Choose one area's card for the day unless your teacher plans more time. Every card takes about 12 minutes and offers A/B/C ways to reach the same evidence target. Switch routes whenever useful; they are not fixed learning-style labels. Text, large print, Braille, tactile tokens, speech, sign, AAC, typing and directed scribing may carry your own reasoning. A precise source detail and one limit matter more than the format. All cases and numbers are invented except the two HASS History source facts clearly linked to the UN and Australian Human Rights Commission. No personal data, purchases, real fieldwork, food preparation, chemicals, public performance, recording or unsafe movement are required. Tell the teacher what you actually did; a plan is not a conducted test or performance.
Science
Science Day 11 Garden label question
Source/target: A fictional community garden displays two paper seed-label shapes, wide and narrow. A planner wants to compare how many letters fit on a drawn label, not which plants grow. Form an investigable paper-model question, a reasoned prediction and one controlled feature.
- A · Variable cards: Place SHAPE, LETTER COUNT and SAME FONT SIZE cards, then state what changes and what is counted.
- B · Reviewer note: Rewrite “wide labels are always better” as a testable paper question with a cautious prediction.
- C · Tactile/AAC plan: Direct two equal-size paper outlines and dictate one fair comparison condition.
Science Day 12 Stage-rig model table
Source/target: A made-up stage cart diagram lists equal invented pushes of 2 units for two toy masses, 1 and 2 mass units; a calculation model, not equipment data, predicts response values 2 and 1. Choose a table that keeps units, changed mass and the model-only limit clear.
- A · Table builder: Draw columns for mass, push and predicted response; fill both rows and label them constructed.
- B · Fault finder: Repair a tiny table that has “2,1” but no units, variable names or source label.
- C · Spoken/tactile grid: Place two mass cards against one push card and dictate a full row and one untested real-cart claim.
Science Day 13 Library light-grid representation
Source/target: An invented reading-room grid records paper “light scores” at three drawn positions: window 8, centre 5, shelf 2 arbitrary units. No light meter or room exists. Represent the ordered values and state a within-model pattern without calling it accessibility evidence.
- A · Number-line plot: Place 2, 5 and 8 with position labels; add a caption naming arbitrary units.
- B · Text table: Write position/value rows and a one-sentence pattern with a limit.
- C · Raised markers: Direct three tactile markers or AAC labels in order, then explain what the model did not measure.
Science Day 14 Transit-board anomaly
Source/target: Four fictional paper-route counts are 6, 7, 6 and 12 turns. A note says the fourth route card was copied after one arrow was redrawn. Keep all four values, describe the unusual one and suggest a reproducible recheck without declaring it wrong.
- A · Mark and inspect: Plot four number tiles; circle 12 and name the method note.
- B · Peer memo: Write “pattern, anomaly, next method check” without deleting a value.
- C · Counterclaim: Refute “12 proves the new route is impossible” by asking what would need repeating.
Science Day 15 Home-water scenario boundary
Source/target: A constructed household diagram has drawn tap-use tokens of 4, 4, 5 and 11 arbitrary units; the 11 card is marked “different counting interval”. These are not water bills or conservation results. Identify the comparability problem and a better question.
- A · Sort intervals: Separate like-duration cards from the differently timed card and explain why.
- B · Source-claim edit: Revise “use doubled” into a claim about the drawn tokens only.
- C · Method interview: Ask which interval produced each count, then dictate a fairer model comparison plan.
Science Day 16 Rehearsal-room paper screen
Source/target: A fictional music room wants to compare two drawn screen patterns. No sound level, comfort or accessibility was measured. Plan a reproducible paper comparison of hole number while keeping paper size and drawn source position the same.
- A · Control mat: Place changed, held-same and record cards before writing a cautious prediction.
- B · Flawed-plan repair: Fix “change the holes, paper size and source distance together”.
- C · Diagram director: Direct two paper-only screens and narrate what a real acoustic test would still need.
Science Day 17 Astronomy-club claim review
Source/target: An invented club poster says, “One unlabeled point on a chart proves our model of the whole sky.” No real astronomy data are supplied. Write a peer-review question about source, scale or repetition and a narrower claim.
- A · Three questions: Sort DATA, AXIS and REPEAT questions; choose the two most needed for the poster.
- B · Editorial note: Replace “proves” with a sentence that openly says what the poster lacks.
- C · Oral/AAC review: Dictate a respectful two-line response asking for a replicable method.
