# Ten help-desk starts

Use the [teacher bridge and preparation](TEACHER.md), [full ordinary sources](ORDINARY-SOURCES.md) and [learner page](LEARNER.md). Routes below are alternative scientific jobs, not fixed learner types. A response can be spoken, signed, AAC, directed, drawn, written or typed in every route. Each ordinary start totals 30 minutes: **0–3 launch, 3–9 model, 9–21 own job, 21–27 compare/revise, 27–30 exit**. The common scripts are practical design suggestions, not measured classroom durations.

## Day 1 · Ask a question the record could answer

**Wanted outcome:** your own specific question and a source limit. **Prepare:** O1/O2; four condition words on paper: light, water, temperature, salinity.

**0–3:** Read O1’s request. Ask what the team needs before it can make a claim about a place. **3–9 model:** “Is shade good?” is too broad. Model “In these four bean seedlings per group, how does the recorded mean height change from Day 0 to Day 9 in the brighter and shaded positions?” It has a living thing, condition, measure and period. It still cannot isolate light as a cause. **9–21:** choose one route below. **21–27:** a willing peer/teacher checks whether your question can be answered by its named source; revise one word. Independent quiet review is equally useful. **27–30 exit:** name a measure and a period in your question. If missing, add `what / when` before another question.

- **Route 1A · Condition map.** Draw or arrange a centre labelled “these bean seedlings”. Put recorded position at one side and unrecorded temperature/moisture at another. Link one condition to a question, explicitly label unknowns and choose which additional record would help most. Output a map plus a reason, not guessed readings.
- **Route 1B · Question repair.** Repair three supplied questions: “Which is best?”, “Will every bean live?”, “Which group’s recorded mean height increased more by Day 9?” Keep or edit each; explain why only the last is immediately answerable from O2. Write one new investigable question for a later controlled comparison.
- **Route 1C · Claim desk.** Sort “A assigned brighter”, “A will always grow better”, “watering plan followed” into recorded / unsupported / unknown. State the exact O2 support for the first and missing evidence for the other two. Turn one unsupported claim into a sensible question.

## Day 2 · Follow growth, without losing survival

**Wanted outcome:** one accurate comparison with unit, start, end and duration. **Prepare:** O2 and paper grid, counters or calculator if useful.

**0–3:** Ask whether “A is 38 mm” means it grew 38 mm. **3–9 model:** start 20, final 38, so increase `38 − 20 = 18 mm over nine days`. B increases 6 mm; A’s increase is 12 mm greater. Both have 4 of 4 alive at Day 9. This is not a claim that they remain alive. **9–21:** choose a route. **21–27:** check units/time and mark a sentence that would overclaim cause. **27–30 exit:** “Which difference concerns growth, and which concerns survival?” Reteach with separate height/count columns if blended.

- **Route 2A · Change table.** Calculate each group’s increase at Days 3, 6 and 9 from Day 0. Show A: 6, 12, 18 mm; B: 2, 4, 6 mm. Add an alive-at-Day-9 row and explain why no earlier survival trend can be drawn from a single final count.
- **Route 2B · Two-line graph.** Create labelled axes day 0–9 and height 0–40 mm, using equal day intervals 0/3/6/9. Plot every O2 point with distinct labels or line patterns. State the recorded pattern and a limit: these are supplied mean records; joining points does not reveal unmeasured moments.
- **Route 2C · Claim audit.** Audit “A gained 38 mm”, “shade killed B”, “both groups had four alive at Day 9”, “A’s mean increased more in this record”. Replace the first with 18 mm; reject the second; retain the last two with attribution. Give one question about a missing condition.

## Day 3 · Agree where a measurement begins

**Wanted outcome:** a measurement rule someone else can follow. **Prepare:** O5; optional ruler and two pre-made ordinary paper stems. Complete supplied alternative: stem S measured soil-line-to-tip 28 mm; container-base-to-tip 43 mm; reference-point difference 15 mm. These are constructed model values.

