Common aim: students respond to and create short texts about work. They explain how a choice of words, structure, image or mode helps a specified audience, with evidence from a text. Every fictional workplace text is a prompt, not an instruction for a real workplace. See learner cards, public checks, staff key, and practice swaps. A route is a choice for this task, never a label for a learner.
Each day follows 25 = 2 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 5 minutes except check days, 25 = 2 + 3 + 12 + 5 + 3 minutes. If a learner needs more time, continue at the next meeting; speed is not the target. Read text aloud or let students read independently. Speech responses need captured notes; visual responses need labels. Keep an initial response before any public key is displayed.
Day 1 · Find the action in a notice
Goal: identify audience, purpose and actionable details in Card A. Teacher says: “A notice succeeds when the right person can act. Which exact words make that possible?”
- 0–2: Display the heading and ask who would need the notice.
- 2–7: Model circling time, new room and entry point. Contrast “moved” with a vague “changed”.
- 7–13: Pairs find the fallback instruction and explain why the title belongs at the top.
- 13–20: Independent response: main action, two pieces of evidence, two-sentence message to someone at Room 2.
- 20–25: Invite one counterexample: what error would happen if the room detail vanished? Collect the response.
Routes: mark the notice and write two sentences; tell a partner while they record the cited words and your explanation; use three labelled tiles “who / action / evidence” then dictate or caption the message. Alternative domains: Day 1 swaps change the setting without changing the skill. Optional/home: invent a fictional room-change notice on scrap paper; test whether another person can find the action in ten seconds. Move: if learners only copy details, ask “What would the reader do next?”; if they infer an unprinted new time, point back to the unchanged time.
Day 2 · Headings carry meaning
Goal: explain how sequence and headings organise Card B. Teacher says: “Find the heading a reader would look for if the room became crowded.”
- 0–2: Recall the “action plus evidence” habit from Day 1.
- 2–7: Model drawing four boxes for set-up, welcome, crowd, finish.
- 7–13: Students match each heading to an action; ask why “practice model” matters.
- 13–20: Students produce an ordered summary and a transition sentence between two stages.
- 20–25: Share one transition; ask if it adds a fact not in the procedure.
Routes: write numbered steps with a quoted heading; arrange four heading cards and give a spoken explanation recorded in notes; annotate the source with arrows and one caption per stage. Alternative domains: Day 2 swaps. Optional/home: reorganise an invented four-step activity, such as a book display; do not use this exercise to override real safety procedures. Move: when students treat headings as decoration, remove the heading and ask how long the crowd instruction now takes to find.
Day 3 · Check a spoken handover
Goal: identify an uncertainty and show how Card C resolves it. Teacher says: “A question can be a sign of care, not a failure.”
- 0–2: Explain that the transcript is fictional and can be read silently or aloud.
- 2–7: Model “task / question / confirmed detail” on the board.
- 7–13: In pairs, locate the blue folder, lower-right placement and plan recheck.
- 13–20: Convert the talk to a three-line note; keep only confirmed instructions.
- 20–25: Read one note back against the transcript; correct any missing plan check.
Routes: write a three-line handover note; speak the note while a partner captures it; use three labelled strips and annotate the evidence. Alternative domains: Day 3 swaps. Optional/home: compose a fictional two-voice handover about a school exhibition and add one useful question. Move: if a response calls Ivo “confused”, ask which detail was genuinely ambiguous and what his question accomplished.
Day 4 · Register and usable detail
Goal: compare two invitations in Card D by audience, purpose and register. Teacher says: “Friendly wording can still leave the reader unable to act.”
- 0–2: Put “come early” and “9:15 to 10:00” side by side.
- 2–7: Model naming the audience and purpose of the email; locate its task, contact point and reply deadline.
- 7–13: Students explain one possible misunderstanding from the chat message without judging its writer.
- 13–20: Compose a respectful question that would make the vague invitation usable.
- 20–25: Read a question aloud and test whether it requests a missing detail rather than assuming one.
Routes: comparison table plus reply; paired verbal comparison with a recorded reply; labelled two-column layout with a dictated reply. Alternative domains: Day 4 swaps. Optional/home: change the audience of a fictional invitation and revise two words. Move: if learners equate formal with “better”, redirect to fit for a particular reader and purpose.
Day 5 · Boundary and first formative check
Goal: use Card E to distinguish a task from an expert claim, then transfer to new Check A. Teacher says: “The brief tells a volunteer what to do and where a question goes beyond the role.”
- 0–2: Read the brief and identify the visitor-facing action.
- 2–5: Model evidence for the “do not give advice” boundary; do not model Check A.
- 5–17: Give Check A independently. Offer the three equivalent routes below; collect initial evidence before feedback.
- 17–22: With the learner's permission, show the public key and have them revise one explanation in another colour or as a second voice note.
- 22–25: Ask what detail changed their thinking; record a next step.