Science Day 18 Repair-bench circuit cards
Source/target: A fictional electronics paper model has three identical labelled cards, “closed path” with indicator 1, “open path” with indicator 0, and “closed path” with indicator 1. No current was measured and no circuit is built. Organise the cards and say what pattern is in the model versus what would require real testing.
- A · Two-row table: Group cards by path label and list indicator values with source status.
- B · Pattern critique: Repair “all real devices behave like this” using one source detail.
- C · Tactile path: Arrange open/closed word cards and dictate an observed-in-paper versus untested claim.
Science Day 19 Weather-board uncertainty
Source/target: A made-up school notice gives predicted temperatures 20, 21, 22 arbitrary degrees for three future days with no model source or location. These are invented numbers, not a forecast. Identify missing provenance and design a reproducibility question.
- A · Provenance checklist: Mark missing date, place, method and uncertainty before making a narrow statement.
- B · Reviewer exchange: Draft one question a second reviewer could answer only with the original method.
- C · Radio script: Give a 20-second fictional correction that does not sound like a real forecast.
Science Day 20 Sports-equipment paper study
Source/target: An imaginary equipment club compares drawn grip widths of 3, 4 and 5 squares and writes “widest is safest”. No one handled equipment and no safety evidence exists. Choose an investigable paper comfort-question prototype and reject the safety conclusion.
- A · Question change: Turn “safest” into a question about a measurable drawing feature and a separate real-use question.
- B · Claim audit: Identify assumption, missing evidence and a reproducible next step.
- C · Card sort: Separate DRAWN WIDTH, REAL USER COMFORT and SAFETY RESULT before dictating a limit.
HASS
HASS Day 11 A declaration's source trail · History
Source/target: The UN history page records the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' General Assembly adoption on 10 December 1948 after the Second World War. The Australian Human Rights Commission account describes Australia's role. Distinguish a UN institutional history page from a later Australian explanation; name origin, purpose and one question the pair cannot settle alone.
- A · Source labels: Put origin/date/purpose cards under the two linked pages; avoid calling a modern page a 1948 eyewitness note.
- B · Historian memo: Write two sentences on what each page is useful for and one primary record still worth locating.
- C · Oral/AAC comparison: Explain why two official pages can have different viewpoints without one being invented.
HASS Day 12 Two named contributors · History
Source/target: The Australian Human Rights Commission identifies H. V. Evatt and Jessie Street in Australia's involvement in the Declaration's development. Use its account to compare their different documented roles without saying either acted alone or that the Declaration itself instantly changed every Australian law.
- A · Role cards: Pair each person with one sourced role and one “do not infer” card.
- B · Two-source sentence: Use the AHRC account and the UN adoption history to distinguish contributor role from adoption event.
- C · Significance question: Dictate one question a historian could investigate further about collaboration or reception, naming a needed source.
HASS Day 13 Pocket-park shade inquiry · Geography
Source/target: A fictional pocket-park sketch labels three paper zones: paved centre, planted edge and covered seat. No place, temperature or accessibility was measured. Develop two geographical inquiry questions, one about pattern and one about a possible strategy, with data each would require.
- A · Map query: Mark two zones and phrase “where/how does ___ vary?” questions.
- B · Data request: Make a two-column question/needed-evidence note without predicting an actual heat effect.
- C · Tactile map: Place zone cards and direct a location-aware but non-local question.
HASS Day 14 Public refill point choice · Geography
Source/target: An imaginary venue weighs two paper refill-point placements: A closer to entrance but with an unverified step-free route; B farther on the sketch with route detail still unknown. Use environmental, social and cost criteria to compare, then state what local evidence would be needed before recommendation.
- A · Three-criteria grid: Score only what the sketch supplies; mark unknowns rather than guessing.
- B · Conditional memo: Write “If ___ is confirmed, then ___ may...” with two criteria and a field-check need.
- C · Reader challenge: Ask what an accessible, safe real-site assessment would require without visiting or measuring a site.
HASS Day 15 Forum speaking order · Civics
Source/target: A fictional youth forum offers one microphone and 12 minutes. Proposal A gives three speakers four minutes each; B gives six speakers two minutes each. Neither ensures all perspectives are heard. Evaluate which rule better serves a stated participation goal and what input is still missing.
- A · Time cards: Build both schedules and add an opt-in written contribution route.
- B · Critique: Choose a goal, compare A/B against it and note a group whose view could be missed.
