◆ Supported
Sort supplied factors into long-term, short-term and trigger; complete two cause-and-evidence frames; then use prepared duty, harm and fairness cards to compare two options.
0 min
Lesson overviewLAUNCH · Humanities · Week 15HUM+RE · Integrated Humanities and RE
Conflict Causes and Ethical Decisions
Verbatim workbook outcome: Explain the causes of a 20th-century conflict. · Ethics: right, wrong & decision-making. · Trace: 'LAUNCH Spring'!C40 · 'LAUNCH Spring'!C172
Objective: Explain causes of a supplied 20th-century conflict and compare reasons in an ethical decision using approved sources.
Success evidence:
- Explain causes of a supplied 20th-century conflict and compare reasons in an ethical decision using approved sources.
- The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory.
- A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain.
LAUNCH Humanities40 minutesoffline sources
CAUSE CLAIM→SOURCE EVIDENCE→ETHICAL REASON
Supported · sort and explain with supplied frames · Standard · build a multi-cause explanation and compare reasons · Stretch · evaluate causal weight and ethical tension
Staff card: preserve historical uncertainty and ethical reasoning; do not convert adult wording into a learner conclusion.
Source drawer: named approved extracts, provenance labels and authorised classroom context only.
Tool modal: cause map, reason matrix and print route remain offline.
▲ Standard
Write a multi-cause explanation with source locators and linked factors, then compare ethical reasons and justify a provisional decision with one uncertainty.
★ Stretch
Evaluate the relative weight of competing causes, test a counterfactual carefully, compare ethical frameworks and defend a judgement while acknowledging a credible alternative and evidential limit.
Truth boundary: never backdate, never reconstruct a quotation, never stage an event, and never convert adult wording into the learner’s voice. Use only school-approved local materials. No diagnosis or medical advice. No personal or family disclosure. Learning does not depend on a runtime connection. No open runtime link. Never invent a result, date, quotation, event, audience response or learner wording. Use only the named school-approved local conflict source pack and supplied ethical scenario. No diagnosis or medical advice. No personal or family disclosure. Do not ask for a learner's conflict, trauma, bereavement, political allegiance, religious belief, military connection or moral confession. Do not imitate violence, stage testimony or use open runtime links. A learner may pause, use a private route, observe, or direct an adult without losing the learning entitlement.
Conflict causation and ethical decision-making · entry map: A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain. Link that anchor only when this second detail is relevant: The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory. For this conflict causation and ethical decision-making decision, use a quiet card sort, a spoken response, a communication aid or adult handling directed by the learner; the learner still chooses the evidence, order, comparison or action. Staff supporting conflict causation and ethical decision-making may steady the named materials and read the displayed source exactly. They do not upgrade the conflict causation and ethical decision-making response, fill its missing result or convert its plan into completion. If access to conflict causation and ethical decision-making stalls, pause, lower visual density or move to the printed route while keeping the same reasoning demand.
3 min
Arrival · retrieveRetrieve without guessing
The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory.
Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced.
An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement.
A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain.
Arrival decision: The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory. A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain.
Conflict causation and ethical decision-making · first source: The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory. Link that anchor only when this second detail is relevant: Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced. For this conflict causation and ethical decision-making decision, use a printed choice, object placement, short phrase, symbol response or learner-directed mark; the learner still chooses the evidence, order, comparison or action. Staff supporting conflict causation and ethical decision-making may steady the named materials and read the displayed source exactly. They do not upgrade the conflict causation and ethical decision-making response, fill its missing result or convert its plan into completion. If access to conflict causation and ethical decision-making stalls, pause, lower visual density or move to the printed route while keeping the same reasoning demand.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · The named conflict, dates, actors and…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is… 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 “The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: How can several source-supported causes combine in a conflict explanation, and how can an ethical decision compare reasons, duties, likely effects and uncertainty?
SPACE VOICE AUDIENCE INFLUENCE 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 · create the needHow can several source-supported causes combine in a conflict explanation, and how can an ethical decision compare reasons, duties, likely effects and uncertainty?
1 · notice
2 · choose
3 · explain
How can several source-supported causes combine in a conflict explanation, and how can an ethical decision compare reasons, duties, likely effects and uncertainty? Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced.
Checking questions:
- The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory.
- Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced.
- An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement.
- A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain.