Routes: write the check answers; give an oral answer with exact cited words captured by a scribe; annotate the check text and record short captions for audience, boundary and revision. Alternative domains: Day 5 swaps are after-check practice only. Optional/home: draft a fictional role card with one action and one referral boundary. Move: if a response promises expertise absent from the text, ask “Which line authorised that promise?” This is a public formative check, not a secure assessment.
Day 6 · What a trailer makes visible
Goal: explain a representation of work in Card F through words and screen directions. Teacher says: “A trailer selects moments. It is a constructed view, not a report about every worker.”
- 0–2: Read or perform the short script without requiring anyone to act.
- 2–7: Model two columns, “pressure” and “teamwork”, each with textual evidence.
- 7–13: Discuss the clock, fast cuts and cue-list check; identify the invited viewer response.
- 13–20: Students explain the representation and draft a more balanced caption.
- 20–25: Test each caption: does it preserve drama without claiming real conditions?
Routes: written evidence grid and caption; spoken explanation with notes plus dictated caption; annotate a three-frame storyboard with evidence labels and caption. Alternative domains: Day 6 swaps. Optional/home: draw a fictional still frame and state what it leaves outside the frame. Move: if students say “stage work is always frantic”, remind them the only evidence is a fictional trailer.
Day 7 · Credit, omission and a complete story
Goal: use Card G to compare two representations of contributions. This complete short story is original; it is not a substitute for the school's full text-selection decisions. Teacher says: “What changes when a label names specific work?”
- 0–2: Introduce the story as fiction; offer silent reading or teacher read-aloud.
- 2–7: Model a three-part plot map: card problem, revision, open question.
- 7–13: Students compare “Built by the team” with the revised sentence.
- 13–20: Explain who is represented more clearly and cite the line that keeps the ending provisional.
- 20–25: Discuss why Cal does not call the fix perfect. Accept more than one defensible view with evidence.
Routes: paragraph with two quotations; oral comparison captured in notes; side-by-side labels with annotated names/actions and a recorded explanation. Alternative domains: Day 7 swaps. Optional/home: write a fictional four-line scene in which a poster leaves out a helper; revise it. Move: if students assume naming all three settles every issue, direct them to tomorrow's planned team check.
Day 8 · Audience changes what must be said
Goal: compare Card H and revise the public post within the confirmed trial boundary. Teacher says: “A welcome can be accurate and still inviting.”
- 0–2: Read the two texts and mark their audiences.
- 2–7: Model underlining “trial screening on Friday” and “do not promise availability at another screening”.
- 7–13: Ask what a public reader may infer from “ready”; record an uncertainty rather than assume supply beyond Friday.
- 13–20: Revise the post and add a one-sentence explanation tied to the internal note.
- 20–25: Peer-check for both invitation and accuracy; remove unsupported promises.
Routes: written revised post and explanation; recorded spoken public announcement plus written source note; labelled post mock-up with dictated rationale. Alternative domains: Day 8 swaps. Optional/home: write a fictional event update with a clear date and limit. Move: if students make the post sound forbidding, ask how a visitor could still find a useful next step.
Day 9 · Say what the source confirms
Goal: separate an unverified event-board rumour from the signed schedule in Card I. Teacher says: “Two times can both be true if they apply to different audiences.”
- 0–2: Show “apparently” and ask what confidence it signals.
- 2–7: Model a source note: signed schedule, Wednesday; visitors 10:00, volunteers 9:00.
- 7–13: Students identify the difference between entry and set-up.
- 13–20: Draft two lines for visitors and one internal reminder with no invented hour.
- 20–25: Check each line against its intended reader and source.
Routes: write both messages and cite the schedule; speak both messages with a scribe recording the source; arrange labelled visitor/volunteer cards and add a source caption. Alternative domains: Day 9 swaps. Optional/home: invent two conflicting fictional notices and write the question you would ask before publishing. Move: if learners simply call the event-board message “wrong”, ask what it may have confused: set-up with opening.
Day 10 · Edit for a reader, then transfer
Goal: revise Card J for an actual crew purpose, then answer new Check B. Teacher says: “Name the reader, the required action and the source of certainty.”
- 0–2: Identify the vague words in the draft.
- 2–5: Model replacing one vague phrase with the confirmed clipboard location only; keep the rest for learners.
- 5–17: Independent Check B using any route. Collect first responses.
- 17–22: Share the public teacher-targeted key, compare evidence and revise one sentence.
- 22–25: Exit: name one structural choice and one language choice that would help a real reader.
Routes: write the check response; speak it with a captured evidence note; build a labelled notice layout and dictate a rationale. Alternative domains: Day 10 swaps are after-check practice. Optional/home: rewrite a made-up “things changed” message into two accurate sentences. Move: if learners improve polish but invent extra duties, have them underline only facts in the supplied source. This is a public formative check, not a secure exam.