# Open Page Lab ten 35-minute integrated lessons Days 11–20

Give learners the clean [source packet](SOURCES.md), [daily A/B/C routes](LEARNER.md) and selected [A4/text/tactile aids](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md). The [optional menu](EXTRAS-AND-HOME.md) is additional, not a prerequisite. Give the new [Day 15 and 20 checks](ASSESSMENT.md) as clean prompts when due; the [teacher key](TEACHER-KEY.md) is publicly accessible, so adapt locally if prior access matters. First responses remain distinct from edits. Record independent reading, exact adult read-aloud, calculator use, AAC, a directed scribe and prompts accurately; read-aloud gives listening comprehension, **not independent print decoding**. A mode does not define a learner. **All people, figures and sites are fictional.** No physical display, purchase, real survey or event is authorised by this pack. The common lesson rhythm is 3 + 5 + 7 + 12 + 5 + 3 = **35 minutes**. Staff can pause a practical test for local safety; supplied constructed data allow the inquiry to continue.

## Week 3 Day 11 Two rails, one claim with a hidden leap

**Codes:** `AC9M8A01`, `AC9E8LY03`. **Goal:** expand a two-rail paper rule and identify where the editor's headline exceeds the source. **Prepare:** [Sources A/B](SOURCES.md#source-a-an-editors-brief-and-a-claim), [two-rail aid](print/two-rail-claim.pdf) or its text route; two strips labelled RAIL 1/RAIL 2.

1. **Launch · 3 min.** Read the headline in Source A and ask, “Which part could a paper calculation check?” Keep “every reader” separate from width.
2. **Model · 5 min.** On the strips, show each rail has `12+18n+12=24+18n`. Distribute the 2 across **both** 24 and 18n: `T(n)=48+36n`. At `n=0`, both forms give 48; substitution supports, while the two-strip grouping explains equivalence.
3. **Guided · 7 min.** At `n=4`, calculate one rail 96 and two rails 192 cm **combined**. Ask why 192 is not the width of one rail. Re-read the untested real-site conditions.
4. **Independent · 12 min.** Learners choose [11 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-11), showing the expression in two forms, a valid model result and one unsourced headline leap. Offer a calculator for arithmetic and record it separately.
5. **Audit · 5 min.** A partner points to “every story and every reader”. Ask what evidence would be needed beyond the dimensions; do not ask for personal access disclosures.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Two rails total ___, but one rail ___; the source cannot show ___.” Use the [daily key](TEACHER-KEY.md#daily-next-moves) if a learner doubles only the panels.

## Week 3 Day 12 Criteria before a prototype

**Codes:** `AC9M8A01`, `AC9E8LA04`, `AC9TDE8K06`, `AC9TDE8P01`, `AC9TDE8P04`. **Goal:** turn an overconfident design brief into testable paper criteria and a material choice. **Prepare:** Sources A/B/C, scrap A4, pencil, [decision board](print/decision-board.pdf).

1. **Brief · 3 min.** Ask what a visitor must understand from the draft and what a paper prototype could actually test. A paper width match is one criterion, not a safety certificate.
2. **Model · 5 min.** Write criteria with inspectable verbs: “each 96 cm **drawn** rail holds four drawn 18 cm panels plus margins” and “a caption names the paper condition.” Add a support test criterion: “compare flat and folded paper under the same small tab-load rule”; do not assign a pass threshold for a real installation.
3. **Guided · 7 min.** Compare flat and zigzag paper forms as different arrangements of the same material. Sketch how folding may change rigidity, then separate a prediction from evidence. Let learners suggest one sustainability criterion such as using offcuts or keeping reusable sheets, without pretending a full life-cycle assessment.
4. **Design · 12 min.** Choose [12 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-12). Each route yields two criteria, a labelled paper design/material option and a paragraph linking a source, reason and still-unknown condition. Learners can model `2(24+18n)` with strips if needed.
5. **Critique · 5 min.** Test whether criteria can be checked with the supplied information or small paper test. Replace “accessible for all” with a specific reader-test question; actual accessibility needs remain for local review.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** Name one criterion the drawing meets and one it cannot yet meet. Keep the selected material/shape rationale for Day 13.

