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

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

Success criteria

• compare questions, variables, samples, methods, repeats and findings
• explain how a specific error could affect a result
• select evidence that answers the investigation question
• write a reasoned conclusion that acknowledges limitations and pose a focused further question

finding

a pattern or result identified in collected data

conclusion

a reasoned answer to the investigation question supported by evidence

anomaly

a value noticeably different from the overall pattern

random variation

unpredictable differences among repeated observations or samples

systematic error

a consistent bias that tends to shift measurements in one direction

confounding variable

an uncontrolled factor that changes with the tested factor and offers another explanation

selection bias

sampling that systematically fails to represent the intended group or place

parallax

an apparent scale shift caused by viewing a marker from an angle

limitation

a feature restricting confidence or the scope of a conclusion

Reliable routine

1. Compare the investigation questions and variables.
2. Compare samples, controls, equipment, measurement rules and repeats.
3. Describe agreements and differences in findings.
4. Identify a plausible specific error and explain its effect.
5. Select all relevant evidence rather than convenient values.
6. Answer the question with a limited, evidence-based conclusion.
7. Pose a focused question arising from the finding or limitation.

Compare before you combine

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.

Name the error mechanism

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.

Four useful error patterns

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.

Handle anomalies transparently

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.

Select relevant 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.

Write a reasoned conclusion

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.

Judge the strength of a claim

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.

Ask what comes next

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.

• Different results mean someone was dishonest. Natural variation and differences in sampling, equipment or procedure can produce different findings.
• Every anomaly should be deleted. Investigate, repeat and report it; exclude only with a documented evidence-based reason.
• More data automatically fixes bias. A larger sample collected by the same biased method may remain unrepresentative.
• A conclusion repeats the method. A conclusion answers the question using selected evidence and acknowledges scope and limits.
• Any imperfection invalidates everything. Limitations reduce certainty or scope; they do not necessarily erase every supported observation.

• Can two groups agree if their numbers are not identical? Yes. They may show the same direction or overlapping range while differing slightly in magnitude.
• Is “human error” a source of error? It is too vague. Name the action, affected measurement and likely consequence.
• Does an anomaly prove a mistake? No. It may reflect error or genuine variation and should be investigated.
• What makes a conclusion reasoned? It connects relevant data to the question, uses cautious scope and recognises important limits.

• Compare method features before findings.
• Name a specific error mechanism and its likely effect.
• Use all relevant repeated evidence and report anomalies transparently.
• Match the conclusion scope to the sample and conditions.
• Do not treat a hypothesis statement as a conclusion.
• Make further questions measurable and purposeful.

• 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.

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.