Optional evidence studio | Year 12 Inquiry · T1 · Week 01

Five independent 35-minute sessions. Use learner cards, English Texts A/B, Maths Card A and the separate key. Each block is 4 + 7 + 9 + 8 + 5 + 2 minutes. It is a cross-subject extension, not a new QCAA subject or summative task. A learner enrolled in only one of the two subjects can participate with the needed mini-lesson, with no cross-subject result inferred.

Day 1 — Who says it and what is it?

Success: Distinguish a speaker's example, a fictional claim and a measured count within the materials.

Open · 4 min. Put Text A's apprentice, Text B's last bus and Maths Card A's “12” on three cards. Ask which is a made-up example, an in-story claim and a table count.
Model · 7 min. Think aloud over S1: “The bus time is asserted by a fictional speaker. The pack cannot verify a real timetable.” Explain why source identity travels with the claim.
Build · 9 min. Learners fill one source/limit note per item in S1. Offer a read-aloud and accessible table; never ask about their commute.
Test · 8 min. In pairs or solo, exchange a public sentence and ask “What in our materials backs that?” If source changes from text to table, revise.
Apply · 5 min. Write one safe sentence for the invented board meeting with a named source and a needed check.
Exit · 2 min. Collect source, sentence and limit. If a learner writes the bus claim as real, revisit fiction label before Day 2.

Day 2 — Two ways to divide a room

Success: Connect a row-percentage comparison to a cautious sentence for a public audience.

Open · 4 min. Ask what “12 quiet” omits: session total and comparison group.
Model · 7 min. Show 12/20 morning visits and 6/20 afternoon visits. Name the unit as visits and the statistic as within-row percentage.
Build · 9 min. Learners calculate 60% and 30% and place them on a 0–100 line or tactile strip. Write the denominator in words.
Test · 8 min. Compare “morning causes quiet” and “quiet choice was more common in these morning visits”. Locate the word that changes evidence into a causal claim.
Apply · 5 min. Draft a two-sentence public note: number first, uncertainty second.
Exit · 2 min. Check for visit/unit label, row denominator and causal restraint; give a targeted correction.

Day 3 — Offer a choice without erasing someone

Success: Compare Pilot P and Q while identifying an access question each leaves unanswered.

Open · 4 min. Read S2's two options. Ask which concrete feature each promises; do not assume either option works for everyone.
Model · 7 min. Use Text B's bus concern to ask about return travel, then use Text A's quiet-space concern to ask who needs a quiet table.
Build · 9 min. Learners make a two-column option map with “possible benefit”, “unknown” and “information to gather”.
Test · 8 min. Groups challenge each other with an unfamiliar fictional user profile chosen from neutral needs, such as “needs a quiet desk” or “needs an accessible route”, without identifying classmates.
Apply · 5 min. Write one recommendation conditional on a named check. A recommendation may be “test both” if justified.
Exit · 2 min. Collect an option, condition and evidence question. Reteach if a possible benefit is asserted as a known outcome.

Day 4 — Ask a question people can answer

Success: Design a non-leading public feedback question and an offline response route.

Open · 4 min. Ask why “Don't you agree eight o'clock is best?” is leading and excludes other hours.
Model · 7 min. Rewrite it: “Which of these proposed sessions, if any, could you use? You can choose more than one or none.” Explain limits of any survey taken only in the existing room.
Build · 9 min. Learners draft a two-item anonymous feedback slip plus a paper/offline return route. Avoid personal disclosure fields.
Test · 8 min. Exchange slips and find where “none”, a different time and uncertainty can be expressed. Check readability and a screen-reader text route.
Apply · 5 min. Add one sentence explaining who the slip may miss and how to seek broader input without coercion.
Exit · 2 min. Collect the neutral question and missing-group note. If the question assumes agreement, rewrite together.

Day 5 — A one-minute evidence briefing

Success: Explain one numerical comparison, one text perspective and one missing evidence need without blending their sources.

Open · 4 min. Display Card S5 and ask which blank must include “fictional”.
Model · 7 min. Demonstrate an unrelated example: invented garden counts can support a local table comparison, not a town policy. Leave the library answer to learners.
Build · 9 min. Learners prepare a 60-second talk, typed brief, AAC sequence or annotated page for the invented board.
Test · 8 min. Partners mark source labels and any overclaim; solo learners use a checklist. The teacher checks that Text A/B claims and Maths Card A figures stay distinct.
Apply · 5 min. Revise one sentence from certainty to an evidence-bound claim.
Exit · 2 min. Save first and revised versions. Use the key's next-move table for Week 2.