Matter Motion Patterns

Overview

Students build on previous lessons by modelling how particles behave in solids, liquids and gases, then using inquiry to investigate patterns in observable properties. They will pose investigable questions, plan a repeatable fair test, and collect evidence to explain relationships between particle motion and what we can observe.

Learning intentions

• Students will pose investigable questions about matter by linking observations to particle motion and arrangement.
• Students will plan and conduct a repeatable fair investigation using clear variables, measurements and controls.
• Students will use tables/visual representations to organise results and describe patterns.
• Students will compare findings with others, identify possible errors, and draw a reasoned conclusion.

Success criteria

• I can ask a question that can be tested in a science investigation.
• I can plan a fair test by naming the independent, dependent and controlled variables.
• I can collect repeatable data and record it clearly.
• I can explain what my evidence suggests about how particles behave in solids, liquids and gases.

Curriculum links

• AC9S5I01 — posing investigable questions, making reasoned predictions and testing relationships.
• AC9S5I02 — planning and conducting repeatable investigations with fair-test variables, safe procedures and appropriate permissions.
• AC9S5I04 — using tables/graphs/visual models to organise data and describe patterns.
• AC9S5I05 — comparing methods and findings, recognising possible sources of error, and drawing reasoned conclusions.
• AC9S5U04 — explaining observable properties of solids, liquids and gases by modelling particle motion and arrangement.

Lesson structure ({total minutes})

1. 0–10 min · Hook: “What makes it move?” Teacher demonstrates: compressing air in a syringe (or balloon) to move a light object (e.g., ping-pong ball on a small ramp) and briefly contrasts with a solid object pushed by the same student. Students do a quick think-pair-share: what changed, what stayed the same, and what “particles” might be doing.

2. 10–20 min · Whole-class investigation questions Teacher prompts: “Which state might show the biggest change when you push, squeeze or mix?” Students generate 2–3 investigable questions in groups (must be testable and linked to observations), e.g.,

• “How does the amount of air compression affect how far an object travels?”
• “How does water temperature affect how quickly an object dissolves?” Students choose one question for their group’s investigation.

3. 20–35 min · Planning for a fair, repeatable test Teacher models using a planning template on the board: prediction, variables, method steps, risk/safety, and how to repeat trials. Students complete their plan in science journals, including:

• independent variable (what they change)
• dependent variable (what they measure)
• controlled variables (what they keep the same)
• repeat trials (at least 3) If using liquids: measure consistent volumes, same stirring/soak time limits, same container size. If using gases: keep ramp angle/launcher setup consistent, same initial object, same distance measurement method.

4. 35–60 min · Conduct investigations (repeat trials) Teacher circulates, checking fair-test elements and data quality. Students run their method, repeating trials and recording results in a prepared table. They also note observations that support their model of particle motion (e.g., gases spreading, liquids flowing, solids staying fixed) without turning this into guessing—observations first, explanation later.

5. 60–70 min · Build evidence representations Teacher gives a quick reminder: evidence is the measured data; explanations link to particle models. Students graph or chart their results (simple column graph for distance/time, or rate proxy like “time to dissolve”), then write one sentence describing the pattern they see.

6. 70–80 min · Share, compare, and conclude In groups, students compare with a different group that investigated the same question (or close variant) and discuss:

• Was it a fair test?
• What might explain differences? (measurement, setup, reading times, inconsistent compression) Teacher leads a class conclusion using reasoned statements: “Our evidence suggests… because particle motion/arrangement would…”.

Resources

• Syringes or hand pumps, balloons (optional), light objects (e.g., cotton balls or ping-pong balls) and ramps/stands
• Measurement tools: metre rulers, tape measures, timers/stopwatches
• For liquid option: clear cups/beakers, warm and cool water, measured measuring jugs, stirring sticks, safe dissolving material (e.g., sugar or salt), paper towels
• Safety equipment: goggles where needed, wipe cloths, rubbish bins
• Science journal/planning sheet template with variables and trial table
• Graph paper or classroom data templates (print or digital)
• Timer for transitions and group rotation as needed

Assessment

• Teacher observation checklist during planning: students naming variables and controlled factors.
• Formative feedback on data recording: measurements recorded consistently, enough trials for pattern.
• Quick exit ticket (2 minutes): “My investigation found that ___ changed ___, and this supports the idea that particles in ___ state behave by ___.”

Differentiation

• Support: sentence starters (“My question is…”, “I predict… because…”, “I measured…”, “A controlled variable was…”). Provide a partially completed variables table for students who need it.
• Support: pre-teach measurement language (distance, time, volume) and model how to record units.
• Extension for early finishers: require an additional trial, or add a second representation (table + simple graph) and compare trial-to-trial consistency.
• EAL/SEN: allow oral rehearsal of the plan before writing; provide visual cues (variable icons) and simplified method steps with numbering.

Extension (optional)

• Advanced learners choose one additional factor to test (e.g., different initial compression levels or different temperatures) and add a second mini-investigation plan. They must state why their new test still uses controlled variables and predict the expected pattern before collecting data.