Grade 10 · lesson 3 of 4

Design a fair paper-model comparison

Design a fair paper-model comparison

About 18 minutes, plus any extended practice

Download the grade pack

Supplied materials

  • Paper or a text document; all cases below are original fictional learning inputs.
  • An adult may read aloud; drawing or spoken answers are valid. No personal health information or physical performance is required.
  • The question asks whether changing the paper arrow direction improves target alignment. Keep target location, target size and scoring rule unchanged, then change direction. If target size also grows, higher matching counts could result from either change. The design should identify that confound before interpreting a result. Any predicted count remains fictional; it is not a measurement from a real learner.
  • The question is direction; target, size and rule remain fixed while direction changes. What fits?
  • Direction and target size change together, followed by more matches. What fits?
  • A planned table is filled with imagined future counts. What fits?
  • Two match counts are shown with no definition of a match. What fits?
  • A claimed direction effect also includes a wider target. What fits?
  • The revised diagrams vary only direction under one target rule. What fits?

Learn the idea

A useful comparison changes the feature being investigated while keeping relevant conditions the same. If direction and target size both change, an improvement cannot be attributed to direction alone. A larger sample can describe variation better but does not repair a confounded design.

State the question, variable to change, conditions to hold and recorded criterion. Use the same target and scoring rule for both sets. Random ordering can reduce a simple order effect in the fictional design, but does not establish real transfer or clinical outcomes.

No physical trial is required. Compare supplied paper diagrams or create predicted records. Label predictions as predictions. A plan for a study is not a completed study, and invented data must not be described as measured learner performance.

  1. Mark the facts or constraints in the supplied case.
  2. Apply the method explained above; draw a sequence, table or decision map.
  3. Compare your result with the worked solution and explain the difference.
  4. Complete the new cases, then check the changed-case extension.
Worked example

See the method in action

The question asks whether changing the paper arrow direction improves target alignment. Keep target location, target size and scoring rule unchanged, then change direction. If target size also grows, higher matching counts could result from either change. The design should identify that confound before interpreting a result. Any predicted count remains fictional; it is not a measurement from a real learner.

Your turn

Check your reasoning

Your answer is temporary and is not saved to an account. Download your current answer before leaving or reloading. Written work on paper or in another app stays in your own file.

Helpful tips
  • Two simultaneous changes prevent attribution to one alone.
  • An imagined dataset is not a measurement or demonstrated outcome.
Design a fair paper-model comparison: The question is direction; target, size and rule remain fixed while direction changes. What fits?

Feedback appears here after you check. This is practice, not a graded school assessment.

See the answer and explanation

Change only the stated direction variable while keeping target and scoring fixed.

The design isolates the intended model variable better.

Take it further

Write a direction-only paper comparison with target at(4,2), fixed size and one match rule. Expected: only direction changes, predicted outcomes clearly labeled, no real motor-effect claim.

Nothing here is saved to an account or sent to a teacher. The answer download includes your current choice and any checked feedback. It does not include choices from the separate More practice section. Download that section separately.

More practice: try new cases

Choose an answer for each problem. Explain your method on paper, then use the feedback to decide what to revisit.

More practice: try new cases
1. Design a fair paper-model comparison: Direction and target size change together, followed by more matches. What fits?
Need a hint?
  • Two simultaneous changes prevent attribution to one alone.
  • An imagined dataset is not a measurement or demonstrated outcome.
2. Design a fair paper-model comparison: A planned table is filled with imagined future counts. What fits?
Need a hint?
  • Two simultaneous changes prevent attribution to one alone.
  • An imagined dataset is not a measurement or demonstrated outcome.
3. Design a fair paper-model comparison: Two match counts are shown with no definition of a match. What fits?
Need a hint?
  • Two simultaneous changes prevent attribution to one alone.
  • An imagined dataset is not a measurement or demonstrated outcome.

Your choices are temporary. Feedback appears after you check all the answers.

Nothing here is saved to an account or sent to a teacher. Keep your own notes or download them before leaving. The score describes these questions; it does not certify subject mastery.

Check the subject sources

These LifeStarter passages, scenarios and exercises are authored for this Academy with AI assistance and review. External resources keep their publishers’ terms. A grade label suggests a starting level; it does not establish alignment with your school’s complete requirements.