Exercises: Science in Society Investigation skills

Read each statement about the Science in Society Investigation (SSI) in Junior Cycle Science. Write TRUE or FALSE. If a statement is false, correct it using what the specification says.

1. The SSI is carried out over a three-week period.

2. In the SSI you design your own experiment and generate your own primary data.

3. The SSI is completed at the end of second year.

4. The SSI report must always be a hand-written report.

5. You carry out the SSI with support and guidance from your teacher.

6. The Assessment Task is marked by your class teacher.

1. b) In one sentence, name the four main things a student does during the SSI.

1. c) Name three formats in which an SSI could be presented.

1. d) The specification does not give the exact length of the SSI report. Where should you look for that kind of detail?

A socio-scientific issue is a topic that involves science but also people's values, choices or disagreements.

1. a) Classify each question as S (socio-scientific issue), P (purely scientific question) or N (not suitable for a science investigation). Give a short reason for each.

1. What is the boiling point of water at sea level?

2. Should Ireland build more offshore wind farms along its coast?

3. Should a new data centre be allowed near a town if it uses a lot of electricity?

4. How many protons are in a carbon atom?

5. Should the tax on sugary soft drinks be increased?

6. Which colour of school jumper looks nicest?

1. b) The topic "Plastic" is too broad for a three-week investigation. Use this checklist to write one focused research question about plastic:

• It involves science.

• People could disagree about the answer or about what to do.

• You could research it using information that already exists (secondary sources) in about three weeks.

Write your question and tick off each point of the checklist with a short explanation.

(The survey data in this task are invented for practice.)

A student is researching turf cutting on raised bogs in the Midlands. She collects these statements:

1. The bog in the photograph covers 450 hectares.

2. Rewetting bogs will cut Ireland's emissions by half.

3. I think turf smells lovely, so people should be allowed to keep cutting it.

4. A survey of 300 households in one parish found that 186 of them burn turf.

5. Turf is the best fuel for a cold Irish winter.

1. a) Label each statement E (evidence that could be checked by measuring or counting), C (a claim that needs evidence) or O (an opinion or value judgement). Give a reason for each.

1. b) For statement 4, calculate the percentage of households that burn turf.

1. c) Classify each source of information as primary or secondary data:

• (i) You measure the pH of three local streams.

• (ii) You download a table of river nitrate levels from a public website.

• (iii) You read a newspaper article about turf cutting.

• (iv) You survey 20 classmates about their heating at home.

• (v) You watch an online video that explains a graph.

1. d) The specification says that in the SSI you "analyse the information/secondary data collected". Why is secondary data suitable for a socio-scientific issue that you cannot test in the school lab?

(The sources below are invented for practice.)

A student is investigating the question: "Should Ireland build more offshore wind farms?" She finds four sources:

Source	Type and date	Who wrote it	What it says	Evidence given
A	Press release, 2024	Blue Horizon Energy (a company that wants to build wind farms)	"Offshore wind will power 1 million homes with no risk to wildlife."	None
B	Leaflet, 2023	Irish Seabird Watch (a nature charity)	"Wind farms are killing our seabirds."	One study of 3 turbines in another country
C	Summary of a research paper, 2022	A marine research group at a university	Survey of 14 offshore sites in northern Europe: on average 0.8 birds collided per turbine per year. Careful choice of site reduced the risk.	Method, sample size and data are shown
D	Social media video, 2024	An influencer	"Wind turbines cause cancer."	None, no sources named

1. a) Copy and complete this table. Rate the reliability of each source as High, Medium or Low and give a reason that refers to the author, the evidence or possible bias.

Source	Reliability (High/Medium/Low)	Reason
A
B
C
D

1. b) Which two sources would you use first? Justify your choice.

1. c) Source A is biased. Explain why it might still be useful in your investigation.

1. d) Explain why it is better to use several sources, not just one.

(The data are invented for practice.)

A student is investigating nitrate pollution in rivers. She finds a table of results from a public monitoring programme. The same 200 river sites were tested each year. A site counts as "satisfactory" if its nitrate level is below a set limit.

Year	Sites monitored	Sites with satisfactory nitrate level
2018	200	120
2019	200	124
2020	200	126
2021	200	123
2022	200	128

1. a) Calculate the percentage of satisfactory sites for each year.

1. b) Describe the trend. Include the overall change from 2018 to 2022 in percentage points, and mention any year that does not fit the trend.

1. c) A headline reads: "Irish rivers are now much cleaner than five years ago!" Evaluate this claim. Does the data support it fully, partly or not at all? Give two reasons.

1. d) Rainfall can wash more fertiliser into rivers. Explain how this could affect the results and why it makes the comparison between years less fair.

1. e) Name two limitations of using this table as your only evidence, and say what extra information you would look for.

(The data are invented for practice.)

A student is investigating the question: "Did the plastic bag levy reduce plastic bag use?" She finds this table:

Year	Plastic bags used per person per year
2001 (before the levy)	320
2003	21
2008	18
2014	14

She writes this conclusion:

"The levy worked because bag use dropped. Everybody agrees plastic is bad. So the government should put a levy on everything."

Use this practice rubric (it is not the official features of quality; your teacher will give you those).

• Claim: 0 = no claim. 1 = vague claim. 2 = clear claim that answers the question.

