Technologies · teacher-only… | Year 3 Subjects · T1 W3–4 · Assessment

Keep this separate from learner cards. Capture exact action/words | source or actual mode | help offered | next move without identifiable child data in this public pack. These short checks are formative, not a full achievement-standard judgement. Score 2 for independent evidence with access available, 1 after a model/prompt, 0 for not yet evidenced; not assessed if access, approval or opportunity was unavailable. Do not mark planning as an actual experiment, bodily movement, shared drama, sounded music or media-tool use. Recheck with the fresh task below.

Day	Observable check / acceptable response	If not yet, teach and recheck	Evidence limit
11	A holder must stand or be supported and make the card readable for the named user; one fold test is not a durability certification.	Use a fresh heavier paper card and retest stability before revising criteria.	A fictional user story cannot stand in for feedback from real users.
12	A folded form may resist the gentle push differently. No universal strength ranking follows from one informal trial.	Repeat with a new fold shape and record the push direction explicitly.	Do not call the paper test an engineering safety certification.
13	Both designs have a legible card position and feasible fold sequence; the chosen option gives a testable reason, not a guessed guarantee.	Provide a new narrow table space criterion and ask for revised sketch/sequence.	A design sketch is not a made product or real user evaluation.
14	The model either holds the card visibly under this gentle test or needs revision. Note the observed result rather than ‘works perfectly’.	Try a different card width and revise one fold step.	A single desk test does not prove long-term durability or universal access.
15	A model can be visible/reused in this trial yet fail narrow-footprint; ‘sustainable’ needs a wider evidence base.	Give a new fictional user needing a larger card and ask which criterion/test changes.	Invented criteria are practice, not proof of real community needs.
16	An ordered three-step route works only for matching labels; a nonmatch needs an explicit branch.	Use a new box label pair and ask learner to add a decision step.	Paper sequence shows algorithm reasoning, not a running visual program.
17	BLUE matches BLUE and can be placed; GREEN is not a match and follows ELSE. The rule needs a safe end if no label matches.	Try a new RED card with no RED box and add a clear ‘ask’ end.	Unplugged branching does not prove a digital program was implemented.
18	The check repeats three times for three cards; an unmatched card must not be placed in a guessed box.	Test four new tokens with two matching labels and count iterations again.	A paper loop demonstrates logic, not executed software.
19	Both representations preserve blue=2, green=1. A table supports exact lookup; tokens can show quantity, but neither adds an unrecorded category.	Use counts 1 and 3 with new labels and check fidelity in both forms.	The numbers are fictional and reveal no real borrowing data.
20	A and C can match; B must pause/ask, not be forced into a box. A clear algorithm handles all three and meets the no-guess criterion on paper.	Give a new repeated label or blank label and ask learner to refine the stopping condition.	This assessment covers unplugged algorithms, not implementation or secure account use.

Fresh transfer: Day 20 uses a new situation within its subject. After a miss, use the named different scenario in the third column rather than rehearsing the same answer. Record support and a future teaching action. A specialist/local educator should review these prompts and each learner's current pathway before classroom use.