LAUNCH · Silver · Week 3 of 8

Implement and Critically Develop

Teesside Art Studio Suite · Silver Arts Award

Progress SoW · Arts Aut 1 · 2026–27 · LAUNCH · Week 3🎨 Silver Unit 1B · Implement & Critically Develop

Enquiry: How can iterative testing, critique and evidence help me develop rather than merely complete my challenge?

Success looks like

I can implement my plan and log critical decisions
I can develop the work in response to what I find
I can evaluate progress against my own success terms

Aspire · GOLD reach: document one deliberate change of direction — and the evidence that forced it.

Teacher Print Tools — Week 3

Retrieval Quiz

Arrival Task – What Do You Already Know?

1. Research (Last week)

Read one 'so' line from your dossier.

Own answer.

2. Make (Recall)

What are you making for your challenge?

Own answer — the challenge sentence.

3. Log (Recall)

What are the three parts of a log entry?

Time, decision, reason.

4. Fix (Recall)

Diagnosis before…?

Abandonment — plan B only if the variable can't be fixed.

1. Retrieval (Last week)

What made a research question 'pay'?

Its answer changed the making.

2. Unit 1B (Recall)

What does 1B require?

Implement the challenge AND critically develop it — making + iterating with evidence.

3. Iterate (Think)

Version 1 → version 2 — what must the log capture between them?

What changed, why, and what the change was responding to.

4. Criteria (Recall)

What do you check progress against?

Week 1's success criteria — set before, checked during.

1. Retrieval (Last week)

Which role's question should your work survive?

Own answer — from the ecosystem map.

2. Critical (Think)

'Critically develop' — what makes development CRITICAL?

Changes respond to judged evidence (critique, tests, criteria), not whim.

3. Series logic (Think)

What makes three pieces read as ONE body?

Shared palette/motif/process/scale — the linking decision, made deliberately.

4. Pace (Recall)

Two sessions for three pieces — the discipline?

Time-boxing + the shrink-line standing ready.

Starter

Starter: Version One Exists To Be Wrong

Key Question: The first version's job is to exist. The second's job is to be BETTER FOR A REASON. Today both happen — and the log catches the reason.

1️⃣

Version One

Made quickly enough to judge

Exists by mid-session

🔍

The Judgement

Criteria + critique + your tests

Evidence, not whim

2️⃣

Version Two

Changed FOR REASONS, logged

Critical development

🧵

The Series Thread

What links the pieces

One body, decided

Pairs: name your series' LINKING decision (palette? motif? process?) in one sentence. The thread gets pulled all session.

I Do

I Do: Implementing Against Criteria

Key Idea: Making at Silver runs against the Week 1 criteria live: each session opens by naming which criterion today serves.

👀 Look: Silver work iterates — make, critique, remake, and the notes drive it.

Step 0 of 4

Criterion on the easel

Today's target criterion written where I work: 'wash control evidenced at A3'. The session has a judge before it has a mark.

Research applied visibly

Board not paper, working flat — Week 2's 'so' lines physically present. I photograph the setup: applied research IS evidence.

Version one, time-boxed

Forty minutes to an assessable state. Not finished — JUDGEABLE. The timer is the kindness.

The criterion check

Against the words: control evidenced? Partially — edges hold, centres pool. That verdict launches version two.

We Do

We Do: Tap the Development Decision

How it works: Version one is judged. Tap each finding — the critical-development move. Found: 0/6

💧 Centres pool (criterion fail)

🧵 Piece 2 breaks the thread

🗣️ Critique flags the composition

✨ An accident beats the plan

⏩ Ahead of schedule

⏳ Behind schedule

I Do

I Do: The Iteration Log as 1B Evidence

Key Idea: The 1B log reads: version → judgement (source) → change → result. Photos pin each stage; the assessor watches you think in time-lapse.

Step 0 of 3

The judged entry

'v1: centres pool (criterion check + J's critique). Cause: mid-pass load. Test: half-load on scrap — holds.' Judgement SOURCED — criteria, critique, or test, named.

The change entry

'v2: half-load passes, board flat. Result: control evidenced across the sheet.' Photographed beside v1 — the pair is the proof.

The thread entry

'Linking decision held: rust palette re-anchored on piece 2.' Series coherence gets its own log line — it's a criterion too.

