Integrated inquiry · ten… | Year 9 Inquiry · T1 W3–4 · Lessons

Week 3: test a scientific claim against an explicit exponent model and a fictional record. Week 4: critique reproducibility and write a source-bound recommendation. This extends the separate Year 9 mathematics integer-exponent work and Year 9 English cohesion/nominalisation work without reusing their source stories or check values. All Paper Screen sources are fictional originals in A–E packet; the learner packet, fresh-relative-to-lessons checks and teacher-targeted public key are separate files. The public key is not access-controlled; adapt a check if prior answer access matters. Printable/accessible aids support all response routes.

Prepare and protect: Print the source poster, model table, method mat and recommendation canvas; supply ordinary paper/counters, an unmarked number table and optional school-approved local Python. Source B/D values are invented arbitrary sensor units; do not call them real measurements. The optional real-world investigation route uses only a teacher-approved low-voltage LED and suitable light sensor under school science and electrical policy; no child points light at eyes, installs a screen, handles mains power, claims room safety or gathers personal data. If no physical test is permitted, write not observed in all new-result cells. Give large/reflowable text, tactile raised chart, sign/AAC, exact-word scribe and private response. A route changes access and available evidence, not a fixed learner type.

Day 11 · Who made the exact-halving claim? · AC9S9I06 · AC9E9LY03

Question: How do purpose and small-print limits affect a scientific-looking headline? Kit: Source A poster, Source B, claim audit. 35 = 3 launch + 7 model + 12 inquiry + 8 revise + 5 exit.

0–3 launch: Show the poster without B. Ask for its largest assertion, author and intended fictional reader; forbid “proved” until a source is checked.
3–10 model: Teacher reads the bottom sentence as carefully as the heading. “The same team wants a retest. It reports 20 with four layers while the model predicts 10. Its motive explains emphasis but does not by itself make every number false.” Model claim / source detail / assumption / unanswered question.
10–22 inquiry: Pairs identify that A and B share a maker; cite the exact 4-layer difference and list one missing method detail. Distinguish the hypothesis “each layer halves” from the actual fictional record. Do not infer physical danger or benefit.
22–30 revise: Write a cautious replacement headline such as “Four-layer result did not match exact-halving prediction in first fictional table.” Routes: annotate poster and B in large print; move tactile claim/prediction/record strips; dictate or sign a two-sentence source comparison with exact-word recording. Require source attribution in each.
30–35 exit: “Are A and B independent confirmation? What is one conflicting number?” Key: no; same team, 20 recorded versus 10 predicted at four layers. Response move: if learner treats purpose as proof of dishonesty, re-anchor in numerical/method evidence; if they miss small print, read it in equal volume.

Another domain: Use an invented stage-light shade advert with the same conditional model; do not claim actual lighting performance. Home: critique a fully fictional headline in writing or speech; no product search.

Day 12 · Exponents make the hypothesis testable · AC9M9A01 · AC9S9I04

Question: What exactly would repeated halving predict? Kit: Source B, model table, calculator optional. 35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.

0–3: Call the baseline 160 arbitrary units and the number of layers n; no real lux is implied.
3–10: Model P(n)=160×2^-n=160/2^n for integer n≥0. At n=0, 2^0=1, so 160; at n=4, 2^-4=1/16, so 10. State the identical independent half-transmission assumption explicitly.
10–22: Learners fill predictions for n=0,1,2,3,4 and compare to B's recorded column without changing either. Explain why 2^-2 = 1/4 rather than −4 and why 2^a×2^b=2^(a+b) describes repeated factors.
22–30: Label a graph/table key conditional prediction versus invented recorded value. Routes: 160 paper-unit strips halved successively with proportional drawing; tactile powers-of-two/place-value cards; symbolic table and written/AAC explanation. No route demands memorising the formula without meaning.
30–35: “If an untested fifth layer obeyed the same model, what would P(5) be, and is it a measured result?” Key: 5 model units, prediction only. Response move: if 5 is called observed, draw a boundary beneath n=4 in the record.

Another domain: Model a fictional rehearsal cue that halves a count each stage; retain the if. Home: explain 2^-3 using eight equal paper marks.

Day 13 · Where does a model miss the record? · AC9S9I05 · AC9S9I06

Question: Which discrepancies matter, and what can they not tell us? Kit: B, model/data aid. 35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.

