Foundation · 35 minutes · Privacy
What does a weather helper really need to know?
A helper can tell our pretend camp what to pack when it receives the weather. It does not need a child’s name or home address. More information is not always more useful. We can make a message useful and keep personal details out. An adult helps decide what is safe to share.
Prepare a fictional camp message with rain, wind, a made-up full name and a made-up street. Never invite real addresses. Read the packing rule: rain needs a coat; wind needs a windbreak. Demonstrate the send gate using only supplied fields.
Choose a coat for a rainy day. Useful earlier investigations: none required Use pairs: one child chooses or points while the other traces or checks. Swap after one case. An adult records the child’s words; drawing and movement are equally valid evidence.
Australian Curriculum Version 9 · Digital Technologies: AC9TDIFP01. Selected aspects only. This activity contributes evidence; it does not cover the full descriptor or achievement standard. A programming descriptor is not claimed for merely moving controls. ACARA AI curriculum connection · V9 Technologies These are planning connections, not ACARA endorsement or exhaustive descriptor alignment.
Read a pretend rainy forecast. Let children choose a coat picture.
Ask: “Did you need my name to choose a coat?”
Listen for: “No, we needed to know it was raining.”
Show the full fictional message and ask what will happen if the name is removed.
Ask: “Will the helper still choose the coat?”
Listen for: “I think so; rain is still there.”
Move fields through the privacy gate, send and inspect both the received message and packing result. Remove only one field between sends.
Ask: “What actually travelled through the gate?”
Listen for: “Weather and wind, but not the name.”
Remove the weather as well. The helper must show that it lacks the information rather than invent a forecast.
Ask: “Is the smallest possible message always useful?”
Listen for: “No; now it cannot tell what to pack.”
Pairs assemble the smallest message that still produces the correct packing result. Draw its contents and an adult-help symbol.
Ask: “How will you know you kept enough?”
Listen for: “We can send it and check the coat.”
Role-play another screen asking for a photo.
Ask: “What could you say to a trusted adult?”
Listen for: “This is asking for my picture. Can you help?”
A helpful machine needs every detail.
Predict whether removing the fictional name changes the packing result. Keep the weather fixed.
Removing the rain field protects information but makes the packing task unanswerable. Minimisation means enough useful data, not always zero data.
Make the received message contain only weather and wind; explain why each remaining field is needed.
Ask each child to identify one useful field and one unnecessary field. Distinguish a reason based on the task from a memorised claim that all information is bad.
Use weather pictures and a closed envelope; adults read field labels. Do not require children to spell private-information words.
Design a message for a different pretend helper that chooses shoes from terrain. Explain why a weather field may no longer be enough.
A minimal fictional camp message and an illustrated help-seeking plan.
Use only the supplied invented details. Never ask children to enter their own name, address, photo or school. The browser sends no lab inputs to a service.
Run all possible field combinations to show which preserve useful packing decisions and which expose unnecessary fields.
| Criterion | Beginning | Secure | Extending |
|---|---|---|---|
| Useful information | Keeps or removes everything | Keeps weather and removes identity | Explains why deleting weather breaks the task |
| Help seeking | Needs prompting to pause | Names a trusted adult and asks for help | Explains what the adult needs to check |
Australian Curriculum Version 9 · Digital Technologies
References: AC9TDIFP01. Read the current source (checked 2026-09-07).
Evidence to assess: A minimal fictional camp message and an illustrated help-seeking plan.
Selected aspects only. This activity contributes evidence; it does not cover the full descriptor or achievement standard. A programming descriptor is not claimed for merely moving controls. Moderate the supplied illustrative responses against your school unit and current achievement standard.
These are planning estimates to test with your class. A short session develops one supported claim; it does not compress the whole senior project.
| Stage | 45 minute focus | 60 minute investigation |
|---|---|---|
| Readiness and prediction | 0–5 | 0–5 |
| Trace the supplied example | 5–13 | 5–15 |
| Author and run cases | 13–25 | 15–35 |
| Counterexample and redesign | 25–35 | 35–45 |
| Explain and discuss | 35–42 | 45–55 |
| Export and handover | 42–45 | 55–60 |
For a longer project, use three 50-minute sessions. Session 1 (0–50): readiness, model, hypothesis and initial cases. Export a project and record the next test. Session 2 (50–100): reopen, check settings, author counterexamples and revise the design. Export the changed project and identify unresolved evidence. Session 3 (100–150): independent peer test, final artefact, individual explanation and moderation. If using two 60-minute sessions, stop at minute 60 after saving the first comparison; use 60–120 for redesign, independent test and defence.
Entry check: Choose a coat for a rainy day. Ask the learner to demonstrate it before choosing the level of support.
Preparation: allow about 10 minutes to run the starter, print the cards and check a project can be reopened. This estimate has not yet been measured in a classroom pilot.
For young learners, show one picture or case at a time. Accept pointing, movement, a drawing or adult transcription. Read the question aloud; explain the numeric model privately to the adult. Do not assess keyboard speed or independent reading.
For one device, use a projector: one pair predicts, one operates, and the class records on paper. Swap roles after the first comparison. For individual access, support keyboard controls and a written table equivalent to each visual. Learners may explain orally or with an annotated diagram. Never require personal data, a recorded voice, or a photograph.
Mixed readiness: if the entry check is difficult, use the linked prerequisite and the first two case cards; retain the same central question. If secure, ask the learner to design an unseen test and state which explanation it could disprove.
Only rain and wind are needed for the supplied packing task. Check which selected messages are unnecessary.
Starting parameters: The supplied cases define the inputs.
0 unnecessary messages selected.
| message | sent | needed | unnecessary |
|---|---|---|---|
| rain | True | True | False |
| wind | True | True | False |
| name | False | False | False |
| address | False | False | False |
These are authored examples, not work collected from children. Assess reasoning using the lesson rubric, not whether the first prediction was correct.
Beginning: “It worked because the result looks right.” This identifies no exact case, control or measurement. Ask the learner to point to one row and say what happened.
Developing: “In the first case I recorded message: rain; sent: True; needed: True; unnecessary: False.” This cites evidence, but does not yet explain how the result follows from the rule. Ask the learner to trace the relevant step.
Secure: “For the first supplied case, message: rain; sent: True; needed: True; unnecessary: False. I can trace it using this mechanism: Only rain and wind are needed for the supplied packing task. Check which selected messages are unnecessary. My result supports a claim about these supplied cases. It does not establish that the same result holds outside them.” Look for an accurate trace, the actual settings and a bounded claim; accept equivalent oral or visual evidence.
Extending: The learner constructs and reruns a new case, reports whether the first explanation survives, and defends a revised design. Use this concrete challenge: Send only the useful weather messages. Explain why a home address does not help choose a coat. Require the original and changed evidence and this boundary: A different task could need different information; use fictional details.
Moderation: first assess independently against each lesson criterion. Compare the exact trace or artefact that led to your judgement. Resolve differences using evidence, not polished language. Keep each learner's individual explanation even when the artefact was produced in a group.