100% gap with zero map errors: 16 investigations build rigorous measurement of density, weight conservation, and volume displacement in earth materials without connecting to atomic structure. “Heavy for size” replaces density but never explains WHY materials differ. Explicitly defers particle model. 92.9% practices.
| Program | The Inquiry Project — Investigating Earth Materials |
| Lesson Title | Grade 4C — 16 investigations across 5 sections |
| Publisher | TERC (Cambridge, MA) |
| Author | TERC Research Team |
| Grade Band | Grade 4 (3-5 calibration) |
Foundation Score: 0.0%. Sixteen investigations build rigorous measurement of density, weight conservation, and volume displacement in earth materials without connecting to atomic structure. Gap error: 100.0%. Map error: 0%. Zero factual errors. “Heavy for size” replaces density but never explains WHY materials differ. The curriculum explicitly defers the particle model to later grades.
Sixteen investigations across five sections: Under Foot (rocks, minerals, soil observation), Heavy for Size (density concept through equal-volume comparisons and weight lines), Liquid Materials (graduated cylinders, oil vs water density), Mineral Materials (water displacement, intensive properties), and Transformations (crushing shells conserves weight, reshaping clay conserves weight and volume). Students discover that different earth materials have different densities and that weight is conserved during physical transformation.
The word “atom” never appears in student-facing content. “Molecule” appears 4 times, all in Scientist’s Essays (teacher background only). “Particle” appears 8 times, mostly in the cross-grade chart describing Grade 5 goals. This is a curriculum where density, conservation, and material properties are taught entirely at the macroscopic level.
What we found: 15 mechanism passages scored. Zero name atomic-level entities. 100% gap — no scaffolding credit possible because there are no TRUE passages anywhere.
“The relationship between weight and volume (i.e. density) is a property of solid and liquid materials.” — Concept chart
Density is defined as a property. The mechanism — different atoms packed differently — is never stated.
“Weight is conserved during crushing and reshaping.” — Concept chart
Students confirm conservation through measurement. The WHY — atoms do not disappear; they rearrange — is never provided.
“Matter can be divided into tiny pieces, and even the tiniest pieces have weight and take up space.” — Concept chart
Approaches particle theory but never arrives. What ARE those tiniest pieces? The answer — atoms — is never given.
“These ideas are essential for all of science and provide the necessary foundation for robust understanding of the particulate model of matter in later grades.” — Design note
The curriculum explicitly defers the particle model. Grade 4 is the density-and-conservation layer by design.
Map errors: 0. The language is exceptionally clean. “Heavy for size” is legitimate qualitative language for density. The curriculum is careful with what it says — it just does not say enough.
FSE: 0. All science content is factually correct.
Practices: 92.9% — Deep (3-5 calibration). Six PRESENT (asking questions, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics, developing and using models, constructing explanations and designing solutions, engaging in argument from evidence), one PARTIAL (planning investigations). Core strength is systematic data collection with digital scales, graduated cylinders, weight lines, and water displacement. Weight lines cross from representation to prediction: students predict where a new material would fall before measuring. Concept Cartoons create genuine argumentation from measurement evidence.
The curriculum would need to connect density (“heavy for size”), weight conservation, and material properties to atoms. At Grade 4, this means explaining that different materials are “heavy for size” because they are made of different atoms packed differently — heavier atoms or tighter packing means more mass per unit volume. Weight is conserved during crushing because atoms do not disappear — they just rearrange. The existing measurement infrastructure is excellent and should be kept.
| Total Passages Scored | 35 |
| Raw Gap Error | 100.0% (15 of 15 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% (15 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) | 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) | 1 flagged for review - Weight vs mass: curriculum systematically uses "weight" where "mass" is the correct term. Especially consequential here because this is the unit where density is introduced. Density = mass/volume, not weight/volume. Statements that are scientifically incorrect - not imprecise framing, but wrong. Any confirmed FSE = Not Recommended. |
| Practices | 92.9% - 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. |
16 investigations build rigorous measurement of density, weight conservation, and volume displacement in earth materials without connecting to atomic structure. Explicit design note defers particle model to later grades. 100% gap (15 of 15 mechanism passages FALSE), 0 map errors, 0 FSE. Clean-but-empty: meticulous measurement teaching without mechanism.
Exceptionally clean language — zero map errors across all 35 passages. Strong measurement infrastructure (digital scales, graduated cylinders, weight lines, water displacement). 92.9% practices with predictive weight-line modeling and genuine argumentation. Concept Cartoons create peer discourse. Conservation demonstrations are rigorous.
Middle layer of the 3-year progression. Grade 3C builds measurement foundations. Grade 4C adds density, conservation, and displacement with zero map errors. Grade 5C introduces the particle model but never names particles as atoms or molecules (15 AEC errors). Practices improve across the progression: 83.3% → 91.7% → 100%.
shallow by design - Design note states: "These ideas are essential for all of science and provide the necessary foundation for robust understanding of the particulate model of matter in later grades." Grade 4 is the density-and-conservation layer of a 3-year progression; Grade 5 introduces particles.
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.