A Science question may give a paragraph, a diagram and a table—and expect one answer.
Many pupils treat the three sources as separate. They read the paragraph, forget the diagram, copy one number from the table and then answer from memory.
Evidence synthesis means combining different sources so each contributes the part of the explanation it is best suited to provide.
This guide develops multi-source reasoning inside the Primary 4 Science Learning Hub.
Quick Answer: What Is the Synthesis Job?
When several sources appear, ask:
- What does the text tell me?
- What does the diagram tell me?
- What does the table or measurement tell me?
- Which source identifies conditions?
- Which source gives the result?
- Do the sources agree?
- What combined conclusion do they support?
A useful eduKate routine is:
TEXT → DIAGRAM → DATA → CROSS-CHECK → CONNECT → CONCLUDE
Different Sources Have Different Jobs
A paragraph may describe the procedure.
A diagram may show positions.
A table may provide measurements.
One source does not automatically replace the others.
Original Mixed Evidence Case: Light
Text: the same card is moved farther from the torch while the screen stays fixed.
Diagram: shows three object positions.
Table: shadow widths are 18 cm, 14 cm and 11 cm.
Synthesis: the text identifies the changed condition, the diagram clarifies geometry and the table shows the measured pattern.
Conclusion: under the tested arrangement, shadow width decreased as object–torch distance increased.
Do Not Let the Picture Overrule the Numbers
A drawing may not be to scale.
If a shadow looks larger in an illustration but the table says 12 cm versus 15 cm, the measured values are stronger evidence for actual size.
Use each representation for its intended job.
Do Not Let One Number Erase the Procedure
Suppose Cup B ends warmer than Cup A.
Without knowing starting temperatures, water amounts and timing, that final value cannot explain why.
The text may supply the control structure needed to interpret the table.
Original Heat Synthesis
Text: two identical cups contain 100 mL water at 70°C. One is wrapped in cloth, one in foam. Both are measured after 15 minutes.
Table: cloth = 57°C; foam = 61°C.
Calculation: cloth decrease 13°C; foam decrease 9°C.
Model: foam reduces heat transfer more under these conditions.
Every source contributes.
Source Pairing
Useful pairings include:
- diagram label + function clue;
- procedure statement + result table;
- starting value + final value;
- changed variable + measured outcome;
- observation + scientific model.
Strong synthesis often comes from matching pieces that belong together.
Original Digestive Synthesis
Diagram: organ X lies after stomach.
Text: digested food is absorbed at X.
Conclusion: X is the small intestine.
Sequence evidence and function evidence converge.
Converging Evidence
When two independent clues point to the same answer, confidence increases.
Example:
- position after stomach;
- function of absorbing digested food.
Both support small intestine.
Conflicting Evidence
If text says Cup A began at 70°C but table says 60°C, do not combine them silently.
Notice the contradiction.
In classroom assessment, context may reveal a typo. In scientific work, conflicting records should be checked before drawing conclusions.
Cross-Check Before Calculating
Before subtraction, confirm:
- which row belongs to which condition;
- which value is initial;
- which value is final;
- units match;
- time points match.
Many calculation errors are really source-pairing errors.
Original Plant Synthesis
Text: both plants receive equal water and light.
Diagram: Plant Q has many damaged roots.
Observation table: P firm, Q wilted after two days.
Model: roots absorb water.
Synthesis: severe root damage is the key changed condition, and the greater wilting is consistent with reduced water absorption.
Relevant vs Irrelevant Sources
Not every detail in every source matters.
A table may include cup colour, water volume, starting temperature and final temperature.
If both cups have the same colour, colour may be irrelevant to the comparison.
Synthesis is selective, not exhaustive.
Evidence Map
A simple evidence map can have four boxes:
- Condition
- Observation / Measurement
- Scientific Model
- Conclusion
Fill each box from the source that provides it.
Original Evidence Map: Matter
Condition: 100 mL water poured into wider bowl with no spill.
Observation: water level lower.
Measurement: volume remains 100 mL.
Model: liquid changes shape but retains fixed volume.
Conclusion: lower height does not mean lower volume.
Text Can Clarify What a Diagram Omits
A diagram may show a cup and thermometer but not state that both cups began at equal temperature.
The text can supply that crucial control.
Do not assume a picture contains all conditions.
Tables Can Correct Visual Impressions
Two containers look different.
One water column is higher.
Measured volumes are both 100 mL.
The table overrides the visual assumption about amount.
Diagrams Can Clarify Relational Language
Text says “the object moved closer”.
Diagram shows it moved closer to the screen, not the source.
The diagram resolves the reference point.
Evidence sources can disambiguate one another.
Use the Most Direct Evidence for the Claim
Claim: Cup B has higher final temperature.
Best evidence: temperature table.
Claim: object moved closer to screen.
Best evidence: diagram or procedure description.
Claim: roots absorb water.
Best support: scientific knowledge/model.
Match claim to source.
One Source Can Supply Background, Another the Test
Background model: metal conducts heat well.
