# Year 10 integrated inquiry · 10 teacher sessions · Days 11–20

**Throughline:** Can a fictional paper mosaic display team use its desk register to justify another paper check while avoiding an unsupported public-access claim? Week 3 makes the question, method, source and denominator explicit. Week 4 compares visual reports, explores a category filter and creates a cautious revised brief. This connects the separate Year 10 [mathematics](../../../mathematics/term-1/weeks-03-04/README.md) and [English](../../../english/term-1/weeks-03-04/LESSONS.md) work at **skill level** without repeating their game-map/card or paper-index/artefact-tag source stories, numbers, texts or checks. The [source packet](SOURCE-PACKET.md), [learner studio](LEARNER.md), [fresh public checks](STUDENT-CHECKS.md), [public teacher-targeted key](teacher/KEY-AND-NEXT.md), [print/text aids](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md) and [offline filter](interactive/README.md) are separate.

**Set up:** Print Sources A–F and the five aids. Supply pencils, counters, large/reflowable text, raised row/column lines or tactile cards, AAC/sign/exact-word scribing and an optional local browser. No learner surveys, actual exhibition equipment, visual-acuity claims or personal data. The paper data are invented and no viewer test happened. Three routes on each day are **switchable representations** with the same evidence demand, not learner types. Note interpretive hints separately from access. Standard daily clock: **3 launch + 7 model + 12 work + 8 review + 5 exit = 35 minutes**. Checks: **3 + 5 + 12 + 10 + 5 = 35**.

## Day 11 · What did the paper criterion actually test? · AC9E10LY04 · AC9TDE10P04 · AC9S10I01

**35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5. Goal:** narrow “clear for everyone” to an investigable paper-print question.

1. **0–3:** Read Source A. Ask for its counted unit, two variables and decision being requested. Distinguish paper inspection from any real visitor outcome.
2. **3–10:** Model a precise question: “At one recorded print setting, how often is the 5 mm inner border visibly unbroken for each drawn pattern family?” Mark what changes/is categorised and what is recorded. Explain that an internal pass criterion is not a human-access criterion.
3. **10–22:** Learners write a testable version of the broad claim and name design criteria for a future **paper** report: full-group numerator/denominator in title, a visible method limit, and a sheet-use tally/offcut option where suitable. No waste reduction or accessible outcome is measured.
4. **22–30:** **Routes:** annotate A in large print; assemble tactile `unit / variable / criterion / untested audience` cards; dictate or sign a question and two criteria with exact transcript. Partners ask whether another maker could apply each criterion as written.
5. **30–35:** Exit: “What would a pass here actually mean?” **Key:** one paper tile was coded under a single in-house border rule. **Move:** if learner says “viewer can see it”, separate paper line from a person's experience.

**Alternate domain:** Fictional theatre backdrop paper motifs, not a real audience test. **Optional/home:** draft a precise check for a made-up paper pattern using no materials.

## Day 12 · Read the whole method note · AC9S10I02 · AC9S10I06 · AC9E10LY05

**35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5. Goal:** distinguish documented method, repeatability and missing controls.

1. **0–3:** Read Source D exactly; learners mark what the maker **did** and what the maker **did not record**.
2. **3–10:** Model `action / recorded setting / missing source of variation / next step`: one maker, one printer setting, missing paper stock/contrast/reviewer agreement. Do not invent new observations.
3. **10–22:** Teams use the [method mat](print/method-mat.pdf) to propose a six-step repeatable paper check: same print file, recorded stock/setting, predeclared border rule, labelled sheets, two independent coders, disagreement log. Write `not observed` for all new results.
4. **22–30:** **Routes:** order tactile procedure cards; annotate a large-print method flow; write or speak/AAC a reproducible protocol. Another team finds one instruction still too vague and author revises it. No physical printing is required.
5. **30–35:** Exit: “Can a written method prove that two reviewers agreed?” **Key:** no; agreement requires an actual check. **Move:** split planned from observed columns.

**Alternate domain:** An invented poster crop-check protocol. **Optional/home:** verbally specify what a second checker would need; do not ask anyone to participate.

## Day 13 · Full register before any percentage · AC9M10ST04 · AC9S10I04

**35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5. Goal:** rebuild Source B and verify both margins.

1. **0–3:** Name pattern family and border status as categorical variables; paper tiles, not people, are the unit.
2. **3–10:** Model Hatch row `14+4=18`, pass column `14+9+2=25`, and grand total `25+23=48`.
3. **10–22:** Learners reconstruct the [blank register](print/full-register.pdf), checking `18+18+12=48` and `4+9+10=23`. Label Solid as a **known category**, not a missing observation.
4. **22–30:** **Routes:** counters in a tactile matrix; large-print table with margins; verbal/digital table and two-direction arithmetic. A partner chooses one cell and requests the source line.
5. **30–35:** Exit: “How many **all** paper tiles passed?” **Key:** 25 of 48. **Move:** if 23/36 is called all, circle the 12 Solid records in B.