We Do

We Do: Match the 1B Term → Its Meaning

Step 1: Tap a card, then its partner. Step 2: Watch the WAGOLL write itself. Score: 0/6

🛠️ Implement

🔍 Critically develop

🔁 Iteration

🧵 The thread

📋 Sourced judgement

🧩 The fired shrink

Scope moved, ambition kept, logged

Changes responding to judged evidence

Criteria / critique / test — named

The deliberate decision linking the series

Making against the stated criteria

v1 → judged → v2, logged + photographed

1️⃣ Version one🔍 Sourced judgement🧵 The thread📷 The proof pair

Independent Work

Independent Work — Studio Time

Instructions: Work at your level. Evidence photos go in your Arts Award portfolio — work-in-progress photos + your iteration log with critique evidence (Unit 1B's core).

Supported

Task: Make v1 of piece one (time-boxed), run the criterion check with the frame, make one judged change.

Steps: Criterion named · v1 exists · check done · one change logged.

Standard

Task: Full 1B cycle on piece one: v1 → sourced judgement (criteria + one critique) → tested change → v2, all logged + photographed; thread checked.

Steps: The cycle complete · photos pinned · thread line written.

Stretch

Task: 1B cycle + piece two started with the thread deliberately stress-tested (one variation proposed, judged against series coherence, kept or reverted with reasons).

Steps: All Standard · the stress-test honest · verdict logged · shrink-line status reviewed.

Lundy Loop

Lundy Loop — Your Voice in the Studio

Why: Article 12 — your view on this work counts, and it changes what the studio does next.

🚪 SPACE

The studio runs on your session plans — clinic tables (from Week 1's hardest-parts vote) staffed and open; route yourself to what your criterion needs.

📣 VOICE

One judged change gets announced when it happens — 'v2: half-load, because the pool' — the room hears development in real time.

👥 AUDIENCE

v1/v2 photo pairs go on the development wall — Silver's audience sees the THINKING; finished pieces wait for Week 4.

⭐ INFLUENCE

Clinic demand today re-schedules Week 4's studio time — the most-used clinic earns a return slot before the share.

Exit Ticket

Instructions: Answer independently. No sketchbooks.

1.

What's version one's job?

To exist — judgeable, time-boxed.

2.

Name the three judgement sources.

Criteria, critique, tests.

3.

What did your judged change fix?

Own answer.

1.

Why photograph v1 beside v2?

The pair proves critical development.

2.

Read your thread log line.

Own answer.

3.

Kept accident rule — one line.

Keep only if it still serves the challenge sentence; logged.

1.

What did the thread stress-test decide, and why?

Own answer.

2.

Shrink-line status — standing or fired? Defend.

Own answer.

3.

Which criterion is weakest going into Week 4, and the plan?

Own answer — honest, planned.

Knowledge Organiser (LAUNCH W3): Implement and Critically Develop

Teesside Art Studio Suite · Silver Arts Award · Silver Unit 1B · Implement & Critically Develop

Key Word	Definition
Unit 1B	Implement + critically develop the challenge
Judgeable state	v1's target — assessable, not finished
Sourced judgement	Criteria/critique/test, named in the log
Iteration pair	v1 + v2 photographed together
The thread	The series' deliberate linking decision
Critical	Changed for judged reasons, never whim

Key Facts

Version one exists to be wrong; version two exists for reasons.
Applied research is evidence — photograph the setup.
Series coherence is a criterion: thread drift gets logged, never silent.
Depth beats count: piece four is never the answer.

Implement and Critically Develop

Name: ____________________ Class: __________ Date:

This week's enquiry

How can iterative testing, critique and evidence help me develop rather than merely complete my challenge?

Arts Award evidence

work-in-progress photos + your iteration log with critique evidence (Unit 1B's core).

Arrival Task

1) Read one 'so' line from your dossier.

2) What are you making for your challenge?

3) What are the three parts of a log entry?

4) Diagnosis before…?

1) What made a research question 'pay'?

2) What does 1B require?

3) Version 1 → version 2 — what must the log capture between them?

4) What do you check progress against?

1) Which role's question should your work survive?

2) 'Critically develop' — what makes development CRITICAL?

3) What makes three pieces read as ONE body?

4) Two sessions for three pieces — the discipline?

Starter: Version One Exists To Be Wrong

Key Question: The first version's job is to exist. The second's job is to be BETTER FOR A REASON. Today both happen — and the log catches the reason.