**0–3:** Two “height” readings differ; ask whether either must be dishonest. **3–9 model:** show the different reference points. Model soil line to tip, ruler zero at the line, eye level, nearest mm where the ruler allows it. `43 − 28 = 15 mm` comes from reference choice, not growth. **9–21:** choose a route. **21–27:** compare methods, not people; mark what was measured versus supplied. **27–30 exit:** state a reference point and unit. If precision is vague, choose a ruler scale and a consistent reading rule.

- **Route 3A · Paper measuring job.** On ordinary paper draw a stem with a base line and tip; select and use a millimetre ruler to measure it three times without changing the drawing. Record all actual readings, reference, scale and any difference. No prescribed “correct” invented result; ask whether ruler placement varied. Without equipment, use the supplied 28/43 mm pair and mark supplied, not personally measured.
- **Route 3B · Method comparison.** Make a side-by-side rule for River and Ridge from O5. Explain why their numbers are not directly comparable and propose a common soil-line-to-tip rule, same stage/time, ruler scale and eye level. All resulting outcomes remain not observed.
- **Route 3C · Precision dilemma.** A fictional rounded record says “about 3 cm” for two stems; a finer record says 28 mm and 32 mm. Convert 3 cm to 30 mm, then explain how rounding can hide a 4 mm difference. Choose a precision appropriate to the question; do not claim more accuracy than the instrument or method supports.

## Day 4 · Fix the comparison before asking for permission

**Wanted outcome:** a safer repeatable proposal with changed/measured/kept features. **Prepare:** O3 and a blank plan.

**0–3:** Ask what differs in O3. **3–9 model:** circle starting height, pot size, water and position. Model comparing height **increase**, not only final height, and trying to change one condition while recording relevant uncontrolled conditions. **9–21:** choose a route. **21–27:** peer/teacher asks “Could I repeat this? What permission or risk remains?” Revise a rule, not an outcome. **27–30 exit:** name changed, measured and one controlled feature. If vague, sort those headings with actual O3 features.

- **Route 4A · Repair the plan.** Write a paper-only comparison of two assigned light conditions using the same species, initial stage, containers, water schedule and check times. Measure each labelled height and alive count over a stated period; record temperature/moisture as possible additional influences. Explain why shade can also change temperature, so a better light comparison needs further design review.
- **Route 4B · Repeatable record schedule.** Choose Day 0, Day 3 and Day 6 with the same daily time, six labelled plants per group and a consistent height reference. Draw individual record rows and an alive-at-check column. Add `not observed` in every empty outcome. Explain what repeated observations add and what they do not guarantee.
- **Route 4C · Permission and risk desk.** A fictional proposal asks pupils to take unknown plants from a park, add salt and publish photos. Reject collection/alteration/public child images for this task. Replace it with supplied records or an educator-approved non-invasive school observation plan. State who must review plant identity/access/local permissions and why a paper plan is not permission or a completed test.

## Day 5 · A prediction before the next record

**Wanted outcome:** first reasoning preserved, then a review against a later source. **Prepare:** educator selects only E-FIRST and its own blank. E-LATER stays separate until first capture; no source values are displayed in the ordinary opening. **30 = 3 orient + 3 exact briefing + 10 first + 2 capture + 8 later + 4 close.**

**0–3:** remind learners that the new record is fiction. **3–6:** read exact task directions and offer access, without content hints. **6–16:** Route 5A first. **16–18:** capture first response. **18–26:** issue only E-LATER and its own blank; learner reviews prediction, compares the new values and states a limit. **26–30:** collect later response and choose targeted next teaching. Keep, revise or decline certainty can all be justified; no retrospective coaching of first evidence.