## Week 3 Day 13 A paper support is a test, not a wall certificate

**Codes:** `AC9S8I01`, `AC9S8I02`, `AC9S8I03`, `AC9S8U05`, `AC9TDE8P02`. **Goal:** conduct or direct a reproducible paper-support test, record trial evidence and observe a simple potential-to-kinetic energy change if a light tab moves down. **Prepare:** [Source C](SOURCES.md#source-c-safe-paper-support-trial-and-constructed-fallback), [test card](print/paper-test-card.pdf), paper, equal supports and ruler; teacher checks local safety. Constructed fallback is an equal analysis route.

1. **Question · 3 min.** Learners predict whether fold geometry may change tabs held, and explain why the prediction is provisional. Do not announce the constructed table as a class result.
2. **Protocol · 5 min.** Demonstrate a 15 cm span, 2 cm rests, equal tabs, three-second wait and 1 cm sag stop. Keep stock, span, placement and tab size as similar as possible; shape is the planned change. Stop if supports slip.
3. **Guided trial · 7 min.** Test one flat and one folded paper bridge or trace the protocol with prepared cards. Count **successfully held** tabs before the stop, not a guess at mass. If a light tab moves down, identify gravitational potential energy decreasing and kinetic energy increasing; no energy amount is measured.
4. **Independent · 12 min.** Use [13 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-13): carry out/record further safe repeats, direct a partner's procedure, or analyse the clearly marked constructed three-trial table. All routes identify variable, controlled conditions and one possible error. Record own data as own data; never merge it silently with fallback data.
5. **Method check · 5 min.** Ask whether different creases or support movement could explain a result. Revise a procedure line. Do not infer real mounting safety.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** Give a result **with its source label** and one repeat or control that would improve confidence. [Staff next moves](TEACHER-KEY.md#daily-next-moves).

## Week 3 Day 14 Make the margin mean something, then test the reading

**Codes:** `AC9E8LE03`, `AC9S8I04`, `AC9S8I06`, `AC9AVA8D01`, `AC9AVA8C01`, `AC9AVA8C02`. **Goal:** distinguish measured model space from an artist's proposed reader effect, represent the paper trial honestly, and make two original visual-caption studies. **Prepare:** Sources B/C/F, [decision board](print/decision-board.pdf), scrap paper and dark pen; do not copy real artworks or cultural motifs.

1. **Open · 3 min.** Read the fictional artist's “invitation or wall” line. Ask what the line means literally on paper and what is interpretation.
2. **Model · 5 min.** Make two tiny caption compositions using the same words: one crowded at an edge, one with a left margin and large source label. Describe choices in spacing/emphasis without claiming everyone will feel the same.
3. **Evidence · 7 min.** On a simple two-row table, identify flat and folded results as **constructed fallback** if using Source C. Their means are `4/3` and `13/3` tabs. Discuss small sample and nonstandard folds; do not use these numbers as a real safety limit.
4. **Make · 12 min.** Choose [14 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-14). Produce two original composition variants plus a 1–2 sentence note on the intended viewpoint. A consenting reader points to where the model source and limit appear; the maker revises one spacing/word choice.
5. **Compare · 5 min.** Ask which variant communicates source reach more clearly and which view is one reader's interpretation. Record the reader's exact response as a small test, not a population preference.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** State one visual convention changed and its proposed effect, plus a limit of the paper-test evidence.

## Week 3 Day 15 Fresh plan transfer check

**Codes:** `AC9M8A01`, `AC9E8LY03`, `AC9TDE8P01`. **Goal:** independently interpret a new repeated-paper rule, critique a headline and propose one bounded design test. **Prepare:** fresh [Check A](ASSESSMENT.md#check-a-day-15-new-ribbon-source) and public teacher [worked key](TEACHER-KEY.md#check-a-day-15-worked-key). Do not rehearse its numbers or phrasing.

