GROW · Humanities · Teesside Humanities Studio · Lesson 4 of 6GROW · Humanities · Teesside Humanities Studio · Week 12 of 14
Compare With Care
Evidence-led community comparison · NC KS2/3 Geography/History enquiry
🎯 Learning objective: I can compare two named source accounts using a shared lens, evidence, difference and qualification.
✅ Success criteria
I compare the same feature on both sides rather than listing unrelated facts.
I support one similarity and one difference with named-source evidence.
I recognise variation and avoid ranking, stereotypes or universal claims.
📍 Compare how two communities celebrate.🔎 source + map limits⏱ 40 min
⌖
Evidence-led community comparisonprecision · connection · respectful enquiry
Inherited Lesson 3 — mapped examples, source perspective and the rule that a case is not a faith boundary.Week 11 — mapped examples, source perspective and the rule that a case is not a faith boundary.
→
Feeds next Lesson 5 — the strongest comparison becomes a brief claim for a real audience.Week 13 — the strongest comparison becomes a brief claim for a real audience.
GROW entry Sort evidence into a shared comparison frame and state one similarity/difference.
GROW secure Use two named sources to explain a meaningful similarity and difference with qualification.
LAUNCH reach Weigh perspective, within-community variation and the limits of the comparison frame.
Source gate: genuine source = creator/date/origin/reference/rights/use/limit. Adapted and constructed material is labelled. Personal/family disclosure is optional.
⏱ 3 min
🚪 Arrival · report back & retrieve
Teacher reports the approved source pair/lens selected after Lesson 3 and explains any boundary.
Inherited Lesson 3 — mapped examples, source perspective and the rule that a case is not a faith boundary.
→
Today Compare how two communities celebrate.
◆ Supported
Choose the fair comparison: light with light, food with calendar, or meaning with meaning.
▲ Standard
Explain why ‘both use light’ is a starting point, not a complete comparison.
★ Stretch
When can a similarity hide a more important difference? Give a source-method example.
GROW Humanities response can be
🗣 explain / qualify☝ point / select🧩 map / sort / sequence✍ annotate / short edit🔁 re-attempt🎙 authorised voice response
Quiet response time; no public comparison. Personal/family migration or faith disclosure is never required.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · Lesson 3 — mapped examples, source…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Lesson 3 — mapped examples, source perspective and the rule that a case is not a faith boundary. Short edit in margin; verbal reply; tick off success criteria; student voice clip.
At Arrival, an adult receives it and names back what they heard, in your words. R goes on only after that.
Not yet / needs help → reduce the prompt: take the first step of “Lesson 3 — mapped examples, source perspective and the rule that a case is not a faith boundary” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Lesson 3 — mapped examples, source perspective and the rule that a case is not a faith boundary” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Lesson 3 — mapped examples, source perspective and the rule that a case is not a faith boundary” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: How can we compare celebrations accurately while protecting difference within each community?
SPACE stays available. VOICE is received. AUDIENCE names back exactly. INFLUENCE changes one real next action.
Feedback codes (staff):VF Verbal feedback given here · WS Worked with support · I Independent · NS + Next step — one specific thing · E Evidence on Earwig · R Responded — loop closed · // Self-edit point · ? Read this back to me
Space — the conditions that make response possible:
Regulation first. A dysregulated student cannot respond to feedback. Co-regulation, sensory tools and time take priority over the technical content of the feedback.
No public comparison. No grade boards, no "look how X has improved."
Permission to refuse. A student who declines to respond today is not punished — refusal is information.
Feedback & Marking Policy 2025/2026 (Pilot), Issue 1 — body sections 5, 11, 12 and 13, quoted.
⏱ 3 min
🌱 Starter · enquiry before conclusion
How can we compare celebrations accurately while protecting difference within each community?
🔍 Enquiry
How can we compare celebrations accurately while protecting difference within each community?
COMPARE THE SAME LENSCompare like with like: the same lens on both.
EVIDENCE BOTH SIDESA quote from each, with its maker.
SIMILAR SYMBOL ≠ SAME MEANINGDo not let a shared image smuggle in a shared meaning.
