# Week 1 integrated guide — Material choices **Version:** v0.1, 29 September 2026. **Five 35-minute sessions.** Educator, science-safety, accessibility and local-syllabus review pending. Children ask a design question, make **actual** safe observations of familiar materials, and communicate a choice with its limits. Integrate English source/evidence language and optional decimal grid representation **without duplicating** [English](../english/term-1/weeks-01-02/lessons.md) or [maths](../mathematics/term-1/weeks-01-02/lessons.md). Do not turn science observation into a decimal attainment score. **National links:** AC9S4U04 (properties of natural and made materials, including fibres/metals/glass/plastics, and how properties influence use), AC9S4I01 (questions/predictions), AC9S4I02 (provided scaffold, fair-test elements, safety), AC9S4I03 (follow procedure and record observations), AC9S4I04 (tables/models), AC9S4I05 (compare findings and fairness), AC9S4I06 (communicate findings). Exact Year 4 content codes verified against the [ACARA v9 download](https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/downloads), retrieved 29 September 2026, pinned workbook SHA-256 `db446882d2c00cf7c085a03e250e2442fda6c44011fc114680c46c1dc7a822c3`. This five-day sequence is partial practice, not a full Year 4 science judgment. **Safety and setup:** Teacher approves all materials under school science/allergy rules. Use **clean paper, soft cotton cloth and blunt-edged aluminium foil** in equal-size squares, a tray, a dropper controlled by the adult, small amount of room-temperature clean water, towel and handwashing. Avoid glass fragments, heat, cutting by children, sharp foil edges, tasting and unsupported claims about recyclability. Wipe water promptly to prevent slips; provide no-water route using **live adult demonstration** at a safe distance. Child may direct placement or describe an observed result through AAC/sign/pointing. An adult records an observation when a child cannot manipulate. Never invent a fixed “correct” absorbency outcome, because sample thickness and treatment vary. ## Day 1 — Which properties might matter? **Question:** Which material might make a cover for a paper information card? **35 = 5 launch + 7 model + 12 inspect + 8 sort/discuss + 3 check.** 1. **Launch 5:** Show dry paper, cloth and foil squares. Ask children to predict which may help protect a card from a single water drop, and why. Record predictions separately from observations. 2. **Model 7:** Teacher safely inspects flexibility and surface feel. “This sheet bends when I move it” is an observation; “therefore it will always keep water out” is not yet shown. Name material type only when packaging/source is known; foil is a metal sheet, cloth is a fibre material, paper fibre-based. 3. **Inspect 12:** Pairs view/touch or direct adult bending of approved pieces; each records two properties using precise words or tactile/symbol choices. No water yet. 4. **Sort/discuss 8:** Sort by observed flexible/stiff and smooth/rough **in this sample**. A child's sensory discomfort is not an error; alternate a visual description or adult demonstration. 5. **Check 3:** “Give one observed property and one prediction for a use.” **Accept:** “This foil bends; I predict it may cover the card.” **Next:** if child reports prediction as fact, label columns and plan a test. ## Day 2 — Compare one water drop safely **Question:** What happens on these samples when each gets one drop of water? **35 = 5 review + 7 method + 12 observe + 8 table/compare + 3 check.** 1. **Review 5:** Revisit predictions. Ask what should stay similar: sample size, one drop from same dropper, flat tray, observation time. 2. **Method 7:** Adult demonstrates drop onto a sample. Teacher says “We will observe at the same brief time after each drop; if a drop size differs we record that limitation.” Do **not** hold wet material over people/electrics. 3. **Observe 12:** Adult gives one drop to each material sample on separate tray sections; children mark what they actually see at a teacher-chosen 20-second point: pooled, spread, soaked/changed, or unsure. Repeat only if spill/setup invalid; record repeat separately. If no-water access, child interprets live adult demo. 4. **Table/compare 8:** Use original record card below, keeping paper/cloth/foil rows. Compare observations and predictions. “Absorbed” requires visible evidence (e.g. spread/darkening), not just a familiar label. Samples may differ. 5. **Check 3:** “Name one thing held alike and one result you really saw.” **Key:** alike sample size/drop/time etc.; actual result must match the class observation, so no prefilled outcome key. **Next:** if a child offers an expected result instead, return to record/time. ## Day 3 — Flexibility and strength are different questions **Question:** Does a material bending easily tell us whether it resists a tear? **35 = 5 predict + 7 model/safety + 12 inspect + 8 reason + 3 check.