1. **Frame · 3 min.** Tell learners that the source is new. They may use known representation aids and access supports, not a hint about its answer.
2. **Read · 5 min.** Give the exact new source. Record independent print or adult reading. No model answer is shown.
3. **First pass · 7 min.** Learners independently mark repeated parts, a supported result, an unsourced phrase and one missing real-world observation. Preserve first marks.
4. **Response · 12 min.** Choose [15 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-15) to produce the same expression explanation, claim boundary, specific next test and reader-facing correction. Note arithmetic support separately.
5. **Self-audit · 5 min.** Learner points to a source number and circles a limiting word in their revision. Keep edited and first versions.
6. **Collect · 3 min.** Staff use criterion next moves later; no one result decides a whole Year 8 standard or real design approval.

## Week 4 Day 16 The slot model cannot count people

**Codes:** `AC9M8A02`, `AC9M8A03`, `AC9E8LA03`, `AC9E8LY03`. **Goal:** solve and check the demo-time inequality while repairing the hybrid headline's audience claim. **Prepare:** [Source D](SOURCES.md#source-d-a-second-hybrid-notice-about-time), [decision board](print/decision-board.pdf); no actual event planning.

1. **Contrast · 3 min.** Read “everyone gets a demo” beside `5+15d≤50`. Ask what quantity each statement concerns.
2. **Model · 5 min.** Subtract 5 and divide by positive 15: `d≤3`. State `d` must be a non-negative whole number. Check `d=3` gives 50 and `d=4` gives 65, outside the 50-minute model.
3. **Guided · 7 min.** Plot or list `d=0,1,2,3,4` with totals 5,20,35,50,65. Circle allowable whole counts. Note the headline cannot infer attendance or actual access from a run count.
4. **Independent · 12 min.** Choose [16 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-16): number line/table, caption repair or spoken/AAC source challenge. Each cites the condition, a substituted check and a limitation.
5. **Audit · 5 min.** Challenge “three runs means three people” and “50 minutes includes questions”. Source D states neither. Have learners rewrite one sentence for a new reader.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** Give the largest complete model demonstration count and one question before any real promise. If inequality sense reverses, return to substitutions.

## Week 4 Day 17 A price can change a resource choice

**Codes:** `AC9M8A03`, `AC9HE8K01`, `AC9HE8S03`, `AC9HE8S04`. **Goal:** compare two fictional supplier rules at relevant panel counts and explain how a price change could shift a constrained choice. **Prepare:** [Source E](SOURCES.md#source-e-two-fictional-supplier-cards-and-a-price-change), [two-rail aid](print/two-rail-claim.pdf), 30-token paper budget.

1. **Question · 3 min.** “Does cheaper per panel always mean cheaper total?” Identify setup fee and panel count before recommending.
2. **Model · 5 min.** At four total panels, F `12+2×4=20`, G `4×4=16`, so G has a lower **listed** total by 4. At eight total panels, F 28 and G 32; F is within the fictional 30-token budget while G is above.
3. **Guided · 7 min.** Solve `12+2p=4p` to find `p=6`, each 24 tokens. Compare p4/p8 to the crossing; distinguish `p` total panels from `n` per rail. Discuss how a supplier's quoted price might influence which input a fictional group can allocate while stock and quality remain unknown.
4. **Independent · 12 min.** Choose [17 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-17). Each gives a count-specific cost comparison, a budget interpretation and the effect of the **what-if** G increase to 6 per panel at p4. The scenario is invented, not a claim about a real market.
5. **Cost–benefit audit · 5 min.** Ask whether material suitability, waste and access are priced. Have learners name a benefit or cost not measured and a source they would seek before a real purchase.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “At p4 I would choose ___ **on listed cost only**; if G changed to 6 per panel ___; I still need ___.”

## Week 4 Day 18 Make a model tool answerable to its reader

**Codes:** `AC9E8LY06`, `AC9TDI8P07`, `AC9TDI8P10`. **Goal:** test a small offline interface against a user story, then revise a user-experience element so model result and scope remain visible. **Prepare:** [Source F](SOURCES.md#source-f-visual-and-digital-audience-notes), the optional [offline model-audit tool](interactive/model-audit.html) in a browser, plus the [paper equivalent](interactive/TEXT-ROUTE.md). No account or internet is needed.

