Year 12 · 150 minutes · Governance
Can a popular pilot still be unacceptable to the people it affects?
Governance defines who can make decisions, contest them and require change. This fictional library pilot has stakeholders with different access needs, review requirements and possible harms. Allocating review time reveals whose concerns have not been examined. The simulator reports unmet procedural constraints, not an ethical score. Majority support does not remove a minority’s privacy boundary or the need for an appeal and accountable owner.
Plan three 50-minute sessions. Assign fictional stakeholder briefs rather than asking students to represent real identities. Read access, privacy and staffing constraints. Explain that real community authority cannot be simulated or replaced by classroom votes.
Separate technical performance, consent, representation and accountability. Useful earlier investigations: y11-deploy Use pairs for investigation, with operator/reviewer swaps after each comparison. Keep individual predictions, journals and a short oral defence so group work does not hide understanding.
Queensland Digital Solutions 2025 v1.4: Unit 4 · objective 3, Unit 4 · objective 4, Unit 4 · objective 7, Unit 4 · objective 8. 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 the library purpose and identify people affected, including those who may not use the service.
Ask: “Who can bear a cost without being a user?”
Listen for: “Staff, carers or people whose information appears in sources.”
Predict which requirements remain unmet when review time follows the largest group.
Ask: “Does the largest vote answer every rights question?”
Listen for: “No; some boundaries are not settled by popularity.”
Allocate a fixed review-time budget and inspect whose minimum review remains unmet. Set appeal and stop-rule fields and examine the process trace.
Ask: “What does an unreviewed group mean in our evidence?”
Listen for: “We do not yet know enough about its concerns.”
Test the edge case with strong overall support but an unresolved privacy objection.
Ask: “Can the model turn that objection into a small penalty and proceed?”
Listen for: “It should show the unresolved boundary for accountable judgement.”
In the third session, revise scope, review allocation and staged rollout. Assign role owners, a response deadline, accessible appeal route and a pause condition. Document unresolved disagreements in their own terms.
Ask: “What can we change about the pilot so the conflict is reduced?”
Listen for: “Scope, data collection, access options or whether we launch at all.”
Present a proceed, revise or stop recommendation with evidence and dissent recorded. Peers challenge missing representation.
Ask: “What authority would a real community need to exercise?”
Listen for: “Real participation and decision rights, not our classroom proxy.”
Majority preference removes minority harms.
Allocate review time by group size. Predict which smaller-group requirement will remain unmet before checking constraints.
A pilot can have high aggregate support while leaving a smaller group’s privacy boundary unresolved.
Produce a staged governance policy with representative review, accountable roles, an accessible appeal and explicit stop conditions.
Evaluate the reasoning and procedural completeness, not agreement with one launch decision. Require dissent and unresolved constraints to remain visible.
Provide role briefs and a structured decision record. Allow oral panel evidence alongside written documentation.
Design an independent review mechanism and test a case where the system owner has a conflict of interest.
A community pilot decision record with responsibilities, dissent, appeal and pause policy.
The community is fictional. Do not collect real sensitive opinions or claim to speak for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Real cultural data require appropriate authority and co-design; local senior syllabus mapping is essential.
Enumerate review-time allocations using tensor operations to expose unmet procedural constraints. Change the total time budget while keeping three group requirements fixed; ethical judgement remains with people.
| Criterion | Beginning | Secure | Extending |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder reasoning | Uses only aggregate support | Identifies an underrepresented concern | Distinguishes preference, rights and decision authority |
| Governance design | Names vague oversight | Defines owner, appeal and stop rule | Tests accessibility, deadlines and unresolved dissent |
Queensland Digital Solutions 2025 v1.4
References: Unit 4 · objective 3, Unit 4 · objective 4, Unit 4 · objective 7, Unit 4 · objective 8. Read the current source (checked 2026-09-07).
Evidence to assess: Stakeholder requirements, documented impacts, bounded recommendation and dissent.
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. A supporting classroom task, not a QCAA-approved assessment instrument. Teachers must set their own assessment conditions and confirm alignment with their course. Other jurisdictions require local mapping.
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: Separate technical performance, consent, representation and accountability. Ask the learner to demonstrate it before choosing the level of support.
Preparation: allow about 25 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.
Read the entry question aloud, model one row, and label the units. Offer the case table as a large-print sheet. Keep mathematical derivations optional until the learner can explain the comparison.
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.
Report unmet review commitments and unresolved issues individually; never collapse rights into majority support.
Starting parameters: Review budget = 120
Allocated 90 of 120 minutes. 2 stakeholder commitments unresolved.
| stakeholder | required | allocated | shortfall | unresolved issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| General users | 30 | 60 | 0 | |
| Access panel | 40 | 20 | 20 | Keyboard access untested |
| Privacy panel | 25 | 10 | 15 | Retention period unclear |
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 stakeholder: General users; required: 30; allocated: 60; shortfall: 0; unresolved issue: .” 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, stakeholder: General users; required: 30; allocated: 60; shortfall: 0; unresolved issue: . I can trace it using this mechanism: Report unmet review commitments and unresolved issues individually; never collapse rights into majority support. 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: Negotiate using the supplied stakeholder briefs. Record dissent, a revised scope, appeal, owner and stop conditions. Require the original and changed evidence and this boundary: Meeting time is a procedural check, not consent, representation or an ethical verdict.
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.
Print stakeholder-briefs.html, distribute one brief per role and retain independent individual decision records.