Integrated What do the shadows actually show?Year 5 Inquiry · T1 W1–2 · Week 01

Five separate 35-minute sessions combining Year 5 science inquiry, a bounded light-and-shadow model, decimal comparison and evidence writing. This is an original optional route; it does not replace the daily English or mathematics lessons. Relevant parts of AC9S5U03, AC9S5I01–AC9S5I06, AC9M5N01, AC9E5LA02, AC9E5LY06 are addressed. Source-code details and holds are in review notes.

Set up: a low-brightness torch, two opaque cardboard strips of the same height but widths 4 cm and 6 cm, a white paper screen, ruler, tape and scrap paper. Mount the torch facing the screen across a table; place a card between torch and screen. Make a paper mark so torch, card, screen and ruler return to the same positions each trial. For a repeatable setup, start with torch 20 cm before the card and screen 20 cm beyond the card; adapt if equipment varies. Do not point the torch at eyes or use a flicker setting. No outdoor sun observation is needed. A learner may direct a partner, inspect a tactile outline, use the text table or analyse the model data instead of manipulating materials. Follow school equipment and supervision rules.

Important: The model dataset below is invented to practise interpreting data. It is not a promised result from this setup. Use your own class results if the experiment runs; write “model data” on any supplied practice graph. The shadow has softer edges than an ideal drawing, so learners should record how they chose an edge and why measurements may differ.

Day 1 — Ask a testable question

1. Experience · 3 min. Put a card between a stationary torch and screen. Use a straight string held beside the beam as a model of light's path; the card interrupts that path and a shadow appears on the screen. Invite learners to say what changed. Do not infer a width result before observation.
2. Model question · 5 min. Teacher says, “If I change card width while keeping torch and screen positions, what happens to the shadow width?” Identify changed and measured quantities.
3. Predict · 7 min. Learners draw, dictate or select a prediction and a reason. Accept “wider”, “same” or “unsure” when reason is visible; this is prediction, not a test score.
4. Design · 12 min. Groups mark fixed positions, choose a shadow-edge rule, and plan three trials per card. Write changed variable card width, measure shadow width, keep card height, distances, torch position, screen and ruler method as steady as practical. Check safety and access.
5. Peer audit · 5 min. Another group asks which variable could accidentally move and how they would notice.
6. Exit · 3 min. Key prompt: “Why keep the torch still?” A defensible answer: otherwise a changed distance/angle might change the shadow, so width alone could not explain it. Keep each learner's own wording.

Day 2 — Run or rehearse a fair comparison

1. Revisit · 3 min. Read the class plan and mark any changed condition not intended.
2. Demonstrate · 5 min. Teacher performs a trial, tracing two shadow edges with the same rule. If it is not safe or accessible in this room, use a prepared cardboard silhouette and the model table.
3. Roles · 7 min. Assign operator, edge marker, recorder and checker; rotate or adapt so every learner has a meaningful decision, including those who cannot hold equipment.
4. Investigate · 12 min. Repeat three times for each card, resetting marks. Record actual widths and units. If using model values instead, label the sheet FICTIONAL MODEL prominently. Do not edit awkward values to match prediction.
5. Method check · 5 min. Compare trial ranges. Ask whether an edge was fuzzy or a card moved and record that as a possible source of error.
6. Exit · 3 min. Learner names the changed variable and one control. Key: card width changed; for example torch–card distance stayed fixed.

Fictional model data

These are not real observations: narrow 4 cm card shadow widths 62, 64, 63 mm; wide 6 cm card shadow widths 95, 94, 96 mm. Converted to metres: 0.062, 0.064, 0.063 m and 0.095, 0.094, 0.096 m. The six values support “in this model setup and these trials, the wider card corresponded to a wider recorded shadow”, not “a wider card always gives exactly 95 mm”, and not a result for every torch arrangement.

Day 3 — Represent the evidence honestly

1. Label · 3 min. Say whether today's numbers are class measurements or the fictional model. Keep that label on every graph.
2. Model units · 5 min. Show 62 mm = 0.062 m and 95 mm = 0.095 m; 1 metre has 1000 millimetres. If conversion is too much for this class today, analyse in millimetres and let decimal comparison remain in the daily maths lesson.
3. Choose display · 7 min. In pairs, decide whether a two-column table or dot plot shows the six trials clearly. Put card width and unit in the title/axis.
4. Build · 12 min. Learners table or plot all six data points, not only the largest. Provide a tactile six-token representation or accessible text table. Check one pair for misplaced decimal zeros.
5. Read back · 5 min. Compare the largest narrow value 0.064 m with the smallest wide value 0.094 m in the model; the latter is larger. Do not claim the pattern for real classroom data until inspected.
6. Exit · 3 min. “What does 0.095 m name?” Key: 95 millimetres, a model shadow width for one wide-card trial.

Day 4 — Ask how far the evidence travels

1. Claim · 3 min. Display “Every wide object always makes a 95 mm shadow.” Ask learners to challenge it.
2. Trace · 5 min. Teacher points to 95, 94, 96 for the wide card: even the model trials differ. Different distances could change results.
3. Compare methods · 7 min. Groups name one difference between their actual setup and the model, or two plausible sources of error if the model was used only.
4. Write bounded claim · 12 min. Learners compose “With this setup and these trials, …”. Include two exact values and one limitation. A child may present as spoken or AAC message; record who authored wording.
5. Challenge kindly · 5 min. Partner asks, “Where is that in the table? Would your sentence still hold if torch moved?” Revise overclaims.
6. Exit · 3 min. Key: three repeated values provide some pattern evidence, but cannot prove what happens with every material, distance or light source.

Day 5 — Tell an audience what to try next

1. Choose audience · 3 min. Address a fictional science club, not a real school authority. Ask what the audience should know before repeating work.
2. Plan · 5 min. Put question, method, data, conclusion and limit on five cards.
3. Rehearse · 7 min. Partner listens and restates which variable changed. If they cannot, move the method card earlier.
4. Create · 12 min. Make a short poster, accessible text page or audio explanation with source label class data or fictional model, exact units, one comparison and one next test. Suggest changing distance in a new fair test while holding card width fixed.
5. Review · 5 min. Teacher looks for three anchors: data source labelled, conclusion bounded, next test changes one thing. If one is absent, revise before display.
6. Exit · 3 min. “What is one thing we still do not know?” Accept effect of a different distance, light source or material; do not award certainty for an invented result.

Teaching decision: If learners infer a universal rule, compare the three wide values and ask why they vary. If they can name controls but cannot use a table, reteach headings and units before further science claims. If they give a strong inference with oral language but struggle to write, preserve science evidence and support composition separately. Keep personal photos/voices only in approved school systems.

Rights: Original guide and model values © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, CC BY 4.0. Credit, source, licence and changes. ACARA codes remain under ACARA's terms; ACARA does not endorse this resource. Local teacher, safety and access review pending.