# Ten daily English lessons — Days 1–10

**Each day: 25 minutes = 3 retrieve/notice + 5 explicit model + 7 guided analysis + 7 learner application + 3 exit/record.** Use [original fictional source cards](aids.md), [A4 visual post](fictional-community-post.svg) and [unseen transfer assessment](assessment.md). Source A contains an unsupported generalisation about young people. Set an evidence-and-respect discussion norm; no child is asked to represent a category, disclose personal use or defend the claim. Provide source text/read-aloud/screen reader, visual description, large print, AAC/sign, keyboard and scribe routes as needed; record independent reading apart from reasoning. The [alignment note](README.md) identifies partial Year 9 codes.

## Day 1 — Origin, purpose and exact claim

**Goal/materials:** identify who speaks, what the post asks readers to believe and what is unverified; Card A, source strip.

1. **Notice, 3:** Display only Card A's large headline. Ask “What is the word `always` doing?” **Key:** makes a universal claim, not evidence.
2. **Model, 5:** Teacher says “The source label tells me this is an **invented mock post**, written for persuasion. I will quote its exact claim as an object of analysis, not endorse it. It predicts a corner will be ruined without supplying a usage study.”
3. **Guide, 7:** Together mark creator/type, intended audience (readers of mock community board), purpose (influence support), exact claim and missing evidence. Separate Card A from a real news report or council decision.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner fills four source-strip fields and rewrites the claim with attribution: “The fictional account claims …”. A partner checks quoted wording; adult can transcribe learner words exactly.
5. **Check, 3:** “Does Card A establish what all teenagers do?” **Key:** no; no basis for universal claim. **Next:** if yes, point to missing-evidence line and practise `source claims` versus `we know`.

## Day 2 — Evaluation can be direct or implied

**Goal/materials:** notice direct evaluation and indirect positioning; Cards A/B, highlight strips.

1. **Notice, 3:** Compare “chaos” with Card B's “possible features”. Which directly judges? **Key:** chaos.
2. **Model, 5:** “`Ruined` gives a negative verdict. `Always` overgeneralises. Card B's calm list can also **position** a reader favourably toward a plan even without saying ‘good’; we still ask what it omits.” Do not treat neutral tone as automatic truth.
3. **Guide, 7:** Sort five snippets: `chaos`, `adults-only`, `possible shade`, `will be ruined`, `no final decision`. **Key:** direct negative evaluation first/fourth, exclusion proposal second, descriptive/uncertain third/fifth. Accept well-reasoned overlap in effect.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner annotates two exact words and explains their likely effect on a reader without repeating the stereotype as a fact. Offer word bank: predicts, excludes, qualifies, proposes.
5. **Check, 3:** “Can a calm tone still leave important questions out?” **Key:** yes; Card B lacks use, cost and access audit. **Next:** compare source content columns, not tone alone.

## Day 3 — Symbols and size shape meaning

**Goal/materials:** analyse visual choices using text alternative; [SVG post](fictional-community-post.svg), Card A description.

1. **Notice, 3:** Ask what is largest and what is smallest in the designed post. **Key:** `ALWAYS`/headline large; fiction/no-evidence detail small.
2. **Model, 5:** “A speech bubble marks a voiced assertion. The empty evidence box asks a question. Size can make a claim memorable; it cannot verify it.” Read the complete text/layout aloud for everyone.
3. **Guide, 7:** Learners compare visual with equal-size plain text. Identify what changes (attention and emphasis) and what stays (unsupported claim, proposal status). Do not make colour recognition necessary.
4. **Try, 7:** Student describes an alternative fair layout in words, tactile blocks or sketch: equal prominence for source label, evidence question and claim. Explain one expected effect; grade analysis, not drawing.
5. **Check, 3:** “Does a question-mark icon prove a study was done?” **Key:** no; this original graphic signals missing evidence. **Next:** attach a source-status label to each visual element.