- **Route 5A · Assigned clean check.** Complete the separate first/later tasks under [assessment administration](ASSESSMENT-ADMIN.md); criterion coverage is specific to this case. No peer model or key enters the first response.
- **Route 5B · Ordinary error clinic after capture, or instead of the check.** With O2, repair a fictional note “38 − 26 is A’s growth”. Calculate both start-to-end increases and identify what 38 − 26 actually compares. Add nine-day period and a limit about the different positions.
- **Route 5C · Ordinary missing-data design after capture, or instead.** O2 lacks temperature and measured light. Choose which to record for a stated question, specify instrument/unit/time if a teacher could provide it, and explain why collecting a new variable would help but not repair the old record retrospectively. Mark outcome not observed.

## Day 6 · Why scientists need different contributions

**Wanted outcome:** a sourced reason for collaboration, beyond “teamwork is good”. **Prepare:** FACT1 and FACT3 full cards, contribution headings and blank paper.

**0–3:** ask what a biologist and sensor designer might each contribute. **3–9 model:** use FACT1’s historical project to join biological questions, comparable environmental measurements and sensing/computing design. Explain why no single contribution supplies all the evidence. It was a reported prototype plan at its stated date, not proof of today’s installation. **9–21:** choose a route. **21–27:** compare interpretations against the exact source card; distinguish an invented role from an actually named contribution. **27–30 exit:** give a contribution and why another contribution mattered. If only “more people”, join an expertise to the problem it helps address.

- **Route 6A · Contribution chain.** From FACT1 connect Jane Wasley’s earlier monitoring, Krystal Randall’s measurement/comparability work and Johan Barthelemy’s smart-sensing role to the shared moss-health question. Explain how later work builds on earlier monitoring and why measurement and biological interpretation need each other. No individual’s thoughts are invented.
- **Route 6B · Historical revision timeline.** From FACT3 arrange initial prototype → ground testing → water-management difficulty in space → three revised designs reported in 2019. Describe the contributions of Howard Levine, the Techshot team and fluids experts, and explain why a ground success did not settle performance in microgravity. Do not add a harvest result absent from this historical account.
- **Route 6C · Missing-expertise argument.** Choose either fact card. A fictional adviser says “a camera alone can decide the best habitat”. Explain which measurements, biological knowledge and design knowledge are missing. Give two source-backed contributions and one further question; do not claim an AI or sensor automatically approves an ecological decision.

## Day 7 · Growth and survival can point in different directions

**Wanted outcome:** a criterion-specific conclusion without a universal care rule. **Prepare:** O4; twelve marks/counters optional.

**0–3:** compare 31 mm/6 alive with 36 mm/4 alive. **3–9 model:** P increased 11 mm, Q 16 mm over eight days; P had 6/6 alive, Q 4/6. “More height” and “more alive” answer different questions. These supplied means use all six labelled height records, not survivors only. **9–21:** choose a route. **21–27:** a reviewer asks whether the recommendation changes with the criterion. **27–30 exit:** state a choice **for a criterion**, or explain why more evidence is needed. If survival called “growth”, separate size and alive-count cells.

- **Route 7A · Criterion decision.** For fictional keeper Tall (prioritises recorded mean increase), choose Q conditionally; for keeper Alive (prioritises alive-at-check count), choose P conditionally. Cite two measures, period and a confound. Neither is a real care recommendation.
- **Route 7B · Denominator repair.** Repair “Q has four survivors, so it is four out of four”. Show original six and four alive; compare with P’s six out of six. Explain why a surviving-only denominator hides deaths and why a one-check rate is not lifetime survival.
- **Route 7C · Cause investigation.** A draft claims “50 mL killed two plants”. Write an alternative explanation question about temperature, initial individual differences or moisture/drainage. Design a repeat comparison with labelled individuals and relevant condition records. Explain that proposing another cause does not prove it either.

## Day 8 · Use science to ask for a sensible response

**Wanted outcome:** a real-source problem/response chain with a local limit. **Prepare:** FACT2 and FACT4 and a three-box `problem / possible response / evidence still needed` record.