Conflict causation and ethical decision-making · initial comparison: Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced. Link that anchor only when this second detail is relevant: An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement. For this conflict causation and ethical decision-making decision, use pointing, selecting, signing, speaking, typing or exact-word scribing; the learner still chooses the evidence, order, comparison or action. Staff supporting conflict causation and ethical decision-making may steady the named materials and read the displayed source exactly. They do not upgrade the conflict causation and ethical decision-making response, fill its missing result or convert its plan into completion. If access to conflict causation and ethical decision-making stalls, pause, lower visual density or move to the printed route while keeping the same reasoning demand.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · The named conflict, dates, actors and…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is… 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 “The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Conflict causation and ethical decision-making
SPACE VOICE AUDIENCE INFLUENCE 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 · modelConflict causation and ethical decision-making
CAUSEa factor that helps explain why an event happened
EVIDENCEsource material used to support or challenge a claim
ETHICAL REASONa reason about harm, fairness, duty, rights or consequences in a supplied decision
Vocabulary in use
- CAUSE in conflict causation and ethical decision-making: a factor that helps explain why an event happened. Apply CAUSE when this anchor matters—The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory.—and check it beside this second anchor: Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced.
- EVIDENCE in conflict causation and ethical decision-making: source material used to support or challenge a claim. Apply EVIDENCE when this anchor matters—Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced.—and check it beside this second anchor: An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement.
- ETHICAL REASON in conflict causation and ethical decision-making: a reason about harm, fairness, duty, rights or consequences in a supplied decision. Apply ETHICAL REASON when this anchor matters—An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement.—and check it beside this second anchor: A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain.
Read the supplied enquiry title and source labels first. Place one approved factor card under long-term condition, short-term pressure or trigger, then quote no more than the necessary locator and paraphrase the relevant evidence. Build a cause chain using ‘made more likely’, ‘increased pressure’ or ‘triggered at this point’ only where the source supports that relationship. Add a counter-check: what would be missing if this factor were removed from the explanation? For the ethical decision, use the supplied fictional or historical classroom scenario rather than a learner's experience. Identify the decision-maker, available options, people affected and evidence limits. Compare one duty-based reason, one likely-consequence reason and one fairness or rights reason. Finish with a provisional judgement whose wording reflects uncertainty and does not label a person as simply good or bad.
- The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory.
- Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced.
- An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement.
- A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain.
- Explain causes of a supplied 20th-century conflict and compare reasons in an ethical decision using approved sources.
Staff-only guidance: model one complete route, remove the model, and receive a fresh learner decision.
Conflict causation and ethical decision-making · worked reasoning: An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement. Link that anchor only when this second detail is relevant: A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain. For this conflict causation and ethical decision-making decision, use a quiet card sort, a spoken response, a communication aid or adult handling directed by the learner; the learner still chooses the evidence, order, comparison or action. Staff supporting conflict causation and ethical decision-making may steady the named materials and read the displayed source exactly. They do not upgrade the conflict causation and ethical decision-making response, fill its missing result or convert its plan into completion. If access to conflict causation and ethical decision-making stalls, pause, lower visual density or move to the printed route while keeping the same reasoning demand.
3 min
We Do · everyone commitsHow can several source-supported causes combine in a conflict explanation, and how can an ethical decision compare reasons, duties, likely effects and uncertainty?
An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement. A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain.
Audience check: the adult names back exactly what was received. The learner confirms or corrects before the class moves on.
Conflict causation and ethical decision-making · hinge decision: A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain. Link that anchor only when this second detail is relevant: The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory. For this conflict causation and ethical decision-making decision, use a printed choice, object placement, short phrase, symbol response or learner-directed mark; the learner still chooses the evidence, order, comparison or action. Staff supporting conflict causation and ethical decision-making may steady the named materials and read the displayed source exactly. They do not upgrade the conflict causation and ethical decision-making response, fill its missing result or convert its plan into completion. If access to conflict causation and ethical decision-making stalls, pause, lower visual density or move to the printed route while keeping the same reasoning demand.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · A source-supported explanation…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains… In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.
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 “A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Conflict causation and ethical decision-making
SPACE VOICE AUDIENCE INFLUENCE 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 · connectConflict causation and ethical decision-making
Available evidence
The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory.
Reasoning move
Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced.
Boundary or next check
A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain.
The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory. A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain.
