Evaluating a digital archive source
LAUNCH Humanities · Autumn 1 · Week 3 · 40 minutes
Today at a Glance
◆ Supported
One error spotted with its field named.
▲ Standard
Three errors corrected and a two-sentence evaluation pointing to fields.
★ Stretch
The standard route plus a judgement on the digitised copy and what the record cannot tell.
Teacher Print Tools — Week 3
Arrival Task – Retrieving what an archive record is
An archive holds original documents; a catalogue record describes one of them in fixed fields, and a digitised copy reproduces it, so three different things can share one title.
A transcription is a typed copy made later by someone else, so an error in it is not an error in the original, and the catalogue usually says which you are reading.
Arrival decision: Work from the supplied catalogue extract, or add a second from the approved pack; nobody will ask which you chose.
Feedback loop
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Every task can be completed from the supplied offline catalogue extract, and nothing said here leaves the room. In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.
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 “Every task can be completed from the supplied offline catalogue extract, and nothing said here leaves the room” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Every task can be completed from the supplied offline catalogue extract, and nothing said here leaves the room” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Every task can be completed from the supplied offline catalogue extract, and nothing said here leaves the room” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Starter: Why does an evaluation need a field to point to?
SPACE stays available. VOICE is received. AUDIENCE names back exactly. INFLUENCE changes one real next action.
- Lundy Loop Lundy Loop — Your Voice in This Lesson SPACE stays available, VOICE is received, AUDIENCE names back exactly and INFLUENCE changes one real next action.
- Why: 🚪 SPACE , Space SPACE stays available, VOICE is received, AUDIENCE names back exactly and INFLUENCE changes one real next action.
- 📣 VOICE 👥 AUDIENCE ⭐ INFLUENCE
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.
Starter: Why does an evaluation need a field to point to?
Consider two evaluations of the same record.
Evaluation A: “The passenger list is a reliable source because it is in a national archive.”
Evaluation B: “The passenger list is reliable for the names, ages and stated occupations of those who sailed, because the description field shows it was compiled by the shipping line at the time of the voyage for official purposes; it is less useful for why they came, because the format field shows it records only what the form asked.”
Evaluation B is an evaluation and Evaluation A is a compliment, because B says what the record is reliable for and useful for, and points to the field that supports each claim, whereas A treats the building the document sits in as a guarantee of everything written on it.
Feedback loop
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Consider two evaluations of the same record. In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.
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 “Consider two evaluations of the same record” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Consider two evaluations of the same record” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Consider two evaluations of the same record” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: I Do: Anatomy of a catalogue record
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.
I Do: Anatomy of a catalogue record
The diagram above lays out the seven fields of the catalogue record: reference, title, description, date, held by, format and access. Each field answers a different question, and an evaluation earns its judgement by pointing to the field that answers the question the judgement depends on.
Watch the method: I read the model evaluation's first sentence, which says the list was "created by the archive in 1948". I check the description field, which says the list was compiled by the shipping line, and the held-by field, which names the archive as custodian rather than creator. The sentence has confused the record with the document, which is the first error family on the checklist, so I mark it and write the correction beside it, naming both fields. Read the claim, find the field, name the error family, correct.
We Do: Spot the error in three sentences
Sentence 1: “The list is reliable because it was created by the national archive in 1948.”
Sentence 2: “Because the record was digitised in 2018, the information dates from 2018.”
Sentence 3: “The list is useful because it tells us why every passenger chose to come to Britain.”
Spot first: decide what is wrong with each sentence and write the error family and the catalogue field that exposes it on your whiteboard; every table commits at the same time, and only then do we hold the boards up and correct the sentences together.
Evidence check
Sentence 3 is where readings diverge, because the list records stated occupations, which some read as a reason for coming; the format field settles it, since the form asked for occupation and not for motive. A spotted error with a named field is evaluation; one without is a hunch.
Feedback loop
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: The list is reliable because it was created by the national archive in 1948. In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.
At We Do 1, 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 “The list is reliable because it was created by the national archive in 1948” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “The list is reliable because it was created by the national archive in 1948” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “The list is reliable because it was created by the national archive in 1948” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: I Do: Reliable for what, useful for what
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.
I Do: Reliable for what, useful for what
The diagram above plots one record against four questions on two axes, reliable for and useful for, and the point of the grid is that the same document sits high on both axes for one question and low on both for another; reliability and usefulness are properties of a question-and-record pair, never of a record alone.
A model evaluation that ignores the grid reads: “This is an unreliable source because it does not explain why people came.” The list was never asked to explain motive, so its silence is not unreliability; the error confuses a low usefulness score on one question with a low reliability score on all questions.
Repairing it together: rewrite the sentence as “The list is reliable for who sailed but not useful for why they came, because the format field shows the form asked for occupation and not for motive,” which places the record correctly on both axes and names the field that fixes its position.
We Do: Correct the model evaluation together
We correct one sentence on the board before anyone writes: each learner records a corrected version of the same sentence on a whiteboard with the field it now points to, and only when every board is raised do we compare and agree the correction.
Feedback loop
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: We Do 2 In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.
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 “We Do 2” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “We Do 2” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “We Do 2” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Independent Work — Your record: evaluating a digital archive source
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.
Independent Work — Your record: evaluating a digital archive source
Produce one record from the supplied catalogue extract, or from it and a second extract from the pack; both are complete answers.
◆ Supported
Spot one error in the model evaluation with the checklist and name the field that exposes it; an adult may scribe your exact words, which remain yours.
▲ Standard
Spot and correct all three errors, then write a two-sentence evaluation, one for reliability and one for usefulness, each pointing to a field.
★ Stretch
Complete the standard route, then judge how far the digitised copy can stand in for the original and name one thing the record cannot tell.
Check yourself: does every evaluation claim say reliable for what or useful for what?
Check yourself: can you point to a catalogue field for every claim you made?
⏸ Pens down — quick partner check!
Half way through: stop, swap with a partner, and check one thing on the list above together. Then carry on.
WAGOLL — what a good one looks like
A finished row reads: “The list is reliable for who sailed, because the description field shows the shipping line compiled it at the time,” and beside it, “The list is not useful for why they came, because the format field shows the form asked for occupation, not motive.” Two claims, two fields, one record on both axes.
Feedback loop
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Produce one record from the supplied catalogue extract, or from it and a second extract from the pack; both are… In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.
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 “Produce one record from the supplied catalogue extract, or from it and a second extract from the pack; both are” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Produce one record from the supplied catalogue extract, or from it and a second extract from the pack; both are” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Produce one record from the supplied catalogue extract, or from it and a second extract from the pack; both are” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Exit Ticket — Audience receives; influence changes something
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.
Exit Ticket — Audience receives; influence changes something
Read one claim to a partner or an adult; the listener repeats the field they heard it rest on, in their own words.
If the listener heard a different field from the one you meant, change the wording so that the field is unmistakable; the change is your influence and belongs to you rather than to the listener.
✅ Complete
Hand in your record and tick the learner confirmation on your sheet. That is the lesson done.
Feedback loop
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Read one claim to a partner or an adult; the listener repeats the field they heard it rest on, in their own words. In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.
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 “Read one claim to a partner or an adult; the listener repeats the field they heard it rest on, in their own words” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Read one claim to a partner or an adult; the listener repeats the field they heard it rest on, in their own words” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Read one claim to a partner or an adult; the listener repeats the field they heard it rest on, in their own words” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Exit Ticket — Audience receives; influence changes something
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.