Inherited Lesson 4 — a source-backed comparison with similarity, difference and protected variation.Week 12 — a source-backed comparison with similarity, difference and protected variation.
→
Feeds next Lesson 6 — independent map-skills and belief/belonging assessment using agreed access only.Week 14 — independent map-skills and belief/belonging assessment using agreed access only.
GROW entry Present a sequenced four-part briefing using cards, pointing, speech or exact scribing.
GROW secure Link claim, map, two sources, qualification and belonging for a named audience.
LAUNCH reach Adapt register, answer a source challenge and defend the most important limitation.
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
Adult confirms the viable Lesson 5 of 6 presentation mode and audience access route chosen after Lesson 4.
Inherited Lesson 4 — a source-backed comparison with similarity, difference and protected variation.
→
Today Present findings on belief and belonging.
◆ Supported
Put four cards in order: claim, map, evidence, limitation.
▲ Standard
Turn your Lesson 4 comparison into one sentence an audience could repeat.
★ Stretch
Which part of your conclusion is most vulnerable to challenge, and how will you signal that?
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 4 — a source-backed comparison…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Lesson 4 — a source-backed comparison with similarity, difference and protected variation. 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 4 — a source-backed comparison with similarity, difference and protected variation” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Lesson 4 — a source-backed comparison with similarity, difference and protected variation” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Lesson 4 — a source-backed comparison with similarity, difference and protected variation” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: How can I communicate a careful map-and-source finding so an audience can restate it accurately?
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 I communicate a careful map-and-source finding so an audience can restate it accurately?
🔍 Enquiry
How can I communicate a careful map-and-source finding so an audience can restate it accurately?
CLAIM · ANSWER THE ENQUIRYStart with the answer, not the story.
MAP · LOCATE THE EXAMPLEOne pin, one documented example.
SOURCE · NAME THE EVIDENCEEvidence has a maker and a date.
LIMIT · PROTECT ACCURACYThe limit is part of the answer.
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 CLAIM · ANSWER THE ENQUIRY…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Enquiry CLAIM · ANSWER THE ENQUIRY Start with the answer, not the story. 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 CLAIM · ANSWER THE ENQUIRY Start with the answer, not the story” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Enquiry CLAIM · ANSWER THE ENQUIRY Start with the answer, not the story” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Enquiry CLAIM · ANSWER THE ENQUIRY Start with the answer, not the story” 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. Opening claim: one sentence that answers how a practice or festival may support belonging.
2. Evidence: one mapped example plus two named-source details; never use the map as proof of belief.
3. Qualification: state variation, perspective or what the evidence cannot show.
⏱ 3 min
🤝 We Do · evidence hinge
Commit before reveal
What should the named audience do before giving praise or correction?
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 · What should the named audience do…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: What should the named audience do before giving praise or correction? 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 “What should the named audience do before giving praise or correction” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “What should the named audience do before giving praise or correction” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “What should the named audience do before giving praise or correction” 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. Choose an equally valued mode: live, consented audio, slides, poster, pointing/selection or exact scribing.
2. Audience receipt: ‘I heard your claim ____. Your evidence was ____. Your limit was ____.’
3. Influence is bounded: pupils may improve an approved resource or access route, not accuracy rules, assessment criteria or evidence sufficiency.
⏱ 4 min
🤝 We Do 2 · interactive Humanities lab
Rehearse the disciplinary move
🎙 Belonging Briefing builder
1 · Claim
2 · Map
3 · Source A
4 · Source B
5 · Limit
6 · Recommendation
01:15
Audience receipt: “I heard your claim ____. Your map/source evidence was ____. Your limitation was ____.”
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 · Claim 2 · Map 3 · Source A 4 · Source B…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Claim 2 · Map 3 · Source A 4 · Source B 5 · Limit 6 · Recommendation “I heard your claim ____. 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 “Claim 2 · Map 3 · Source A 4 · Source B 5 · Limit 6 · Recommendation “I heard your claim ____” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Claim 2 · Map 3 · Source A 4 · Source B 5 · Limit 6 · Recommendation “I heard your claim ____” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Claim 2 · Map 3 · Source A 4 · Source B 5 · Limit 6 · Recommendation “I heard your claim ____” 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
Prepare and deliver a 60–90 second Belonging Briefing to the named audience. Include claim, mapped example, two source details, comparison or explanation, limitation and one evidence-led resource/access recommendation.
📚 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.
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 · Prepare and deliver a 60–90 second…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Prepare and deliver a 60–90 second Belonging Briefing to the named audience. 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 “Prepare and deliver a 60–90 second Belonging Briefing to the named audience” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Prepare and deliver a 60–90 second Belonging Briefing to the named audience” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Prepare and deliver a 60–90 second Belonging Briefing to the named audience” 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
Show which evidence your audience restated accurately.
▲ Standard
Identify one strength and one accuracy repair before Lesson 6.
★ Stretch
Explain how audience or mode changed what became clear or hidden.
🔁 Named audience receipt
“I heard your claim/decision as ____. Your evidence was ____. Your uncertainty/limit was ____.”
Influence: Pupils choose one permitted assessment access condition to request for Lesson 6 (format, reading route, sensory setup, response mode). Teacher/assessor confirms the boundary before assessment; content and criteria do not change.
Today’s product Present findings on belief and belonging.
→
Feeds next Lesson 6 — independent map-skills and belief/belonging assessment using agreed access only.
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 Show which evidence your…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Supported Show which evidence your audience restated accurately. 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 Show which evidence your audience restated accurately” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Supported Show which evidence your audience restated accurately” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Supported Show which evidence your audience restated accurately” 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: ‘I heard your claim as ____, your evidence as ____, and your limitation as ____. Is that accurate?’
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 5 of 6
Belonging Briefing
40 minutesLesson 5 of 6Name: ____________________Date: __________
Enquiry
How can I communicate a careful map-and-source finding so an audience can restate it accurately?
Independent mission
Prepare and deliver a 60–90 second Belonging Briefing to the named audience. Include claim, mapped example, two source details, comparison or explanation, limitation and one evidence-led resource/access recommendation.
◆ Supported route
Use six cue cards and an agreed response mode; audience records an exact restatement.
Prompt frame: My claim is ____. The map shows ____. Source ____ says ____. Source ____ says ____. This may support belonging because ____. It cannot prove ____.
▲ Standard route
Deliver a coherent briefing and answer one evidence question without losing the qualification.
Adapt the briefing to a second audience or defend the claim against a changed-scale/source-perspective challenge.
Method: Audience/register change → challenge → defended or revised judgement.
Briefing evidence and plan
A · LondonB · BeijingC · US citiesD · KarlsruheE · PacificConstructed locator—not to scale or distribution evidence.
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.
Named audience before delivery
Receiver/role: ____________________ Why this audience: ____________________ Access need: ____________________