Year 4 Science · AC9S4I02

Use provided scaffolds to plan and conduct investigations to answer questions or test predictions

use provided scaffolds to plan and conduct investigations to answer questions or test predictions, including identifying the elements of fair tests, and considering the…

Ready to project and teach

Learning goalsSay it simply

Students use a provided scaffold to plan and conduct investigations that answer a question or test a prediction. They identify fair-test elements, record actual repeated trials and follow safety instructions for the equipment, materials and site.

Learning intention: I can use a plan to investigate safely, keep a comparison fair and record what actually happened.

Name what changes, what is measured and what stays the same.
Use a scaffold to compare friction or magnetic attraction.
Predict, build and test a toy or game prototype.
Reset and run a food-chain simulation multiple times.
Match safety controls to equipment, field sites and biological specimens.

Lesson guide: Allow thirty to forty minutes for one practical task, plus planning and review. Use paper, card and teacher-approved materials. An adult checks all practical setups; a plan must be labelled untested until actual observations are collected.

Scaffold: Prompts that help organise a question, prediction, materials, variables, procedure, results and safety.
Changed factor: The factor deliberately compared, such as a surface or material.
Measured outcome: The result observed or measured to answer the question.
Controlled condition: A relevant condition kept the same for a fair comparison.
Prototype: A trial version built so a design can be tested and improved.
Simulation: A model using stated rules to explore possible outcomes.
Hazard and control: A possible source of harm, and an action used to reduce the risk.

Clean visual examplesOne-page board

Use a scaffold to plan a fair comparison

Paper-towel example: Ask which brand absorbs more water in thirty seconds. Predict with a reason. Compare equal-sized samples using the same starting water volume, contact time and measuring method. Change the brand, measure the water absorbed, and repeat the procedure with a fresh sample each time.

Planning prompts: Question → prediction → materials → change → measure → keep the same → numbered steps → repeats → safety → results record. A pilot is a small trial used to check whether the instructions, equipment and observations work before the main comparison.

Teacher asks: Would a larger sample or a longer contact time affect the outcome? Look for: Students identify those as competing influences. Reteach by underlining the single comparison in the question.

E1 · Plan a shoe-friction or magnet investigation

Shoe comparison scaffold: change shoe; keep the floor, total shoe-plus-load mass and pulling method the same; measure steady pulling force using a force meter; repeat three trials per shoe. Adult checks the meter and secures added loads. — Compare one stated type of friction measurement consistently; this scaffold measures slow, steady sliding.

Worked example: Compare two shoes on the same level surface with the same total shoe-plus-load mass. An adult checks an appropriate force meter and secures any added load. Pull slowly and read the meter while the shoe slides steadily; repeat three times for each shoe. A greater steady pulling force suggests greater friction in this setup. Do not mix a starting-force reading with a sliding-force reading.

Alternative: Compare teacher-approved equal-sized material samples using the same large magnet, starting gap and observation procedure. Record attraction observed or not observed. A heavy or resistant object may not visibly move even when attracted, so the method needs suitable samples and careful interpretation.

Check: Does the shoe result prove the safest shoe for every wet road? Answer: No. This is a limited model, not a personal slipping test or safety certification.

E2 · Predict, build and test a ramp-game prototype

A paper ramp game: a rolled paper ball starts at a marked release line on a low card ramp and rolls towards a target on a level table. Gravity starts the roll; friction helps slow the ball. Release without pushing, keep the start and ball the same, and compare landing surfaces. — Build a small trial version and keep the success target fixed.

Worked example: Predict that gravity will help the paper ball roll down the slope and friction will help slow it on the level surface. Build a low card ramp, mark a release line and a target, then release the same rolled paper ball without pushing. Record three stopping positions. If it overshoots, predict how changing one landing surface may help and test three more times with the other conditions unchanged.

Students do: Keep an annotated design, a prediction written before testing, two labelled sets of actual results, and an improvement linked to those results. If equipment is unavailable, label the plan as untested rather than inventing observations.

Check: Is moving the target after each roll a valid way to show success? Answer: No. Keep the success criterion fixed while comparing the design.

E3 · Run a food-chain simulation more than once

Paper model starts with six leaf tokens, six caterpillar cards and two bird cards. Each caterpillar needs one leaf token; each bird needs two fed caterpillar cards. Compare six leaves with three leaves, resetting and repeating each condition three times. — These are paper-model rules, not exact forecasts of wild populations.

Rules: Begin with six leaf tokens, six caterpillar cards and two bird cards. Give one leaf to each caterpillar that can receive food. Count these fed caterpillars. Each bird then needs two of those fed caterpillar cards; a card can supply only one bird. Count birds with enough food. Predict what will change when only three leaf tokens are available.

Worked example: Six leaves can supply six caterpillars, enough for both birds. Three leaves supply three caterpillars, enough for one bird under these rules. Reset every starting card and run each leaf condition three times, recording each actual run. Identical outcomes are possible in this simple fixed-rule model; do not invent variation or copy results without running it.

Check: Does this show exactly how many birds would survive in a real habitat? Answer: No. Real habitats have other food sources, organisms and changing conditions. Use cards or an appropriate virtual simulation; never remove living things to create the change.

E4 · Follow specific safety rules while investigating

Risk sequence: Identify a hazard → say what harm could occur → choose a matching control → check the plan with an adult → follow and review the control during the activity. “Be careful” does not say what action to take.