## Day 4 — Whose perspective is represented?

**Goal/materials:** compare attributed fictional perspectives without treating one speaker as a group; Cards A–C.

1. **Notice, 3:** Name whose view Card A asserts. **Key:** account author's claimed view, not a view of all adults or residents.
2. **Model, 5:** “Ari says *might use* and asks for opening times; Lee values a calm path and asks for a site plan. They could both ask useful questions. Neither speaks for all young or adult people.”
3. **Guide, 7:** Pair exact phrases with speaker and degree of certainty (`always` versus `might`/`would`). Discuss missing voices as missing information, not invent testimonies.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner makes a 2-column evidence table: what each fictional voice actually states and what cannot be inferred. Example limit: Ari's preference does not prove all teenagers need a reading corner.
5. **Check, 3:** “Can Card C alone settle the proposal?” **Key:** no, it supplies individual preferences/questions. **Next:** request usage and design evidence without polling classmates as representatives.

## Day 5 — Compare sources before concluding

**Goal/materials:** evaluate support, limits and possible effect on attitudes; Cards A–C, comparison strip.

1. **Notice, 3:** Retrieve source types: mock post, proposal note, attributed fictional voices. **Key:** each has a different purpose and limit.
2. **Model, 5:** “Card A says exclude all teenagers. Card B instead proposes use by different ages, but has no study. Card C asks about practical conditions. I can conclude the universal exclusion claim is unsupported; I cannot conclude the proposal is approved or perfect.”
3. **Guide, 7:** Class fills `claim / actual source detail / unknown` for three statements: `all young people make noise`, `a step-free route is proposed`, `the site is approved`. **Keys:** unsupported, stated concept only, not supplied.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner gives a 3-sentence spoken/written comparison with two source labels and one uncertainty. An AAC sequence or typed table is valid; note content cues.
5. **Check, 3:** “What is the difference between a stated step-free route and a verified accessible site?” **Key:** one is a proposal; the other needs design and lived-use/access review. **Next:** rewrite a too-certain sentence with `proposes`.

## Day 6 — Nominalisation can hide an actor

**Goal/materials:** unpack abstract labels and restore who did what; Cards A/B, sentence cards.

1. **Notice, 3:** Show “The disruption was inevitable.” Ask “Who did what, and according to whom?” **Key:** neither is specified; `disruption` is an abstract label, `inevitable` unsupported.
2. **Model, 5:** “Turning an action into a noun can condense ideas: `people complained` → `complaints`. It can also hide agency: `the exclusion of teenagers` leaves out who proposes it.” This is a language choice, not proof of bad intent.
3. **Guide, 7:** Unpack `the decision`, `the concern`, `the exclusion` into subject + action + source. Example: “The fictional poster's author proposes excluding teenagers.” Compare effects of vague versus attributed form.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner revises two statements: “The concern was shared” and “The proposal was rejected.” **Accept:** “Card A's author expresses a concern; the packet gives no evidence others share it”; “No source states the proposal was rejected.”
5. **Check, 3:** “Why might `the concern` be misleading without a source?” **Key:** it can imply a shared concern when only one fictional post states it. **Next:** name speaker and evidence in fresh sentence.

## Day 7 — Paragraph order can make a claim seem settled

**Goal/materials:** plan an analytical response whose sequence keeps claim, evidence and limit clear; Cards A–C, response frame.

1. **Notice, 3:** Compare two outlines: `claim → conclusion → evidence` versus `claim → source detail → limit → provisional conclusion`. Ask which helps a reader audit reasoning. **Key:** second.
2. **Model, 5:** Teacher writes: “The mock post presents an exclusion claim through `always`. The proposal note instead lists possible shared-use features, yet supplies no usage study. The voices ask about opening times and path design. I would request that evidence before a real decision.” Identify each function.
3. **Guide, 7:** Students reorder four sentence strips and justify a connective (`however`, `because`, `before`) rather than adding a decorative transition. Discuss how a conclusion-first version can hide uncertainty.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner makes own four-part plan with one exact Card A phrase, a Card B detail, a Card C question and a limit. Response can be bullets/AAC before paragraph writing.
5. **Check, 3:** “Where does your plan say what remains unknown?” **Key:** explicit limit/evidence request. **Next:** add a sentence before conclusion if absent.