- C · Facilitation script: Dictate a fair rule plus how the group would review it after one meeting.
HASS Day 16 Community notice response · Civics
Source/target: An invented local notice says “Everyone agreed,” but its paper tally lists 8 supportive, 4 uncertain and 3 opposed responses. No sampling method or real council exists. Evaluate a civic participation method that would make uncertainty and access visible before a decision.
- A · Tally audit: Keep all three response categories and propose a next invitation method.
- B · Headline repair: Replace “everyone” with an exact constructed count and a scope note.
- C · Process sketch: Direct a written, spoken and anonymous response option, then name one trade-off.
HASS Day 17 Theatre-prop reuse decision · Economics and Business
Source/target: A fictional theatre can reuse 10 paper props for 3 credits each plus 8 setup credits, or make 10 new paper props for 5 credits each. Quality and labour are not supplied. Develop a cost-benefit question, compare stated totals and name two unknowns before recommending.
- A · Cost board: Calculate each invented total and label the omitted criteria.
- B · Decision memo: State a conditional choice using cost plus one non-price criterion.
- C · Counterclaim: Refute “lower stated credits automatically means better” without inventing real prices.
HASS Day 18 Canteen packing prompt · Economics and Business
Source/target: A made-up canteen considers paper container R at 2 credits per use for 20 planned uses, or S at 10 setup credits plus 1 credit per use. Food safety, waste and actual demand are unknown; no food is prepared. Modify the question if demand is uncertain and calculate both model totals at 20.
- A · Scenario table: Compare 10 and 20 planned uses, then note the decision threshold depends on assumptions.
- B · Source critique: Write what extra verified evidence would be needed for a real sustainability claim.
- C · Adviser role: Give a conditional memo that keeps food safety and demand untested.
HASS Day 19 Music-room schedule trade-off · Economics and Business
Source/target: Fictional room plans allocate 4 slots to rehearsals and 2 to repairs under Plan A; Plan B allocates 3 and 3. The number of participants and actual value of each slot are unknown. Develop evaluation criteria that do not turn counts alone into a community-benefit claim.
- A · Criteria ladder: Rank access, maintenance and cost, then say what information each needs.
- B · Stakeholder question: Draft one question for users and one for maintainers without contacting anyone.
- C · Conditional advice: Explain when A or B could be defensible using two named criteria.
HASS Day 20 Weekend market paper signs · Economics and Business
Source/target: A fictional market organiser compares 12 reusable signs at 4 credits each with 12 single-use signs at 3 credits each for one event. Reuse across future events is not known. Assess a short-term cost and longer-term evidence need without making environmental or financial advice.
- A · Cost check: Compute stated one-event totals and identify the missing reuse count.
- B · Two-horizon note: Write separate one-event and future-event questions.
- C · Recommendation test: Explain why a source-bounded decision may be “wait for more information”.
HPE
HPE Day 11 Library-club invitation
Source/target: A fictional club poster says “Only confident speakers may join.” Propose an inclusion action with meaningful choices and a way to hear whether it works; no student must disclose a diagnosis or speaking preference.
- A · Poster edit: Write two equally valued participation routes and one invitation question.
- B · Role menu: Make a facilitator, listener, writer/AAC and organiser role card, then evaluate fairness.
- C · Spoken/AAC pitch: Dictate a respectful opening that leaves people free to choose or decline.
HPE Day 12 Sleep-product claim audit
Source/target: An invented advertisement says a ten-minute routine “guarantees perfect sleep for everyone”. It supplies no study, population or safety information. Critique the claim's persuasive words and identify trustworthy questions; this is not personal sleep advice.
- A · Highlight: Mark “guarantees”, “perfect” and “everyone”; ask what evidence each would require.
- B · Source checklist: List who, how measured and harms/limits without rating classmates' habits.
- C · Fair rewrite: Write a non-advisory statement saying what is unknown.
HPE Day 13 Timetable transition
Source/target: A fictional team changes meeting rooms with ten minutes' notice. A member may need an alternative communication route; no reason must be disclosed. Refine a transition strategy that confirms the change reached everyone.
- A · Message map: Draft a short text plus visual room label and confirmation route.
- B · Failure review: Identify what fails if only one verbal announcement is used.
- C · Rehearse: Quietly role-play or dictate a respectful check-in and one revised step.
HPE Day 14 Shared-material permission
Source/target: In an imagined art group, someone reaches for a peer's paper tools after the peer says “Please ask first.” Evaluate respect, choice and power in the next action without asking for personal experiences.
