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.