**Alternate domain:** Fictional book-cover draft motifs and crop status. **Optional/home:** make a safe two-by-two table of invented paper tiles.

## Day 14 · Which denominator does the headline hide? · AC9M10ST01 · AC9M10ST04 · AC9E10LY03

**35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5. Goal:** audit promotional Source C with source-bound fractions.

1. **0–3:** Read C's large claim and small line once, then ask “Nearly two-thirds of which paper tiles?”
2. **3–10:** Model selected `23/36≈63.9%`; complete `25/48≈52.1%`. Both arithmetic statements have different reference groups. Even the complete rate does not establish public suitability.
3. **10–22:** Learners locate the omitted Solid row, identify who authored C and B (same team), and rewrite the headline for all paper mock-ups. They annotate the first-glance versus small-print difference.
4. **22–30:** **Routes:** place 36 and 48 denominator frames around counters; mark large/small wording on a high-contrast print; dictate a `source / calculation / omission / limit` audit. Peers check that each percentage names its group.
5. **30–35:** Exit: “Can 23/36 be called a figure for all 48?” **Key:** no. **Move:** if learners call C simply false, preserve its correct subgroup arithmetic while correcting scope.

**Alternate domain:** Imaginary costume pattern proof sheets. **Optional/home:** write a scoped headline for a fictional subgroup.

## Day 15 · Fresh Check A · AC9M10ST04 · AC9M10ST01 · AC9S10I06

**35 = 3 + 5 + 12 + 10 + 5. Goal:** first response to an unfamiliar zine-cover print register.

1. **0–3:** Say the public prompt is fresh relative to lessons, **not a secure exam**; change it locally if prior access matters.
2. **3–8:** Offer read-aloud, calculator, tactile matrix, AAC or scribe without suggesting the new denominator.
3. **8–20:** Learners answer [Check A](STUDENT-CHECKS.md) independently; save first work before discussion.
4. **20–30:** After collection, review the general routine `source / full group / selected group / method limit`. **Routes:** counters; marked table; spoken/signed comparison. Do not replace first-response evidence with post-feedback work.
5. **30–35:** Teacher uses the [public key](teacher/KEY-AND-NEXT.md) for one specific next step. **Move:** parallel values later if a prompt was cued/previously seen.

**Alternate domain:** Fictional window-card layouts after the check. **Optional/home:** explain why a correct subgroup rate can still mislead.

## Day 16 · Let the selected categories move · AC9TDI10P02 · AC9M10ST04

**35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5. Goal:** watch the denominator change with category inclusion, then explain the source limit.

1. **0–3:** Put all 48 in view before touching the [offline category filter](interactive/index.html) or [paper denominator mat](print/denominator-mat.pdf).
2. **3–10:** Model All = 25/48≈52.1%; select Hatch+Ring = 23/36≈63.9%. The browser re-computes from fixed invented counts; it does not download or collect data.
3. **10–22:** Learners try two category selections, record numerator/denominator, compare the pattern-family pass proportions within this register and restore all categories. Ask which table entries did not change (all source cells); differing category rates do not identify a cause.
4. **22–30:** **Routes:** keyboard/screen-reader toggle and complete spoken status; tactile counter frames with labelled pattern cards; hand table/calculator. Digital Technologies evidence requires **actual interactive analysis**; paper maths evidence is equivalent for denominator reasoning.
5. **30–35:** Exit: “Did the filter change the source record?” **Key:** no, only the selected reference group. **Move:** draw a boundary around selected rows and recount.

**Alternate domain:** Invented fabric swatch layout categories. **Optional/home:** use paper only to compare two subsets; no device required.

## Day 17 · A visual report can move the limit out of sight · AC9E10LA07 · AC9AVA10C01 · AC9E10LY04

**35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5. Goal:** compare visual hierarchy and source scope in two original drafts.

