Educator desk · D-later · A revised proposal, still untried
Hold until first response capture; public sources are not presumed unseen. Record actual support and known exposure. Component notes are not QCAA grades.
Whole source and exact prompts
Original invented D2 revision: paper treasure-game proposal now uses a marked side area rather than the whole open area, and places no clue beside the seat. Noor’s new note: “I still need to know when the open area is available for a ball game.” Bay’s new note: “There would be no clue beside the seat in this plan.” No actual try, safe separation, space dimensions, approval or real feedback supplied. New notes describe the proposed arrangement, not demonstrated benefits.
- What two features of the proposal were revised?
- Which note concerns an unresolved time question, and what does the other note describe?
- Does D2 establish a safe, approved and successful real arrangement? Explain a limit.
- Suggest a considered next response with source support, a possible effect and an unknown.
Component criteria and matched next teaching
Component D-later-1: What two features of the proposal were revised?
Original criterion/acceptable meaning: Side area instead of whole open area; no clue by seat. Exact proposal changes, not completed physical work.
Mark only actual observed component: supported / developing with stated support / not yet observed. These are descriptive task notes, not QCAA grades. Alternative justified proposals welcome.
Matching next entrance D-later-1: Compare printed proposal features; do not claim the park changed. Give after first capture; preserve first response and later help separately. Missing reply/actual event stays missing.
Unrelated next teaching D-later-1 — after first capture.
New supplied account. An earlier fictional model club proposal used the whole table for a paper landscape and put a title strip beside a book stand. A revised proposal uses one end of the table and puts no title strip beside the stand. No actual rearrangement is recorded.
Teacher move. Compare the complete proposal descriptions with removable markers or a spoken list. Distinguish changed plan features from observed physical events.
Learner invitation. Which two plan features were revised?
Staff worked possibility. The plan uses one table end instead of the whole table, and removes the title strip beside the book stand. These are revisions to the proposal, not completed room changes.
Next help if useful. If only one revision is noticed, compare one feature at a time through the two complete descriptions, then invite a two-feature account with stated support.
Use usual communication and one meaningful part. Keep the first response and later support separate; this teaching adds no criterion and supplies no actual event or required real-world action.
Component D-later-2: Which note concerns an unresolved time question, and what does the other note describe?
Original criterion/acceptable meaning: Noor asks availability time; Bay describes no clue near seat in plan. Not actual satisfaction survey.
Mark only actual observed component: supported / developing with stated support / not yet observed. These are descriptive task notes, not QCAA grades. Alternative justified proposals welcome.
Matching next entrance D-later-2: Match speakers/words and keep plan description distinct from observed response. Give after first capture; preserve first response and later help separately. Missing reply/actual event stays missing.
Unrelated next teaching D-later-2 — after first capture.
New supplied account. A fictional revised model-room plan has two new notes. Freya: I still need to know when the drawing corner can be used. Bo: This plan puts no display card beside the reading shelf. No actual use, agreement or satisfaction is recorded.
Teacher move. Match each speaker with the whole statement. Separate a question about availability from a description of the proposed layout.
Learner invitation. Which note leaves a time question open, and what does the other describe?
Staff worked possibility. Freya's note asks about availability; Bo's describes no display card beside the shelf in the plan. Neither is evidence that the arrangement was tried or liked.
Next help if useful. If Bo's statement becomes a successful trial, sort QUESTION, PLAN DESCRIPTION and OBSERVED REPLY labels using another pair of fictional notes.
Use usual communication and one meaningful part. Keep the first response and later support separate; this teaching adds no criterion and supplies no actual event or required real-world action.
Component D-later-3: Does D2 establish a safe, approved and successful real arrangement? Explain a limit.
Original criterion/acceptable meaning: No dimensions/approval/trial; a plan alone cannot establish any of these. One concrete supported limit accepted without inventing danger.
Mark only actual observed component: supported / developing with stated support / not yet observed. These are descriptive task notes, not QCAA grades. Alternative justified proposals welcome.
Matching next entrance D-later-3: Identify missing evidence for the specific claimed outcome rather than declaring model safe/unsafe. Give after first capture; preserve first response and later help separately. Missing reply/actual event stays missing.
Unrelated next teaching D-later-3 — after first capture.
New supplied account. A fictional model-room revision marks a side space for paper costumes and a route through the drawing. It supplies no dimensions, approval or use record. The picture says proposed arrangement.
Teacher move. Ask what evidence a particular claim needs. A neat drawing or marked route does not itself establish approval, safe use or success; do not infer a hazard either.
Learner invitation. What limit prevents this source from proving an approved, safe and successful real arrangement?
Staff worked possibility. It is a proposal without dimensions, approval or a trial record. At least one relevant missing item limits the claimed outcome; the drawing does not prove safety or danger.
Next help if useful. If the drawing is treated as proof, choose one claimed outcome and make a separate evidence-needed card rather than declaring the whole plan good or bad.
Use usual communication and one meaningful part. Keep the first response and later support separate; this teaching adds no criterion and supplies no actual event or required real-world action.
Component D-later-4: Suggest a considered next response with source support, a possible effect and an unknown.
Original criterion/acceptable meaning: Own keep/revise/question/defer responds to time/space/permission or plan need, justified effect and uncertainty; no prescribed solution.
Mark only actual observed component: supported / developing with stated support / not yet observed. These are descriptive task notes, not QCAA grades. Alternative justified proposals welcome.
Matching next entrance D-later-4: Ask what proposed change/source need the response addresses and what would actually need checking. Give after first capture; preserve first response and later help separately. Missing reply/actual event stays missing.
Unrelated next teaching D-later-4 — after first capture.
New supplied account. A fictional revised model workshop plan leaves half a table for shape cards and moves a display away from a reading corner. A note still asks when the table is available. Space dimensions, approval and actual results are absent.
Teacher move. Invite a considered response tied to a supplied feature or stated need. Keep one possible effect and one unknown visible; no prescribed solution or actual alteration is required.
Learner invitation. What next response would you choose? Give its source support, a possible effect and an unknown.
Staff worked possibility. A private draft could ask about availability before trying the paper layout. That might help planning, while dimensions and approval stay unknown. Keeping or revising the model with a justified explanation is also possible.
Next help if useful. If the response becomes a promised real change, label DRAFT RESPONSE and ACTUAL ACTION separately and ask what needs checking before an actual step.
Use usual communication and one meaningful part. Keep the first response and later support separate; this teaching adds no criterion and supplies no actual event or required real-world action.
Conditions note: edition/date/source exposure; usual communication/source reading/neutral scribing; actual learner decisions versus adult marks; feedback after capture; chosen next move. Use roles only, no diagnoses/names. Record practical event only if it happened. Later interpretation belongs to its exact new source, not presumed memory or calibrated progress.