- A · Dialogue rewrite: Give a question, an acceptable no and an alternative route.
- B · Decision cards: Order ASK, WAIT, ACCEPT ANSWER and SEEK SHARED RESOURCE.
- C · Observer lens: Explain how a facilitator could support the boundary without speaking over either person.
HPE Day 15 Crowded-room safety plan
Source/target: A fictional activity room's main aisle is blocked by paper boxes. No one is injured. Rehearse a safe, school-policy-aligned response: pause, avoid moving through the blockage, tell the responsible adult and use an approved route. Do not run a drill or clear a real hazard for this card.
- A · Route labels: Sort PAUSE, TELL and APPROVED ALTERNATIVE into a calm sequence.
- B · Staff message: Draft a concise report of the blocked aisle without diagnosing risk level.
- C · Scenario rehearsal: Direct a teacher/partner's paper figure through the safe decision points.
HPE Day 16 Tabletop passing strategy
Source/target: A paper-token game uses four marked stations and a goal of giving each willing player a meaningful turn. Create and revise a turn rule after one school-approved tabletop run, or label your result a paper plan if no run occurs.
- A · Rule trial: Try a safe small token pass with consent, then change one rule based on observed turns.
- B · Directed trial: Ask a willing partner to enact your rule and report what happened, then revise.
- C · Paper simulation: Trace hypothetical turns; explain what actual participation evidence is still missing.
HPE Day 17 Seated rhythm route
Source/target: A low-intensity, opt-in hand/desk pulse pattern has four beats: touch, rest, touch, rest. Create a strategy for two participants to coordinate without assuming everyone can hear or move the same way. Participation is optional and school-safety rules govern.
- A · Safe run: Try a comfortable version and adjust timing after one round.
- B · Visual/tactile cue: Make a four-box cue and ask a willing partner which timing is clear.
- C · Strategy design: Plan an accessible cue without claiming it was physically tested.
HPE Day 18 Fair-play passing game
Source/target: In a fictional, opt-in seated paper-token passing challenge one player gives themselves every second turn. Design a fairer procedure and, if safely enacted with willing players using a comfortable pass, roll or directed move, reflect on what changed in the physical activity. A written plan alone is not a demonstrated fair-play action.
- A · Rule and run: Share a turn rule before a small approved passing challenge, then record actual turns and what changed.
- B · Observer route: Watch a willing seated pass, roll or directed-move enactment and suggest one fair revision; say what you observed.
- C · Paper audit: Rewrite the rule and identify what an actual trial would need to show.
HPE Day 19 Reach-route adaptation
Source/target: A fictional station game places a token at two drawn distances. No body reaches or abilities are measured. Devise two equivalent participation options and one feedback question before any approved trial.
- A · Layout cards: Make two station positions with the same goal and explain how choice is kept.
- B · Facilitation script: Offer an opt-in path, a decline path and a way to adjust.
- C · Review lens: Critique “everyone can reach the far station” as unsupported and potentially excluding.
HPE Day 20 Mixed-role activity review
Source/target: An invented activity gives one caller, one mover and two recorders. The goal is shared decision-making, not speed. Refine the role rotation and note what an actual willing-group run would need to show.
- A · Rotation test: Use safe paper roles in a small consenting group and revise after one round.
- B · Facilitator note: Direct the role swaps and observe who had a choice.
- C · Scenario plan: Write a rotation and fair-play check, marking performance unobserved.
Technologies
Technologies Day 11 Recipe-card separator · Design
Source/target: A fictional shared kitchen needs a paper-only separator to keep recipe cards grouped. Write a design brief with reader, function, one-sheet constraint and testable criterion. No food or kitchen equipment is used.
- A · Brief card: Fill need, audience, material and criterion fields.
- B · User-story edit: Turn “make it nice” into a testable paper function and a style preference.
- C · Tactile plan: Direct a folded-paper outline and name what a real user check would still need.
Technologies Day 12 Bookmark tab iteration · Design
Source/target: Prototype a foldable scrap-paper bookmark tab that shows one page label without covering the line. Use one small paper fold, test against a fictional printed line and revise one feature. No blades or adhesives are required.
- A · Make/test/revise: Try two fold positions and record which keeps the line visible.
- B · Directed build: Tell a partner how to fold and point to the observed obstruction before revising.
- C · Accessible paper mock-up: Use a pre-folded blank if hand folding is not comfortable; direct the test/revision.