** 1. **Predict 5:** Ask whether bending tells everything about a material's strength. **Key:** no; it is one property. Record each child's reason. 2. **Model/safety 7:** Adult folds one fresh square of each material once with the same gentle action. Observe whether it bends and whether it returns or holds a fold. No tearing test is required; a single fold does not prove long-term strength. 3. **Inspect 12:** Children compare fold outcomes of equivalent samples, or choose adult demo. Record “folds easily,” “creases,” “uncertain” as observed; do not infer all foil/cloth/paper behaves identically. 4. **Reason 8:** Relate wet-test data and fold data to cover use. A choice may involve a trade-off. Ask what further test would be needed if one wanted durability evidence. 5. **Check 3:** “Can we say a sample is long-lasting because it folded once?” **Key:** no. **Next:** distinguish direct property observation from a claim needing repeated/use-time evidence. ## Day 4 — Design and critique a cover **Question:** Which sample best meets our two chosen criteria? **35 = 5 criteria + 7 model + 12 design + 8 feedback + 3 check.** 1. **Criteria 5:** Class agrees on two safe criteria such as easy to fold and the observed water response; write them clearly. A learner may propose different priorities and explain. 2. **Model 7:** Teacher models evidence sentence: “For this sample, I choose ___ because our Day 2 card recorded ___ and Day 3 recorded ___.” If data are inconclusive, say so rather than invent a winner. 3. **Design 12:** Learners select or sketch a paper-card cover with labelled material and source observations. No glues/adhesives unless school safety approves. Alternative: movable material symbols in digital/tactile model. 4. **Feedback 8:** Peers ask whether evidence meets both criteria and name one untested property (e.g. repeated use or cost). Keep feedback about design, not learner identity. 5. **Check 3:** Child names chosen material, criterion and **actual** observed evidence. **Key:** logically matched to record; more than one choice may be defensible. **Next:** if evidence absent, revisit table before revising. ## Day 5 — Communicate a fair claim **Question:** What can our test tell another class, and what can it not? **35 = 5 revisit + 7 model + 12 create + 8 share + 3 check.** 1. **Revisit 5:** Compare predictions and observation records. Identify a possible uncontrolled difference such as sample thickness or drop size. 2. **Model 7:** Teacher makes a three-part report: question, observed result, limit. “Our sample of ___ showed ___ after one drop in this test. We cannot conclude all ___ materials behave this way.” Use actual class outcome when speaking. 3. **Create 12:** Learners make a short labelled report/table, speech, tactile board or AAC message. Include material source, observed property, chosen use and one limit. Optional decimal diagram is clearly a **mathematical representation of a planned design**, not a measured science result. 4. **Share 8:** Pairs present evidence and a question for another test. Do not photograph children or publish work without school consent. 5. **Check 3:** “Which sentence is observation and which is a recommendation?” **Key:** the record of what happened versus a proposed material choice. **Next:** if both merge, colour-free labels `OBSERVED`/`PROPOSED` and a fresh example. ## Original low-ink observation card ```text QUESTION: ______________________________________________ DATE: ______ MATERIAL SOURCE/PACKAGING CHECKED: _________________________________ SAME IN EACH TRY: size ____; drop method ____; time ____; surface ____ PREDICTION (before): ________________________________________________ SAMPLE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? UNCERTAIN / REPEAT? paper _______________________________ __________________ cotton cloth _______________________________ __________________ aluminium foil _______________________________ __________________ MY CHOICE FOR A CARD COVER: ____________ WHY, USING RECORD: _________ WHAT THIS TEST CANNOT TELL US: _______________________________________ RESPONSE MODE / ADULT ACTION: ________________________________________ ``` **Evidence rule:** Keys specify the **kind** of accurate response, never fabricated wet-test results. The teacher must write class-specific observations after the trial. A child can succeed by accurately reporting an unexpected result and explaining a fair-test limitation. The materials list names material types but makes no safety or sustainability claim for every product. **Rights:** Original guide/card © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Attribute *SubjectNest Year 4 Australian-first starter*, v0.1, [source](https://github.com/neuroforge-io/neuroforge_business/tree/main/products/curriculum-studio/content/year-4/term-1), licence and changes. ACARA remains under [separate terms](https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/copyright-and-terms-of-use); no endorsement. [Integrated-file hashes](manifest.sha256). Educator/safety/access review pending.