**0–3:** ask how a community can act without pretending it knows every result. **3–9 model:** FACT4 identifies a light-related turtle problem at nesting beaches. Source guidance supports reviewing unnecessary coastal light; it does not prove your school’s lights affect a turtle population. Adults decide lawful safe action; children do not alter electrical devices or visit a beach. **9–21:** choose a route. **21–27:** mark provider fact, your recommendation and unknown separately. **27–30 exit:** name a scientific idea used in a response and a remaining question. If factual card becomes a local forecast, put date/place back beside the claim.

- **Route 8A · Problem-response-evidence.** Use FACT4 to explain how knowledge about artificial light and turtle behaviour informs a reviewed coastal response. Choose an adult enquiry or review step, not an unauthorised switch-off. State what local place/season/lighting and permission would need checking.
- **Route 8B · Limit a local inference.** FACT2 concerns reef stress. A fictional leaflet claims “every reef near us is bleached today”. Correct it using the card’s historical scope and unequal impacts. List evidence needed for a named local reef, date, observation method and living-thing response; no invented readings or field visit.
- **Route 8C · Compare two responses.** For a fictional council deciding what to investigate, compare “assume every reef is equally affected” with “ask for dated, place-specific monitoring and review possible responses”. Give a scientific reason and one missing condition. Separately explain which knowledge supports the turtle light enquiry and why the reef source does not supply turtle guidance.

## Day 9 · Leave a useful help-desk guide

**Wanted outcome:** an own guide someone can use to avoid an overclaim. **Prepare:** O1–O5, FACT cards optional, blank three-panel page.

**0–3:** choose a fictional reader: tray keeper, future recorder or courtyard team. **3–9 model:** short guide with question, two exact source details, representation, limit and next step. Example “Compare changes from the same starting time; do not call final height the increase.” **9–21:** choose a route. **21–27:** willing reader tries to locate the next step; a quiet self-read can substitute. Revise actual wording/order and retain both versions. **27–30 exit:** name what you changed for your reader and why. If only decoration changes, ask what decision the guide helps make.

- **Route 9A · Three-panel guide.** Create `what the record shows / what it cannot show / what to check next` for O2 or O4. Include source, sample, period, height-change working, survival count and one original representation. Choose a title and specific reader language.
- **Route 9B · Decision model.** Make a labelled flow using O4: choose criterion → compare relevant measure → flag unknown conditions → request a check. Trace two different criteria and show different conditional outputs. The flow advises a fictional team, not automatic plant care.
- **Route 9C · Edit the overclaim.** Rewrite O5’s universal move-tomorrow note into a useful 60–100 word or equivalent directed response. Preserve an initial version, make one substantive revision and explain it using source limits or reader purpose. No actual publication is required.

## Day 10 · Recommend, then review new evidence

**Wanted outcome:** a new-case conditional decision and a separately captured update. **Prepare:** select F-FIRST and its own blank only. Hold F-LATER apart; it contains a new cohort and reader’s priority. **30 = 3 orient + 3 briefing + 10 first + 2 capture + 8 later + 4 close.**

**0–3:** make clear the case and community are invented. **3–6:** read instructions verbatim. **6–16:** first individual response. **16–18:** capture it. **18–26:** give later source, apply its fresh values/priority, create a revised or retained decision and explain what changed. **26–30:** preserve both and select one next move. No supplied plant record establishes actual investigation, professional approval or future impact.

- **Route 10A · Assigned clean check.** Use [administration](ASSESSMENT-ADMIN.md) for complete individual first/later tasks. Apply only the relevant task-specific criteria; teacher keys remain separate.
- **Route 10B · Ordinary project audit after capture, or instead.** Use the Day 9 guide. Find every count/unit/time/source, check its arithmetic and replace one unsupported causal statement. Leave an actionable “next check” that a willing adult can review without a garden.
- **Route 10C · Ordinary next-question clinic after capture, or instead.** Choose one question still unresolved in O2–O5; make a precise paper investigation proposal and a blank record. Identify whose approval/equipment would be needed and one result that could challenge your prediction. Do not invent that result or promise success.