Read the supplied enquiry title and source labels first. Place one approved factor card under long-term condition, short-term pressure or trigger, then quote no more than the necessary locator and paraphrase the relevant evidence. Build a cause chain using ‘made more likely’, ‘increased pressure’ or ‘triggered at this point’ only where the source supports that relationship. Add a counter-check: what would be missing if this factor were removed from the explanation? For the ethical decision, use the supplied fictional or historical classroom scenario rather than a learner's experience. Identify the decision-maker, available options, people affected and evidence limits. Compare one duty-based reason, one likely-consequence reason and one fairness or rights reason. Finish with a provisional judgement whose wording reflects uncertainty and does not label a person as simply good or bad. Produce a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack. Select at least four causal factors, retain each source locator, classify the time scale, and explain two relationships between factors. Identify the factor presented as the immediate trigger and explain why a trigger is not the whole cause. Include one source limitation or contested interpretation that the pack identifies. Then complete an ethical decision matrix for the supplied scenario: options, relevant duties or rights, likely benefits and harms, who may be affected, uncertainty, and a reasoned provisional choice. Connect the two halves only at the level of reasoning—both require claims, evidence and limits. Do not make a present-day claim, invent an actor's motive, reconstruct a quotation, or turn an adult model into learner wording. The finished response may be spoken, signed, typed, diagrammed or exactly scribed. The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory. Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced. An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement. A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain. Sort supplied factors into long-term, short-term and trigger; complete two cause-and-evidence frames; then use prepared duty, harm and fairness cards to compare two options. Write a multi-cause explanation with source locators and linked factors, then compare ethical reasons and justify a provisional decision with one uncertainty. Evaluate the relative weight of competing causes, test a counterfactual carefully, compare ethical frameworks and defend a judgement while acknowledging a credible alternative and evidential limit. Before independent work, audit a planted weak explanation. Replace ‘this one thing caused everything’ with a chain that names time scale and evidence. Remove any motive that is not in the source pack. Check whether a trigger statement explains timing but leaves long-term and short-term conditions unanswered. On the ethical side, reject a popularity vote as sufficient reasoning. Ask what duty, right, likely effect or fairness concern each option addresses, who carries the risk, and what information is missing. Rehearse a provisional conclusion using because, however and therefore without claiming certainty the evidence does not provide.
Conflict causation and ethical decision-making · second connection: The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory. Link that anchor only when this second detail is relevant: Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced. For this conflict causation and ethical decision-making decision, use pointing, selecting, signing, speaking, typing or exact-word scribing; the learner still chooses the evidence, order, comparison or action. Staff supporting conflict causation and ethical decision-making may steady the named materials and read the displayed source exactly. They do not upgrade the conflict causation and ethical decision-making response, fill its missing result or convert its plan into completion. If access to conflict causation and ethical decision-making stalls, pause, lower visual density or move to the printed route while keeping the same reasoning demand.
4 min
We Do 2 · labConflict causation and ethical decision-making decision lab
◆ Supported
Sort supplied factors into long-term, short-term and trigger; complete two cause-and-evidence frames; then use prepared duty, harm and fairness cards to compare two options.
▲ Standard
Write a multi-cause explanation with source locators and linked factors, then compare ethical reasons and justify a provisional decision with one uncertainty.
★ Stretch
Evaluate the relative weight of competing causes, test a counterfactual carefully, compare ethical frameworks and defend a judgement while acknowledging a credible alternative and evidential limit.
Produce a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack. Select at least four causal factors, retain each source locator, classify the time scale, and explain two relationships between factors. Identify the factor presented as the immediate trigger and explain why a trigger is not the whole cause. Include one source limitation or contested interpretation that the pack identifies. Then complete an ethical decision matrix for the supplied scenario: options, relevant duties or rights, likely benefits and harms, who may be affected, uncertainty, and a reasoned provisional choice. Connect the two halves only at the level of reasoning—both require claims, evidence and limits. Do not make a present-day claim, invent an actor's motive, reconstruct a quotation, or turn an adult model into learner wording. The finished response may be spoken, signed, typed, diagrammed or exactly scribed.