We Do 1: We Do: Tap the Development Decision

💧 Centres pool (criterion fail), 🧵 Piece 2 breaks the thread, 🗣️ Critique flags the composition, ✨ An accident beats the plan, ⏩ Ahead of schedule, ⏳ Behind schedule

We Do 2: We Do: Match the 1B Term → Its Meaning

Draw lines to match:

🛠️ Implement · 🔍 Critically develop · 🔁 Iteration · 🧵 The thread · 📋 Sourced judgement · 🧩 The fired shrink

Scope moved, ambition kept, logged · Changes responding to judged evidence · Criteria / critique / test — named · The deliberate decision linking the series · Making against the stated criteria · v1 → judged → v2, logged + photographed

Scaffolding – Supported

Word Bank

version, judged, because, changed, photo, thread

Cycle Frame

"v1: ___ / Judged: ___ / Change: ___ / v2: ___"

Scaffolding – Standard

1B Log Anatomy

Judged entry (source named) → test → change entry (result) → photo pair → thread line.

Scaffolding – Stretch

Stress-test frames

"Variation proposed: ___" | "Against coherence: ___" | "Kept/reverted because ___"

Independent Work – Supported

1B Cycle (framed)

Today's criterion:

v1 → judged → change:

Photo taken □

Independent Work – Standard

Full 1B Log

Judged entry (source named):

Test + change entry:

Photo pair pinned □ Thread line:

Independent Work – Stretch

1B Log + Stress-Test

Standard items □

Thread stress-test + verdict:

Shrink-line status + weakest criterion plan:

Exit Ticket – Supported

1) What's version one's job?

2) Name the three judgement sources.

3) What did your judged change fix?

Exit Ticket – Standard

1) Why photograph v1 beside v2?

2) Read your thread log line.

3) Kept accident rule — one line.

Exit Ticket – Stretch

1) What did the thread stress-test decide, and why?

2) Shrink-line status — standing or fired? Defend.

3) Which criterion is weakest going into Week 4, and the plan?

Lundy Loop — this lesson

Space → Voice → Audience → Influence. The adult’s first job is Space: regulate before you educate.

Space	The studio runs on your session plans — clinic tables (from Week 1's hardest-parts vote) staffed and open; route yourself to what your criterion needs.
Voice	One judged change gets announced when it happens — 'v2: half-load, because the pool' — the room hears development in real time.
Audience	v1/v2 photo pairs go on the development wall — Silver's audience sees the THINKING; finished pieces wait for Week 4.
Influence	Clinic demand today re-schedules Week 4's studio time — the most-used clinic earns a return slot before the share.

Closing the loop: this one ends on paper — your own hand, or your words scribed by an adult. Saying it aloud starts the loop; writing it is what closes it. Pass is always allowed.

What I said, and what it changed:

Implement and Critically Develop — Feedback Sheet

Keep with your sketchbook / portfolio.

Pupil name:	Date:
WWW (What Went Well):
EBI (Even Better If):
Level worked at: Supported / Standard / Stretch	Arts Award evidence filed: Yes / Not yet
Authorship — what I chose or decided myself:
Support given — prepared / scribed / modelled / hand-over-hand:
Pupil response — my next step:

Implement and Critically Develop

Success looks like

Teacher Print Tools — Week 3

Arrival Task – What Do You Already Know?

1. Research (Last week)

2. Make (Recall)

3. Log (Recall)

4. Fix (Recall)

1. Retrieval (Last week)

2. Unit 1B (Recall)

3. Iterate (Think)

4. Criteria (Recall)

1. Retrieval (Last week)

2. Critical (Think)

3. Series logic (Think)

4. Pace (Recall)

Starter: Version One Exists To Be Wrong

Version One

The Judgement

Version Two

The Series Thread

I Do: Implementing Against Criteria

Criterion on the easel

Research applied visibly

Version one, time-boxed

The criterion check

We Do: Tap the Development Decision

I Do: The Iteration Log as 1B Evidence

The judged entry

The change entry

The thread entry

We Do: Match the 1B Term → Its Meaning

Independent Work — Studio Time

Supported

Standard

Stretch

Lundy Loop — Your Voice in the Studio

🚪 SPACE

📣 VOICE

👥 AUDIENCE

⭐ INFLUENCE

Exit Ticket

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

Implement and Critically Develop — complete!

Pens down — quick partner check!

Knowledge Organiser (LAUNCH W3): Implement and Critically Develop

Key Facts

Implement and Critically Develop

This week's enquiry

Arts Award evidence

Arrival Task

Starter: Version One Exists To Be Wrong

We Do 1: We Do: Tap the Development Decision

We Do 2: We Do: Match the 1B Term → Its Meaning

Scaffolding – Supported

Word Bank

Cycle Frame

Scaffolding – Standard

1B Log Anatomy

Scaffolding – Stretch

Stress-test frames

Independent Work – Supported

Independent Work – Standard

Independent Work – Stretch

Exit Ticket – Supported

Exit Ticket – Standard

Exit Ticket – Stretch

Lundy Loop — this lesson

Implement and Critically Develop — Feedback Sheet