SubjectNest resource library

Year 10 / Integrated / Term 1 / Weeks 03 04 / Teacher

Development draft · local review needed

Teacher-targeted worked key and next movesYear 10 Inquiry · T1 W3–4 · Teacher · Key And Next

Download editable text
Teacher copy · prompts and answer keys

Teacher copy: This page may include teaching prompts or answer keys. Answer keys in this public library can be viewed by anyone. Give learners a clean prompt, use checks as formative evidence, and change a case locally when prior access matters.

Public file, no access control. The new cases are fresh relative to the lessons, not secure exams. Collect first responses before discussion; adapt numbers/contexts if learners may have read this key. Record access supports separately from substantive hints. All design records and methods are fictional.

Daily look-fors

Day Expected evidence Next move
11 One paper tile, pattern family/border status; paper criterion separate from visitor accessibility. Put paper mark and person's experience on different cards.
12 One maker/setting documented, several conditions absent; written repeat plan marked not observed. Ask another group to follow a vague step; make setting/criterion operational.
13 Hatch18, Ring18, Solid12; pass25, redraw23, all48 in both directions. Recount 14+9+2 and 4+9+10 before percentages.
14 23/36≈63.9% selected versus 25/48≈52.1% complete; promotional card same author; no public use conclusion. Keep correct subgroup arithmetic while repairing its label and inference.
15 See new Check A below. Reteach the smallest missing component with another invented table.
16 Filter changes selected numerator/denominator, not source cells; all, two-family and single-family choices labelled. Draw a frame around selected rows, recount, then remove the frame.
17 Two visual hierarchies compared from actual wording/placement; learner's own thumbnail revised from specific feedback. Move full denominator and no-viewer-test note into the first read line.
18 Visual change, measurable paper criterion, written control and no invented result. Split plan/result boxes and insist on not observed.
19 Actual two-panel artefact (when Arts claimed), full 25/48 first, selected 23/36 labelled, method limit and next paper check. User-test only the first line against the source; revise overstatement.
20 See new Check B below. Target denominator, omission or method claim separately.

Check A · worked first response

  1. Rows: Grid 11+4=15, Arc 7+5=12, Stripe 2+6=8; columns unbroken 11+7+2=20, redraw 4+5+6=15; full 15+12+8=35=20+15.
  2. Selected Grid+Arc unbroken 18/27=2/3≈66.7%; all covers 20/35=4/7≈57.1%. The statement mislabels the 27-cover subgroup as 35 covers. Stripe's eight records are omitted, including two unbroken.
  3. Accept recording exact printer setting/paper stock/line criterion or asking a second blinded observer to code the same proof sheets and log disagreement. “Print more” without an operational condition is incomplete. The source measured no reader or access experience; one maker's inner-line mark is not a viewer outcome.
  4. Accept: “In our invented one-setting paper check, 20 of 35 cover mock-ups had an unbroken inner line (about 57.1%); the method was not independently repeated and no readers tried them.” A separate clearly labelled 18/27 subgroup sentence may follow. Avoid claiming real usability.

Response branch: If all equals 27, restore Stripe. If “two-thirds” is called numerically false, keep 18/27 but relabel it. If reader access is asserted, ask where a human outcome appears in the source (nowhere). Preserve first-response evidence.

Check B · worked first response

  1. Full passes 8+6+1=15, revisions 4+6+7=17, all 32; 15/32=46.875%≈46.9%. Tall+Square passes 14, total (8+4)+(6+6)=24; 14/24=7/12≈58.3%. “Most” can describe Tall+Square under that exact label, not all 32.
  2. Folded row, 1 pass and 7 revisions, is omitted. “Ready to hand to visitors” has no visitor evidence, safety or usability test. Even the full paper pass count would not justify it.
  3. Accept: “In the fictional studio's one paper crop check, 15 of 32 mock-ups passed (46.9%). Do not claim visitor readiness; first document stock/setting and have a second reviewer repeat the predeclared crop check on labelled sheets.” A pause or revised paper test decision is defensible; no actual approval.
  4. Operational control: name a fixed paper stock, recorded printer setting, identical crop margin and orientation, etc. Independent step: second reviewer uses the same predeclared rule and logs agreement/disagreement. A written plan is not an observed repeat.

Response branch: If 14/24 is read as all, frame Folded and recount. If the report hides the limit in tiny text, make it part of the title/first sentence. If a proposed retest is reported as completed, write not observed next to the imagined result.

Evidence note

Record source/denominator, method/uncertainty, reasoning and audience/design choices separately. A graphic, tactile, AAC or text route can show the same claim evidence. A paper plan is planning evidence; an actual student-made two-panel visual artefact is needed for Visual Arts production evidence. This desk key has not been validated in a classroom.