Society Shapes Research: a skill companion
A small set of reusable sheets that grow one idea about science: there are always more questions than money and people to answer them, and the values and needs of society steer which questions are studied first, while evidence still decides the answers. Print the scaffolds once and slot them into the science lessons you already teach.
What a skill companion is
Ideas about how science works are not a topic of their own. They grow inside the science units a class teaches all year, from Body Systems to Chemical Equations. So this pack is not a full term of lessons. It is three reusable scaffolds, a map of where they fit, and a short stand-alone lesson for teaching the idea on its own first.
Start here: five minutes
- Read the pairing map on the next page: it shows a need that brought research into focus in each topic.
- Print the research agenda map whenever a topic touches a real-world need, and the drought case study as practice.
- Cut out the cards once. They are reused all year.
- Open the free interactive unit on your board when you want a worked example of the idea.
- Run the one-page mini-lesson first if you want to teach the idea before folding it into a topic.
The step up from Year 8
In Year 8 students saw how people, tools and evidence change scientific knowledge. In Year 9 they step further back, to the choice of what to study at all. They trace how a need or a value moves money and people toward some questions, what waits as a result, and why the answers are still settled by evidence: society sets the agenda, not the findings.
A need behind the research in every Year 9 topic
Every topic has research that was funded because people needed or valued something. Naming that need shows students why some questions get studied first, and why others wait.
| When you teach | A need or value of society | The research it brought into focus |
|---|---|---|
| Body Systems and Negative Feedback (AC9S9U01) | More people living with type 2 diabetes | Research on how the body controls the sugar in the blood, and what disturbs that control |
| Reproduction in Animals and Plants (AC9S9U02) | Saving threatened species, such as the northern corroboree frog | Research on breeding them in captivity and returning young frogs to the wild |
| The Carbon Cycle (AC9S9U03) | Concern about a changing climate | Research on how much carbon soils, forests and oceans take up and give out |
| Wave and Particle Models of Energy (AC9S9U04) | The need for faster communication | Research on sending light through glass fibres, which now carry most internet traffic |
| Conservation of Energy and Efficiency (AC9S9U05) | High power bills and cleaner energy | Research on more efficient solar cells, including a widely used design first made at the University of New South Wales |
| The Atom and Radioactive Decay (AC9S9U06) | The need for medical scans | Research on making radioactive isotopes for scans, at Australia’s research reactor at Lucas Heights |
| Chemical Equations and Conservation of Mass (AC9S9U07) | Less waste going to landfill | Research on breaking plastics and old batteries back into materials that can be used again |
The three moves, and the picture that backs each one
When you want a worked example on the board, open the interactive unit and use the picture that matches the move.
- Funding one need means another waits: “One grant, several pressing needs”.
- Society sets the agenda, evidence sets the answer: “What really drives the focus of research?”.
- The focus moves when needs change: “How an emerging need shifts the research focus”.
Who chose this question, and why?
Before any result exists, someone chose which question to study and paid for it. Map how a need or a value of society steered the focus of research in your topic, and keep the agenda apart from the answer.
The research in my topic
The map
| The need or value what people need, or care about | |
| Who feels it, and who pays communities, governments, charities, industries | |
| Questions it brings into focus what researchers are now funded to ask | |
| Questions that wait what gets less money or attention as a result | |
| What will decide the answers the measurements or tests, not the hopes |
Agenda or answer?
Write one sentence about what society decided in this case, and one about what the evidence decided.
Teacher note: students often say that funding makes a result come out a certain way. Steer them back: money chooses the question, and the test answers it. A funded study can still find that an idea does not work.
A long drought and the focus of water research
From the late 1990s to 2009, south-eastern Australia went through the Millennium Drought. Water, a need people had taken for granted, became the focus of research and spending. For each moment, write whether it shows the need, the research agenda, or the evidence.
| When | What happened | Need, agenda or evidence? |
|---|---|---|
| 1997–2009 | Much of south-eastern Australia has its longest dry spell on record; dams fall and towns face water restrictions. | |
| 2000s | Governments and research agencies put new money into water science: storage, recycling, efficient use and desalination. | |
| 2006–12 | Desalination plants open in Perth, on the Gold Coast, and in Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne. | |
| Ongoing | Measurements show that turning seawater into drinking water uses more energy than recycling the same amount of used water. | |
| 2010s | Heavy rains refill many dams, and some of the new plants run at low output for years. | |
| Ongoing | Studies of river flows show which wetlands and fish recover when more water is left in the rivers. |
B. What waited?
Money spent on water research could not be spent on something else. Suggest one kind of research that may have waited, and why.
C. Was it worth it?
When the rains returned, some desalination plants ran at low output for years. Give one reason a city might still value having one.
Agenda, answer, or a trade-off?
Cut out the cards. Lay down the three grey heading cards, then sort the statements under them. On the blank cards, write one from your own topic for each heading.
Teacher note: the piles are not the same size. The answer sheet lists which card is which, and why.
Fund it: two grants, four good ideas
Use this stand-alone lesson to teach the idea on its own, before you fold it into a science topic. Each group is a research fund with enough money for two of four proposals, each tied to a real need in Australia. Choosing makes the trade-off concrete, and the follow-up shows that the money chose the questions, while the evidence will still decide the answers.
We are learning to
- explain how the values and needs of society steer which questions are researched,
- name what waits when limited funding goes to one need,
- keep the research agenda apart from the answers the evidence gives.
