Integrate data, a simulation and multimedia to address a question, evaluate a study's hypotheses, data, analysis and conclusions by verifying the data, synthesize sources while resolving conflicting information, and read grades 11-12 science texts independently

Learning goal: Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media (quantitative data, video, multimedia) in order to address a question; evaluate the hypotheses, data, analysis and conclusions in a science text, verifying the data when possible and corroborating or challenging conclusions with other sources of information; synthesize information from a range of sources (texts, experiments, simulations) into a coherent understanding of a process, resolving conflicting information when possible; and read, comprehend and respond to science texts of grades 11-12 complexity independently and proficiently.

The question. A riparian buffer is a strip of trees, shrubs or grasses between a field and a stream. Buffers are widely used to reduce the nitrate reaching streams, and the processes involved, plant uptake and denitrification in waterlogged soil, are real (see the nitrogen-cycle lesson). Many Ohio fields also have tile drainage: buried perforated pipes that carry excess soil water directly to a ditch or stream. Our question: How much does a buffer reduce the nitrate reaching a stream from tile-drained fields? The study, stream, model and broadcast below are invented; the figures belong to the fiction.

Source M — Report of a field study at Pell Creek, a fictional Ohio stream (invented). Hypothesis: water flowing through the 25-meter buffer loses most of its nitrate to plant uptake and denitrification. Method: on six dates in spring, samples were drawn from a shallow well at the field edge and a shallow well at the stream edge of the buffer. Data (nitrate-nitrogen, mg/L; field edge, then stream edge): 12.4 and 3.1; 14.1 and 4.0; 10.8 and 2.2; 9.6 and 1.9; 13.0 and 5.2; 11.7 and 3.4. Analysis: "Mean nitrate-N fell from 13.2 mg/L at the field edge to 3.3 mg/L at the stream edge, a 75 percent reduction." Conclusion: "The buffer removes three-quarters of the nitrate leaving the field."

Source N — County stream monitoring, same spring (invented). Mean nitrate-N in Pell Creek was 9.0 mg/L above the buffered reach and 8.6 mg/L below it. Three field tile outlets discharge directly into the creek within the reach.

Source O — A watershed simulation (invented model run). For the fields beside the reach, the model estimates that in spring about 70 percent of the water leaving the fields travels through tile drains and about 30 percent as shallow groundwater through the buffer.

Source P — Local television segment, 90 seconds (invented; described). Over footage of a green buffer strip, a reporter says, "Scientists have found that these strips stop 75 percent of farm pollution." A graphic shows "75%" beside a picture of a creek.

Verifying the data. Evaluation starts by checking whether the numbers support the analysis. Sum of field-edge values: 12.4 + 14.1 + 10.8 + 9.6 + 13.0 + 11.7 = 71.6; mean 71.6 ÷ 6 = 11.93 mg/L, not 13.2. Sum of stream-edge values: 3.1 + 4.0 + 2.2 + 1.9 + 5.2 + 3.4 = 19.8; mean 3.30 mg/L, which matches. The correct reduction is (11.93 − 3.30) ÷ 11.93 = 8.63 ÷ 11.93 ≈ 0.723, a 72.3 percent reduction, not 75 percent. The error does not overturn the hypothesis, since a large reduction is still observed on all six dates (from 60 to 80 percent), but it shows that the report's analysis contains an arithmetic error a reader could catch only by verifying.

Evaluating the hypothesis, analysis and conclusion. The hypothesis concerns water flowing through the buffer, and the well data partly support it: on every date the stream-edge value is lower. They do not test the mechanism the hypothesis names (plant uptake and denitrification), and they cannot rule out dilution by cleaner water or show that the two wells sample the same flowing water; flow-path, tracer or denitrification measurements would be needed for that. But the conclusion says the buffer removes three-quarters of "the nitrate leaving the field." That claim is broader than the data. The wells measure only shallow groundwater that passes through the buffer. Sources N and O describe another path: tile drains carry water under or around the buffer straight into the creek. The conclusion confuses a concentration reduction in one flow path with a reduction in all the nitrate leaving the field. A well-built conclusion states its conditions: "In shallow groundwater passing through the buffer, mean nitrate-N fell by about 72 percent."

Integrating diverse formats. The table gives measurements; the simulation gives an estimate of where the water goes; the monitoring gives the stream's own response; the broadcast gives a public claim. Each must be read in its format. Here the broadcast is given as a written description, so you are analyzing an account of it; with a real clip you would also judge the footage, editing and how narration and graphics work together. A simulation is not an observation: it reports what a model predicts from its assumptions, so it can estimate flow paths but must be tested against measurements. A broadcast compresses: "75 percent of farm pollution" converts a nitrate concentration in one flow path into all pollution, a much wider claim, and repeats the report's miscalculated figure.

