This claim, evidence, reasoning template uses a complete illustrative ramp record. Use measurements to support the claim, then explain the connection through the scientific idea being taught.
Start with the question and the supplied record
The original teaching record is illustrative data, not a report of an experiment we conducted. It describes the same ball, ramp track, release method, and receiving surface at two release heights.
The question is:
Under this supplied setup, which release height gave the greater mean travel distance?
| Release height | Trial 1 | Trial 2 | Trial 3 | Mean distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 cm | 40 cm | 41 cm | 39 cm | 40 cm |
| 20 cm | 71 cm | 69 cm | 70 cm | 70 cm |
The first mean is (40 + 41 + 39) / 3 = 40 cm. The second is (71 + 69 + 70) / 3 = 70 cm.
The NSTA article's section on constructing explanations distinguishes an answer to the investigation question, observational or measured evidence, and a scientific principle connecting the evidence to the answer. The numbers and explanation below are original teaching material.
Write a claim that answers this question
Select Claim in the example. The worked statement is:
In the supplied setup, the 20 cm release height gave the greater mean travel distance.
The claim names the compared height and keeps the scope of the record. It does not say that every higher ramp, ball, or surface will behave in the same way.
Choose the measurements that make the comparison
Select Evidence:
The three distances at 10 cm were 40, 41, and 39 cm, giving a mean of 40 cm. At 20 cm they were 71, 69, and 70 cm, giving a mean of 70 cm. Each supplied 20 cm trial also exceeded each 10 cm trial.
Those measurements answer the distance question. A worksheet title or a group label would not establish which height produced a greater distance.
Keep the repeated trials visible beside the means. Another reader can check the calculation and see the values behind the comparison instead of relying on a summary alone.
Add the scientific bridge
The lesson supplies this principle: for the same ball, a higher release point gives it greater gravitational potential energy, which can change into motion as it moves down the ramp.
In Compare reasoning, inspect the difference:
| Version | Reasoning statement |
|---|---|
| Repeats the evidence | The 20 cm ball traveled farther because its mean was 70 cm instead of 40 cm. |
| Connects a principle | The higher release point gives the same ball more gravitational potential energy available to change into motion. With the other stated conditions held the same, that principle supports the pattern of greater travel distance in the supplied 20 cm trials. |
The revised statement explains why release height matters in the comparison. It does not claim that the data proves every listed condition was controlled in a real experiment.
If the receiving surface changed between heights, for example, you would need to examine that difference before attributing the pattern to height alone. Keep such a concern as a limitation to check, rather than silently adding a new observation to the record.
Put the three parts together
A complete worked explanation can read:
In the supplied setup, the 20 cm release height gave the greater mean travel distance. Its three trials averaged 70 cm, compared with 40 cm for the 10 cm height. For the same ball, a higher release point provides greater gravitational potential energy available to change into motion. With the other stated conditions held the same, this principle supports the observed distance pattern in the illustrative record.
The blank CER scaffold asks for the question, claim, selected evidence, supplied scientific principle, reasoning connection, and a relevant limit. It provides space to write an explanation; it does not automatically grade free text.
Build a CER page from your own investigation
Create one complete, self-contained HTML claim-evidence-reasoning page.
Learner group and investigation question: [PASTE]
Actual or clearly illustrative data, units, and trial records: [PASTE]
Conditions stated as controlled and known limitations: [PASTE]
Scientific principle checked for this lesson: [PASTE]
Proposed claim, selected evidence, and reasoning: [PASTE]
Keep the complete source data available beside the explanation.
Check any supplied arithmetic and preserve units. Distinguish the
question-answer claim, supporting measurements, and scientific principle
that explains the connection. Do not merely repeat the result as reasoning.
Let readers select Claim, Evidence, or Reasoning and compare a weak
reasoning statement with a principle-linked revision. Explain why a
universal claim or an irrelevant detail exceeds the supplied record.
Do not invent data, actual experimental control, or learning outcomes.
Include a separate blank CER scaffold and temporary explanation notes.
Identify missing question, evidence, or supplied principle before building
a review copy. Preserve notes across views, mark old review output stale
after edits, and ask before resetting. No automated open-answer grading
or claims of saved student work. Label teaching data illustrative.
Use text of at least 16px, labeled keyboard-accessible controls, and
a layout readable at 360px without horizontal scrolling. Put CSS and
JavaScript inline with no external dependencies. Return complete HTML.
Revise the sentence that repeats the result
Read the reasoning aloud without looking at the table. Does it explain why the relevant scientific idea connects the measurement pattern with the claim?
In an HTML explanation in NOS, you can revise that visible paragraph while keeping the data nearby. Replace “because the mean is greater” with the principle-linked explanation, then check that the claim still stays within the supplied setup.