1. **User story · 3 min.** Read what the fictional reader wants: a whole-number input, model result and plain-text limit. Name the audience and task before touching a control.
2. **Demonstrate · 5 min.** Enter a valid count in the offline tool; read both its numeric result and the nearby “paper model only” statement. Use the paper route if a device or interface is unavailable; this route gives the same English/math access but not evidence of actually testing a digital interface.
3. **Test · 7 min.** Try zero, a valid whole count, an invalid negative/decimal entry and keyboard-only navigation. Observe exact displayed words; do not type names or real site dimensions.
4. **Revise · 12 min.** Choose [18 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-18). If using the digital route, sketch or implement one small label/order/message change and re-test it with a consenting reader. Paper-only learners may create an interface wireframe and explain predicted effect; record as design reasoning, not actual digital interaction.
5. **Evaluate · 5 min.** Compare the original/revised interface with the user story: does a reader see unit, source limit and error feedback? Note one unresolved accessibility issue without claiming certification.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** State one actual test observation and one design improvement. If no device was used, state that honestly.

## Week 4 Day 19 A recommendation the editor can inspect

**Codes:** `AC9E8LY06`, `AC9E8LY07`, `AC9HE8S04`, `AC9TDE8P02`, `AC9AVA8C02`. **Goal:** combine source-specific model results, test limits, cost comparisons and visual wording in a private recommendation. **Prepare:** Sources B–G, learner drafts, [decision board](print/decision-board.pdf). A spoken/AAC delivery is offered; write the observed mode rather than assuming one.

1. **Audience · 3 min.** Re-read Source G. The editor can change a paper proposal, not authorise a real installation. Learners choose a one-rail, two-rail or postpone recommendation.
2. **Model · 5 min.** Give a deliberately bounded example: “Four panels match each drawn rail, but support and site are untested. At eight panels total, F's listed 28 tokens are within the imaginary budget; material quality is unknown. I would revise the caption before any further test.” Attribute each sentence to B, C, E or F.
3. **Plan · 7 min.** Order evidence card → limitation → design/caption choice → next check. A visual composition may put model result and limit at equal readable prominence.
4. **Create/deliver · 12 min.** Choose [19 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-19). Make an original one-page recommendation or privately rehearse and deliver a 45–60 second spoken/AAC presentation with a labelled visual. Reuse no actual child image or cultural motif. A written-only route is valid composition but not spoken-performance evidence for `AC9E8LY07`.
5. **Reader test · 5 min.** A consenting partner/teacher identifies which source supports the cost, width and material claim, and asks one question. Learner revises the caption or presentation order, recording what changed.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “I recommend ___ for the fictional paper draft, because ___; I would not yet claim ___.” Keep draft and revision.

## Week 4 Day 20 Fresh decision transfer check

**Codes:** `AC9M8A02`, `AC9E8LY03`, `AC9HE8S04`. **Goal:** interpret a new time-and-cost source, reject an unsupported universal promise and recommend one bounded next step. **Prepare:** fresh [Check B](ASSESSMENT.md#check-b-day-20-new-zine-session-source), separate [public teacher key](TEACHER-KEY.md#check-b-day-20-worked-key).

1. **Frame · 3 min.** Tell learners the source is fresh and they should separate minutes, run counts, paper-copy counts and people. Do not foreshadow its values.
2. **Read · 5 min.** Give the source exactly, recording independent print or access reading.
3. **First pass · 7 min.** Learners mark a condition, one valid result, an overclaim and a cost comparison. Preserve first work.
4. **Respond · 12 min.** Choose [20 A/B/C](LEARNER.md#day-20), each yielding a source-bound decision note with a tested model value, cost comparison, audience limit and specific question.
5. **Self-audit · 5 min.** Point to the line behind each number; circle a phrase that prevents a real-world overclaim. Keep changes visible.
6. **Collect · 3 min.** Staff select the criterion next move. The result does not grade complete Year 8 English, mathematics or economics.

**Original resource rights:** © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Credit author, source, licence and changes. Exact ACARA wording is separately attributed in the crosswalk.