100% gap with zero map errors: 17 investigations build rigorous measurement of materials, weight, and volume without ever naming what materials are made of at the atomic level. Explicitly defers particle model to Grade 5. 85.7% practices with strong data collection and evidence-based claims.
| Program | The Inquiry Project — Investigating Things in My World |
| Lesson Title | Grade 3C — 17 investigations across 4 strands |
| Publisher | TERC (Cambridge, MA) |
| Author | TERC Research Team |
| Grade Band | Grade 3 (3-5 calibration) |
| NGSS Alignment | 2-PS1-1, 2-PS1-2, 2-PS1-3 (builds toward 5-PS1-1) |
Foundation Score: 0.0%. Seventeen investigations build rigorous measurement of materials, weight, and volume without ever naming what materials are made of at the atomic level. Gap error: 100.0%. Map error: 0%. Zero factual errors. The curriculum explicitly defers the particle model to Grade 5 — the measurement infrastructure is meticulous, but the entity being measured is never identified.
Seventeen investigations across four strands: Investigating Materials (sorting, properties, material cubes), Investigating Weight (felt weight, pan balance, grams), Investigating Standard Measures (gram precision, tiny-things-have-weight, the 10-10-10-10 challenge), and Investigating Volume (taking up space, centimeter cubes, shape vs volume). Students discover that same-size cubes of different materials have different weights and that very tiny pieces still have weight.
The word “atom” appears once in the entire curriculum — in the Scientist’s Essay, which is teacher background only. The word “molecule” never appears. The word “particle” appears 3 times, all in the cross-grade chart describing Grade 5 goals. This is a curriculum where every measurement concept that could be grounded in atoms is instead left at the descriptive level.
What we found: 10 mechanism passages scored. Zero name atomic-level entities. 100% gap — no scaffolding credit possible because there are no TRUE passages anywhere.
“The tiniest pieces of a material have weight and are made of the same material as the object from which it comes.” — Strand 1 overview
Correct at the descriptive level. But at Grade 3 within a 3-5 band, the mechanism question — what ARE those tiniest pieces? — demands an atomic answer that is never provided.
“Same size objects can have different weights when they are made of different materials.” — Grade 3 concept chart
Students observe this through direct measurement. The WHY — different atoms arranged differently — is never stated.
“The concepts of material, weight, volume, and matter are emphasized as these ideas 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 3 is the macroscopic measurement layer by design.
Map errors: 0. The language is remarkably clean. No energy-as-substance, no label-as-explanation, no vague entities. Low map error does not mean deep foundations — it means the curriculum is careful with the language it uses. It just does not use enough of it.
FSE: 0. All science content is factually correct.
Practices: 85.7% — Deep (3-5 calibration). Five PRESENT (asking questions, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics, constructing explanations and designing solutions, engaging in argument from evidence), two PARTIAL (planning investigations, developing and using models). The curriculum’s strength is systematic data collection — pan balance measurements, gram weights, weight lines, class comparison charts. Quantity does real work: the 10-10-10-10 challenge has students weigh out four 10-gram portions, predict the finished weight, and adjust the build until it reads 40 grams. Concept Cartoons create genuine argumentation. Investigations are teacher-structured and models are representational rather than predictive.
The curriculum would need to connect materials, weight, and volume to their atomic-molecular basis. At Grade 3, this means introducing atoms as what materials are made of, explaining that different materials are made of different atoms arranged differently, and connecting “tiny pieces still have weight” to “because those tiny pieces are still made of atoms.” The existing measurement infrastructure is exceptionally strong and should be kept. The fix is naming the entity that the measurements describe.
| Total Passages Scored | 30 |
| Raw Gap Error | 100.0% (10 of 10 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% (10 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. Scientist’s Essay acknowledges the distinction and deliberately teaches weight instead. Affects every passage about weight of materials and tiny pieces. Statements that are scientifically incorrect - not imprecise framing, but wrong. Any confirmed FSE = Not Recommended. |
| Practices | 85.7% - 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. |
17 investigations build rigorous measurement of materials, weight, and volume without ever naming what materials are made of at the atomic level. Explicit design note defers particle model to Grade 5. 100% gap (10 of 10 mechanism passages FALSE), 0 map errors, 0 FSE. Clean-but-empty: meticulous measurement teaching without mechanism.
Exceptionally clean language — zero map errors across all 30 passages. Strong measurement infrastructure (pan balances, gram weights, weight lines, centimeter cubes). 85.7% practices with genuine data collection and evidence-based argumentation. Concept Cartoons create peer discourse. The 10-10-10-10 Challenge makes density tangible.
Pairs with Grade 4C (Investigating Earth Materials, also 0% foundation, zero map errors). Grade 3C builds measurement foundations (pan balances, grams, centimeter cubes). Grade 4C adds density, conservation, and displacement. Grade 5C introduces the particle model. The architecture is deliberate — each grade builds infrastructure that the next grade extends.
shallow by design - Design note states: "The concepts of material, weight, volume, and matter are emphasized as these ideas provide the necessary foundation for robust understanding of the particulate model of matter in later grades." Grade 3 is the macroscopic measurement 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 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.