Test evidence: measured handle temperatures.
The model predicts and explains; the measurements show what happened in the specific test.
Original Synthesis Workshop 1
Paragraph: two equal cups start at 70°C.
Diagram: one wrapped in foam, one unwrapped.
Table: foam 61°C, unwrapped 52°C after 15 min.
Question: Which source tells you the changed variable?
The diagram/text.
Which source tells you the outcome?
The table.
Which model explains it?
Heat transfer and poor conduction.
Original Synthesis Workshop 2
Diagram: organ P is after stomach.
Caption: P absorbs digested food.
Conclusion: small intestine.
Two source clues converge.
Original Synthesis Workshop 3
Text: no water is spilled.
Picture: water level lower in wider container.
Table: before 80 mL, after 80 mL.
Conclusion: volume remains unchanged despite lower height.
Original Synthesis Workshop 4
Text: same plant type and same water.
Diagram: one plant has damaged roots.
Observation: damaged-root plant wilts more.
Conclusion: the evidence supports a root-condition effect under the stated conditions.
Multi-Source Questions and Command Words
If asked to describe, combine sources only enough to report the pattern.
If asked to explain, connect the evidence to the scientific model.
If asked to conclude, state what the combined evidence supports.
Evidence synthesis still follows the command word.
Do Not Copy Sources Verbatim
The answer should integrate, not repeat.
Weak:
“The table says 57°C and 61°C. The text says foam and cloth. The diagram shows cups.”
Strong:
“The foam-wrapped cup had the smaller temperature decrease, supporting the conclusion that foam reduced heat transfer more than cloth under the tested conditions.”
Source Hierarchy Is Contextual
There is no universal rule that tables always beat diagrams or text always beats pictures.
Use the source best suited to the claim.
A table is strong for measurements.
A diagram is strong for spatial relations.
Text is strong for procedure conditions.
Missing Information
Sometimes the sources still do not provide enough evidence.
Two cups have different final temperatures, but no starting temperatures are given.
Then “which cooled more?” cannot be answered confidently.
Strong synthesis includes recognising what is missing.
Common Evidence-Synthesis Errors
- reads only one source;
- pairs the wrong row with the wrong diagram;
- lets visual appearance overrule measured data;
- uses a final value without starting condition;
- copies every source instead of integrating;
- misses contradictions;
- assumes missing information;
- uses a source that does not support the claim.
Original Practice Set
Question 1
What does a procedure paragraph often contribute that a table does not?
Question 2
Why can two independent clues supporting the same answer increase confidence?
Question 3
If a diagram looks different from a measured table, which should answer a quantitative size question?
Question 4
What should happen if two sources contradict each other?
Question 5
Why is starting temperature necessary when deciding which cup cooled more?
Question 6
What is an evidence map?
Question 7
Why should irrelevant details be ignored?
Question 8
What is the difference between copying evidence and synthesising it?
Practice Answers
1. It often gives controls, sequence and what was deliberately changed.
2. Different evidence routes converging on one conclusion reduce dependence on a single clue.
3. The measured table, assuming it is the intended quantitative source.
4. Notice and check the inconsistency before concluding.
5. Cooling means change from the starting value, not final temperature alone.
6. A structure linking condition, observation/measurement, model and conclusion.
7. They add cognitive load and can distract from the tested relationship.
8. Copying repeats separate facts; synthesis connects them into one supported conclusion.
The Evidence-Synthesis Diagnostic
| If the learner… | Likely weak link | Repair |
|---|---|---|
| Uses only table | Source integration | Ask what text/diagram adds |
| Mixes rows | Pairing | Trace condition-result links |
| Misses contradiction | Cross-checking | Compare sources explicitly |
| Copies all details | Selection | Map claim to evidence |
| Assumes missing values | Evidence boundary | State what cannot be concluded |
A 25-Minute Evidence-Synthesis Lesson
Minutes 1–5: identify what each source contributes.
Minutes 6–10: pair conditions and results.
Minutes 11–15: detect one contradiction.
Minutes 16–20: build an evidence map.
Minutes 21–25: write one integrated conclusion.
What Parents and Tutors Can Ask
- “What does the text add?”
- “What does the diagram add?”
- “Which measurement matters?”
- “Do the sources agree?”
- “Which clue is strongest for this claim?”
- “What information is still missing?”
Continue the Primary 4 Science Series
- Primary 4 Science Learning Guide | Pattern Recognition, Trends and Relationships
- Primary 4 Science Learning Guide | Alternative Explanations, Contradictions and Anomalies
- Primary 4 Science Learning Guide | Analogy, Similarity and Transfer Boundaries
For mixed-concept integration, use Mixed Concepts and Integrated Reasoning.
The Quiet Return
Different evidence sources are not separate decorations around the question.
Let the text define conditions. Let the diagram clarify relationships. Let measurements quantify outcomes. Cross-check them. Then build one conclusion strong enough to carry all the evidence together.
