evidence
Task: Question: Does shade affect soil temperature? Which evidence is relevant?
Model reasoning: Temperatures from the compared light conditions directly address the question.
AC9S6I05 • Year 6 Science
compare methods and findings with those of others, recognise possible sources of error, pose questions for further investigation and select evidence to draw reasoned conclusions
Learning intention: We are learning to compare investigations, explain specific errors and use relevant evidence to reach appropriately limited conclusions.
Curriculum focus: compare methods and findings with those of others, recognise possible sources of error, pose questions for further investigation and select evidence to draw reasoned conclusions
Task: Question: Does shade affect soil temperature? Which evidence is relevant?
Model reasoning: Temperatures from the compared light conditions directly address the question.
Task: Plants with earthworms averaged 14 tomatoes; plants without averaged 9. Which conclusion fits?
Model reasoning: It states the observed comparison without extending beyond the investigation.
Task: Mia waters seedlings with 20 mL daily. Arlo uses “some water sometimes”. What key difference matters?
Model reasoning: Mia specifies volume and timing, making her procedure more consistent and repeatable.
Task: A ruler starts at a worn edge before the zero mark. What error may occur?
Model reasoning: Measuring from the edge adds an offset to every reading.
Task: Times are 8.1, 8.2, 15.9 and 8.0 s. What should happen first?
Model reasoning: The unusual value should be investigated before any decision about exclusion.
Task: After testing light on plant growth, which is a focused extension?
Model reasoning: It changes one purposeful factor and identifies a measurable outcome.
Task: Two groups report means of 12.4 cm and 12.6 cm using the same method. Best comparison?
Model reasoning: The means are close, although variation and method quality should still be considered.
Task: A student reads a liquid scale from above instead of eye level. What is the concern?
Model reasoning: Viewing at an angle can make the level appear aligned with the wrong mark.
Check that investigations address comparable questions and use equivalent variables, units, samples, timing, controls, measurement rules and repeats. Then compare the direction, size and spread of findings.
Replace “human error” with a specific cause and pathway: what differed, which measurement it affected, and whether it could shift values high, low or unpredictably.
Random variation changes readings unpredictably; measurement or reading errors arise from tools or technique; inconsistent procedures make trials non-equivalent; confounding variables change alongside the intended factor.
An anomaly is an unusual value, not automatic rubbish. Check records and equipment, repeat where possible, retain raw data and justify any exclusion using evidence.
Use the measurements that link the changed condition to the outcome. Prefer matched groups, repeats, means and spread where useful. Do not cherry-pick a convenient trial or use evidence for a different question.
Answer the original question, cite the relevant pattern or values, limit the claim to the tested sample and conditions, and acknowledge a method limit. “The hypothesis was correct” is not enough.
Small or biased samples, overlapping results, missing controls and systematic error weaken certainty. Imperfection does not make all evidence useless, but it should narrow the conclusion.
Pose a measurable question that tests an uncertainty, mechanism or purposeful new factor while preserving controls. A good extension follows logically from the findings or limitation.
Evaluate two investigations by comparing methods and findings, explaining an error effect, drawing an evidence-based limited conclusion and posing a focused next question.
Evidence of mastery: The student compares methods and findings, traces specific error mechanisms to their effects, selects relevant evidence, draws a cautious reasoned conclusion and proposes a testable extension.
Project the HTML teaching view, with classroom-sized sections drawn directly from this topic guide.
Open Classroom ViewLearn from the Topic Guide and Classroom View, complete the Worksheet, use Practice for supported feedback, then take the separate Test when ready.
The SkillrHub lesson remains the primary learning resource. This optional video reinforces the explanation; you can complete the lesson and practice without watching.
Before you watch:
Crash Course Kids — Use repeated trials to check findings and notice inconsistent results.
As you watch: What might a result that differs strongly from the others tell you?
Load video player Loads YouTube in this lesson. See the video notice below.
Try it: Two groups record different drop times for the same paper helicopter. Suggest a possible measurement error and a fair repeat to investigate it.
Video unavailable, inaccurate or unsuitable for this year? Report a video problem to SkillrHub by email. You can continue with the written lesson and practice resources.
Videos are curated from trusted independent educational creators and played through YouTube. Rights remain with their respective owners. Inclusion does not imply that a creator or YouTube endorses SkillrHub.
YouTube’s terms and privacy policy apply to its player. Advertising, recommendations and external links may appear, and videos may change or become unavailable. SkillrHub’s written lessons and practice resources remain available separately.
To report a content, suitability or rights concern, email skillrhublearning@gmail.com with the lesson code and video link. Please do not include personal student information.
Mapped skill: compare methods and findings with those of others, recognise possible sources of error, pose questions for further investigation and select evidence to draw reasoned conclusions
These references identify matching or closely related learning. Curriculum sequence, terminology and depth vary, so teachers should use the mapped skill and lesson difficulty to confirm suitability.
| Region | Curriculum framework | Closest level or code |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | Australian Curriculum v9.0 | AC9S6I05 · Year 6 |
| Victoria | Victorian Curriculum F–10 Version 2.0 — Science | VC2S6I05 · Levels 5–6 |
| New South Wales | NSW Science and Technology K–6 Syllabus (2024) | ST3-DAT-01 + ST3-PQU-01 · Stage 3 |
| United States (USA) | Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) | Middle School (Grades 6–8) |
| Canada (Ontario) | Ontario Curriculum — Science | Grade 6 |
| United Kingdom (England) | National Curriculum in England — Science | Year 7, Key Stage 3 |
| India | NCERT / CBSE — Science | Class 6 |
Australian Curriculum v9.0 is the canonical source for this SkillrHub lesson. Victoria and NSW entries name the closest published state codes or outcomes; international entries are planning references rather than claims of identical curricula.
Help improve SkillrHub
Ask about this lesson, suggest an improvement or report an error. Facebook opens only when you choose an option below.
Topic reference: AC9S6I05 — AC9S6I05: Compare methods and findings with those of others, recognise possible sources of error, pose questions for further investigation and select evidence to draw reasoned conclusions
Privacy: Please don’t share personal student or school information. Younger students should ask a parent, guardian or teacher to post on their behalf.