0–3: Retrieve model predictions 160,80,40,20,10 and invented values 160,80,44,26,20.
3–10: Teacher models a row-wise residual record − prediction: 0,0,+4,+6,+10. Say this is a numerical discrepancy, not a known instrument error or cause.
10–22: Learners complete a two-series table or dot plot, label units arbitrary, and describe the growing gap at n=2–4. They ask whether paper differences, sensor position, ambient light or another factor was controlled; B does not tell us.
22–30: Peers challenge the sentence “more layers prove exact half-transmission.” Revise it to fit B. Routes: plot with large tactile dots on a supplied axis; compare paired number tiles; write or dictate a residual table and claim audit.
30–35: “Can this table tell us why the n=4 value is 20?” Key: no; B lacks controlled-method detail and independent repeat. Response move: if learner names a cause as fact, convert it to a testable question.

Another domain: Apply the same residual method to fictional theatre curtain readings, with no real acoustic/light claim. Home: invent two short prediction/record columns and mark their difference.

Day 14 · A method another team could repeat · AC9S9I01 · AC9S9I02

Question: What would a valid small retest need to specify? Kit: Source B, retest method, paper only by default. 35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.

0–3: Ask an investigable question: “For this paper and setup, how does the sensor value vary with layer count?” It is narrower than “Is the screen dependable?”
3–10: Model a protocol listing baseline/background, same paper size/batch/orientation, LED setting, fixed sensor distance/position, layer order, repeated readings, safe handling and who records. The changed variable is layer count; reading is measured. Ask whether a school permits any real equipment.
10–22: Teams write a reproducible six-step paper protocol, a blank 0–4 by three-run table and a risk/permission note. Only if approved and equipped, a supervised group may collect its own separate readings without merging them into B/D. No actual data means mark not observed.
22–30: Exchange protocols; peers locate one uncontrolled variable or ambiguous instruction and revise it. Routes: assemble large procedural cards; use tactile control/measure tokens and dictate steps; write/table a protocol or run the approved safe test. Running the test is conditional, not a requirement for the paper plan.
30–35: “Does a well-written method prove we conducted it?” Key: no. Response move: if made-up results appear, cross them out and write not observed; if controls are named but not operational, add quantities/positions.

Another domain: Plan a fictional paper-screen test for museum display illumination; no actual venue claim. Home: describe a fair test verbally; no equipment task.

Day 15 · Held-out Claim Check A · AC9M9A01 · AC9S9I06 · AC9E9LA06

Question: Can learners transfer model, evidence and language critique to a fresh case? Kit: Check A introduced on Day 15, blank paper/aid. 35 = 3 launch + 5 briefing + 12 independent + 10 post-collection reflection + 5 close.

0–3: Say the case is new fiction, not an actual material test.
3–8: Offer large text, read-aloud, tactile values, calculator or exact-word scribe; do not model the new numbers or rewrite its abstract noun.
8–20: Learner's independent first response. Record assistance that changes reasoning separately from access.
20–30: Collect first work, then invite a general method reflection. Use the teacher-targeted public key later to target misconception, not to retrofit the first answer.
30–35: Name assumption / calculation / source / limit as a reusable routine. Routes after collection: reconstruct with counters; mark a tactile table; explain by speech/sign/AAC. Response move: reteach the specific exponent, source or abstract-noun issue in a new example.

Another domain: After assessment, use a fresh fictional theatre-prop cover claim. Home: state what a conditional model cannot certify.

Day 16 · Three rounds: similar is not universal · AC9S9I05 · AC9S9I06

Question: Does repeating a record settle a method or model? Kit: Source D, Source B, model/data aid. 35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.

0–3: Read D's method note, including what it fails to report. Separate D's fictional repeated readings from any real class test.
3–10: Model at four layers: 20,19,21, range 19–21, middle value 20; exact-halving prediction 10. Similar values in this setup do not repair the prediction or prove safety.
10–22: Learners compare n=0 and n=4 rows across rounds and identify an unreported control. They write a conclusion about within-record consistency and a separate limitation about validity/transfer to other paper/light conditions.
22–30: Partners challenge “three trials prove universal reliability.” Routes: move three-number strips to show spread; raised dot plot; calculate/tell the range and write a source-bound sentence. Do not report an uncertainty interval from this tiny invented set.
30–35: “What can we say about D, and what remains unknown?” Key: clustered fictional values for this stated setup; calibration, broader conditions and cause remain unknown. Response move: split “repeatable” into repeatability under which conditions and reproducibility by whom.

Another domain: Use fictional repeat readings from a stage-prop light check without claiming a real venue. Home: invent three close numbers and name one untested condition.

Day 17 · Explore a factor, not just a fit · AC9M9A01 · AC9S9I04 · AC9S9I06

Question: Can a different constant factor match the fictional data better without proving a mechanism? Kit: offline model explorer or model table. 35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.

