Skip to content
HSCScienceModule 1 pilotSources and coverage
Investigating Science · Year 11 · Lesson 12 of 12

From first observation to investigation report

How do conclusions drawn from the interpretation of primary data promote further scientific investigation?

30–45 min suggested learning

Module 1 pilot only. This learning resource supports the 2017 syllabus and complements your school’s supervised practical program.

Think first and set your goal

Think First

What evidence would let someone follow your investigation from the first observation to your next question?

Saved on this device

Learning Intentions

  • Integrate observation, planning, collection and evaluation.
  • Distinguish a modelled analysis from an empirical practical.
  • Communicate a scoped conclusion and transparent evidence trail.

Key Terms

investigation report
A structured account linking question, method, evidence, analysis and evaluation.
independent replicate
A separately prepared experimental unit, rather than another reading of the same unit.
transparency
Making sources, decisions and limitations available for checking.

Three printable worksheets

BuildPrintable questions and teacher keyApplyPrintable questions and teacher keyEvaluatePrintable questions and teacher key

Build a connected account

Build a connected account

Start with a recorded phenomenon and explain how it led to a measurable question. State the hypothesis before describing the method. Include variable roles, control implementation, safety measures and repetition. The report should show why each choice addresses the question rather than simply listing scientific words.

In this capstone, you can analyse the supplied synthetic dataset, or conduct a teacher-approved low-risk spinner investigation using your own primary data. Label the route clearly. Analysis of teaching data is valuable practice but does not complete the course’s required practical hours or replace a supervised school program.

Book notes: Build a connected account

Start with a recorded phenomenon and explain how it led to a measurable question. State the hypothesis before describing the method. Include variable roles, control implementation, safety measures and repetition. The report should show why each choice addresses the question rather than simply listing scientific words.

Saved on this device

For each wing length, spinner A and spinner B are built separately, and each is dropped three times. The six readings at each length represent:

Make evidence inspectable

Make evidence inspectable

Present raw values with units, qualitative notes and trial identifiers. Show a worked calculation of a mean and spread, then use a suitable graph with defined intervals. Explain any missing or excluded records and retain their origin. Readers should be able to trace one plotted point back to the raw table.

The supplied dataset includes repeated drops of each of two independently built models per length. This distinguishes within-model trial variation from between-model variation. The extra level of replication improves what can be evaluated, but a small sample and fixed paper type still limit broad claims.

Book notes: Make evidence inspectable

Present raw values with units, qualitative notes and trial identifiers. Show a worked calculation of a mean and spread, then use a suitable graph with defined intervals. Explain any missing or excluded records and retain their origin. Readers should be able to trace one plotted point back to the raw table.

Saved on this device

At 3 cm wing length, synthetic descent times are 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 s. What is their combined mean?

Communicate a conclusion and a next step

Communicate a conclusion and a next step

Answer the question with evidence, name the range and conditions, and evaluate at least one limitation by its possible effect. Compare external findings only when quantities and methods are reasonably comparable. End with a further question that follows from your evidence or a remaining uncertainty.

Do not claim certainty from a polished report. A transparent account can include an unsupported hypothesis, messy data and an unresolved issue. What matters is that the reader can distinguish observations from explanations and understand how further investigation could improve the evidence.

Book notes: Communicate a conclusion and a next step

Answer the question with evidence, name the range and conditions, and evaluate at least one limitation by its possible effect. Compare external findings only when quantities and methods are reasonably comparable. End with a further question that follows from your evidence or a remaining uncertainty.

Saved on this device

At 7 cm wing length, synthetic descent times are 1.9, 2.0, 2.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 s. What is the observed range?

Worked example

Worked example: Summarise the 3 cm condition and identify the two levels of repetition.

  1. Model A mean = (1.1 + 1.2 + 1.3)/3 = 1.2 s; model B mean = 1.4 s.
  2. Across all six readings the mean is 1.3 s; observed minimum-to-maximum range is 1.5 − 1.1 = 0.4 s.
  3. Three drops per model describe within-model variation.
  4. Two independently built models describe build-to-build variation; they are not six independent builds.

A useful report retains the nesting of repeated drops within models rather than overstating the number of independent experimental units.

Synthetic capstone dataset: two independently constructed models per length, each dropped three times. Not empirical measurements.
Wing length (cm)ModelTrial 1 (s)Trial 2 (s)Trial 3 (s)
3A1.11.21.3
3B1.31.41.5
5A1.51.61.7
5B1.71.81.9
7A1.922.1
7B2.12.22.3

Activities

Activities

Activity 1

Produce a report outline with seven sections and specify the evidence each contains.

Saved on this device

Activity 2

Calculate the overall mean and observed range at 5 cm and 7 cm.

Saved on this device

Explore virtual investigations · Use the Working Scientifically toolkit

Connected practical record: your own spinner investigation

Teacher/practical required. This blank record is a planning and evidence scaffold, not proof of a completed investigation. Do not enter the pilot’s synthetic values as your measurements. Your school determines supervision, safety approval and curriculum requirements.

