How to Track What “It”, “This”, “They” and “These” Refer To in a PSLE Science Question

Wait, What? A PSLE Science question can contain perfectly familiar science and still become difficult because one tiny word has lost its owner. “It increases.” “This causes…” “They are compared.” If you cannot say exactly what it, this or they refers to, the rest of your reasoning can be scientifically correct and still answer the wrong object.

Quick Answer

Before using a reference word, replace it mentally with the full scientific noun or statement it stands for. Check four things: identity — which object, part, quantity, observation or condition? number — one thing or several? scope — this set-up, both set-ups, one stage or the whole process? continuity — is the question still talking about the same thing after a new sentence, diagram or sub-question begins? Then continue the Science.

Owned PSLE Science Learning Job

This guide owns one learner job: keeping the scientific referent stable when a question uses short reference words instead of repeating a full name. It does not own plant biology, circuits, heat, forces or any other Science concept. Those concepts remain where they belong. The examples here are only vehicles for learning how to keep the right scientific object attached to the right evidence and mechanism.

This matters in the current Singapore Primary Science frame because learners are expected not only to know facts but to apply scientific ideas, interpret and analyse information, evaluate evidence and communicate explanations and reasoning. Those jobs fail quickly when the object being reasoned about quietly changes. For the 2026 PSLE, Standard Science is revised and assesses the 2023 Primary Science syllabus; use current MOE syllabus information and SEAB 2026 examination-format information for official requirements.

Why a Tiny Word Can Break a Whole Explanation

Science reasoning is relational. Something is observed about an object. A condition applies to a set-up. A quantity changes for a particular system. A mechanism links one state to another. When the noun disappears and a short word replaces it, your brain has to maintain that relationship.

Suppose a question says that a metal spoon and a wooden spoon are placed in warm water. It later says, “After five minutes, it has a higher temperature.” The word it cannot be solved by Science knowledge alone. You first need evidence from the sentence or diagram that identifies which spoon is being described. Only then should you explain the result. If you guess the referent, even an excellent explanation of heat transfer may be attached to the wrong spoon.

The important principle is simple: resolve the language before you run the mechanism.

The Reference-Tracking Protocol

READ / OBSERVE the given information. Do not answer from the topic alone.
Circle the reference word mentally. It, this, that, they, these, those, former, latter, the process, the result, the set-up.
Look backward for possible owners. Which nouns or earlier statements could the word reasonably point to?
Check grammar and Science together. Singular “it” normally needs one owner; plural “they” needs more than one. A reference to “this change” should point to an actual change, not merely a nearby noun.
Restore the full scientific phrase. Replace “it” with “the temperature of Set-up B”, or “this” with “the decrease in water level”, for example.
Identify the scientific relationship. What is being compared, changed, measured or explained?
Separate observation from inference. What was actually shown? What are you concluding?
Select the relevant concept and mechanism. Only now run the Science.
Connect the mechanism to the question’s exact condition.
State the outcome and check it against the evidence. Replace the short word one final time: does your answer still make sense with the full noun inserted?

Worked Example 1: “It” Has Two Possible Owners

Original practice situation: Two identical cups contain equal amounts of water. Cup P is covered and Cup Q is uncovered. After a period of time, the mass of water in each cup is measured. A later sentence says, “It decreases more.”

A weak reader sees “decreases” and immediately thinks about evaporation. A stronger reader asks first: what decreases more? The cup does not decrease. The identity of P or Q does not decrease. The quantity being measured is the mass of water. So the first repair is:

“It decreases more” → “The mass of water in ___ decreases more.”

Now use the diagram or results to identify which cup fills the blank. Only after that should you use the relevant scientific concept to explain why the measured mass changed. The reference step prevents a common failure: correctly explaining evaporation but attaching the explanation to the wrong set-up.

Worked Example 2: “This” Can Refer to a Whole Finding, Not One Object

Imagine an investigation where a learner records that a plant shoot bends toward a light source. The next sentence says, “This suggests that the direction of light affects the direction of growth.” Here, this does not mean “the light source” or “the plant”. It refers to the observed relationship described in the previous statement.

Try the replacement test:

“This suggests…” → “The observed bending of the shoot toward the light suggests…”

If the replacement produces a coherent scientific sentence, the reference is probably stable. You still need to check whether the evidence actually supports the conclusion, but you are now evaluating the right evidence.

Worked Example 3: “They” May Change Scope

A diagram shows three identical containers, A, B and C. The text first discusses A and B, then introduces C. A later sub-question asks, “Why did they show different results?” Do not automatically assume they means all three containers. Look at the immediately preceding comparison and the wording of the sub-question. It may refer to A and B only.

This is a scope problem. Make a small scratch note:

Reference word	Possible owner	Check
they	A and B	Were A and B the pair just compared?
they	A, B and C	Did the question explicitly reopen the comparison to all three?

Do not let plural grammar decide the whole question. Grammar tells you there is more than one owner; the scientific context tells you which owners.