## Day 8 — Test a scientific-looking sentence

**Goal/materials:** carry source reasoning into a labelled invented science caption; Card D and [science model](../../../term-1/week-02-energy-systems-lab.md).

1. **Notice, 3:** Read Card D's first sentence. **Key:** invented model assigns 100 J input and 60 J useful light output.
2. **Model, 5:** “The second sentence says no energy goes elsewhere. That does not follow: 40 J remains to be accounted for as other transfers in the model. I will not claim we measured a real lamp.” Distinguish model data from observation.
3. **Guide, 7:** Pairs underline numerical statement, unsupported inference and missing 40 J. Use the original energy-flow diagram/text as a second source, with source status named.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner revises the caption fairly in two sentences, naming input, useful output and other transfer. **Sample key:** “Our fictional model has 100 J input and 60 J useful light; it assigns 40 J to other transfers. A measured lamp would need sourced data.”
5. **Check, 3:** “Does the model show a real device's efficiency?” **Key:** no, the values are invented. **Next:** put `model` beside each number before inference.

## Day 9 — Draft and edit a fair analytical response

**Goal/materials:** turn the plan into a short source-based paragraph for a community-reader audience; Cards A–C, frame.

1. **Notice, 3:** Retrieve difference between “The post says…” and “All teenagers…”. **Key:** first attributes; second repeats a false universal as fact.
2. **Model, 5:** Compose four sentences from Day 7 plan, explicitly naming sources and one uncertainty. Read aloud once to check the reader can tell proposal from decision.
3. **Guide, 7:** Class checks a flawed draft: “The council approved an accessible garden because everyone wants it.” **Correction:** no real council or approval, no completed access audit or universal preference in packet. Retain a qualified proposal claim.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner drafts/records 4–5 linked sentences with source labels and revises one sentence for accuracy or effect. Adult transcription must preserve learner wording; no public posting or named peer examples.
5. **Check, 3:** Learner points to exact source wording, attributed view and open question in own response. **Next:** if one absent, use the three-column comparison strip for a targeted revision.

## Day 10 — New source transfer, not a rehearsed answer

**Goal/materials:** analyse unseen fictional Card E in the [assessment](assessment.md) and select next teaching.

1. **Notice, 3:** Recall source routine `origin → purpose → perspective → support → omission → cautious response`; no Card E content shown yet.
2. **Model, 5:** Correct an unscored Card A sentence: “A concept note is not an approval notice.” Name how `proposed` changes certainty.
3. **Guide, 7:** Reveal Card E and read through independently or with documented read-aloud access. Ask only “What two source types are supplied?” **Key:** mock advocacy post and draft planning note. Do not model scored interpretation.
4. **Try, 7:** Learner begins independent assessment Items 1–3; adult supplies access support, not claim/evidence choices. Finish the full check in a separate 10–15-minute block or conference.
5. **Check, 3:** Ask “What claim needs an external check before a real decision?” **Key:** any claim of universal benefit or actual use. Use [rubric](assessment.md) and prior writing/reading evidence to decide next instruction, not a single total.

## Common response and boundaries

If a learner equates strong words with true facts, return to exact source/status and missing evidence. If they call a fictional voice “fake” because it is subjective, distinguish attributed preference from universal inference. If they copy a hostile claim as an unattributed assertion, require `the mock post claims…` and discuss its lack of support. If discussion targets a classmate or identity group, redirect to language/evidence and follow school wellbeing processes. Secure analysis via read-aloud is valid reasoning evidence, while independent decoding/reading needs its own check. This pack never asks students to represent their age, culture, disability or family.

**Rights:** Original lessons © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ACARA source/rights in [README](README.md). Educator/EAL/D review pending.