Keep one dated notebook or attached record across these checkpoints. Do not begin physical work until your teacher approves the method. Remain on the floor, use a marked reachable release height in a clear area, keep away from faces, manage scissors under school procedures and retrieve models only when the drop zone is clear. Do not climb, lean from windows or release objects over people.

1. First observation (Lessons 1–2)

After teacher approval, record an initial spinner drop: date, model ID, setup, a qualitative description and one measurement with units and tool. Separate an observation from a possible explanation. Leave this blank if no observation has been made.

Evidence to keep: A dated original observation and measurement, with an inference labelled separately. A planned or simulated record is labelled as such and does not count as primary collection.

2. Question and hypothesis (Lesson 7)

Use something in that first record to choose a testable question. Define the changed wing length (cm), measured descent time (s) and predicted relationship. Name at least three controlled variables and explain how each will be held consistent.

Evidence to keep: Question and hypothesis explicitly refer back to the initial observation. Controls include marked release height, paper type and folding/attachment method; specify how each is implemented, not just its name.

3. Approved plan (Lesson 8)

Specify length levels, number of independently built models per level, repeated drops per model, timing endpoints/tool resolution, order of testing, raw-record headings and a pre-agreed failed-trial rule. Record hazards, controls, teacher approval and date before collecting.

Evidence to keep: A reproducible approved plan separates independent builds from repeated readings. A changed method is dated and explained; no invented teacher approval or signatures.

4. Primary collection (Lessons 8–9)

Record actual dated measurements for every model and trial, observations such as wobble/contact, units and conditions. Preserve original failed/missing readings with reasons. Attach raw records rather than copying the synthetic capstone.

Evidence to keep: A teacher-reviewed raw record contains actual collected values, model IDs and trial IDs. A desk-based answer alone leaves this checkpoint pending.

5. Processing and initial-record comparison (Lessons 9–10)

Show a worked mean and range, and plot labelled axes/units with a stated convention for any bars. Compare the usefulness of the planned dataset with your initial observation: detail, repeatability, comparability and limits. Retain both records.

Evidence to keep: Calculations can be independently reproduced from retained raw data. The comparison explains what the systematic records add and what remains uncertain.

6. Conclusion and related findings (Lessons 6 and 11)

Answer your question with values and uncertainty. Compare with another teacher-approved group’s dated investigation record: name/record ID, actual finding, variables, sample and method differences. If none is supplied, mark the comparison pending. The linked NASA resource can inform a further question but supplies no matching numerical results.

Evidence to keep: An attributed related investigation with a real finding is compared in context; agreement alone does not validate both methods, and unmatched heights or designs can explain differences. No related result is invented.

7. Evaluation and next observation (Lesson 12)

Explain whether your hypothesis is supported within the tested conditions, identify a specific limitation and propose the next observation that would address it. Attach the original observation, approved plan, primary data, analysis and comparison for teacher review.

Evidence to keep: A scoped conclusion and actionable next question are traceable to actual records. Teacher review records which checkpoints remain unfinished.

NASA Rotor Motor: a related investigation idea (not a numerical comparison dataset)

Teacher review: accept justified alternative designs and conclusions supported by the student’s records, including no clear trend. Mark unperformed stages pending. Synthetic practice, a filled plan or clicking “complete” does not establish practical completion, school approval, required practical hours or whole-course coverage.

Independent practice

Five questions from this lesson’s eight-question bank

Answer the five-question Quick Check. Use the feedback to repair an idea before retrying.

Short answer

Explain and evaluate

Q1. Write a concise report conclusion using the capstone means.

Saved on this device
Explain and evaluate

Q2. Explain why six drops per condition are not six independent model builds.

Saved on this device
Explain and evaluate

Q3. Propose a follow-up that addresses one capstone limitation and describe how it does so.

Saved on this device
Answers and model responses

Activities

Activity 1

Observation/question; hypothesis; variables/method/safety; raw data/provenance; processing/graph; conclusion/evaluation; follow-up. Credit a coherent structure linking actual records to claims.

Activity 2

5 cm: mean 1.7 s, range 0.4 s. 7 cm: mean 2.1 s, range 0.4 s across six synthetic readings in each condition. There are two independent builds per length.

Short Answer Model Answers

Q1: In this synthetic dataset, combined mean descent time rises from 1.3 s at 3 cm to 1.7 s at 5 cm and 2.1 s at 7 cm. Restrict the pattern to these stated conditions and identify the small number of independent builds.

Q2: Three readings come from each of two models. Drops share construction features within a model, so the independent-build count is two. Repeated readings inform within-model variation.

Q3: Use more independently constructed models at each length to assess construction variation, or test additional paper types with comparable lengths and release conditions. Identify the specific limitation and keep other relevant conditions controlled.