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.