AC9S6H02: Investigate how scientific knowledge is used by individuals and communities to identify problems, consider responses and make decisions

Learning intention: We are learning to use scientific evidence, community priorities and explicit criteria to make and review defensible decisions.

Curriculum focus: Investigate how scientific knowledge is used by individuals and communities to identify problems, consider responses and make decisions.

Success criteria

• separate scientific evidence from opinions, values and assumptions
• compare realistic responses using benefits, limitations, stakeholders and uncertainty
• justify a decision with relevant evidence and propose monitoring that could trigger revision

stakeholder

a person, group or living system affected by, able to affect or holding relevant knowledge about a decision

criterion

a standard used to judge how well an option meets a need

trade-off

a balance in which gaining on one criterion involves a cost on another

uncertainty

a recognised limit in data, knowledge or prediction

risk

a combination of how likely an outcome is and how serious its consequences are

baseline

a starting measurement used for later comparison

monitoring

repeated collection of evidence to check outcomes over time

adaptive management

acting, monitoring, learning and revising a response as evidence develops

Reliable routine

1. Define the problem precisely.
2. Gather relevant, trustworthy scientific evidence.
3. Identify stakeholders and convert needs into criteria.
4. Compare feasible responses using the same criteria.
5. Justify a choice while acknowledging trade-offs and uncertainty.
6. Monitor intended and unintended outcomes, then revise when thresholds are crossed.

Science informs decisions; it does not choose values

Scientific knowledge can explain causes, measure present conditions and estimate likely consequences. Individuals and communities must also decide what they value, what risks are acceptable and how benefits and burdens should be shared.

The decision chain

Define the problem → gather relevant evidence → identify affected groups and criteria → compare feasible responses → justify a choice → monitor outcomes → revise when evidence changes. Skipping a stage makes reasoning harder to check.

Evidence, opinion and values

Evidence is observable or measurable and should be checked for relevance and quality. Opinions express personal judgements. Values state what ought to be protected or prioritised. Values belong in community decisions, but should not be disguised as measurements.

Stakeholders and criteria

A stakeholder is affected by, can affect or holds relevant knowledge about a decision. Translate needs into criteria such as effectiveness, safety, cost, equity, cultural protection, habitat impact, time and reliability. One person never automatically represents a whole group.

Options and trade-offs

Compare more than one realistic response. A benefit is an advantage against a criterion; a limitation is a condition or drawback. A trade-off occurs when an option performs better on one criterion but worse on another. Combined or modified responses may reduce a trade-off.

Uncertainty and risk

Uncertainty is an honest limit in data or prediction, not proof that nothing is known. Risk considers both likelihood and consequence. Use ranges, pilots, precaution and scenarios to act proportionately while learning more.

Monitoring and revision

Set a baseline, measurable success indicators, a timetable and evidence thresholds that trigger action. Monitoring checks intended and unintended effects. Changing a response because relevant evidence changed is adaptive management, not failure.

A strong recommendation

State the response, connect specific evidence to priority criteria, acknowledge stakeholder effects and a genuine limitation, describe uncertainty, and give a monitoring-and-revision plan. Never claim that science guarantees one morally correct answer.

Common reasoning traps

Cheapest is not automatically best; a true fact is not automatically relevant; popularity is not evidence of effectiveness; one stakeholder is not the whole community; uncertainty does not erase evidence; and a short-term benefit may have long-term or indirect costs.

Important questions and answers

Q: Can communities disagree while using the same evidence? A: Yes, because they may weight criteria differently. Q: When is evidence strong? A: When methods are relevant, systematic and transparent. Q: Why monitor? A: To test success, detect unintended effects and guide revision.

• Science tells a community the single correct choice. Science informs likely effects and uncertainty; communities also make transparent value judgements and weight criteria.
• The cheapest option is automatically best. Cost is one criterion alongside effectiveness, safety, equity, culture and environmental impacts.
• Uncertainty means evidence should be ignored. State the limit, act proportionately, gather more evidence and monitor outcomes.
• One stakeholder speaks for the whole community. Stakeholder groups can contain different needs and perspectives; use broad, respectful consultation.
• Once announced, a decision should never change. Monitoring may show failure or unintended effects; evidence-based revision is responsible adaptive management.

• Can two communities use the same evidence and decide differently? Yes. They may assign different transparent weights to cost, equity, culture, habitat, safety or time.
• Is an opinion useless? No. Preferences and values matter, but they should be identified honestly and considered alongside scientific evidence.
• What makes monitoring useful? A baseline, consistent measures, a timetable, success criteria and a pre-agreed trigger for review.
• What must every strong recommendation acknowledge? At least one genuine limitation or uncertainty, as well as the evidence and criteria supporting the choice.

• Define the problem before proposing a response.
• Name the evidence and explain which criterion it supports.
• Distinguish measurements from opinions and value priorities.
• Include multiple affected groups without assuming one voice represents all.
• Compare options using the same criteria and state a genuine trade-off.
• Finish with a measurable monitoring and revision rule.

• Support: work with one short example, highlighted evidence and a structured response frame.
• Core: complete an unseen example independently and justify the decisive evidence.
• Extend: compare plausible alternatives, explain limitations and create a new example within the Year 6 boundary.

Recommend either trees or shade sails for a hot schoolyard. Cite evidence, name priority criteria, acknowledge a trade-off and state a monitoring trigger.

Evidence of mastery: The student distinguishes evidence from values, compares feasible responses against explicit stakeholder criteria, justifies a decision with relevant evidence and uncertainty, and designs monitoring that can lead to revision.