0–3: Recall P(n)=160×r^n, with 0<r≤1; if r=0.5, it is the poster's half-model. This extension complements the mathematics exponent-law lessons without reusing their practice values.
3–10: Teacher runs or traces r=0.50 and r=0.55. The explorer displays predicted rows and mean absolute gap against invented B. Define the gap as an arithmetic comparison, not an uncertainty estimate or proof of cause.
10–22: Learners run two candidate factors offline or fill a paper table. Compare which fits these five values better, then name at least two reasons fit might not transfer (method, calibration, other paper). A model can match data while describing the wrong mechanism.
22–30: Explain r^(a+b)=r^a r^b for repeated identical factors and why r=0 cannot be used with negative exponents. Routes: local keyboard or paired navigator with recorded action; tactile repeated-factor cards and teacher-read output; written calculator table with exact-word explanation.
30–35: “If 0.55 gives a smaller gap, does it prove all paper passes 55% each layer?” Key: no. Response move: mark the model as a fitted conditional description and add a new test requirement.

Another domain: Fit a fictional stage-filter card set, keeping data labelled invented. Home: compare two exponent expressions on paper; no software needed.

Day 18 · When a noun hides the method · AC9E9LA04 · AC9E9LA06 · AC9S9I08

Question: Who did what, and what does “the reduction” really refer to? Kit: Source C, B/D, claim audit. 35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.

0–3: Display Source C, “The reduction established dependable control of room lighting.” Ask who reduced what and where the certainty came from.
3–10: Model a more accountable sentence: “In the team's invented tabletop record, adding four paper layers coincided with a sensor value of 20 rather than the half-model's predicted 10; the method record is incomplete.” Name the team and action; keep nominalisation only if its referent stays clear.
10–22: Learners underline reduction, control and dependable, trace each to B or D, and revise two versions: one plain for a manager, one concise but correctly attributed for a table caption. This is scientific communication, not a claim that nominalisation is always bad.
22–30: Partners test whether each pronoun/abstract noun has a clear referent and each conclusion has a source. Routes: annotate text; place tactile actor/action/result/limit cards; dictate and edit two versions. A teacher notes if independent reading was replaced by read-aloud.
30–35: “Can we keep the word reduction?” Key: yes, if we specify which values/method it condenses and avoid unsupported certainty. Response move: if student removes every abstract noun, show a useful source-bound summary.

Another domain: Edit a fictional sporting-equipment test note that says “the improvement succeeded” without data. Home: rewrite one invented overconfident sentence.

Question: How can a fictional manager act responsibly on incomplete evidence? Kit: A–E, recommendation canvas, plain paper. 35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.

0–3: Choose a defensible position: approve a small supervised retest, require a better protocol first, or pause. No option approves public room use.
3–10: Model decision / model assumption / exact B or D contrast / method limit / next check. Include 160×2^-4=10 against B's 20 at four layers and the missing calibration/background note; do not describe an actual reduction in a real room.
10–22: Learners create a two-panel original paper or text-led media brief for the fictional manager. Panel 1 gives a careful numerical claim; panel 2 gives an actionable method/permission request. An oral/AAC brief is equally valid science argument; Arts evidence needs a created/presented media artefact.
22–30: Peers test the first glance against fine print. The author revises one overclaim and documents the change. Routes: hand-drawn high-contrast panels; tactile panel layout directed to an adult; typed two-panel brief plus oral/signed explanation. No logos, external photo or real name.
30–35: “Which sentence stops this becoming a safety/approval claim?” Accept: the fictional record and controlled-retest condition. Response move: if “proven dependable” appears, underline the missing real method and replace it.

Another domain: Recommend a paper-filter test for a fictional theatre set, not installation. Home: write a no-cost because / however / next note about imaginary data.

Day 20 · Held-out Reproducibility Check B · AC9M9A01 · AC9S9I02 · AC9S9I06 · AC9E9LY06

Question: Can a learner audit a new repeated record and make a cautious recommendation? Kit: Check B introduced on Day 20, blank 0–3 table. 35 = 3 launch + 5 briefing + 12 independent + 10 post-collection audit + 5 close.

0–3: Remind learners the new case is fictional and does not describe room safety.
3–8: Give read-aloud, tactile values, calculator, AAC or scribe access as needed; do not tell which data row conflicts with its model.
8–20: Save first independent response before any partner or teacher content discussion.
20–30: Learner marks one fact, one prediction and one unknown after collection. The staff key targets a next move without a pass/fail identity label.
30–35: Ask for one next investigable question. Routes after collection: number strips; model table; signed/AAC explanation. Response move: rebuild the specific exponent, control or source-limit distinction in a different invented case.

Another domain: After scoring, transfer to an invented gallery-paper shade with new numbers. Home: state the difference between a repeated fictional value and a reproducible real investigation.