The Jar That Sorts Things: Five Liquids, Four Objects
I can record careful observations of liquids and objects settling into layers, and write a first explanation of what decides where each one stops.
Chapter 03 · Unit 1: The Composition of Matter · Segment 1
How can you tell one substance from another when they look the same, and which measurements can be trusted to do it?
Students figure out how to tell one substance from another when looks are not enough. They separate properties that describe one particular object (mass, volume, shape) from properties that belong to the substance itself (density, melting point, boiling point, solubility, flammability), and they learn that a single test rarely settles an identity, so scientists combine several tests and compare the results with a table of known substances. Along the way they see that most everyday materials, from air to a gold coin, are mixtures of pure substances. This property toolkit is exactly the evidence students will use in Lesson 12 to decide whether a chemical reaction has produced new substances.
Estimated class time: presentation about 134 minutes · worksheets about 380 minutes in total · labs 4 sessions. Six 50-minute periods: one for the phenomenon, substances and mixtures; one for object properties versus substance properties and density; one for Lab 1 (identify the liquids); one for melting point, solubility and flammability with the identification task; one for Lab 2 (choose a material) with Lab 3 data collected at home in between; one for the Lab 3 pooling session, synthesis and mastery.
A tall jar holds three clear liquids that refuse to blend: corn syrup on the bottom, blue-tinted water in the middle and vegetable oil on top. A steel bolt, a grape, a shaving from a milk-jug cap and a cork are dropped in one at a time. The bolt sinks to the bottom. The grape stops on the syrup. The cap shaving sinks through the oil but floats on the water. The cork never gets below the oil. Nothing is touching the objects or holding them up, yet each one stops at a different place. What property of each liquid and each object decides where it stops, and why do the liquids stay in layers at all?
Notice and wonder prompts
California NGSS, Grade 7 Preferred Integrated Course Model. Each entry says whether this chapter's work assesses the performance expectation, gives practice toward it, or supports it as background; the resource lists below repeat this for every worksheet and lab.
Analyze and interpret data on the properties of substances before and after the substances interact to determine if a chemical reaction has occurred.
The PE asks students to compare properties before and after substances interact to decide whether a reaction happened. This lesson builds the property toolkit the PE names in its assessment boundary and has students analyze and interpret property data to identify unknowns; the before-and-after comparison itself is the work of Lesson 12, so the role here is practice. Lab 3's vinegar test and the flammability slides give a first look at the before-and-after idea.
Assessment boundary: Assessment is limited to analysis of the following properties: density, melting point, boiling point, solubility, flammability, and odor.
Develop models to describe the atomic composition of simple molecules and extended structures.
The lesson opens by presenting a substance as a visible-scale quantity of one kind of molecule or extended structure, which connects the models students built in Lesson 2 to the samples they can hold and measure here. No new molecule models are developed, so this is background support.
Assessment boundary: Assessment does not include valence electrons and bonding energy, discussing the ionic nature of subunits of complex structures, or a complete description of all individual atoms in a complex molecule or extended structure is not required.
Evaluate competing design solutions using a systematic process to determine how well they meet the criteria and constraints of the problem.
The textbook lesson has no engineering spread; this connection comes from Lab 2 and Worksheet 9, where students evaluate seven candidate materials for a product against stated criteria and constraints using the property data this lesson teaches. It is practice because the problem and its criteria are supplied rather than defined by students.
Analyze data from tests to determine similarities and differences among several design solutions to identify the best characteristics of each that can be combined into a new solution to better meet the criteria for success.
In Lab 2 students sketch a two-material spoon that pairs a metal bowl with a plastic handle, and in Worksheet 9 they keep a feature from a weaker tank design when building their own line. Both are small, guided versions of the PE's combine-the-best-features idea, so the role is practice; no test data from student-built designs is analyzed.
Substances and Their Properties: telling one substance from another. Original, editable slides with speaker notes: a phenomenon opener, learning targets, the chapter's concepts with diagrams, vocabulary in context, 3 checks for understanding, 2 discussion prompts, an application task, a misconception check, a synthesis and an exit ticket.

Ten different tasks, one per instructional blueprint. Each has a student PDF (low ink, US Letter), an editable DOCX, an HTML preview, and a separate teacher answer key with reasoning.
I can record careful observations of liquids and objects settling into layers, and write a first explanation of what decides where each one stops.
I can use the vocabulary of substances and properties to sort descriptions, complete a concept map, and explain which properties identify a substance and which only describe one object.
I can explain, with evidence from a passage, how a recycling plant uses density and other properties to identify look-alike plastics, and why one property is rarely enough.
I can read a density chart and an identification flowchart, use them to name an unknown metal, and build my own decision model for telling look-alike metals apart.
I can calculate density from mass and volume data, graph mass against volume, and use the pattern plus a reference table to identify unknown metals.
I can use measured properties (density, solubility in water, boiling point, flammability) and a reference table to argue which substance an unknown liquid is.
I can find the error in a mistaken statement about substances and their properties, explain the thinking that caused it, and rewrite the statement correctly.
I can combine evidence cards from different tests with a team to identify five white solids, explain which cards decide each identity, and recognize evidence that does not help.
