic mechanism but does not specify that atoms rearrange into new molecules.
Where the curriculum does name molecules, the grounding is clear: “Matter (water and carbon dioxide) changes and forms the material that is the plant, adding to its weight.” Carbon dioxide is a specific molecule. This passage works. But it is one of only four passages in the entire unit that reach this level.
Map errors: 10 total (9 AEC + 1 LAE). The 9 AEC errors all stem from using “particles” without atomic definition. The 1 LAE error describes a chemical reaction mechanism without naming atoms.
FSE: 0. All science content is factually correct.
Practices: 100% — Deep (7/7 PRESENT). All seven scientific practices are present and genuinely enacted. Students generate questions on a Driving Question Board across all five learning sets. They design their own investigations, choosing variables, planning procedures, and deciding what data to collect. They create measurement tools (a sweetness scale), collect systematic data, and analyze patterns across groups. CER is taught and applied. Particle models are created, used, and revised across four learning sets based on new evidence. An explicit “Arguing from Evidence” section has students evaluating claims with investigation data. A full engineering design cycle in Learning Set 5 connects to food insecurity.
The curriculum is closer to the fix than most. It already names carbon dioxide as a molecule and uses “particles” as a modeling tool that students revise with new evidence. The fix: replace “particles” with “atoms” and “molecules” in Learning Sets 1–3, connect taste and smell to specific molecular interactions, and explain chemical reactions as atoms rearranging into new molecules. The existing investigation structure, model-revision cycle, and practices are strong enough to keep — the particle-model infrastructure just needs the entity named.
| Total Passages Scored | 35 |
| Raw Gap Error | 85.7% (24 of 28 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 | 78.6% (22 UNSCAFFOLDED FALSE; 2 SCAFFOLDED in LS4 near carbon dioxide passages) UNSCAFFOLDED = no atomic grounding at all. LESSON_ATOMS = atoms mentioned elsewhere in lesson but not connected to this concept. |
| Substance-Model Errors (REI) | 0 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) | 1 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) | 9 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. |
21 lessons build a particle model for matter, taste, and chemical reactions but define particle as "the smallest part of a material." Carbon dioxide is named in the plant growth context (4 of 28 mechanism passages). Atoms and molecules never anchor the particle concept elsewhere. 78.6% adjusted gap, 10 map errors (9 AEC, 1 LAE), 0 FSE.
Carbon dioxide named as a specific molecule in LS4. Carbon named as a specific element. Genuinely student-designed investigations with student-chosen variables and procedures. Model-revision cycle across four learning sets. Full engineering design cycle connected to food insecurity. 100% practices across all seven categories.
Fifth Sprocket unit scored. This unit is the closest to a passing score: it names carbon dioxide as a molecule, builds a particle-model infrastructure that students revise with evidence, and has 100% practices. The gap (78.6%) is lower than the Grade 4 units (both 100%) because LS4 provides some atomic grounding. The fix is narrower here than in any other Sprocket unit: name the entity.
shallow by design - Design note states: "This unit deals with observable properties of matter (and not specific properties of substances). Students will be introduced to these terms in later lessons." A second design note addresses carbon dioxide naming in LS4, confirming awareness of the molecular level.
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. Passage-level detail for this unit is carried in the downloadable evidence file.
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.