QUALIFY: SOURCE, PLACE, TRADITION, VARIATIONFour qualifiers make a comparison honest.
GROW Humanities response can be
🗣 explain / qualify☝ point / select🧩 map / sort / sequence✍ annotate / short edit🔁 re-attempt🎙 authorised voice response
Quiet response time; no public comparison. Personal/family migration or faith disclosure is never required.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · Enquiry COMPARE THE SAME LENS Compare…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Enquiry COMPARE THE SAME LENS Compare like with like: the same lens on both. Short edit in margin; verbal reply; tick off success criteria; student voice clip.
At Starter, an adult receives it and names back what they heard, in your words. R goes on only after that.
Not yet / needs help → reduce the prompt: take the first step of “Enquiry COMPARE THE SAME LENS Compare like with like: the same lens on both” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Enquiry COMPARE THE SAME LENS Compare like with like: the same lens on both” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Enquiry COMPARE THE SAME LENS Compare like with like: the same lens on both” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Model defensible map-and-source reasoning
SPACE stays available. VOICE is received. AUDIENCE names back exactly. INFLUENCE changes one real next action.
Feedback codes (staff):VF Verbal feedback given here · WS Worked with support · I Independent · NS + Next step — one specific thing · E Evidence on Earwig · R Responded — loop closed · // Self-edit point · ? Read this back to me
Space — the conditions that make response possible:
Regulation first. A dysregulated student cannot respond to feedback. Co-regulation, sensory tools and time take priority over the technical content of the feedback.
No public comparison. No grade boards, no "look how X has improved."
Permission to refuse. A student who declines to respond today is not punished — refusal is information.
Feedback & Marking Policy 2025/2026 (Pilot), Issue 1 — body sections 5, 11, 12 and 13, quoted.
⏱ 4 min
👩🏫 I Do · model the method
Model defensible map-and-source reasoning
🧠 Watch the decision, evidence and limitation—not just the finished sentence.
1. Frame: ‘Both source accounts mention light, but they connect it to different histories, beliefs and practices.’
2. Evidence both sides using creator codes, not unattributed festival facts.
3. Qualify scope: BAPS and Reform Judaism are named perspectives, not every Hindu or Jewish account.
🔍 Same-lens checker
A fair comparison looks at the SAME thing in both sources. Press each pair: same lens, or mismatched?
Press a pair.
⏱ 3 min
🤝 We Do · evidence hinge
Commit before reveal
Which sentence makes the most careful comparison?
First attempt is information. Use the map/source clue and re-attempt if needed.
GROW Humanities response can be
🗣 explain / qualify☝ point / select🧩 map / sort / sequence✍ annotate / short edit🔁 re-attempt🎙 authorised voice response
Quiet response time; no public comparison. Personal/family migration or faith disclosure is never required.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · Which sentence makes the most careful…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Which sentence makes the most careful comparison? Short edit in margin; verbal reply; tick off success criteria; student voice clip.
At We Do, an adult receives it and names back what they heard, in your words. R goes on only after that.
Not yet / needs help → reduce the prompt: take the first step of “Which sentence makes the most careful comparison” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Which sentence makes the most careful comparison” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Which sentence makes the most careful comparison” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Add precision without overclaiming
SPACE stays available. VOICE is received. AUDIENCE names back exactly. INFLUENCE changes one real next action.
Feedback codes (staff):VF Verbal feedback given here · WS Worked with support · I Independent · NS + Next step — one specific thing · E Evidence on Earwig · R Responded — loop closed · // Self-edit point · ? Read this back to me
Space — the conditions that make response possible:
Regulation first. A dysregulated student cannot respond to feedback. Co-regulation, sensory tools and time take priority over the technical content of the feedback.
No public comparison. No grade boards, no "look how X has improved."
Permission to refuse. A student who declines to respond today is not punished — refusal is information.
Feedback & Marking Policy 2025/2026 (Pilot), Issue 1 — body sections 5, 11, 12 and 13, quoted.