I can use density data to design and justify a sequence of liquid tanks that separates mixed plastic flakes, evaluate competing designs against criteria and constraints, and recognize when density alone cannot finish the job.
I can tell substances from mixtures, separate identifying properties from object properties, calculate and use density, and plan a set of tests to identify an unknown.
Three different investigation approaches. Each has a teacher guide (purpose, materials with quantities, estimated cost, prep, safety, procedure, expected observations, debrief, answer key, assessment criteria, accessibility adaptations, low-cost alternative) and a student recording sheet.
Four clear, colorless liquids arrive in bottles marked only A, B, C and D. Which measurements can name each one, and when is one measurement not enough?
A kit for melting candle wax and chocolate needs a stirring spoon. Seven materials are available. Which one should the company choose, and how do you decide fairly when no material is perfect?
Eight white solids from the kitchen look nearly the same. Which simple tests sort them apart, and can a key built from the whole class's data name a powder nobody has seen before?
Materials overview: No open flames anywhere in the chapter; flammability is taught from descriptions only. Lab 1 uses water, saturated salt water, 70% isopropyl alcohol and vegetable oil in small volumes, a 0.1 g balance, graduated cylinders, cups and paper towels. Lab 2 uses steel bolts, polypropylene bottle caps, a pine block, a candle-wax chunk, a graduated cylinder, a ruler, a balance and, for one teacher-run station, hot water from a kettle. Lab 3 uses food-grade kitchen solids, white vinegar, measuring spoons and cups, done mostly at home with a class pooling session. A three-liquid density jar (corn syrup, tinted water, vegetable oil) with a bolt, a grape, a milk-jug cap shaving and a cork makes the phenomenon a live demonstration.
Review status: reviewed · 2026-10-18 · Re-solved every numeric and multiple-choice item in W1-W10 and Labs 1-3 against the keys; densities, melting points, boiling points and solubilities checked against reference values. Originality: the solubility definition in chapter.json, slide 18 and W2 (term and q14 key) echoed the book's wording and was rewritten; the air-as-mixture bullet on slide 25 was rephrased. Lab 1 q3 asked for 'two' reference liquids within 0.05 g/mL when three qualify (0.85, 0.88, 0.92); question and key corrected. Lab 1 debrief and slide 2 predicted that a drop of alcohol would join the water layer, which is unreliable because 70% alcohol is less dense than the oil; replaced with a food-coloring drop. Lab 2 criterion 2 would have eliminated nylon ('soaks up a little') although the lab treats nylon as a survivor; the criterion now states the threshold. W3's extension duplicated W9's core design task (a two-tank float-sink line); replaced with a black-plastic extension so the two sheets stay distinct. W1 teacher note gave the density of pure isopropyl alcohol (0.79) for store rubbing alcohol; corrected to the 70-91% range. W4 Figure 1 caption, W4 q4 key wording, W4 flowchart node 1 (odor of unknowns), W6 teacher note on the ethanol fifth test, and a garbled misconceptionWatch on the density slide were clarified. Added MS-ETS1-3 (practice) to the chapter standards because Lab 2 and W9 already cite it. Labs remain untested physically; see each lab's modelLimitations.
Verified against the student edition of Bring Science Alive! 7th Grade Integrated (Student Edition). Printed page numbers appear in the book; PDF pages are the physical pages of the 524-page scan (printed + 36). The textbook is not reproduced on this site.
| Section | Printed pages | PDF pages | Used for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction: iron and glass, 'chemicals' you drink and eat, the lesson question | 30, 31 | 66, 67 | Essential question, the 'chemical means substance' misconception, vocabulary list, the publisher's standards box (MS-PS1-2, PS1.A, PS1.B, Patterns). |
| 1. Substances: macroscopic amounts of molecules, invisible gases as substances | 32 | 68 | Substance and macroscopic definitions, the scale correction in accuracyNotes, slides 4-5. |
| 2. Properties: the treasure-box scenario, mass, volume, shape and odor | 33 | 69 | The object-properties versus substance-properties distinction (slides 8-9, W2, W4), the copper-statue caution. |
| 3. Density: silver versus platinum, density = mass ÷ volume | 34 | 70 | Density definition, the equal-volume comparison, the bar chart of lookalike metals, Lab 1 and Lab 2 density measurements, W5. |
| 4. Melting and Boiling Point: silver versus palladium | 35 | 71 | Melting-point slides and the simulated heating-curve diagram, the pressure correction for boiling point. |
| 5. Solubility: sugar versus flour, marker inks, metals in acids | 36 | 72 | Solubility as a pair, Lab 1 mixing test, Lab 3 kitchen-solids survey, the acid-dissolving accuracy note. |
| 6. Flammability: magnesium wire, the burning splint, combining tests | 37 | 73 | Flammability as a chemical property, the 'several tests' idea on the identification flow slide, splint-test accuracy note. |
| Key Science Concept: Using Tests to Identify a Substance | 38 | 74 | The test-then-compare structure of the identification flow diagram and the mystery-metal task; the 'too dense' correction. |
| 7. Mixtures and Lesson Summary: gold alloys, wood, air | 39 | 75 | Mixtures slide, alloy vocabulary, the pure-substance-versus-mixture compare diagram, synthesis. |