• Evidence: 0 = no data used. 1 = data mentioned but no numbers, or wrong numbers. 2 = accurate numbers from the table.

• Reasoning: 0 = none. 1 = some link between evidence and claim. 2 = clear explanation of how the evidence supports the claim.

• Limitations: 0 = none. 1 = a vague comment. 2 = a specific limitation of the data or the conclusion.

1. a) Score the student's conclusion on each criterion (0 to 2). Justify each score with a quote or a comment.

1. b) Calculate the fall in bags per person between 2001 and 2003, as a number and as a percentage of the 2001 value (one decimal place).

1. c) Rewrite the conclusion in about 60 to 90 words as claim, evidence, reasoning and limitation. Use your numbers from part b).

1. d) Score your own rewritten version using the same rubric.

(The figures are invented for practice but have a realistic size.)

A student is investigating the issue: "Are electric cars better for the climate than petrol cars?" She finds two claims.

• Claim A (online comment): "Electric cars produce zero emissions."

• Claim B (online comment): "Electric cars are no better than petrol cars because making the battery uses so much energy."

She also finds a table of estimated emissions over the whole life of each car, averaged per km, in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per km (g CO₂e/km). The electric car is charged from a grid that mixes wind, gas and other sources.

Vehicle	Making the car (g CO₂e/km)	Driving (g CO₂e/km)
Petrol	40	170
Diesel	42	150
Hybrid	50	110
Electric	70	60

1. a) Calculate the total for each vehicle. By what percentage is the electric car's total lower than the petrol car's (one decimal place)?

1. b) Evaluate Claim A and Claim B using the data. State clearly whether the evidence supports each claim.

1. c) Predict what would happen to the "Driving" figure for the electric car if more of Ireland's electricity came from wind. Explain why.

1. d) Identify two limitations of this table. For each, say how it might change your conclusion.

1. e) Science is not the only thing people consider. Name two social, economic or ethical factors that would also matter in a decision about electric cars (for example, for a family in a rural area).

1. f) Write a balanced conclusion of 80 to 120 words that discusses both claims, uses at least two numbers from the table and states one limitation.

You will plan your own investigation. The specification says the SSI is done over a three-week period, with support and guidance from your teacher. Choose one issue:

• (i) Radon gas testing in Irish homes

• (ii) Data centres and electricity use in Ireland

• (iii) Vaccine uptake and herd immunity

• (iv) Algal blooms in lakes and farming

Write a plan with these parts:

1. a) A focused research question. It must involve science and allow different views.

1. b) Three sub-questions that help answer your main question.

1. c) Four sources of different types (for example a government statistics page, a research summary, a charity website, a news article). For each, say what you hope to learn from it and one possible weakness.

1. d) A three-week timetable. Copy and complete it (add as many bullet points as you need):

Week	What I will do
1
2
3

1. e) A presentation format chosen from the formats named in the specification (for example a report, model, multimodal presentation, podcast or webpage). Justify your choice in two sentences.

1. f) Two points of safe and responsible research (this is good practice, so check your school's rules). For example, think about online safety, privacy, and acknowledging where your information came from.

1. g) Two moments when you will ask your teacher for guidance.

1. h) Score your own plan with this practice rubric (1 = not yet, 2 = partly, 3 = fully):

• Question: focused, scientific, open to different views.

• Sources: varied, relevant, with weaknesses noticed.

• Timetable: realistic for three weeks and includes time to analyse and conclude.

• Format: suited to the question and justified.

• Safety and responsibility: specific, not general.

Give one sentence of justification for each score and one improvement you would make.

Below is part of a sample SSI report written by a Third Year student. The text is invented for practice.

Question: Are data centres bad for Ireland?

Findings: Source A (a news website, 2023) said data centres use 21% of Irish electricity. Source B (a national energy statistics report, 2023) said 18%. I used Source A because it was longer.

Evaluation: Data centres give jobs, which is good. Some people don't like them. Sources can be wrong.

Conclusion: In conclusion data centres are bad because they use a lot of electricity. Everybody should stop using the internet.

Use this practice rubric (it is not the official features of quality; ask your teacher for those).

• Focused question: 1 = too broad or not scientific. 2 = partly focused. 3 = focused and scientific.

• Use of sources: 1 = sources chosen for poor reasons. 2 = some reasons given. 3 = sources chosen and compared using author, evidence and purpose.

• Analysis of information: 1 = information only copied. 2 = some comparison or calculation. 3 = clear comparison and interpretation of the data.

• Evaluation of claims and limitations: 1 = vague comments. 2 = some specific points. 3 = clear judgement of how far the evidence supports each claim, with limitations.

• Evidence-based conclusion: 1 = not supported by evidence. 2 = partly supported. 3 = clearly supported and balanced.

• Communication: 1 = hard to follow. 2 = mostly clear. 3 = clear, organised, sources named.

1. a) Give a score (1 to 3) for each criterion. Support each score with a quote from the report.

1. b) Choose the two weakest criteria. Rewrite those parts of the report (about 50 words each) so they would score 3.

1. c) Write two "next steps" you would suggest to this student, as advice from a classmate.

1. d) Now apply the same rubric to a piece of your own work (a plan, a paragraph or a draft). Write your scores and one target for improvement.