Unit 2 — Earth Processes

• Students support an explanation using patterns as evidence
• Students analyze and interpret data from maps to describe patterns of Earth's features
• Students generate multiple solutions to a problem and compare them based on how well they meet criteria and constraints
• Students plan and conduct fair tests in which variables are controlled

Design, build, and test structures with limited resources and make adjustments as needed

— not configured —

Students may demonstrate understanding through a teacher-led discussion or recorded oral explanation of Earth patterns and solutions, using visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or photos. Response frames, word banks, and simplified map legends may be provided to support data interpretation and solution comparison.

Students with IEPs may benefit from graphic organizers that help them record and compare multiple solutions to Earth process problems, reducing the written output demand while keeping the cognitive work accessible. When analyzing maps and patterns, providing highlighted or color-coded versions of maps alongside a structured observation guide can support attention and visual processing. For the design-and-build summative task, breaking the engineering challenge into clearly numbered steps with checkpoints allows students to monitor their own progress and receive feedback before moving on. Oral or dictated responses should be accepted as alternatives to written explanations when assessing understanding of patterns and cause-and-effect relationships.

Students with 504 plans should be given extended time during map analysis activities and the summative design task, as interpreting spatial data and iterating on a physical structure can require additional processing time. Preferential seating near demonstration areas and reduced-distraction workspaces support focus during data collection and fair-test planning. A printed copy of any directions or criteria displayed on the board ensures students can reference task expectations independently throughout the unit.

Multilingual learners benefit from visual supports such as labeled diagrams of Earth's features, picture-supported vocabulary walls for key terms like earthquake, erosion, fault line, and solution, and maps with annotated landmarks to build spatial context. Directions for fair-test planning and solution-comparison tasks should be given in short, clear steps, and students should be invited to retell what they are being asked to do before beginning. Where possible, connecting Earth process examples to geographic regions familiar to students' home countries strengthens comprehension and engagement with the content.

Students who need additional support should be connected to prior knowledge about weather, landforms, or community experiences with natural events before new content is introduced, helping them build a meaningful entry point into Earth processes. Map analysis tasks can be simplified by beginning with single-variable comparisons — such as identifying where one type of feature is most common — before progressing to multi-pattern analysis. During the engineering design task, providing a partially completed comparison chart for evaluating solutions reduces cognitive load while still requiring students to engage in the reasoning process.

Advanced learners can be challenged to investigate real-world engineering responses to a specific natural Earth process — such as seismic retrofitting or coastal erosion barriers — evaluating the trade-offs between cost, effectiveness, and environmental impact beyond what the classroom task requires. During the fair-test planning phase, these students can be encouraged to introduce an additional variable, justify its inclusion, and predict how it will affect outcomes, deepening their understanding of experimental design. Connecting their solution comparisons to current events or global case studies allows gifted learners to engage with the societal and ethical dimensions of engineering decisions.