⏱ 3 min
👩🏫 I Do 2 · qualify & compare
Add precision without overclaiming
🧠 Compare, qualify, protect variation.
1. A valid difference is evidence-led: calendar, historical/religious meaning, practice, setting or source emphasis.
2. Avoid ranking (‘better’, ‘more important’) unless the enquiry and evidence genuinely justify a criterion—which this enquiry does not.
3. A comparison grid helps thinking but can flatten lived variation; say what the frame leaves out.
⏱ 4 min
🤝 We Do 2 · interactive Humanities lab
Rehearse the disciplinary move
⚖ Compare-with-care lab
Same lens
Source A
Source B
Qualification
Meaning / practice / calendar / place
Name creator + evidence
Name creator + evidence
Some / this source / varies / cannot show
Choose the approved pair. Compare the same lens and protect variation.
GROW Humanities response can be
🗣 explain / qualify☝ point / select🧩 map / sort / sequence✍ annotate / short edit🔁 re-attempt🎙 authorised voice response
Quiet response time; no public comparison. Personal/family migration or faith disclosure is never required.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · Name creator + evidence Name creator +…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Name creator + evidence Name creator + evidence Some / this source / varies / cannot show Choose the approved pair. Short edit in margin; verbal reply; tick off success criteria; student voice clip.
At We Do 2, an adult receives it and names back what they heard, in your words. R goes on only after that.
Not yet / needs help → reduce the prompt: take the first step of “Name creator + evidence Name creator + evidence Some / this source / varies / cannot show Choose the approved pair” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Name creator + evidence Name creator + evidence Some / this source / varies / cannot show Choose the approved pair” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Name creator + evidence Name creator + evidence Some / this source / varies / cannot show Choose the approved pair” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Independent Humanities mission
SPACE stays available. VOICE is received. AUDIENCE names back exactly. INFLUENCE changes one real next action.
Feedback codes (staff):VF Verbal feedback given here · WS Worked with support · I Independent · NS + Next step — one specific thing · E Evidence on Earwig · R Responded — loop closed · // Self-edit point · ? Read this back to me
Space — the conditions that make response possible:
Regulation first. A dysregulated student cannot respond to feedback. Co-regulation, sensory tools and time take priority over the technical content of the feedback.
No public comparison. No grade boards, no "look how X has improved."
Permission to refuse. A student who declines to respond today is not punished — refusal is information.
Feedback & Marking Policy 2025/2026 (Pilot), Issue 1 — body sections 5, 11, 12 and 13, quoted.
⏱ 16 min
📜 Independent · defensible evidence
Independent Humanities mission
Compare two approved source accounts through one shared lens. Produce a similarity, difference, evidence on both sides, belonging connection and one scope limitation. A third-person or source-based route is the default.
📚 EVIDENCE READY
MaterialsPrinted route, named source cards and approved atlas/map as specified.
Access / careEnlarge, chunk, colour-adjust, read exactly or use agreed response mode. No personal disclosure required.
Complete a two-column evidence grid and use the frame ‘Both sources ____. However, source A ____ while source B ____. This may connect people by ____. The sources cannot show ____.’
Both ____ and ____. However, ____ while ____. Source ____ says ____. This matters for belonging because ____. It cannot show ____.
▲ Standard
Write or record one linked comparison using both sources, a belonging explanation and a within-community qualification.
Shared lens → A evidence → B evidence → similarity/difference → belonging → qualification.
★ Stretch
Evaluate how creator/perspective or a changed lens would alter the comparison; select the most defensible claim.
Perspective/lens change → what becomes visible/hidden → best-supported comparison.
2 · Evidence/productmap, grid, named source, matrix or briefing
3 · Explanationbecause, comparison, qualification, uncertainty or limitation
GROW Humanities response can be
🗣 explain / qualify☝ point / select🧩 map / sort / sequence✍ annotate / short edit🔁 re-attempt🎙 authorised voice response
Quiet response time; no public comparison. Personal/family migration or faith disclosure is never required.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · Compare two approved source accounts…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Compare two approved source accounts through one shared lens. Short edit in margin; verbal reply; tick off success criteria; student voice clip.