Conflict causation and ethical decision-making · guided audit: Long-term conditions, short-term pressures and a trigger can interact, so a list becomes an explanation only when relationships are stated and evidenced. Link that anchor only when this second detail is relevant: An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement. For this conflict causation and ethical decision-making decision, use a quiet card sort, a spoken response, a communication aid or adult handling directed by the learner; the learner still chooses the evidence, order, comparison or action. Staff supporting conflict causation and ethical decision-making may steady the named materials and read the displayed source exactly. They do not upgrade the conflict causation and ethical decision-making response, fill its missing result or convert its plan into completion. If access to conflict causation and ethical decision-making stalls, pause, lower visual density or move to the printed route while keeping the same reasoning demand.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · Produce a structured explanation of the…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Produce a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack. 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 “Produce a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Produce a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Produce a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Independent record · Conflict causation and ethical decision-making
SPACE VOICE AUDIENCE INFLUENCE 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 · evidenceIndependent record · Conflict causation and ethical decision-making
Produce a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack. Select at least four causal factors, retain each source locator, classify the time scale, and explain two relationships between factors. Identify the factor presented as the immediate trigger and explain why a trigger is not the whole cause. Include one source limitation or contested interpretation that the pack identifies. Then complete an ethical decision matrix for the supplied scenario: options, relevant duties or rights, likely benefits and harms, who may be affected, uncertainty, and a reasoned provisional choice. Connect the two halves only at the level of reasoning—both require claims, evidence and limits. Do not make a present-day claim, invent an actor's motive, reconstruct a quotation, or turn an adult model into learner wording. The finished response may be spoken, signed, typed, diagrammed or exactly scribed.
◆ Supported
Sort supplied factors into long-term, short-term and trigger; complete two cause-and-evidence frames; then use prepared duty, harm and fairness cards to compare two options.
▲ Standard
Write a multi-cause explanation with source locators and linked factors, then compare ethical reasons and justify a provisional decision with one uncertainty.
★ Stretch
Evaluate the relative weight of competing causes, test a counterfactual carefully, compare ethical frameworks and defend a judgement while acknowledging a credible alternative and evidential limit.
Trace
The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory.
Demand
An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement.
Truth
A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain.
Exit route remains available: pause, use the print pack, reduce visual density or direct an adult. The named learning demand remains available.
Conflict causation and ethical decision-making · independent record: An ethical decision can compare duties, rights, likely consequences, fairness and uncertainty without pretending that every reasonable person reaches the same judgement. Link that anchor only when this second detail is relevant: A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain. For this conflict causation and ethical decision-making decision, use a printed choice, object placement, short phrase, symbol response or learner-directed mark; the learner still chooses the evidence, order, comparison or action. Staff supporting conflict causation and ethical decision-making may steady the named materials and read the displayed source exactly. They do not upgrade the conflict causation and ethical decision-making response, fill its missing result or convert its plan into completion. If access to conflict causation and ethical decision-making stalls, pause, lower visual density or move to the printed route while keeping the same reasoning demand.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · Produce a structured explanation of the…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: Produce a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack. 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 a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “Produce a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Produce a structured explanation of the supplied 20th-century conflict using the approved classroom pack” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Audience receives; Influence changes one next action
SPACE VOICE AUDIENCE INFLUENCE 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 · Audience and InfluenceAudience receives; Influence changes one next action
State one causal relationship with its source locator and one ethical reason with the affected party or principle it considers. The adult repeats both without strengthening the claim. Confirm, correct or mark the next authorised source check.
SPACE: the learner may pause or choose a private response.
VOICE: the evidence statement remains in the learner’s chosen communication mode.
AUDIENCE: a familiar adult receives and names back exactly what was heard or seen.
INFLUENCE: one real next action is recorded: retain, add method detail, or leave open.
Final check: no result, quote, date, event or pupil wording has been created to make the map look complete. The HTML stores no learner response.
Conflict causation and ethical decision-making · receiving point: A source-supported explanation distinguishes what the evidence establishes, what is an interpretation and what remains uncertain. Link that anchor only when this second detail is relevant: The named conflict, dates, actors and circumstances come only from the school-approved source pack; no missing fact is supplied from memory. For this conflict causation and ethical decision-making decision, use pointing, selecting, signing, speaking, typing or exact-word scribing; the learner still chooses the evidence, order, comparison or action. Staff supporting conflict causation and ethical decision-making may steady the named materials and read the displayed source exactly. They do not upgrade the conflict causation and ethical decision-making response, fill its missing result or convert its plan into completion. If access to conflict causation and ethical decision-making stalls, pause, lower visual density or move to the printed route while keeping the same reasoning demand.
Feedback loop
SPACE
VOICE · State one causal relationship with its…
AUDIENCE
INFLUENCE
SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting
Say or show your answer here: State one causal relationship with its source locator and one ethical reason with the affected party or principle it… 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 “State one causal relationship with its source locator and one ethical reason with the affected party or principle it” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.
Did it with support → same task, new example: “State one causal relationship with its source locator and one ethical reason with the affected party or principle it” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.
Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “State one causal relationship with its source locator and one ethical reason with the affected party or principle it” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.
Did it and explained → move on: Audience receives; Influence changes one next action
SPACE VOICE AUDIENCE INFLUENCE 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.