|
Next Generation Science Standards
|
3-5-ETS1-1 - Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or a want that includes specified criteria for success and constraints on materials, time, or cost.
|
- I can name a simple toy repair problem from the New Orleans family resource center and list a few success criteria or constraints, with support
- I can share one idea with my group, but my plan may not yet clearly match the need, materials, time, or cost limits.
|
- I can define the toy repair problem in my own words and identify some criteria and constraints for a repairable toy, such as safety, cost, and easy replacement parts
- I can suggest more than one possible solution and explain at least one reason my idea might work better than another.
|
- I can clearly define the design problem using specific criteria and constraints for a low-cost, modular toy that can be repaired and reused by the family resource center
- I can generate and compare several possible solutions with my team, using evidence about materials, time, cost, safety, and ease of repair to choose a strong direction.
|
- I can define a precise design problem for a repairable toy that includes detailed success criteria and realistic constraints, and I can connect it to the needs of the New Orleans family resource center
- I can lead or contribute to thoughtful comparison of multiple solutions, explaining how our choice best meets the criteria and constraints while reducing waste and supporting future repairs.
|
|
Next Generation Science Standards
|
3-5-ETS1-2 - Generate and compare multiple possible solutions to a problem based on how well each is likely to meet the criteria and constraints of the problem.
|
- I can name one possible repairable-toy idea and describe some basic parts of it, but I may need help explaining how well it matches the needs, safety, cost, time, and material limits of the New Orleans family resource center
- I can share my idea with my team and listen to feedback, even if I do not yet compare more than one solution.
|
- I can generate at least two repairable-toy solutions and compare them using a simple set of criteria and constraints such as replaceable parts, safety, low cost, and ease of repair
- I can use observations, measurements, and team feedback to explain which idea is stronger and identify one or two ways it could be improved.
|
- I can generate multiple modular toy solutions and compare them with evidence about how well each meets the design criteria and constraints for the family resource center
- I can explain my choice using material properties, repairability, cost, and user needs, and I can revise my idea after peer or client feedback to make it safer, simpler, or more durable.
|
- I can independently generate, compare, and justify several repairable-toy solutions using clear evidence from tests, measurements, and client feedback
- I can evaluate trade-offs among safety, durability, cost, ease of replacement, and waste reduction, then select the best solution and explain how my teamwork, reflection, and communication strengthened the design decision.
|
|
Next Generation Science Standards
|
3-5-ETS1-3 - Plan and carry out fair tests in which variables are controlled and failure points are considered to identify aspects of a model or prototype that can be improved.
|
- I can take part in a repair test by following directions, keeping some parts the same, and observing what breaks or does not work on a toy prototype
- I can share simple notes or drawings about what I noticed, but I may need help explaining failure points or how the toy could be improved.
|
- I can plan and carry out a fair test with one changed part at a time, record results with words, numbers, or sketches, and point out at least one failure point in my toy prototype
- I can use feedback from my group to suggest one or two ways to make the toy easier to repair, safer, or stronger.
|
- I can plan and carry out fair tests that control important variables, collect clear data about repeated repairs or part replacements, and identify several failure points that affect how well the toy works
- I can use evidence from my tests and feedback from others to compare improvements and explain which changes best support a low-cost, repairable toy.
|
- I can independently plan and carry out fair tests with controlled variables, use measurements and observations to identify multiple failure points, and collect enough evidence to show how my prototype changes improve durability, repairability, and safety
- I can clearly justify design improvements with data, revise my ideas based on peer and client feedback, and communicate how the evidence supports a more effective toy for the family resource center.
|
|
Next Generation Science Standards
|
5-PS1-3 - Make observations and measurements to identify materials based on their properties.
|
- I can make a few simple observations of toy parts and name one or two material properties, with help, but my choices may not match the repair needs of the toy
- I can participate in group work and share ideas with support, but I need reminders to use evidence, listen to others, and explain my thinking clearly.
|
- I can observe and measure some material properties, such as strength, flexibility, texture, or mass, and use them to choose materials for a repairable toy part with partial accuracy
- I can work with my team to compare a few ideas and explain basic reasons for my choice, though my repair plan or communication may still be incomplete or unclear.
|
- I can observe, measure, and record multiple material properties to identify materials that fit the needs of a modular toy part, and I can use my evidence to compare design ideas
- I can collaborate with peers to make shared decisions, explain my choice of materials clearly, and revise my thinking when I get feedback.
|
- I can consistently observe and measure material properties, compare several materials, and justify which ones best support a safe, durable, low-cost, repairable toy design
- I can lead and contribute to group discussions, use evidence to explain my choices clearly, and refine my design based on feedback and new observations.
|
|
Next Generation Science Standards
|
5-PS1-1 - Develop a model to describe that matter is made of particles too small to be seen.
|
- I can describe matter as being made of tiny particles that are too small to see, but my explanation is incomplete or mostly copied from class examples
- I can identify one or two material properties of toy parts with support, and I need frequent help to connect those properties to why a toy part might break or be hard to repair.
|
- I can use a simple particle model to explain that toy materials are made of tiny particles too small to see, and I can connect some material properties, such as strength or flexibility, to repairable toy parts
- I can communicate my ideas with peers and use feedback to make a basic model or label that shows how a broken part can be removed and replaced.
|
- I can develop a clear particle model that explains how matter is made of tiny particles too small to see and use observations and measurements of material properties to choose parts that better fit the repairable toy design
- I can explain my choices with evidence, compare ideas with others, and revise my model or prototype using teacher and peer feedback.
|
- I can develop and clearly justify a detailed particle model that shows how matter is made of tiny particles too small to see and how the chosen toy materials’ properties support repair, durability, and reuse
- I can use precise observations, measurements, and collaborative feedback to refine my labeled prototype and repair explanation, and I can confidently share how my design helps extend a toy’s life while reducing waste.
|
|
Next Generation Science Standards
|
5-PS1-2 - Measure and graph quantities to provide evidence that regardless of the type of change that occurs when heating, cooling, or mixing substances, the total weight of matter is conserved.
|
- I can collect simple mass data with help and make a basic bar graph or table showing before-and-after amounts for a teacher-approved heating, cooling, or mixing test
- I can notice whether the total mass stayed the same or changed, but my explanation may be incomplete or need support to connect the evidence to conservation of matter.
|
- I can measure and graph mass accurately before and after a teacher-approved change and describe with some evidence that the total mass stays the same when no matter is added or removed
- I can identify one or two fair-test variables for a toy-material test, explain at least one material property, and use peer or teacher feedback to improve my work.
|
- I can plan and carry out a fair test with controlled variables, record and graph mass data clearly, and explain that matter is made of particles too small to see, which helps explain why mass is conserved during heating, cooling, or mixing
- I can compare multiple repairable toy ideas using evidence about properties, cost, safety, and ease of replacement, and I can collaborate to revise my design based on feedback.
|
- I can independently and accurately measure, graph, and interpret mass data from repeated fair tests to provide strong evidence that total mass is conserved during teacher-approved changes
- I can connect particle-level ideas to material properties, justify the best repairable toy design using multiple criteria and constraints, and communicate a clear, well-labeled repair plan that shows how evidence improved my prototype and supports the needs of the New Orleans family resource center.
|