Professional Development
Planning is one of the clearest ways student agency shows up in a KnowAtom classroom. Not because students are given unlimited freedom, but because they are positioned as thinkers whose ideas are worth testing.
Across KnowAtom lessons, students plan their work using one of two disciplinary processes, depending on the context: the scientific process when they are answering a question, and the engineering design process when they are solving a problem. Those processes provide the structure for planning at every grade level.
What changes over time is not whether students plan, but how much of the process they generate independently. In K–3, students participate in developing parts of investigations through guided facilitation. Beginning in grade 4, students plan investigations and designs from scratch. Across all grades, however, students are always responsible for making sense of what the investigation or design is meant to test, anticipating outcomes, deciding what counts as evidence, and using results to support a conclusion.
This article explains how that progression works in practice and how the scientific and engineering processes support student agency rather than limiting it.
Why the scientific and engineering processes matter for agency
The scientific process and the engineering design process are not checklists. They are thinking tools that help students organize their ideas and make decisions.
Research on motivation and learning shows that students engage more deeply when they experience autonomy, purpose, and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Bandura, 2006). These processes support all three. They give students a clear purpose for their work, a structure for making decisions, and a way to evaluate whether their thinking is supported by evidence.
They also support self-regulation. When students anticipate outcomes, monitor results, and revise ideas based on evidence, they are practicing the core cycle of independent learning (Zimmerman, 2002). Planning within a process is not separate from rigor. It is how planning becomes meaningful and student-owned.
Where structure actually comes from in KnowAtom lessons
A common misconception is that structure comes from the teacher or from the lesson itself. In KnowAtom classrooms, the primary source of structure is the process students are using.
- When students are answering a question, the scientific process structures their planning.
- When students are solving a problem, the engineering design process structures their planning.
In K–3, students use student-facing directions that make the investigation accessible while leaving key thinking decisions to students. Those directions support students in moving through the process without losing sight of the question or problem they are investigating.
In grades 4–8, students take over the full design of investigations and prototypes, using the same processes to organize their plans independently.
In both cases, the process belongs to students. The level of facilitation changes, but the intellectual responsibility does not.
Planning with the scientific process across grade levels
When students use the scientific process, planning centers on answering a testable question using evidence from an experiment.
Across grade levels, students plan by:
- Clarifying the question
- Predicting possible outcomes
- Anticipating what evidence would support or not support their prediction
- Deciding how they will use data to explain what happened
K–2 example: Changing Seasons
In Changing Seasons, students investigate patterns of sunlight using a globe and light source. While the setup is guided, students still plan within the scientific process. Before testing, they predict where light will be strongest and explain why. During the investigation, they decide what observations matter. Afterward, they use those observations to support a conclusion about daylight patterns.
A teacher check-in that keeps planning with students sounds like:
“What do you think you will notice if the evidence supports your idea? What might you notice if the evidence does not support it?”
This framing keeps the focus on evidence rather than correctness.
Grade 3 example: building toward independence
In upper elementary science investigations, students increasingly shape how data will be used. For example, when investigating plant structures, students decide which measurements or observations will best support an explanation. They are still using the scientific process, but with greater responsibility for interpreting evidence.
Grades 4–8 example: Climate and Human Activity
Beginning in grade 4, students plan investigations from scratch. In Climate and Human Activity, students decide how to test ideas about evaporation and water cycling, predict patterns in data, and plan how they will use results to support or challenge explanations. The scientific process provides the structure, but the plan is student-generated.
Planning with the engineering design process across grade levels
When students use the engineering design process, planning centers on solving a problem and evaluating how well a solution meets criteria and constraints.
Across grade levels, students plan by:
- Defining the problem
- Considering available materials
- Anticipating how a solution should perform
- Deciding what data will show whether the solution meets the criteria
K–2 example: Weather in Our World
In Weather in Our World, students design shade structures to reduce warming. Materials are limited, but planning is not. Students decide how to arrange materials, predict which designs are likely to perform better, and plan what evidence will show whether the solution reduced warming.
Students compare results and explain which designs were better supported by the evidence.
Grades 4–5 example: Water on Earth
In Water on Earth, students plan filtration devices from scratch. They decide which materials to test, what “effective” means for the problem, and how they will compare designs fairly. After testing, they evaluate solutions using evidence and recommend refinements.
Grades 6–8 example: Changing Environments
In Changing Environments, students plan shoreline barriers, define performance criteria, and decide how to measure erosion reduction. After testing, they analyze data, weigh tradeoffs, and justify which design is best supported by the evidence under the given constraints.
Planning only matters because it leads to evidence-based conclusions
Planning is not the goal. Testing is not the goal. The goal is a conclusion that is supported by evidence.
Across KnowAtom lessons, students follow the same intellectual arc:
They plan using a disciplinary process.
They test an investigation or prototype.
They analyze the data.
They make a claim about what the evidence shows.
They explain why the evidence supports that claim.
In science, the conclusion answers a question about a phenomenon.
In engineering, the conclusion evaluates how well a solution solves a problem.
Students are not being asked whether they followed steps correctly. They are being asked what the evidence supports and what that means for their idea.
Why this progression builds durable student agency
Because students use the same processes year after year, responsibility can be released gradually without confusion. By the time students plan investigations independently in grade 4, they already understand what planning is for.
They know:
- how predictions connect to evidence
- how evidence supports or does not support an explanation
- and how revision strengthens thinking
This is how KnowAtom lessons maintain coherence across grade levels while positioning students as scientists and engineers, not task completers.
Key takeaways for classroom practice
Structure comes from the scientific and engineering processes, not from the teacher.
Students plan within those processes at every grade level.
In K–3, facilitation supports access while preserving student sensemaking.
Beginning in grade 4, students plan investigations and designs independently.
Agency grows as students repeatedly test ideas and support conclusions with evidence.
When planning is understood this way, KnowAtom investigations are not canned experiments. They are intentionally designed opportunities for students to think, test, and explain like scientists and engineers.
References
- Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry.
- Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating Cultures of Thinking. Jossey-Bass.
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner. Theory Into Practice.