Year 6 · 70 minutes · Evidence
What must a source actually say to support a claim?
A source link is useful only if the passage supports the particular claim. Our ledger splits a fictional answer into claims and compares each with supplied passages. An exact number, date or qualifier can change whether support exists. The browser’s structured matching is deliberately narrow; it cannot judge every paraphrase or establish the truth of the source itself. Human reading remains essential.
Print three fictional reserve notices with dates and one condition. Prepare a deliberately flawed answer that changes a number and drops a weather exception. Read all notices before class.
Separate an assertion from the passage offered as evidence. Useful earlier investigations: y6-context Use pairs with predictor/operator roles. Swap after the first comparison. Each learner draws or writes their own explanation using one exact case.
Australian Curriculum Version 9 · Digital Technologies: AC9TDI6P04, AC9TDI6P06. 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 flawed answer with its plausible source label.
Ask: “Does the presence of a source settle the claim?”
Listen for: “We need to see what it actually says.”
Before revealing the ledger, mark each clause as supported, contradicted or missing.
Ask: “Which word or number will you check first?”
Listen for: “The opening time and the exception.”
Edit claim values and attach passages. Observe clause-level matching and read the passage beside each result.
Ask: “What changed when 8 became 9?”
Listen for: “The passage no longer supported that time.”
Use the edge-case clause with a correct source label but an omitted condition.
Ask: “Why is the link still insufficient?”
Listen for: “The claim says always, but the source says only on dry days.”
Correct numbers, restore qualifiers and replace unsupported detail with an explicit unknown. Ask a partner to challenge one clause.
Ask: “What should an answer say when the notices do not contain the information?”
Listen for: “That the supplied sources do not establish it.”
Collect final clauses, excerpts, dates and unknowns.
Ask: “Could a supported claim still be false in the real world?”
Listen for: “Yes, the source itself could be wrong or outdated.”
A confident sentence or link proves a claim.
Classify each supplied answer clause before opening the evidence ledger.
A correct link can accompany a wrong number or omit the source’s weather condition.
Produce an answer whose clauses each preserve source meaning or explicitly state that evidence is missing.
Require the exact supporting words and condition. Do not credit a green structured-match result without the student’s explanation of entailment.
Start with two one-sentence notices; provide sentence frames for supported and unknown responses.
Write a paraphrase the narrow matcher cannot recognise, then explain why a human can still assess its support.
A clause-level evidence ledger and a corrected fictional information answer.
Only supplied fictional notices are used. The lab does not browse, verify live opening hours or replace a real information source.
Exhaustively evaluate fourteen structured claims under citation-only, numeric and qualifier checks. Change the source hour while keeping claims fixed; inspect every acceptance decision. This small tensor exercise has no claimed GPU speed advantage.
| Criterion | Beginning | Secure | Extending |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence alignment | Lists sources without clauses | Links each clause to a relevant passage | Detects qualifier and date mismatches |
| Answer repair | Rewords unsupported material | Corrects claims and states unknowns | Distinguishes support from source truth and currency |
Australian Curriculum Version 9 · Digital Technologies
References: AC9TDI6P04, AC9TDI6P06. Read the current source (checked 2026-09-07).
Evidence to assess: A clause-level evidence ledger and a corrected fictional information answer.
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: Separate an assertion from the passage offered as evidence. Ask the learner to demonstrate it before choosing the level of support.
Preparation: allow about 15 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.
Show the exact claim and passage together. A human labels supported, qualified, contradicted or absent and gives a reason.
Starting parameters: The supplied cases define the inputs.
Read the passages and defend each human judgement. Shared words are a retrieval clue, not proof.
| claim | passage | human judgement | shared words |
|---|---|---|---|
| The tour leaves at nine. | The tour leaves at nine when dry. | qualified | the, tour, leaves, at, nine |
| The price is ten dollars. | Tickets cost eight dollars. | contradicted | dollars |
| Lunch is included. | Bring your own lunch. | contradicted | lunch |
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 claim: The tour leaves at nine.; passage: The tour leaves at nine when dry.; human judgement: qualified; shared words: the, tour, leaves, at, nine.” 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, claim: The tour leaves at nine.; passage: The tour leaves at nine when dry.; human judgement: qualified; shared words: the, tour, leaves, at, nine. I can trace it using this mechanism: Show the exact claim and passage together. A human labels supported, qualified, contradicted or absent and gives a reason. 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: Author three claims and attach exact passages. Include a number, a condition and an unsupported assertion. Require the original and changed evidence and this boundary: Word overlap cannot establish entailment. The supplied human judgement is not an automated truth score.
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.