Rhode Island Grade 4 Science

Compare Designs That Reduce Flood Effects

Compare two invented flood-model designs using shared criteria and repeated observations, with Grade 4 Rhode Island references, lessons, and related quizzes.

The current Rhode Island science page identifies NGSS adopted in 2013. This activity selects a reference from the Next Generation Science Standards arranged by disciplinary core idea. Check the school’s implementation plan and the full chosen edition. This activity selects a Grade 4 NGSS expectation. It is one part of a science course, not a complete curriculum.

NGSS combines science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. Read the clarification and assessment boundary as well as the performance expectation. Read the complete grade objectives alongside the school’s course, including investigations, models, evidence, and explanations. The general lesson library below may include review or enrichment beyond this grade’s course. This original activity is a focused starting point, not a complete curriculum crosswalk.

Two designs, two kinds of evidence

A class model has a protected square representing a building area. In each invented trial, the same volume of water enters from the same position. Design A uses a low barrier; Design B uses a diversion channel. The table records water reaching the square and water remaining in a neighboring square. The goal is to keep water in each square at or below 3 model units. When both limits are met, a lower amount in the protected square is preferred. Compare the designs using both criteria.

Explain the evidence or model

A allows 2 and 3 units into the protected square; B allows 1 and 2. B performs better on that criterion in both recorded trials. But A leaves 2 and 2 units in the neighboring square, while B leaves 5 and 4. Only A meets the stated neighboring limit in both trials. Under these supplied criteria, A is the more suitable of the two recorded designs, even though B diverts more water from the protected area. Compare multiple effects before choosing. More repeated tests could reveal variability, and a redesigned channel might improve B’s neighboring result.

What to check in the explanation

The numbers are invented model observations, not flood predictions, safety instructions, or measurements at a real Rhode Island site. A small classroom model cannot establish protection of actual buildings. “Model units” are a chosen comparison measure, not a real flood depth. The selected Grade 4 expectation concerns comparing solutions to natural Earth-process effects; this is one flood-design example, not a complete treatment of all hazards.

Plan the next activity

1. State both criteria before comparing the results.
2. Use both trials and both affected areas in the explanation.
3. Suggest a revision and a fair repeated test.

A revised B design records 2 units reaching the protected square and 3 remaining in the neighboring square in one new invented trial. It meets both criteria in that trial. Explain why this is promising but why repeat testing under the same conditions is still needed before comparing reliability.