All lessons › Living With Natural Hazards › Lesson 2
Australian primary science · Years 3–6 · differentiated · Lesson 2 of 2
Living With Natural Hazards · Years 5–6
Inquiry question: How can people use science to reduce risks from fire, floods or erosion?
Marked no materials needed
Analysing secondary data
What students learn
Use connected systems and scientific evidence to compare possible responses to a real-world question.
Success criteria
- I can distinguish observations, simulated evidence and future assumptions.
- I can compare two solutions using evidence, trade-offs and uncertainty.
- I can design a repeatable check and revise a recommendation.
Preparation and materials
Before this lesson: Students have met the linked core science idea; model data-reading first if needed.
See the interactive lesson for preparation and material requirements.
Teacher setup
- Open the supplied simulated data; choose the year-band task.
- Plan two 30-minute sessions, or one 60-minute lesson. Optional local investigations require additional equipment and a school safety check.
Safety and adaptations
- Use supplied data indoors. Outdoor work requires teacher supervision and school approval. Never enter floodwater, light fires, touch hot surfaces or disturb wildlife.
Review your school policies and curriculum requirements before teaching.
How to investigate
The lesson sequence should leave pupils with evidence to interpret, not only an activity to finish.
- Notice: How can people use science to reduce risks from fire, floods or erosion?
- Understand: read the science and compare the simulated data. Identify what a fair repeat test would control. Compare vegetation, drainage and avoiding development in exposed locations, including access, cost and downstream effects. Explain why a small slope model cannot predict flood or fire risk.
- Imagine: describe two possible futures, one with a change and one without. Say what you are assuming.
- Design: compare two solutions, including who benefits, resources needed and a disadvantage.
- Test: Evaluate the supplied erosion model and plan repetitions. No fire, floodwater or hazardous sites. For a local example, use published information selected by the teacher.
- Reflect: explain your recommendation, what is uncertain, and how your thinking changed.
Teacher modelling prompt
Think aloud: “The example table suggests a pattern. It is simulated, so it is not evidence about our school. I need further observations before making a local claim.” Model one comparison from the table.
Record and explain evidence
Recording question: How can people use science to reduce risks from fire, floods or erosion?
| Option / trial | Evidence or measurement | Benefit and limitation |
|---|---|---|
| ________________ | ________________ | ________________ |
Example recording headings; record actual observations, including inconclusive results.
Discussion prompt
Compare these claims and justify your answer.
Provided example or reference data
SIMULATED DATA — invented for practising reasoning; not measured at a real school
| Simulated slope model | Loose soil carried away (g) | Water added (mL) |
|---|---|---|
| Bare soil | 18 | 100 |
| Plant-covered soil | 6 | 100 |
| Covered soil with channel | 10 | 100 |
Check the data source in the teacher lesson. Illustrative or fictional data are not measurements collected by your class.
Check understanding
What should pupils know? Explain one science connection behind your proposal.
Explain with evidence: Which evidence influenced you, and what is one limitation?
Apply the idea: What would you investigate before a real decision?
Teacher answer guidance and saved classroom work are available through the main lesson experience where supported.