Teacher feedback… | Year 11 Ancient History · T1 W1–2 · Answer And…

This worked key is public by URL, not a secure marking guide. Keep the student's first response and access record before feedback. Credit historically defensible alternatives with a source chain and limits. Reading speed and spelling are not the construct here when text-to-speech, reading support, AAC or scribing is offered. No QCAA unit result follows from the checks.

Day 5 · F, World Heritage Committee decision

Defensible response: F is a 2019 formal decision by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. It inscribed the Budj Bim Cultural Landscape under criteria (iii) and (v), describing Gunditjmara cultural knowledge and engineering. The committee did not discover or build the ancient waterworks. Inscription does not make UNESCO the owner; the decision describes Aboriginal ownership/management and Gunditjmara obligations. A listing record by itself cannot date every wall. Use B, the 2012 excavation report, to investigate the sampled Muldoons feature's phases; use D or the current Gunditjmara visitor page for access protocol. A concise corrected label could say: “In 2019 the World Heritage Committee inscribed Budj Bim for its Gunditjmara cultural landscape. Gunditjmara knowledge and water management continue. The decision recognises significance; dating individual features needs archaeological context and visitation follows Traditional Owner protocols.” This is our original example, not an approved museum label.

Feedback moves:

If maker/date are absent, ask the learner to mark Committee → 2019 → inscription, then resubmit the same claim.
If a learner says all walls date to 6,600 years, return to B's charcoal-in-infill and later-wall phases. Do not imply a single sampled complex dates the whole landscape.
If the response treats recognition as ownership, compare F's management paragraph with D's present-day protocol. Do not invent a legal transfer.
If wording speaks for Gunditjmara people without attribution, place “according to the public Gunditjmara page A” before the claim and invite real custodian review for any display.

Day 10 · G and H, LiDAR and guided access

Defensible response: G is a 2026 coauthored research report that processes airborne LiDAR data and finds potential features, but records false positives and misses some known features. The authors require field verification and Gunditjmara knowledge; digital detection is a research aid, not proof of every feature or a comprehensive site inventory. H is a current Gunditjmara-led student-program page: school visits have a Gunditjmara guide and Tyrendarra is available only by special request. H governs an offered visit; it cannot tell us the date of an ancient wall or guarantee a booking. A responsible next research step is checking a candidate through appropriate Traditional Owner-led field process, not crowdsourcing a map. A safe classroom action is comparing the methods and limits of G/H with text-only source records, or contacting the authorised program about a guided visit. Do not distribute coordinates or copy cultural site images.

Feedback moves:

If “the computer discovered everything,” sort potential, verified and not detected statements from G.
If a learner treats LiDAR as dating technology, return to B's separate dating method; G visualises surface shapes and needs checking.
If an H visitor page is called an ancient primary source, identify it as primary evidence of a present-day offer/protocol only.
If the response proposes publishing coordinates, ask who controls access and replace the plan with an authorised, location-free inquiry.

Daily calibration and next instruction

Day	Evidence of target reached	If missing, next move
1	A named as Gunditjmara-led; one bounded site question; no all-peoples claim.	Put maker and site in the sentence subject.
2	Ancient material distinguished from present-day A and 2012 B; uses and limits.	Sort source kinds before writing a claim.
3	Charcoal in channel infill about 6,600 cal BP; later walls 600–800 years.	Trace sample → context → inference on the phase clock.
4	C's three components named without locator map; D consulted for access.	Separate overview geography from access permission.
5	F's 2019 decision, Gunditjmara attribution, two non-claims and next sources.	Ask what a committee decided, then what a field team dated.
6	A and B matched to different questions; neither knowledge system dismissed.	State the question before judging usefulness.
7	D protocol controls access; E museum page does not grant image/location rights.	Sort reading a public page, reusing an image and visiting a place.
8	A/E makers named, attributed label plan and one review gap.	Put the source creator beside each proposed label sentence.
9	At least three IDs, method limit and cultural-authority limit.	Remove a universal claim, add an ID, then add custodial review note.
10	G potential/false positives/field check; H guide/special request; location-free action.	Separate digital clue from confirmed feature and public program from permission.

Next assessment decision: These public checks diagnose source reasoning. The school still plans Topic 1 depth and conclusion, Topic 2, school instruments, academic-integrity process and any access/cultural review under the live syllabus. There has been no classroom pilot, external moderation or community endorsement of this pack.