Situation	Matching action
Water spills near a walking route	Stop, keep people away and have it wiped up promptly.
Teacher-approved task needs protective eyewear	Wear correctly fitted eyewear over the eyes throughout that task; still follow the other instructions.
A force-meter hook or container is damaged	Stop and ask the adult to replace or adapt the equipment.
Field observation near unfamiliar plants or animals	Stay within agreed boundaries; observe unknown organisms without touching or tasting; follow hygiene guidance.
Unknown or potentially mouldy specimen	Use an approved image or sealed display and the teacher’s handling instructions.

Check: Does wearing goggles remove the need for safe pouring? Answer: No. Protective gear is one control among several. Adults check large magnets, warm water and any unfamiliar tool before use.

Curriculum examplesCopied content

The content description and elaborations below show the curriculum ideas taught in this unit. Items marked as teaching context support lesson planning.

Content description: use provided scaffolds to plan and conduct investigations to answer questions or test predictions, including identifying the elements of fair tests, and considering the safe use of materials and equipment
E1: using an investigation scaffold to design a fair test to identify which shoe provides the greatest or least friction or which materials are attracted to a magnet
E2: predicting the interactions of forces in a game or toy design, and building and testing a prototype
E3: predicting effects of changing numbers of producers or consumers, and using a virtual or roleplay food chain simulation to explore possible outcomes by running the simulation multiple times
E4: following safety rules when conducting investigations, such as wearing personal safety gear correctly, using equipment according to guidelines and demonstrating safe behaviours in field sites or when interacting with biological specimens

Questions and answersWith answers

Important questions and answers

What makes a comparison fair?: Compare the chosen factor while keeping other relevant conditions consistent.
What counts as a repeat?: Reset, do the method again and record a new observation.
Why pilot a plan?: To find unclear steps, unsuitable tools or safety problems before the main investigation.
What does a prototype investigation require?: A prediction, built trial version, actual test evidence and a reasoned improvement.
Why reset a simulation?: Each repeat must start with the stated conditions and use the same rules.
Why is “be careful” insufficient?: It needs a named hazard and a specific action that reduces the risk.

Assessment-style questions and review hints

Question: A paper-towel test uses a larger sample and more water for one brand. What should improve? Answer: Use equal sample areas and starting volumes, plus the same contact time and measuring method. Review hint: Separate the brand being compared from the conditions kept the same.

Question: A group writes the same number into three rows without repeating its simulation. Is that three runs? Answer: No; the process must actually be reset and run three times. Genuine runs may still produce identical outcomes.

Support, Core and Extend

Support: Provide labelled “change / measure / keep the same / safety” boxes and model one step. Core: Complete the scaffold and conduct repeated safe trials with actual records. Extend: Identify a method limit, revise one part and explain why the change improves the evidence without changing the investigation’s goal.

Exit ticket

Name the changed factor and one controlled condition in your investigation.
Show an actual trial record or label the plan untested.
State one hazard and the specific control you followed.

Expected evidence: A matched question and method, an honest record and a useful safety action. Reteach if results are copied instead of repeated, several factors change together, or a drawing is described as a conducted test.

Year-level boundary

Use provided scaffolds, familiar units and qualitative force and food-chain relationships. Do not require friction coefficients, equations of motion, statistical tests or exact ecological forecasts. A teacher checks every practical method. Untested planning can be assessed separately but does not establish mastery of conducting investigations.

Practice and reviewReady for practice

Plan → pilot → conduct → review

Partners fill in the paper-towel or friction scaffold. The teacher checks the question, relevant controls, tool and unit, repeated-trial record and specific safety actions. Students trial the method, revise unclear steps, then use the same approved method for the main comparison.

Prototype workshop

Use the ramp-game model. One partner releases, one observes and records; swap roles using the same instructions. Compare stopping positions with the fixed target and justify one improvement. A drawing alone demonstrates planning, while actual labelled trials demonstrate conducting.

Food-chain roleplay

Assign cards rather than real organisms. One student restores the starting setup, another applies the stated food rules and another records each run. Repeat both producer conditions. Ask what the model shows and what a real habitat includes that the model leaves out.

Safety checkpoint

Before practical work, each group names two hazards and the exact matching controls. Continue only when the adult approves the setup and students can explain what to do if a spill, damaged tool or unknown specimen is encountered.

Fair means identical results: Fairness concerns the method; repeated observations can vary.
Repeating means copying: Reset and do the procedure again.
A prototype drawing proves success: Build and test a trial version, then use its observations.
A simulation gives an exact wild population: Model rules simplify real relationships.
Safety gear replaces careful equipment use: Follow all relevant controls together.
Natural specimens cannot harm: Observe through the teacher-approved method and follow hygiene instructions.

Curriculum alignmentStart here

Learning intention: I can use a plan to investigate safely, keep a comparison fair and record what actually happened.

Name what changes, what is measured and what stays the same.
Use a scaffold to compare friction or magnetic attraction.
Predict, build and test a toy or game prototype.
Reset and run a food-chain simulation multiple times.
Match safety controls to equipment, field sites and biological specimens.

Teach & ExplainTeaching slides and samples

Teach this topic step by step

Explore optional teaching slide packs for classroom lessons and explanations at home.

Browse Teach & Explain · Browse Print & Go

Teachers: follow SkillrHub on TPT, then email us to request a free sample before buying. Include the year, subject and topic or curriculum code.

Request a free sample

After trying the sample, honest feedback is welcome. A TPT review is optional, where available, and does not need to be positive.