The Earliest Weak Link

When an answer goes wrong, students often blame the final Science concept. But the earliest weak link may occur much earlier. Look for these failure signatures:

You can explain the concept correctly when the teacher names the object, but not when the question uses “it” or “this”.
Your answer changes subject halfway through: it begins with Set-up A and ends by explaining Set-up B.
You copy a correct number but attach it to the wrong object.
You use a singular conclusion for several specimens or a plural conclusion for one set-up.
You understand the diagram but lose the object when the next sub-question refers back to it indirectly.
You keep using an old referent after a new paragraph or sub-question has changed the scope.
Your explanation contains several “it” words and, when asked what each one means, you cannot answer immediately.

If one of these appears, repair reference tracking before doing another ten questions on the Science topic. More content revision will not fix a language-to-object mapping failure.

Misconception Repair: “The Nearest Noun Must Be the Answer”

Sometimes a reference word points to the nearest noun. Sometimes it points to a whole earlier event, comparison or result. So “choose the nearest noun” is not a safe rule. Use a better test: replace the reference word with the candidate owner and read the whole scientific statement again. Does the meaning, number, condition and mechanism still fit?

Another misconception is that vague reference words are always bad writing. In ordinary language they are useful. The learning job is not to ban them. It is to ensure that the reference is recoverable. In your own open-ended answer, repeating a precise noun can sometimes be safer than writing several ambiguous “it” sentences.

A Scratch-Space Method for Dense Questions

For a dense multi-part question, give each important object a short stable label. You are not inventing new Science; you are protecting identity.

Stable label	Full meaning	Evidence attached
P	covered container	mass at start, mass at end
Q	uncovered container	mass at start, mass at end
Δm(P)	change in mass for P	calculated from P only
Δm(Q)	change in mass for Q	calculated from Q only

If the question later says “this difference”, you can ask whether it means Δm(P) − Δm(Q), a temperature difference, or some other difference. The table prevents the word difference from floating free of its quantity.

Unfamiliar Transfer: Text → Diagram → Table

Real transfer means keeping the referent stable even when the representation changes. A paragraph may call something “the liquid in container X”. A diagram may label only X. A table may shorten the heading to “X”. A later sentence may say “it”. These can all refer to the same scientific object, but you should verify continuity rather than assume it.

Use this chain:

READ GIVEN INFORMATION → IDENTIFY OBJECT OR RELATIONSHIP → RESOLVE REFERENCE WORD → DISTINGUISH OBSERVATION FROM INFERENCE → SELECT RELEVANT CONCEPT → EXPLAIN MECHANISM → CONNECT CONDITION → STATE OUTCOME → CHECK AGAINST EVIDENCE.

The added reference step does not replace scientific reasoning. It protects the input to scientific reasoning.

Practice Sequence: Build the Skill Without Turning It Into a Trick

Explicit replacement. Take five short Science sentences and replace every “it”, “this” or “they” with its full owner.
Two-candidate discrimination. Use questions where two nouns could plausibly be the owner. Explain why one fits and the other does not.
Representation shift. Track one object from paragraph to diagram to table.
Multi-part reset. At each new sub-question, ask whether the referent and comparison scope are still the same.
Independent application. Stop writing the replacements unless you need them. Keep the check mentally.
Delayed return. After a gap, attempt a different Science question and see whether you can preserve the object without a prompt.

This progression matters because a strategy is useful only when it becomes lightweight. The final goal is not to annotate every pronoun forever. The goal is to notice ambiguity early enough that it never derails the Science.

Answer and Checking Receipts

Before accepting your answer, produce these receipts:

Object receipt: I can name the exact object, set-up, quantity or earlier statement represented by every important reference word.
Evidence receipt: The values or observations I used belong to that object.
Condition receipt: I have not silently transferred a condition from one set-up or stage to another.
Mechanism receipt: The concept I used actually applies to this object under these conditions.
Outcome receipt: If I replace “it” in my final answer with the full noun, the sentence still says exactly what I mean.

Common Traps

Choosing the nearest noun automatically.
Assuming “this” always refers to one object rather than a whole observation or relationship.
Letting “they” expand from two set-ups to every item on the page.
Using a correct Science concept before identifying the object it must explain.
Copying a number without copying its object, unit, time and condition.
Writing several “it” sentences in an open-ended answer until the examiner or reader cannot tell what the subject is.
Carrying a referent from part (a) into part (b) after the question has changed the comparison.

Parent and Tutor Teaching Guide

When a child gives a wrong answer, do not immediately supply the missing Science word. Point to the reference word and ask, “What exactly does it mean here?” If the learner cannot answer, the first failure is language-to-object mapping. Ask them to replace the short word with the full noun, then reread the sentence.

Keep the teaching prompt narrow. One useful sequence is: name the owner → attach the evidence → run the mechanism → remove the prompt. Once the learner can do this independently, move to a changed context. Avoid turning the method into another memorised acronym that competes with the Science itself.

For durable learning, return later with a new representation. If the first practice used prose, use a diagram-plus-table next. Evidence on metacognition and self-regulated learning supports explicit planning, monitoring and evaluation strategies when they are embedded in subject learning rather than taught as free-floating tricks. The EEF metacognition guidance and its primary science evidence review are useful adult-facing references.

Useful Internal Routes

Quiet Return

A strong Science answer does not begin when you remember a keyword. It begins when you know what the sentence is actually talking about. Keep the object attached to the evidence. Keep the evidence attached to the condition. Then let the scientific mechanism do its work.

Small Group Tutorials