Approved (boundary concept). Foundation: 100%. Practices: 78.6% (Deep). This K unit teaches pushes, pulls, and collisions accurately at the descriptive level. Zero map errors across 20 passages. No misconceptions introduced. Does not build atomic-molecular framework.
| Program | Sprocket Learning |
| Lesson Title | Grade K: Pushes and Pulls |
| Publisher | Sprocket Learning |
| Author | Sprocket Learning Team |
| Grade Band | Kindergarten (K-2 calibration) |
| NGSS Alignment | K-PS2-1, K-PS2-2 |
Verdict: Approved (boundary concept)
Foundation: 100%
This Kindergarten unit teaches pushes, pulls, and collisions accurately at the descriptive level. Zero map errors across 20 passages. No processes are treated as substances, no labels substitute for explanations, and no vague entities invite wrong models. The unit does not introduce atoms or molecules — and at K–2, it does not need to. Safe ground, not deep ground.
Students explore how pushes and pulls start, stop, and change the motion of objects. They investigate how the strength and direction of a force affects motion. They observe what happens when moving objects collide. In the final learning set, students design new games that apply varying pushes, pulls, and collisions — a full engineering design cycle.
The unit covers K-PS2-1 and K-PS2-2 across 12 lessons in 4 learning sets.
All 20 passages are observational with zero mismatches. The language is clean throughout.
“An object’s motion can be changed by people pushing or pulling on the object.”
Correct causal language — people are the agents, not forces acting on their own.
“The harder I push the basketball down to the ground, the higher it bounces back up.”
Student-generated claim from investigation. Links strength of push to observable outcome.
“When objects bump into each other (collide), they push on each other, and their motion changes.”
Collision concept described accurately. Contact forces, no agent errors.
Practices: 78.6% (11/14 points) — Deep
4 PRESENT: Asking questions, analyzing and interpreting data, developing and using models, constructing explanations and designing solutions.
3 PARTIAL: Planning investigations (teacher-guided procedures), argument from evidence (K-level discourse, no structured critique), using mathematics (the unit cites K.MD measurement standards but the comparisons it actually asks for are verbal; the only counting is scoring a target-practice game).
Students generate and revisit questions using a Driving Question Board. They collect data with Venn diagrams and T-charts. They build and revise class consensus models with symbol keys. In LS4, they complete a full design cycle: define a problem, design a game, build, test, revise, and present.
No foundational changes needed. The unit is accurate at the descriptive level. Other units in the Sprocket Learning sequence would need to do the atomic-molecular work for the program to build deep understanding over time.
| Total Passages Scored | 20 |
| Raw Gap Error | N/A (boundary concept — 0 mechanism passages) FALSE = atoms/molecules not present before students are asked to explain. The student is navigating without a starting point. |
| Adjusted Gap Error | N/A (boundary concept — all 20 passages are observational) 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) | 0 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 | 78.6% - 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. |
This unit teaches forces and motion as a boundary concept. The language is accurate at the descriptive level. It does not introduce atoms or molecules, but it does not introduce misconceptions either.
Zero map errors across all 20 passages — clean descriptive language throughout. Full engineering design cycle in Learning Set 4. Class consensus models with symbol keys that evolve across the unit. Student-generated claims supported by investigation evidence.
Pairs with the Weather and Energy unit (avoid, 0% foundation) in the same grade. The two units together show that Sprocket can teach clean observational science; the gap appears only when the content requires mechanism.
boundary concept - Safe ground, not deep ground. All 20 passages are observational (pushes, pulls, motion, collisions). No mechanism-level content is attempted or required at K-2 for this domain.
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 3 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.