Two Black Jackets: Where Did Each One Come From?
I can observe two materials that do the same job, ask questions about where each one came from, and write a first explanation of why people make materials that nature does not.
Chapter 15 · Unit 5: Chemical Reactions · Segment 2
Where do synthetic materials come from, why do people choose them over natural ones, and what do those choices cost?
Students figure out that every synthetic material, from a polyester jersey to a cancer drug, starts as a natural resource that chemists change through chemical reactions, and that each of those materials carries benefits and costs for people and for the environment. They trace petroleum into plastics, fabrics, fuels, dyes and medicines, follow corn into ethanol and PLA, and follow yew trees into paclitaxel. They weigh the trade-offs of gasoline against corn ethanol, sugar against zero-calorie sweeteners, and long-lasting plastics against plastics that break down. Finally they see how engineers revise criteria and constraints when a successful solution creates a new problem, and they practice doing the same thing with ordinary classroom materials.
Estimated class time: presentation about 142 minutes · worksheets about 405 minutes in total · labs 4 sessions. Seven 50-minute periods: one for the phenomenon and the natural-versus-synthetic distinction; one for the petroleum family and the swatch mystery lab; one for structure, properties and the history of synthetic materials; one for fuels, foods and medicines; one for the cup decision lab; two for the plastics engineering story, the produce-bag design challenge and the mastery check.
Two black jackets hang side by side in a store. Their tags read the same price. One tag says 'genuine leather'; the other says 'vegan leather, 100% polyurethane'. They feel almost the same, they bend the same way, and both shed water. One started as the hide of a cow; the other started as crude oil pumped from deep underground. No animal went into the second jacket. Chemists took a thick black liquid, broke its molecules apart and joined the pieces into long chains that can be spread into a sheet that behaves like skin. Why would anyone make a material the hard way when nature already makes one? And what does each jacket cost beyond the price on the tag?
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.
Gather and make sense of information to describe that synthetic materials come from natural resources and impact society.
Every section of the lesson traces a synthetic material (plastics, polyester, ethanol, sucralose, paclitaxel) to its natural resource and the chemical process that made it, and weighs its effects on people and the environment. W3, W6, W8, Lab 2 and the task slide have students gather information from texts and sources, judge whether claims are supported (W6, W8 and Lab 2 rate sources directly) and describe origins and impacts in words; no quantitative life-cycle analysis is required, which respects the assessment boundary.
Assessment boundary: Assessment is limited to qualitative information.
Define the criteria and constraints of a design problem with sufficient precision to ensure a successful solution, taking into account relevant scientific principles and potential impacts on people and the natural environment that may limit possible solutions.
The plastics engineering spread shows criteria being revised after a solution caused a new problem. Lab 3 and W9 have students write criteria and constraints for a container or bag before designing, including an end-of-life requirement; the problems are classroom-sized, so this builds toward the PE rather than fully assessing it.
Evaluate competing design solutions using a systematic process to determine how well they meet the criteria and constraints of the problem.
Lab 2 and the presentation's task slide have students score four cup materials against the same criteria and constraints using information cards, then defend a choice. This is a systematic comparison of competing solutions; the decision is qualitative and classroom-scale, so the role is practice.
Chemical Engineering and Society: where synthetic materials come from and what they cost. 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 observe two materials that do the same job, ask questions about where each one came from, and write a first explanation of why people make materials that nature does not.
I can use the chapter's vocabulary to trace a product back to its natural resource and the chemical process that made it, and tell apart terms that are often confused.
I can use evidence from a passage to describe where four synthetic materials came from, what problems they solved for society, and what new problems they created.
I can read a flow diagram that traces a synthetic material back to its natural resource, tell physical separation steps from chemical reaction steps, and build my own trace for a product made from corn.
I can graph and calculate from data about how fast different cup materials break down and how much energy they use per use, and I can explain what the numbers do and do not tell us about which material is better.
I can use qualitative evidence about where a synthetic material comes from, what it does at the end of its life and where a town's waste actually goes to argue whether switching materials would help, and I can spot a claim that the evidence does not support.
I can find the errors in a classmate's statements about natural resources, synthetic materials and biodegradability, explain exactly what went wrong, and rewrite each statement so that it is accurate.
I can work with a team to gather information from several sources about where a synthetic material comes from and how it affects people and the environment, judge which sources are credible and which claims are supported, and defend our ratings.
I can define testable criteria and constraints for a real materials problem, compare four competing options against them using evidence about each material's origin, cost and ending, choose one, justify it, and revise my plan when new information arrives.
I can show that I understand where synthetic materials come from, how their structure gives them useful properties, what they cost and give to society, and how engineers revise criteria when a solution causes new problems.
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.
Using only property tests you can run on a desk, which of six unlabeled fabric swatches are made of natural fibers and which are synthetic, and which test gives the most trustworthy evidence?
Using eight information cards of unequal credibility, which of four cup materials should the school's spring fair buy for 600 cold drinks, and what trade-off does that choice force the school to accept?
What criteria and constraints, including what happens to the bag after use, must a produce bag for the school garden stand meet, and which combination of natural and synthetic materials best meets them within a budget of fifteen material tokens?
Materials overview: No open flames and no hazardous chemicals anywhere in the chapter; the classic fabric burn test is deliberately left out. Lab 1 uses fabric swatches (cotton, wool felt, jute or burlap, polyester, nylon, acrylic felt), water, droppers, tweezers, hand lenses and a balance. Lab 2 uses printed information cards and a scoring matrix. Lab 3 uses kraft paper, newspaper, cotton muslin, polyester fabric from old garments, plastic film cut from reused grocery bags, wax paper, tape, string, scissors and weights for load testing. The jacket phenomenon can be shown with any real and faux leather items or described from the chapter text.
