Wanted outcome: a safer repeatable proposal with changed/measured/kept features. Prepare: O3 and a blank plan.
0–3: Ask what differs in O3. 3–9 model: circle starting height, pot size, water and position. Model comparing height increase, not only final height, and trying to change one condition while recording relevant uncontrolled conditions. 9–21: choose a route. 21–27: peer/teacher asks “Could I repeat this? What permission or risk remains?” Revise a rule, not an outcome. 27–30 exit: name changed, measured and one controlled feature. If vague, sort those headings with actual O3 features.
- Route 4A · Repair the plan. Write a paper-only comparison of two assigned light conditions using the same species, initial stage, containers, water schedule and check times. Measure each labelled height and alive count over a stated period; record temperature/moisture as possible additional influences. Explain why shade can also change temperature, so a better light comparison needs further design review.
- Route 4B · Repeatable record schedule. Choose Day 0, Day 3 and Day 6 with the same daily time, six labelled plants per group and a consistent height reference. Draw individual record rows and an alive-at-check column. Add
not observedin every empty outcome. Explain what repeated observations add and what they do not guarantee. - Route 4C · Permission and risk desk. A fictional proposal asks pupils to take unknown plants from a park, add salt and publish photos. Reject collection/alteration/public child images for this task. Replace it with supplied records or an educator-approved non-invasive school observation plan. State who must review plant identity/access/local permissions and why a paper plan is not permission or a completed test.