Technologies Day 13 Reusable gift sleeve criteria · Design
Source/target: A drawn sleeve for a paper card, not a product package, must use one sheet and reopen without tearing in a paper demonstration. Select two criteria including material use; evaluate a prototype idea honestly.
- A · Criteria scale: Label pass/unknown/fail for one-sheet and reopen checks.
- B · Trade-off memo: Explain why stronger folding could affect reopening; mark untested real durability.
- C · Reviewer question: Ask what evidence would support a repeat-use claim instead of assuming it.
Technologies Day 14 Game-token scoop prototype · Design
Source/target: A fictional board-game set needs a paper scoop to move three paper counters across a desk. Build or direct a one-sheet prototype and test with counters only; revise the lip or base once.
- A · Trial: Count moved counters before/after a fold revision.
- B · Failure tracing: Mark where a counter escaped, then direct a specific paper change.
- C · Test script: Tell a partner the same three-counter condition for two versions and record what happened.
Technologies Day 15 Seed-packet divider audit · Design
Source/target: A folded-paper divider must hold two empty paper envelopes upright for ten seconds in a classroom desk trial. No seeds, soil or real products are used. Compare an actual trial result to stability and material criteria; if untested, write “not tested”.
- A · Build/observe: Try one approved paper divider and mark seconds/one-sheet use.
- B · Directed test: Ask a willing partner to run the same ten-second condition and record it.
- C · Criteria review: Critique a drawing while clearly labelling stability unobserved.
Technologies Day 16 Page content, markup and style · Digital
Source/target: In the offline rule lab, inspect a small example <h1>Rule lab</h1> and a CSS colour choice. Separate displayed words, HTML structure and presentation; no account or network is used.
- A · Source view: Open the lab's “show page parts” panel and label content/markup/style.
- B · Paper equivalent: Sort the printed words, tags and CSS rule without opening a browser.
- C · AAC explanation: Direct a partner to switch the style and say which heading meaning remains.
Technologies Day 17 A two-condition rule · Digital
Source/target: The offline lab classifies invented parcel labels as READY when readable AND reviewed. Design a truth table for all four yes/no combinations before using the tool.
- A · Predict then click: Fill four outputs, run the lab and compare.
- B · Token algorithm: Move READABLE and REVIEWED cards through an AND gate and explain the false cases.
- C · Pseudocode editor: Write an
ifstatement and test one counterexample in the lab or paper route.
Technologies Day 18 Test-case challenge · Digital
Source/target: A fictional student algorithm says READY if readable OR reviewed. The requirement is AND. Compare outputs for all four test cases in the lab; identify one case that exposes the error and revise the condition.
- A · Table compare: Mark expected and faulty output for each case.
- B · Smallest counterexample: Find one case where exactly one condition is true; explain why it fails.
- C · Debug note: Dictate corrected pseudocode and a regression case, then run the tool if available.
Technologies Day 19 Parcel-rule user experience · Digital
Source/target: A new reader may not know what READY means. Prototype a clearer interface for the same offline, invented parcel rule with explicit input labels, result explanation and an unknown-data state. This is a design, not a live service.
- A · Wireframe: Draw two labelled controls and a result region with words, not colour alone.
- B · Transcript route: Write the screen-reader order and an example result message.
- C · User-story critique: Check your prototype against “I want to know why a label is not ready” and revise one line.
Technologies Day 20 Unknown is not false · Digital
Source/target: In the offline parcel lab, a label may have unknown readability. Design a three-state rule that does not silently turn unknown into NO; test unknown + reviewed yes and one known case on paper or in the lab.
- A · State table: Put YES/NO/UNKNOWN inputs into a table and state output policy.
- B · Flowchart: Add a CHECK DATA branch before the AND rule.
- C · Test director: Give two input cases and expected outputs to someone else, then compare with tool behaviour and mark any mismatch.
Arts
Arts Day 11 Waiting-room motif · Dance
Source/target: Choreograph an original comfortable eight-count motif for “waiting, then choosing to leave”: open, pause, turn/redirect, settle. Use hand, eye, seated, standing or directed spatial notation; no style or cultural tradition is being imitated.
- A · Perform safely: Try an opt-in version and mark the longest pause.
- B · Notated score: Draw eight numbered counts and direct a willing partner's comfortable route.
- C · Tactile pathway: Move shape tokens and explain how timing, not speed, communicates the shift.