Review status: reviewed · 2026-10-19 · Re-solved every numeric, multiple-choice, true/false, fill and table item in W1-W10, Labs 1-3 and the slide checks; keys agree except W1 q3 (prompt said faux leather wears out 'three to four times faster' while the owner's 20 versus 3-5 years gives four to seven), W5 q9 (steel versus PLA breaks even at 60 uses, not 75) and W9 q7 (15 percent of 700 forks is about 3 lost per week, not per day); all three fixed. W3 passage trimmed from 724 to 698 words without altering any sentence a question, key or extension quotes. History checked: Bakelite 1907, nylon first made 1935, announced October 1938, toothbrush 1938, stockings May 1940, PET 1941, Wyeth's PET bottle patent 1973 and PET soda bottles by the late 1970s, WWII synthetic rubber. Removed two unsupported claims (nylon stockings 'cheaper' than silk; synthetic rubber 'cheaper' than natural after the war), noted that much wartime butadiene came from grain alcohol as well as petroleum, softened 'outlast its owner by centuries' and 'cannot be recycled', and fixed q1 (formaldehyde is not a natural resource), q2 (quoted 'electric age' no longer in the passage) and q5; keys q4-q6 and q8 updated to match. Slide 10 timeline: PLA reached large-scale production in the early 2000s, not the 1990s; the 'four million pairs sold on the first day' nylon claim replaced with a supported statement; wartime rubber feedstock corrected. Slide 11 no longer says the U.S. 'never went back' to natural rubber. California bag-law statement (slide 15, slide 21 and Lab 3 q8) checked against SB 1053 (Chapter 453, Statutes of 2024): from January 1, 2026 covered stores may not provide plastic carryout bags of any thickness at checkout, and recycled paper bags are allowed; SB 270's thin-bag ban took effect after Proposition 67 in November 2016. Statement kept; the E10 notes now give the energy reason instead of a warranty claim. Lab 2 cards: recycling and PLA claims checked against EPA 2018 data (PET bottles and jars about 29 percent) and the UF/IFAS bioplastics bulletin (58 °C, 90 percent in 180 days, not in landfills or backyard piles); 'spoils the batch' softened to 'can spoil' here, in W6 and slide 20; the lined-paper compost sentence corrected; a farmland, water and fertilizer cost added to the PLA card (and both resource cells in W6) so renewable origin is not presented as cost-free; Card 8's brand renamed so it does not repeat W6's flyer. Penicillin (produced by a mold) removed as an example of a synthetic substance in the chapter misconceptions, slide 25 and the W7 key; aspirin used instead. Phenomenon text no longer says nothing in the faux jacket 'ever lived' (petroleum came from ancient organisms). Consistency: W3 rates no sources, so credibility evidence now points to W6 and W8 (standards note, SEP, evidenceOfLearning, slides 3 and 24); stale slide links fixed (W5 has no stretch or fuel dataset, W8 has no milestone or paclitaxel card, Lab 1 has no polyethylene fiber); slide 6 flow had five edge labels for four arrows; slide 22 budget aligned with Lab 2 ($75); slide 27 token budget aligned with Lab 3 (15); estimatedMinutes set to the pacing sum (142); caGrade added to all six lab standards entries. Smaller science fixes: W2 q21 reworked (PLA fits both 'plant-based' and conditionally 'biodegradable', so it could not be the one-but-not-the-other example), W4 drawing box 2 no longer calls starch breakdown 'no new substance', W8 Card 9 saccharin sales and Card 12 attribution, Lab 1 debrief no longer cites a stretch test, slide 26 sucralose bullet, slide 9 tire and PET wording. Originality sweep: no 6-word runs shared with the lesson text remain outside sourceReferences (rephrased 'formed over millions of years from the...', 'able to be broken down into', 'a useful material or substance that' and 'the bark of the Pacific yew' in 12 places). Not changed, flagged for authors: W5, W6, Lab 2 and the slide 22 task all center on single-use cups, and W6 and Lab 2 share the same PET-versus-PLA setup (composter 140 km away, a flyer to debunk); they differ in task (CER writing versus credibility rating and a scoring matrix) but a student doing both repeats much of the reasoning. Labs remain untested physically, as each lab's modelLimitations states.
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: PLA cups from corn and the lesson question | 182, 183 | 218, 219 | Lesson question, vocabulary list, the publisher's standards box, the idea that people must research claims about natural versus synthetic materials. |
| 1. Synthetic Materials Come from Natural Ones | 184 | 220 | Definitions of natural resource and synthetic material, copper alloys and synthetic sapphire as examples, the origin of petroleum. |
| Key Science Concept: Synthetic Materials Made from Petroleum | 185 | 221 | The petroleum family diagram: polyester, medicines, food coloring, flavoring, rubber and plastics; the structure-to-property idea for polymers. |
| 2. Fuels and Society: Biofuels | 186, 187 | 222, 223 | Fossil fuels, gasoline refined from petroleum, corn ethanol and fermentation, the trade-offs of biofuels; the W5 extension on E10 energy and the fuel slide. |
| 3. Food and Society: Sucralose | 188, 189 | 224, 225 | Food additives, the sucrose and sucralose structures, saccharin during World War I, why people and societies choose sweeteners. |
| 4. Medicines and Society: Paclitaxel | 190, 191 | 226, 227 | Medicines found in nature, the Pacific yew bark problem, the European yew needle solution, renewable versus nonrenewable harvesting. |
| 5. Engineering and Improving Plastics, and Lesson Summary | 192, 193 | 228, 229 | Plastics as a solution that created new problems, revising criteria, biodegradable plastics and PLA's limits; the design-cycle diagram and Lab 3. |