# Year 9 integrated inquiry · ten 35-minute teacher sessions

**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](../../../mathematics/term-1/weeks-03-04/MODEL-CARDS.md) integer-exponent work and [Year 9 English](../../../english/term-1/weeks-03-04/README.md) cohesion/nominalisation work **without reusing their source stories or check values**. All Paper Screen sources are fictional originals in [A–E packet](SOURCE-PACKET.md); the [learner packet](LEARNER.md), [fresh-relative-to-lessons checks](STUDENT-CHECKS.md) and [teacher-targeted public key](teacher/ANSWER-AND-NEXT.md) are separate files. The public key is not access-controlled; adapt a check if prior answer access matters. [Printable/accessible aids](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md) 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](print/claim-audit.pdf). **35 = 3 launch + 7 model + 12 inquiry + 8 revise + 5 exit.**

1. **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.
2. **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`.
3. **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.
4. **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.
5. **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](print/model-and-data.pdf), calculator optional. **35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.**

1. **0–3:** Call the baseline `160 arbitrary units` and the number of layers `n`; no real lux is implied.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **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.
5. **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](print/model-and-data.pdf). **35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.**

1. **0–3:** Retrieve model predictions 160,80,40,20,10 and invented values 160,80,44,26,20.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **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.
5. **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](print/retest-method.pdf), paper only by default. **35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.**

1. **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?”
2. **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.
3. **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`.
4. **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.
5. **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](STUDENT-CHECKS.md) introduced on Day 15, blank paper/aid. **35 = 3 launch + 5 briefing + 12 independent + 10 post-collection reflection + 5 close.**

1. **0–3:** Say the case is new fiction, not an actual material test.
2. **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.
3. **8–20:** Learner's independent first response. Record assistance that changes reasoning separately from access.
4. **20–30:** Collect first work, then invite a general method reflection. Use the [teacher-targeted public key](teacher/ANSWER-AND-NEXT.md) later to target misconception, not to retrofit the first answer.
5. **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](print/model-and-data.pdf). **35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.**

1. **0–3:** Read D's method note, including what it fails to report. Separate D's fictional repeated readings from any real class test.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **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.
5. **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](code/panel_model.py) or [model table](print/model-and-data.pdf). **35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.**

1. **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.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **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.
5. **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](print/claim-audit.pdf). **35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.**

1. **0–3:** Display Source C, “The reduction established dependable control of room lighting.” Ask who reduced what and where the certainty came from.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **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.
5. **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.

## Day 19 · Recommend a retest, with visible limits · AC9E9LY06 · AC9S9I07 · AC9AMA10C01

**Question:** How can a fictional manager act responsibly on incomplete evidence? **Kit:** A–E, [recommendation canvas](print/recommendation-canvas.pdf), plain paper. **35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.**

1. **0–3:** Choose a defensible position: approve a small supervised retest, require a better protocol first, or pause. No option approves public room use.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **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.
5. **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](STUDENT-CHECKS.md) introduced on Day 20, blank 0–3 table. **35 = 3 launch + 5 briefing + 12 independent + 10 post-collection audit + 5 close.**

1. **0–3:** Remind learners the new case is fictional and does not describe room safety.
2. **3–8:** Give read-aloud, tactile values, calculator, AAC or scribe access as needed; do not tell which data row conflicts with its model.
3. **8–20:** Save first independent response before any partner or teacher content discussion.
4. **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.
5. **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.