1. **0–3:** Put Source F and [layout comparison](print/layout-contrast.pdf) in view. Ask which number a first glance brings forward.
2. **3–10:** Model a critique: Draft Spotlight foregrounds rounded 64% and tucks subgroup scope away; Draft Full Register starts with 25/48 and a visible no-viewer-test statement. Neither layout has been audience-tested.
3. **10–22:** Learners annotate title, first number, denominator, excluded category and method limit in both. Write one fair reason the Spotlight version could attract attention and one reason it misleads. Sketch a small revised first panel in their own format.
4. **22–30:** **Routes:** high-contrast annotation and thumbnail; raised top/middle/footer strips with first-glance verbal reading and directed tactile thumbnail; typed or dictated reverse outline plus an original panel sketch. Peers give one specific critique, and the author revises the thumbnail. Critique must cite actual layout decisions, not guess audience psychology as a measured effect.
5. **30–35:** Exit: “Which visual change would bring the missing Solid row into view?” **Key:** full-group figure/label in title or equally prominent panel. **Move:** move the denominator into the first read line.

**Alternate domain:** Fictional science fair paper chart headlines. **Optional/home:** sketch two paper title orders with a visible caveat.

## Day 18 · Redesign a check, not a population claim · AC9S10I06 · AC9TDE10P04 · AC9TDE10P02

**35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5. Goal:** iterate a paper prototype plan with a stated criterion and uncertainty.

1. **0–3:** Return to Source D; list what the sole maker did not log. Do not silently add a second rating.
2. **3–10:** Teacher models a revised criterion: “For each labelled mock-up printed on specified paper at a recorded setting, two coders independently apply a written border-continuity rule; disagreements are retained.” This is a **proposal**, not a completed validation.
3. **10–22:** Teams plan a paper redesign: choose one pattern, specify one visual change (line weight, spacing or contrast), name one measurable paper criterion, a sheet-use tally or suitable-offcut choice, a recording sheet and one uncertainty. No sustainability saving or benefit to a real viewer is claimed.
4. **22–30:** **Routes:** large-paper sketch and labelled notes; tactile line/space tokens with dictated design brief; typed step list and simple original vector/ASCII sketch. Peer critique identifies one vague criterion; author visibly revises it. Arts evidence requires an actual learner-created visual artefact in Day 19, not just this discussion.
5. **30–35:** Exit: “Which result is now observed?” **Key:** none for the proposed redesign; mark `not observed`. **Move:** separate design choice from test outcome.

**Alternate domain:** Imagined museum display mock-up without venue claim. **Optional/home:** plan one paper change with a measurable check; no materials needed.

## Day 19 · Produce a source-bound two-panel proposal · AC9E10LY06 · AC9S10I08 · AC9TDE10P02 · AC9AVA10C02

**35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5. Goal:** make and revise an original report for fictional editor E.

1. **0–3:** Decision choices: another controlled paper check, rewrite first, or pause. None authorises real public display.
2. **3–10:** Model `full source / selected subgroup / method limit / next criterion`. The first panel must show 25/48 and the second may compare 23/36 if clearly labelled.
3. **10–22:** Learners make an original [two-panel brief](print/two-panel-brief.pdf): panel one full-register visual, panel two decision and next paper check. They choose/manipulate visual hierarchy and a personally chosen original pattern motif to express their interpretation of transparency/caution; cite B/D/E. A plain-text two-panel structure meets English/science communication, while Visual Arts evidence needs a created visual artefact with explained choices.
4. **22–30:** **Routes:** draw high-contrast panels; direct tactile panel arrangement with an exact-word scribe/raised motif; create offline typed SVG/HTML or paper visual with full text alternative. Partner gives critical feedback; learner documents one revision. No borrowed logos, photos or actual institution name.
5. **30–35:** Exit: “What did your first line let a reader assume?” **Key:** it must name 25/48 paper checks and limited scope. **Move:** if it implies human access or approval, replace the first-line claim and keep the cited counts.

**Alternate domain:** Fictional portable exhibition label shapes. **Optional/home:** write a no-cost `because / however / next paper check` note.

## Day 20 · Fresh Check B · AC9M10ST04 · AC9E10LY06 · AC9S10I06

**35 = 3 + 5 + 12 + 10 + 5. Goal:** use a new timetable-card print register to audit scope and recommend an honest next check.

1. **0–3:** The new case is invented and publicly readable; it cannot establish real accessibility or safety.
2. **3–8:** Give accessible exact source text and usual tools without signalling which group the notice excludes.
3. **8–20:** Learners make an independent first response to [Check B](STUDENT-CHECKS.md); collect before content feedback.
4. **20–30:** General method reflection after collection. **Routes:** count tiles; annotated table; signed/AAC report structure. Log any interpretive prompt separately.
5. **30–35:** Use [public teacher key](teacher/KEY-AND-NEXT.md) for a precise next step; if prior answer access matters, author a local parallel case. **Move:** reteach the missing denominator, method or audience link separately.

**Alternate domain:** Imaginary folded greeting-card crop checks after assessment. **Optional/home:** distinguish a prototype pass count from a real reader's experience.