At Independent, an adult receives it and names back what they heard, in your words. R goes on only after that.
Not yet / needs help → reduce the prompt: take the first step of “Compare two approved source accounts through one shared lens” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Compare two approved source accounts through one shared lens” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Compare two approved source accounts through one shared lens” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Close one loop—do not create a second task
SPACE stays available. VOICE is received. AUDIENCE names back exactly. INFLUENCE changes one real next action.
Feedback codes (staff):VF Verbal feedback given here · WS Worked with support · I Independent · NS + Next step — one specific thing · E Evidence on Earwig · R Responded — loop closed · // Self-edit point · ? Read this back to me
Space — the conditions that make response possible:
Regulation first. A dysregulated student cannot respond to feedback. Co-regulation, sensory tools and time take priority over the technical content of the feedback.
No public comparison. No grade boards, no "look how X has improved."
Permission to refuse. A student who declines to respond today is not punished — refusal is information.
Feedback & Marking Policy 2025/2026 (Pilot), Issue 1 — body sections 5, 11, 12 and 13, quoted.
⏱ 4 min
🎫 Exit · evidence → response → Influence
Close one loop—do not create a second task
◆ Supported
Read/show one similarity or difference and its source.
▲ Standard
Give the full comparison plus a scope limit.
★ Stretch
Explain how a different lens or creator could change the conclusion.
🔁 Named audience receipt
“I heard your claim/decision as ____. Your evidence was ____. Your uncertainty/limit was ____.”
Influence: Pupils choose one viable presentation mode for Lesson 5—live, audio with consent, slides or poster—and one audience access need. Adult owner confirms arrangements at Lesson 5.
Today’s product Compare how two communities celebrate.
→
Feeds next Lesson 5 — the strongest comparison becomes a brief claim for a real audience.
GROW Humanities response can be
🗣 explain / qualify☝ point / select🧩 map / sort / sequence✍ annotate / short edit🔁 re-attempt🎙 authorised voice response
Quiet response time; no public comparison. Personal/family migration or faith disclosure is never required.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · Supported Read/show one similarity or…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Supported Read/show one similarity or difference and its source. Short edit in margin; verbal reply; tick off success criteria; student voice clip.
At Exit, an adult receives it and names back what they heard, in your words. R goes on only after that.
Not yet / needs help → reduce the prompt: take the first step of “Supported Read/show one similarity or difference and its source” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Supported Read/show one similarity or difference and its source” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Supported Read/show one similarity or difference and its source” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Close one loop—do not create a second task
SPACE stays available. VOICE is received. AUDIENCE names back exactly. INFLUENCE changes one real next action.
Feedback codes (staff):VF Verbal feedback given here · WS Worked with support · I Independent · NS + Next step — one specific thing · E Evidence on Earwig · R Responded — loop closed · // Self-edit point · ? Read this back to me
Space — the conditions that make response possible:
Regulation first. A dysregulated student cannot respond to feedback. Co-regulation, sensory tools and time take priority over the technical content of the feedback.
No public comparison. No grade boards, no "look how X has improved."
Permission to refuse. A student who declines to respond today is not punished — refusal is information.
Earwig, lean capture (E): 30-second clip, photo, or one-line context note. Central tags only. Listen / look before tagging (Audience).
Feedback & Marking Policy 2025/2026 (Pilot), Issue 1 — body sections 5, 11, 12 and 13, quoted.
Lesson tools
GROW Humanities support
Current slide
Not a specialist? Say this
Say: ‘Same lens on both sides. Point to source A, then source B. Add “some” or name the source before you generalise.’
Priority now
Move learning forward
Least prompt first
waitself-promptpoint/source cuegeneral verbalspecific verbalmodeldirect support
Authorship: exact read-back or exact scribing only. Never finish the claim, because-clause, grid choice, comparison or verdict. Record the highest prompt actually used.
Protected task · access log only
No content prompt ladder is available. Use only the arrangement agreed before the task.
No source cue, grid hint, model, because-clause, comparison, verdict, answer choice or retrospective improvement.
