INTEGRATED SCIENCE 9Unit 01 · Inquiry & Evidence
Grade 9Unit 01

Unit 01 · Independent Performance Task

Design a Paper Absorbency Investigation

Transfer the inquiry skills developed in Unit 01 to a new phenomenon. Design—without conducting—a reproducible and safe investigation of how paper type affects the mass of water absorbed by a fixed-size sheet.

Independent TransferDesign Before DataRubric ScoredTier 1 PlanningPortfolio Evidence
Assessment integrity: complete the first submitted design independently under the assigned conditions. Do not use Mentor, PROSE, external answer generators, hidden keys, or another person's completed design to generate the response when this task is being used as independent mastery evidence. Feedback tools may be used afterward when explicitly permitted for revision.
Planning task only

Do not conduct the investigation from this page. A future implementation would require a stable work surface, ordinary clean water, safe paper materials, immediate spill control, dry hands around electronics, and a balance protected from water. Do not taste materials, use unknown liquids, heat materials, use mains electricity as part of the experiment, or improvise unsafe procedures.

A. Design brief

Required phenomenon: different paper types may absorb different masses of water under comparable conditions.

Required outcome: operationalize water absorbed as a mass difference in grams:

water absorbed (g) = wet mass (g) − dry mass (g)

Your task is not to guess which paper “wins.” Your task is to design a comparison capable of producing interpretable evidence.

B. Required design components

C. Student design response

D. Fair-comparison defense

Before submission, answer these challenges in your design:

  1. If one paper sheet is larger, could that change absorbed mass independently of paper type?
  2. If one sheet remains in water longer, what happens to interpretability?
  3. If wet sheets drain for different lengths of time before weighing, what bias could result?
  4. If paper types begin with different dry masses, why is wet mass alone an inadequate absorbency measure?
  5. If the balance reads only to the nearest gram, could small paper differences be resolved?
  6. If the same water becomes depleted/contaminated or condition order changes the procedure, how might later trials differ?
Most serious threat

Name the design feature most likely to create an unfair comparison and state exactly how your procedure controls or measures it.

E. Raw-data structure audit

Paper typeTrialDry mass (g)Wet mass (g)Water absorbed (g)Notes / deviation
Example structure only1
2
3
4
5
Planning only: do not invent or pre-fill numerical results. A design task is evidence about planning competence, not a request to fabricate data.

F. Analysis-plan defense

Because paper type is categorical and water absorbed is numerical, a bar chart of a clearly identified summary (for example, mean water absorbed) can be appropriate for comparing paper categories. Raw trial values should remain available so the summary does not hide variation.

Graph defense

What will each axis show? What summary will be graphed? How will you communicate variation? Why does this display match the variable types?

G. Evidence-before-conclusion rule

Before any future data exist, define how you will interpret them. Avoid rules such as “whichever has the highest single trial is most absorbent.” Consider repeated values, central tendency, variation, measurement resolution, and whether differences are large enough to distinguish under the procedure.

Decision framework

Write one possible future pattern that would support your prediction, one that would weaken it, and one that would leave the paper types difficult to distinguish.

H. Submission rubric — 40 points

CriterionPointsFull-credit evidence
Question, prediction, variables8Focused question; measurable outcome; variables/levels; prediction separated from evidence
Operationalization & measurement8Mass-difference definition; units; instrument/resolution; consistent measurement rules
Fair, reproducible method8Controls, ≥5 trials/type, reproducible sequence, condition-order consideration
Data & analysis plan8Raw-data structure, calculation, variation, graph/axes/units, anomaly rule, decision framework
Safety, limitations & improvements8Specific safeguards/stop rules plus meaningful limitations/confounders and matched improvements

Performance mastery benchmark: 32/40 (80%) when this rubric is used as a mastery component. Course progression still follows the complete Unit 01 mastery rules rather than this score alone.

I. Post-submission Mentor revision

After the independent version has been recorded—and only when revision is permitted—bring the design and rubric feedback to the Science Mentor. The revision conference should focus on scientific reasoning rather than supplying a model answer.

  • Which control is weakest?
  • Can the measurement resolution distinguish the expected differences?
  • Could the drainage rule create systematic bias?
  • What would make another investigator interpret the procedure differently?
  • Which limitation has a matching improvement rather than a generic “be more careful” response?

Keep the original independent submission and revised version distinguishable in the portfolio so provenance remains clear.

J. Submission integrity check

Before submitting, verify that the design contains no fabricated observations, no hidden answer-key content, and no claim that results exist when the investigation has not been conducted. Check every required component above.

Submission ≠ automatic mastery: recording the design submission documents performance evidence. Mastery status depends on the rubric and the complete Unit 01 ≥80% gate.
Return to Unit 01