# Optional Week 1 evidence studio

Five independent 35-minute sessions. Use [learner cards](student-materials.md), [English Texts A/B](../../english/term-1/weeks-01-02/student-materials.md), [Maths Card A](../../mathematics/term-1/weeks-01-02/student-materials.md) and the [separate key](teacher-key.md). 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.

1. **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*.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **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.
5. **Apply · 5 min.** Write one safe sentence for the invented board meeting with a named source and a needed check.
6. **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.

1. **Open · 4 min.** Ask what “12 quiet” omits: session total and comparison group.
2. **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.
3. **Build · 9 min.** Learners calculate 60% and 30% and place them on a 0–100 line or tactile strip. Write the denominator in words.
4. **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.
5. **Apply · 5 min.** Draft a two-sentence public note: number first, uncertainty second.
6. **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.

1. **Open · 4 min.** Read S2's two options. Ask which concrete feature each promises; do not assume either option works for everyone.
2. **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.
3. **Build · 9 min.** Learners make a two-column option map with “possible benefit”, “unknown” and “information to gather”.
4. **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.
5. **Apply · 5 min.** Write one recommendation conditional on a named check. A recommendation may be “test both” if justified.
6. **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.

1. **Open · 4 min.** Ask why “Don't you agree eight o'clock is best?” is leading and excludes other hours.
2. **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.
3. **Build · 9 min.** Learners draft a two-item anonymous feedback slip plus a paper/offline return route. Avoid personal disclosure fields.
4. **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.
5. **Apply · 5 min.** Add one sentence explaining who the slip may miss and how to seek broader input without coercion.
6. **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.

1. **Open · 4 min.** Display Card S5 and ask which blank must include “fictional”.
2. **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.
3. **Build · 9 min.** Learners prepare a 60-second talk, typed brief, AAC sequence or annotated page for the invented board.
4. **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.
5. **Apply · 5 min.** Revise one sentence from certainty to an evidence-bound claim.
6. **Exit · 2 min.** Save first and revised versions. Use the key's next-move table for Week 2.

**Rights:** Original studio scripts © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).