Success criteria
- I can justify my group’s choice with the needs and values behind it.
- I can say what our choice left waiting, and what will decide whether the funded research works.
You need
- the four proposals written on the board (below), and the research agenda map (scaffold 1), one per student,
- the cards from scaffold 3, one set per table.
- Heat-tolerant wheat: Farmers face hotter summers; a crop that copes could steady food supply.
- A bushfire early-warning network: Sensors in the bush could warn towns of fires sooner.
- A frog breeding program: A threatened frog species could be bred and returned to the wild.
- Cheaper water recycling: Towns could reuse more of their water in the next drought.
Lesson flow (about 30 minutes)
| 5 min | Four proposals Read the four proposals. Show the board (see the box). Ask: “All four are good science. Why can’t the fund pay for all of them?” |
| 10 min | Choose two Groups choose two proposals, write the need or value behind each choice, and name who waits for the other two. Ask: “Would a farming town choose differently from a city? Why?” |
| 10 min | Agenda, not answer Groups fill the research agenda map for one funded proposal. Tables sort the cards. Ask: “Our money paid for the wheat research. Does that mean the new wheat will work?” |
| 5 min | Compare funds Groups share their choices. The class looks for the values that led different groups to different choices. |
Running it shorter? Choose and justify in this lesson, and fill the agenda map in your next science lesson.
Watch for these ideas
- Thinking the unfunded proposals must be bad science.
- Thinking that funding a study decides how it turns out.
- Thinking the focus of research never changes.
Make it easier, make it bigger
- Easier: give each group one value to argue from, such as food, safety, nature or water.
- Bigger: a drought begins next year. Which choice would the fund change, and what would wait instead?
Answers and look-fors
The next sheet has the worked drought case study, the card key, a model agenda map, and a quick three-level guide. Any choice is right if it is justified by needs and values and names what waits.
Answers and look-fors
Case study: drought and water research
| When | Shows | The moment |
|---|---|---|
| 1997–2009 | the need | Much of south-eastern Australia has its longest dry spell on record; dams fall and towns face water restrictions. |
| 2000s | the research agenda | Governments and research agencies put new money into water science: storage, recycling, efficient use and desalination. |
| 2006–12 | the research agenda | Desalination plants open in Perth, on the Gold Coast, and in Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne. |
| Ongoing | the evidence | Measurements show that turning seawater into drinking water uses more energy than recycling the same amount of used water. |
| 2010s | the need | Heavy rains refill many dams, and some of the new plants run at low output for years. |
| Ongoing | the evidence | Studies of river flows show which wetlands and fish recover when more water is left in the rivers. |
B. Any fair answer that names research with a less urgent need, and says that the money and the researchers went to water instead. C. For example: the plant is insurance against the next drought, it supplies water that does not depend on rain, or it can be turned up when dams fall again.
Agenda cards
| Card | Statement | Pile | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Tests show a new fuel burns no cleaner than the old one, however much people hoped it would. | Evidence decides the answer | Hope did not change the measurement. |
| B | During the Millennium Drought, governments funded research into recycling and desalinating water. | Society steers the agenda | A shared need moved money to water questions. |
| C | Funding the drought research left a program on soil health waiting a year. | A trade-off | One question went ahead, another waited. |
| D | Measurements show desalinating seawater uses more energy than recycling the same amount of used water. | Evidence decides the answer | Measurement, not preference, settles the comparison. |
| E | Public concern about clean air led to funding for lower-emission engines. | Society steers the agenda | A value steered which questions were funded. |
| F | A new disease outbreak draws charities’ money to research on it. | Society steers the agenda | An urgent need set the focus. |
| G | A grant can pay for one large telescope or three small field projects, not both. | A trade-off | Limited money forces a choice. |
| H | Repeated surveys show a river’s fish recover when more water is left in it. | Evidence decides the answer | The finding comes from the surveys. |
| I | Farmers facing hotter summers fund research on heat-tolerant wheat. | Society steers the agenda | A need chose the question. |
| J | Choosing to study a common illness means a rare disease gets less attention this year. | A trade-off | Backing one need delays another. |
| K | A town hit by repeated floods pays for research on where floodwater will flow. | Society steers the agenda | A local need set the focus. |
| L | A trial finds that a heat-tolerant wheat yields less than the old kind in cool years. | Evidence decides the answer | The trial, not the hope behind it, gave the answer. |
Research agenda map: a model for water research
| The need or value | Secure drinking water through a long drought. |
| Who feels it, and who pays | City and town households, farms and industry; state governments and water authorities pay. |
| Questions it brings into focus | How to recycle used water safely, how to desalinate seawater, how to use less water at home. |
| Questions that wait | Research with a less urgent need, such as some soil, coastal or biodiversity studies, gets less money for a while. |
| What will decide the answers | Measurements of water quality, energy use and cost, not how much people hope a method will work. |
A quick three-level guide
| Move | Working towards | At standard | Beyond |
|---|---|---|---|
| Needs steer the focus | thinks scientists study whatever they like | explains how a need or value moved money and people toward some questions | explains why different communities might choose different priorities |
| Trade-offs | thinks the unfunded research is bad science | names what waits when funding goes to one need | weighs a trade-off from more than one group’s point of view |
| Agenda, not answer | thinks funding decides how a study turns out | keeps the choice of question apart from the evidence that answers it | gives an example of funded research that found an idea did not work |