Teacher-facing worked… | Year 11 English · T1 W3–4 · Answer And…

Public access: This key and the learner checks are both accessible by URL. Days 15/20 are new relative to the practice texts, but not secure or validated examinations. Make a locally new parallel case if first encounter matters. Use secure / developing / not yet observed only as local feedback per construct; do not call it a QCAA grade, an approved instrument or a Unit 1 result. Log exact learner evidence, source access, prompts, mode and time. Accept alternate readings supported by the text and bounded in scope.

Daily short-response key

Day	Defensible evidence and boundary	If missed, next teaching move
11	E plans twelve sign-up slots, not twelve repairs. “Everyone” invites broadly but may imply an outcome E explicitly disclaims. A replacement can say “Bring a small item or question to the Borrow Bench”; avoid promising tools/access/repair.	Put headline, count and no-promise line on three strips; ask which one describes a completed outcome.
12	F's blue tin and “promise had a handle” connect physical carrying to expectation. The label makes a question visible; the toy is not fixed. Leena's voice is one invented perspective.	Point to the final two sentences and ask: what did she leave with, and what did she not leave with?
13	E: public invitation; F: Leena's imagined experience; G: internal plan to revise/avoid overreporting. G plans a writing route and asks before images, but it cannot prove implementation or full access arrangements.	Have students reattach maker labels before interpreting any line. Distinguish plan, scene and reported outcome.
14	A credible invitation includes twelve planned conversations, `small item or question` and/or label-writing route, no guaranteed repair, and a question about available items/materials or access. The edit should change reader expectation, not merely replace an adjective.	Compare the learner's sentence against E/G line by line. Ask which word promises an outcome not supplied.
15	See worked Check A below.	Reteach the specific construct after retaining the independent response.
16	H's “Add yours” positions a prospective contributor as able to take part; a written outline, spoken pitch or transcript is welcomed. A pitch does not guarantee one of eight expected slots; selection criteria, times and edit approval remain unstated.	Sort H into offer, limit and unanswered question; do not substitute a guessed station policy.
17	Kai says the case's four-year history is not permission for a reductive label. Jules folds the headline, plausibly signalling a shift to listening. Kai asks who hears a script before publication; H does not answer. This is about these fictional speakers, not all young people.	Read the stage direction independently of dialogue and ask for two plausible meanings, then test each against words nearby.
18	J Draft 1's “Every pitch” contradicts H's no-guarantee condition. “Finally speak for the town” invents a town history and a collective voice. Draft 2 retains eight planned slots and discussion of script/permissions as a plan. A new caption should not imply publication is already agreed.	Underline each `every/finally` and ask for its source warrant. Build invitation + limit + question in that order.
19	Accept a coherent H/I note with H's exact invitation/limit, I's line or folded-headline stage direction, a plausible effect, a question about selection or pre-publication review, and a substantive edit. A plausible claim is “the call invites pitches, while Kai wants to control how one object story represents him”; no real consent outcome is shown.	If it summarises without analysing, ask what one exact choice does to the intended editor's understanding. If overclaiming, narrow subject to the source.
20	See worked Check B below.	Reteach the specific construct after retaining the independent response.

Day 15 Check A · Map Room

Source facts: K is an invented public team notice seeking route notes. It allows no-name submission, plans six display panels, selects notes, and says receipt does not ensure display. Selection criteria and contributor review are unstated. L is an invented third-person scene about Ina, who writes the long way home, turns the paper over and asks how it would be used first. The scene ends with the pen in her hand; it does not show the note displayed, submitted or refused. The metaphorical lack of room for “her hesitation” may position a reader to notice what a street map misses. Another defensible reading is that Ina is actively negotiating conditions, not passively excluded.

Possible response, one of several: “The fictional Map Room notice invites notes with the generous headline ‘Every visitor makes the map’, but its team plans only six display panels and chooses which notes appear. That wording may make contribution feel immediate while leaving selection unclear. In the separate scene, Ina writes ‘the long way home’ and turns the page over before leaving it. The paper map's lack of room for her hesitation may help a reader see a route as more than a street line. Her question shows one invented person's wish to understand use; it does not prove the team refused her. I would ask whether contributors can review displayed wording before a note is shown.”

Next moves: If a student treats every as six assured displays, pair K's headline and final sentence. If they infer Ina submitted or was rejected, ask them to locate the last action in L. If they describe imagery but not its effect, ask how “room” links physical map space to Ina's hesitation. If they present one voice as a survey, replace “visitors” with “Ina” or “this scene.” If only mode/fluency obstructs a response, re-offer the agreed mode and assess the idea separately.

Day 20 Check B · Screen Shelf

Source facts: M is an invented public call accepting a thirty-second film or still-image sequence with written description. It plans four slots, offers a name-omission request, leaves selection and edit review unspecified, and explicitly rejects a slot guarantee. N is an invented close-third-person scene: Tari notices that the boat moved on screen but not on the desk, adds a sentence naming a hand outside the frame, then sends the file. The scene ends before any screening. A defensible reading is that the added sentence corrects a viewer's possible false inference about how the motion was made; it is not proof that every viewer would be misled. A more accurate headline is “Send a short clip or described still sequence for four planned screening slots; selection details will follow.”

Possible response, one of several: “Screen Shelf's fictional public call says ‘Every clip finds its audience here’, yet it plans four slots and says submission does not guarantee one. The wording invites makers warmly but could imply an assured screening. In the invented scene, Tari sees that a boat ‘had never moved’ on the desk and adds a description of the hand outside the frame. That contrast lets a reader consider how framing can hide the maker's action. It does not tell us whether the clip will be screened or edited. A clearer public line would invite films or described still sequences for four planned slots and explain how selections and edit review will work.”

Next moves: If a student asserts a screening happened, find N's last sentence. If they miss the option for still-image description, read the two permitted submission formats. If they say all editors manipulate content, move back to M's unknown edit review procedure. If their new headline guarantees selection, ask them to align it with the four-slot/no-guarantee lines. If a stylistic term appears without interpretation, ask what the screen/desk contrast lets a reader notice.

Feedback lens for both checks

Construct to observe	Sufficient local evidence	Action if not yet observed
Source/context	Names each maker, genre and audience/purpose without treating fiction as field evidence	Restore labels; ask who wrote each text and for whom.
Wording and effect	Cites exact words or action and explains a plausible audience effect	Highlight one word or stage/image choice; ask what a reader might infer.
Evidence boundary	Distinguishes plan, selection, action and unknown; avoids all-person claims	Match every outcome claim to the final source sentence.
Public communication	Organises a useful editor note or equivalent transcript with a warranted correction/question	Sequence source fact → effect → limit → practical line; allow additional composition time.

This local lens is not the official QCAA reporting standard or an ISMG. A school must design and judge its own Unit 1–2 assessment program according to the current syllabus.