MS-ETS1-1

The lesson's engineering spread tells how Rohrer and Binnig stated what their microscope had to do and what limited them. Lab 3 and Worksheet 9 require students to write their own criteria and constraints for a probe-based mapping tool, with measurable precision, before designing, which is direct evidence toward this PE.

In W9 students convert a Science Night committee's brief into criteria with numbers or tests and constraints with limits, including a safety limit for young visitors. This is practice toward the PE; impacts on people and the environment are only touched on.

Before scoring feedstocks in Lab 3, students write the criteria and constraints in measurable terms and sort which is which. This is a step toward defining a design problem precisely, but the problem itself is given to them, so the role is practice. W9 Part A goes further: students rewrite a council brief as measurable criteria and constraints and add an impact-based constraint of their own, which W9 treats as evidence toward the PE.

Lab 3 opens with each group writing measurable criteria (mass change, sealing time, cost) and the constraints (materials, amounts, no rigid sealed containers) before any trap is built; the precision of those criteria is what makes the later data comparison possible. Listed for grades 6-8 in the California sequence; it is practiced here, not assessed.

W9 has students turn a school nurse's letter into six precise criteria and constraints, computing the per-pack cost limit and naming the rules that protect runners and the playing field. Lab 2 supports it by having teams restate a supplied brief in their own words and say how each item will be tested.

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.

The lesson's engineering spread on the research drill ship gives students a real case for telling requirements (criteria) from limits (constraints). The presentation (for a seafloor-sampling tool) and W9 (for a drilling voyage) have students sort and write both; this practices the PE rather than fully assessing it because the design problem is given to students rather than defined from scratch.

The textbook's engineering spread shows conservation scientists stating what a wolf-tracking tool must do and what limits it. In Lab 3 students write their own measurable criteria and constraints for a shield that protects a frog-call sensor from highway noise, including effects on the animals being monitored, before they build anything.

The lesson's engineering spread shows how criteria and constraints shaped two different wetland-rebuilding designs in Louisiana. Students identify criteria and constraints in the W9 transfer task and the slide 25 discussion, but they do not define a full design problem with precision, so the role is practice rather than assesses.

Lab 3 gives students a design brief and asks them to restate its criteria and constraints as measurable targets (percent of ice lost, budget, size, access time) and to name the scientific principle each design choice relies on. The criteria are supplied rather than developed by students, so the role is practice.

In Lab 2 students turn a performance-target table into measurable criteria (load stays on the deck, sag limits, joints intact at each shaking level) and constraints (budget, materials, build time) before building, and Lab 3 adds site hazards as scientific limits on the solution. The problem frame is supplied by the teacher, so this practices the PE rather than fully assessing it.

The lesson's New York City case shows how precise criteria and constraints shaped a water-supply solution. Students sort criteria from constraints (slide 24), work to stated criteria in Lab 2, and choose criterion weights in Lab 3. The criteria are mostly supplied, so this is practice.

In W9 students turn a water board's vague goals into measurable criteria and firm constraints, then judge whether a criterion is strict enough for an invasion that can never be undone and write a stricter one; that is direct evidence toward the PE. Lab 2 (sharpening supplied net criteria and adding one of their own), W2, W3 and W10 item 7 practice the same skill.