MS-ESS3-3: Monitoring and Reducing a Human Impact
Also called NGSS MS-ESS3-3 · Topic: Human Impacts · Earth and Space Science
The Official Wording
Apply scientific principles to design a method for monitoring and minimizing a human impact on the environment.
Clarification statement: Examples of the design process include examining human environmental impacts, assessing the kinds of solutions that are feasible, and designing and evaluating solutions that could reduce that impact. Examples of human impacts can include water usage (such as the withdrawal of water from streams and aquifers or the construction of dams and levees), land usage (such as urban development, agriculture, or the removal of wetlands), and pollution (such as of the air, water, or land).
NGSS Lead States, 2013 · Read it on nextgenscience.org · checked October 15, 2026
What MS-ESS3-3 Means in Plain English
Students pick one way people harm the local environment, such as polluted air, wasted water or paved-over wetlands, and design a method to measure it and make it smaller. They test whether their fix works by measuring again after the change.
The method has to be realistic for their school or town, and it should rest on science they can explain. Students build on 5-ESS3-1 and MS-ETS1-1, and later design solutions at larger scales (HS-ESS3-4).
MS-ESS3-3 I Can Statements
- I can choose a way to measure a human impact on the environment.
- I can design a change that could reduce that impact.
- I can use before and after data to judge my solution.
MS-ESS3-3 Worked Example
A class designs a cheap particle monitor for the morning car line, then tests a fix.
Does asking drivers to turn off their engines reduce the soot near the school entrance?
Set It Up: Index cards smeared with petroleum jelly, a hand lens, a 1 cm grid drawn on clear plastic, tape and two no-idle signs.
- Tape coated cards at the drop-off loop and at a field corner far from the cars for one morning.Two sites, three cards each
- Count the dark specks inside one grid square on each card with the hand lens.Loop: about 38 specks, field: about 9
- Post the no-idle signs and ask families to switch off engines while they wait, for one week.Signs up at the loop
- Repeat the same card test at the same spots and times.Loop: about 21 specks, field: about 8
- Compare the averages before and after.Loop specks down by almost half
Particles near the car line dropped from about 38 to 21 per square after the no-idle signs went up, while the far site barely changed.
Why it works: Running engines release tiny soot particles that settle nearby, so fewer idling cars put less of them into the air children breathe.
Common Mistakes with MS-ESS3-3
Measuring only after the change
“We put up signs and the cards look clean, so it worked.”
Try this: Collect data before the change at the same spots and times, so you have a baseline to compare against afterward.
Skipping a comparison site
Cards placed only beside the cars
Try this: Add a site far from the cars. If both sites change together, the weather or wind, not your solution, may explain it.
Choosing a solution no one can use
“Just ban all cars from the school.”
Try this: Check the constraints first, like cost, safety and what families can actually do, then pick the change most likely to happen.
Where MS-ESS3-3 Fits
Practice MS-ESS3-3
Quick Check
- Why count particles before putting up the signs?
- Why put cards at a site far from the cars?
- Name one other human impact a school could monitor and reduce.