Choosing an investigation focus under a tight timeline
A student must complete an Investigation and Response task in 9 school weeks (about 27 lessons) worth 20% of the subject result. She plays cello at approximately AMEB Grade 6 and has two competing ideas: (a) a study of how Shostakovich uses the DSCH motif across three movements, and (b) an investigation into how her own practice routine affects intonation accuracy in thumb position. Idea (a) depends on two scores the school library holds but that are currently on loan until Week 4, plus a recording set she has not yet located. Idea (b) requires a controlled practice log over at least 6 weeks and reliable pitch measurement, which she has never attempted. Her teacher warns that the investigation must generate an analytical response, not just a practice diary, and that evidence collection must fit inside the 27 lessons.
1. Which focus should the student choose, and what criteria should drive the decision?
Read the worked answer
Neither idea is automatically correct; the decision turns on feasibility within 27 lessons, availability of evidence, and whether the task can produce an analytical response.
- Idea (a) has a strong analytical core (motivic transformation, context, function), but the source scores are unavailable until Week 4, leaving roughly 5-6 weeks for close analysis and drafting. That is tight but workable if she secures alternative scores or a full score early.
- Idea (b) has a built-in 6-week data window that cannot start until design is settled, and she has no experience with pitch measurement, so reliability is unproven. It also risks becoming a practice diary rather than analysis.
The defensible choice is (a), conditional on securing sources by Week 1. The reasoning is that the investigation's value lies in analytical argument, and (a) is analysis-first, whereas (b) is method-first and front-loads risk. A strong answer names the criteria explicitly (evidence lead time, analytical depth, skill match, risk) rather than just picking a topic.
2. The student chooses (a). Draft a 9-week plan that protects time for analysis and response, and identify the single biggest risk.
Read the worked answer
A workable sequence:
- Weeks 1-2: Confirm sources (borrow, purchase, or use a complete edition); build a motif-tracking table; write a 150-word focus statement.
- Weeks 3-4: Close analysis of the three chosen movements; annotate score excerpts; log secondary reading.
- Weeks 5-6: Draft the analytical response; test claims against the score.
- Weeks 7-8: Revise for argument coherence and referencing; check word limits.
- Week 9: Final proofread and submission buffer.
The biggest risk is source dependency: if the scores do not arrive by Week 2, the whole plan collapses. The mitigation is to identify a fallback (public-domain editions, a different set of three movements from a work already held) by the end of Week 1. A strong plan also reserves revision time, because analysis drafted in Weeks 5-6 will need reworking once counter-evidence appears.