SubjectNest resource library

Year 2 / Supplementary / Term 1 / Weeks 03 04 / Hass

Development draft · local review needed

HASS staff checks and next movesYear 2 Subjects · T1 W3–4 · Assessment guide

Download editable text
Teacher copy · prompts and answer keys

Teacher copy: This page may include teaching prompts or answer keys. Answer keys in this public library can be viewed by anyone. Give learners a clean prompt, use checks as formative evidence, and change a case locally when prior access matters.

Staff only. Record exact child claim and whether it came from a checked source, a fictional model, or inference. Use I independent, P after a specific prompt, R repair, N not yet observed. A source name is evidence only when the child has actually inspected the provided note/map. A child need not disclose any personal/local knowledge.

Day Acceptable evidence / key Exact next move
11 Small plan for door; state/territory reference view for broad boundary; each omits detail for the other purpose. If child treats a courtyard sketch as real boundary evidence, ask what area the sketch actually covers.
12 Publisher Geoscience Australia; reference-map page title and access date recorded. A question about broad features/boundaries is plausible; local detail requires another map. If “internet” is only source label, point to publisher/title/date fields and reread together.
13 Fictional local ⊂ region ⊂ state/territory as a model; real place names require approved source. If invented label is reported as real geography, add a bold MODEL tag and ask for a checked map.
14 Plan A has path/shelves; B only shelves. Visitor likely needs route; helper likely needs shelf label. Perspectives are fictional. If child says a drawn wide path is definitely accessible, ask what a real user/site test would require.
15 Source 2 could test a real state boundary if its map/title/date are checked; fictional Source 1 cannot. Next: inspect actual labelled boundary and source metadata. If the answer gives a boundary location from the card, note that neither description supplies a specific boundary fact.
16 Museums Victoria record supports handheld barcode/location tracking there, beginning in 2001; does not prove all museums adopted it. If child generalises to everyone, underline “this museum” in the source note and rewrite the sentence.
17 Museum fact separated from invented paper/digital game. Both cards could list a shelf; digital search is a possibility, not proven for the invented system. If child attributes our paper list to the museum, align each claim with a source label.
18 Visitor/stock-helper needs distinguished; public list omits personal name; suggestion addresses both. If roles collapse, give each fictional role a separate question strip and let child choose a field.
19 Proposal plus named source or “new idea to test”, with one possible effect and uncertainty. If child claims the idea will certainly work, ask who could test it and what observation would change the proposal.
20 Museums Victoria is publisher; record supports one scanner's use in its inventory system 2008–2014; cannot determine all museums' adoption dates. If child equates an object date with a national timeline, ask whose collection the source documents.

Coverage limit: Fictional maps can show spatial-representation reasoning but not actual local-to-state interconnection. AC9HS2K03 remains conditional on a school-approved local/regional/state source. The two museum records document particular technology use, not every family/workplace. AC9HS2K01 and AC9HS2K04 need verified local and community-authorised sources and are not claimed.