Arts Day 12 Two-path dance revision · Dance
Source/target: In a fictional station queue, show “approach, yield, return” in four counts, then change level or direction for a contrasting second four. Refine one choice after an actual safe trial or a clearly labelled paper critique.
- A · Small performance: Present a comfortable eight-count route and revise a pause after feedback.
- B · Dual score: Compare two notated pathways and explain intended audience meaning.
- C · Direction route: Guide a willing mover with cards, or mark rehearsal unobserved if no one moves.
Arts Day 13 The wrong parcel · Drama
Source/target: Devise a 25-second original scene: two fictional neighbours find a parcel with no readable address. Give each role a different goal, add one pause and end with a question, not an accusation.
- A · Improvise: With willing partners, enact the safe scene and note where tension changes.
- B · Script: Write six short lines and stage directions, then read roles without public performance.
- C · Tabletop direction: Move two role cards and dictate goal, obstacle, pause and unresolved ending.
Arts Day 14 The second message · Drama
Source/target: In an imagined community theatre, the parcel from Day13 now includes a note: “Please ask before opening.” Revise the character's action and one line to show the effect of a new boundary, without suggesting a real safety procedure.
- A · Two runs: Rehearse the scene twice with consent and identify the changed beat.
- B · Script comparison: Mark old/new line and explain how power or care shifts.
- C · Director note: Give a partner one precise revision and evaluate whether the intention is visible.
Arts Day 15 Single-frame inference · Media Arts
Source/target: An original fictional paper news image shows a closed box, a hand placing a label and an empty table. Choose one frame to lead a story, then explain an inference that a missing frame might change. No person or institution is real.
- A · Frame crop: Draw two different first frames with complete captions.
- B · Sequence editor: Arrange three word-labelled frame cards and justify order.
- C · Audio description: Dictate a full first-frame description and an alternative order's likely effect.
Arts Day 16 Community notice mini-comic · Media Arts
Source/target: Make an original three-panel paper mini-comic about a fictional notice changing from vague to precise. Use framing, caption and sequence to challenge a “everyone agreed” representation without copying a real poster.
- A · Draw: Create all three panels and full alt captions.
- B · Cut-and-place: Arrange original blank frame shapes plus typed/handwritten caption text.
- C · Text storyboard: Write shot scale, image description and caption for every panel; mark final art unmade if only planned.
Arts Day 17 Four-beat city cue · Music
Source/target: Compose and notate an original four-beat cue for a fictional crossing in a stage play: short sound, rest, longer sound, rest. Try the optional original quiet tone aid or the full beat text; it is a timing example, not a real traffic signal.
- A · Sound score: Make four boxes, mark sound/rest/duration and quietly play or tap if comfortable.
- B · Silent notation: Use raised or written beat cards and describe the planned expressive effect.
- C · Variation: Change one duration or dynamic mark, notate both versions and explain the effect.
Arts Day 18 Rehearsal-room response motif · Music
Source/target: Add an original four-beat answering phrase to Day17's score for a fictional rehearsal cue. Use at least one rest and a different contour or dynamic; write how the response relates to the first phrase.
- A · Two-line score: Notate both phrases with clear beat alignment.
- B · Quiet rehearsal: If comfortable, perform or direct both, then revise one transition.
- C · AAC/tactile score: Use beat and rest cards, then dictate why phrase two answers rather than duplicates phrase one.
Arts Day 19 Market-sign negative space · Visual Arts
Source/target: On scrap paper, explore two original compositions for a fictional market stall sign using one circle, one line and empty space. Change placement/weight, not a culturally owned motif, and state how attention moves.
- A · Two sketches: Make both with a broad and a thin line, then annotate a chosen focal point.
- B · Tactile layout: Use raised/string shapes or direct placement and compare empty spaces.
- C · Critic's labels: Describe two compositions precisely and state what would need visual testing.
Arts Day 20 Park-path abstract print · Visual Arts
Source/target: Create a small original abstract paper print for a fictional park path using a bend, two contrasting marks and one intentionally empty region. Refine one choice from peer/self feedback; do not present it as a real wayfinding sign.
- A · Make/revise: Draw two versions and label the changed convention.
- B · Directed art: Choose positions/material marks while another person places them under your direction; approve the result.
- C · Access-first image: Build a tactile or text-based composition and write a complete description; mark any unmade visual version as a plan.
Original resource rights: © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, CC BY 4.0. Credit author, source, licence and changes. The two HASS History factual notes are paraphrased and linked to the official sources above.