Say only
“I can repeat the instruction or provide the agreed access route. I cannot choose, complete or improve your answer.”
Record
Start/stop, exact access action, any pause, and every prompt actually used.
Pens down · future teaching only
The response branch is now unlocked. Receive claim/evidence/uncertainty and record one future teaching or access move. Do not edit today’s response. Sources and earlier coaching remain locked.
Enquiry → Elicit → Interpret → Respond → Revisit
Receive the learner’s claim, evidence and uncertainty first. Choose one branch and one next teaching move only.
Receive the response before selecting a branch.
Source & provenance drawer
Delivery gate: creator · date · repository · reference · rights/use · adaptation status · enquiry use · limitation. Constructed material is never an untouched original.
MBM · River Tees rehearsal maps and composite cards
Creator
Made by Matt lesson pack
Date
28 August 2026
Repository
This self-contained lesson
Reference
Original schematic grids, networks and comparison cards
Rights/use
Original educational material in this pack
Adaptation
Original constructed rehearsal material; labelled as constructed wherever used.
Status
Constructed teaching model · not an archival, census, faith or geographic source
Enquiry use
Allows safe rehearsal before approved source/atlas evidence.
Limitation
Simplifies real places and plural communities; never cite it as proof of real-world distribution or practice.
Accreditation guardrail: descriptive SOW labels are not UAS unit codes. This file does not self-certify candidate evidence.
Reading display
Print the pupil pack
Choose a route for the first print page. All routes use the same disciplinary goal; access is separate from challenge.
No pupil answer, recording or preference is stored. Theme/calm choices last only until refresh.
GROW Humanities · Lesson 4 of 6
Compare With Care
40 minutesLesson 4 of 6Name: ____________________Date: __________
Enquiry
How can we compare celebrations accurately while protecting difference within each community?
Independent mission
Compare two approved source accounts through one shared lens. Produce a similarity, difference, evidence on both sides, belonging connection and one scope limitation. A third-person or source-based route is the default.
◆ Supported route
Complete a two-column evidence grid and use the frame ‘Both sources ____. However, source A ____ while source B ____. This may connect people by ____. The sources cannot show ____.’
Prompt frame: Both ____ and ____. However, ____ while ____. Source ____ says ____. This matters for belonging because ____. It cannot show ____.
▲ Standard route
Write or record one linked comparison using both sources, a belonging explanation and a within-community qualification.
Method: Shared lens → A evidence → B evidence → similarity/difference → belonging → qualification.
★ Stretch route
Evaluate how creator/perspective or a changed lens would alter the comparison; select the most defensible claim.
Method: Perspective/lens change → what becomes visible/hidden → best-supported comparison.
Pupil evidence sheet
Compare how two communities celebrate.
BAPS-LDN · community event account · adapted factual note: BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in London says its 12 November 2023 Diwali event brought together thousands from the local community and further afield. It describes hope, light and goodwill, Sharda Pujan, prayers, food, service and community participation. One London Swaminarayan Hindu institution and one year; practice varies.
JML · museum object record · adapted factual note: Jewish Museum London object 1474.11, photographed by Sarah Friedmann, documents members of Milton Keynes and District Reform lighting Hanukah candles. The catalogue stresses that Jewish belief and practice vary. One photograph cannot show every participant, meaning or setting.
Shared lens
Source A evidence
Source B evidence
Similarity
Difference
Belonging + qualification
This may connect people to a community because ____.
This comparison cannot represent/prove ____.
Evidence, prompt and response record
Learner decision
Product/action
Evidence + uncertainty
Highest prompt actually used
Next content prompt to fade
Response branch + one next move
Adult owner + report-back date
Evidence status
☐ Draft → ☐ Curriculum-aligned → ☐ Candidate evidence → ☐ Centre-verified → ☐ Submitted → ☐ Certified Default today: Draft or Curriculum-aligned until the centre verifies otherwise.
A presentation, ticket or completed sheet does not itself verify a UAS outcome. Match any candidate evidence to the exact registered unit/outcome, accepted method and centre process.