How do you plan, conduct and communicate the external Investigation that links a focus-area concept to physical activity performance?
Design and conduct the 30 percent external Investigation: frame a question, gather and analyse evidence, and communicate findings about a focus-area concept.
How to plan and conduct the 30 percent external Investigation: framing a focused question, gathering and analysing valid evidence, and communicating findings that link a focus-area concept to performance.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
You must design and conduct the external Investigation by framing a question, gathering and analysing evidence, and communicating findings about a focus-area concept.
What the Investigation is
The Investigation is the only external component of the subject and is worth 30 percent. It is marked by the SACE Board against the performance standards, on a scale that rewards investigation design, analysis and communication. Crucially, it is a research-based task rather than a written examination, so there is no end-of-year exam in this subject.
Step 1: frame a focused question
A strong Investigation starts with a clear, answerable question that links a concept from the focus areas to physical activity performance or participation.
- Make it specific and measurable, not broad (compare "How does the type of practice affect netball passing accuracy in beginners?" with "How do you get better at netball?").
- Choose a concept you understand well, such as a training principle, a skill-acquisition variable, a biomechanical principle or a sociocultural factor.
Step 2: plan a sound method
Design how you will gather evidence so the results are valid and reliable.
- Decide what data you need and how to collect it (tests, trials, observation, surveys, secondary sources).
- Control variables so the evidence reflects the factor you are investigating (validity).
- Standardise conditions so results are repeatable (reliability).
- Consider ethics and safety where people are involved.
Step 3: gather and analyse evidence
Collect the evidence and then genuinely analyse it.
- Present data clearly with tables and graphs.
- Identify patterns, trends and relationships rather than just restating numbers.
- Interpret the evidence through the lens of the focus-area concept, explaining why the results occurred.
Step 4: communicate findings and conclude
Draw and justify a conclusion that answers the question.
- State what the evidence shows and how strongly it supports the answer.
- Link the findings back to the underlying concept and theory.
- Evaluate the investigation itself: discuss limitations, reliability and validity, and how it could be improved.
- Communicate clearly and concisely within the required format and length.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SACE Board exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
SACE 20228 marksAn investigation tested whether random practice improves passing accuracy more than blocked practice. The supplied data shows pre and post test scores for both groups. Analyse the evidence and evaluate the validity of the investigation design.Show worked answer →
An 8 mark source-and-evaluate task needs data analysis and a judgement on design quality.
Analyse the evidence. Read the pre and post scores, calculate the change for each group and state which improved more, citing figures rather than describing loosely.
Link to the concept. Explain the result through the skill-acquisition principle that random practice aids retention and transfer.
Evaluate validity. Judge whether variables were controlled (equal practice volume, standardised testing) and whether the sample and duration support the conclusion.
Markers reward exact use of the data, the concept applied and a weighed judgement of validity and reliability.
SACE 20236 marksExplain how validity and reliability are achieved when gathering evidence for an investigation, using an example.Show worked answer →
A 6 mark explain task needs both concepts defined and applied to a real method.
Define the terms. Validity is whether the evidence actually measures the factor under investigation; reliability is whether results are repeatable.
Achieve validity. Control variables so the data reflects the factor, for example matching groups and equal practice volume.
Achieve reliability. Standardise conditions so the test can be repeated, for example identical test protocol, equipment and timing.
Markers reward the validity-reliability distinction tied to concrete method choices rather than definitions alone.