Synthesis and resolving conflicts. Put the sources together. If about 30 percent of the water passes through the buffer and loses about 72.3 percent of its nitrate, while about 70 percent bypasses it through tiles, then, assuming similar starting concentrations in both paths, the buffer removes about 0.30 × 72.3 ≈ 21.7 percent of the nitrate leaving these fields. The stream monitoring shows a smaller change, from 9.0 to 8.6 mg/L, a fall of 0.4 ÷ 9.0 ≈ 4.4 percent. Is that a conflict? Partly it can be resolved: the creek above the reach carries water from the whole upstream watershed, so the adjacent fields supply only part of the creek's flow, and a 21.7 percent cut in their contribution would appear as a much smaller change in the creek's concentration. But the observed 4.4 percent also reflects the tile outlets and any other inputs within the reach, so it cannot be attributed to the buffer: the two figures need not agree, and whether they are consistent remains unresolved. Fully resolving it would need flow measurements, because the amount of nitrate carried, the load, equals concentration times flow. Saying what would settle the question is part of a proficient synthesis.

A fully worked synthesis. The coherent understanding is this. The buffer works as the process predicts on the water that passes through it (72.3 percent lower nitrate-N, source M, recomputed). In tile-drained fields most water bypasses it (about 70 percent, source O, a model estimate), so its effect on all nitrate leaving the fields is much smaller, about 22 percent under the stated assumption. The creek's small change (4.4 percent, source N) does not contradict that once the upstream water and the tile outlets are considered, although without flows it cannot confirm it either. The broadcast's claim is not supported by any source.

Reading science texts independently. Scientific articles at the grades 11-CCR level pack claims, data and qualifications into dense sentences. A proficient independent reader separates the hypothesis, method, data, analysis and conclusion; recalculates at least one number; notes every condition ("in shallow groundwater," "in spring"); and responds by stating what the evidence shows, under what conditions, and what is still unknown.

A misconception. Students often assume that a figure repeated across several sources has been corroborated. The broadcast's 75 percent comes from the report's miscalculation; repetition is not independent confirmation.

Worked verification: Field-edge values 12.4, 14.1, 10.8, 9.6, 13.0, 11.7: sum 71.6, mean 11.93 mg/L. Stream-edge 3.1, 4.0, 2.2, 1.9, 5.2, 3.4: sum 19.8, mean 3.30 mg/L. Reduction: (11.93 − 3.30) ÷ 11.93 = 0.723, so 72.3 percent. Date by date: (12.4 − 3.1) ÷ 12.4 = 75.0 percent; 71.6; 79.6; 80.2; 60.0; 70.9 percent. The mean of these six date-by-date reductions is 72.9 percent, a different statistic from the 72.3 percent decrease between the mean concentrations, so state which one you report. The report's 13.2 mg/L mean is wrong, and its 75 percent is inflated by 2.7 percentage points, but every date shows a reduction of at least 60 percent.

Worked evaluation of a conclusion: Conclusion: "The buffer removes three-quarters of the nitrate leaving the field." Test: (1) figure: three-quarters rests on the miscalculated 75 percent; the verified value is 72.3 percent. (2) scope: the data come from wells in shallow groundwater, not from tile water, so "the nitrate leaving the field" is broader than the data. (3) corroborate or challenge: the simulation says about 70 percent of water bypasses the buffer through tiles, and the creek changed only 4.4 percent. Verdict: the hypothesis is supported as to the drop in concentration through the buffer, with its mechanisms untested; the conclusion is overstated.

Worked resolution of conflicting figures: Conflict: buffer removes 72.3 percent (wells) but the creek falls only 4.4 percent (monitoring). Step 1: different measurements, one flow path versus the whole stream. Step 2: combine with the model: 0.30 × 72.3 ≈ 21.7 percent of field nitrate removed, assuming equal concentrations in tile and groundwater. Step 3: the creek also carries upstream water and tile discharge from within the reach, so its change mixes several inputs and cannot be credited to the buffer alone. Step 4: unresolved: without flow data and the concentration of each input, loads cannot be computed, so how the two figures relate is unknown.

Source-evaluation grid (representation): Make a grid with rows for sources M, N, O and P and columns for format, what it measures or claims, conditions it applies under, whether it can be verified, and what it corroborates or challenges. Recompute the report's means and the reduction and write the corrected values beside the report's. Draw a two-path diagram of water leaving a field (through the buffer; through tiles) with the percentages from the model and the removal in each path.

Independent reading response: Read an unfamiliar science article of at least 1,200 words chosen with your teacher (a research summary from a university or government science agency is suitable). Without help, identify its hypothesis, method, key data, analysis and conclusion; recalculate one number if possible; and write a paragraph on whether the conclusion stays within the data.

Independent performance: Write a synthesis of 450 to 600 words answering the lesson question. Success criteria: (1) all four sources used, each according to its format; (2) the report's data verified, with the corrected mean and reduction shown; (3) the hypothesis judged supported, partly supported or not supported, with the reason, and the conclusion corroborated or challenged with other sources; (4) the apparent conflict between the wells and the creek resolved as far as the evidence allows, stating the assumption used and what data would settle it; (5) the broadcast's claim evaluated; (6) the sources identified as invented.