Opening

LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2

Judging climate responses

Learning goal

Evaluate responses to climate change.

How can we make a justified decision about sustainability?

I can interpret resource and climate evidence, evaluate responses, compare options against criteria and justify a practical decision.

40 minutes, with flexible pauses. Point, speak, draw, type or write. A fictional example is welcome.

Editable Word pack Printable pupil resources PDF

Arrival

LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2

Arrival task

Start here: a cause contributes to change, an impact is an effect, and a response is an action. Cards A to C supply the climate examples.

Start with 1 and 2. Continue with 3 and 4 when ready.

1. How do cause and impact differ?

Help

Use the separate examples on card A.

My answer 1

2. What intended benefit does mitigation offer?

Help

Read card B.

My answer 2

3. What limitation applies to the flood option?

Help

Read card C.

My answer 3

4. Can a general NASA source establish our school’s flood risk?

Help

Check coverage.

My answer 4

Word and evidence bank

A Cause impact response

NASA links fossil-fuel burning to added CO2. Its response page describes sea-level rise as a climate impact and flood defences as an adaptation example. Keep cause, impact and response in separate parts of the decision grid.

NASA Causes; NASA Mitigation and Adaptation

Limit: A general example does not establish the risk at our school.

B Mitigation option

Mitigation reduces greenhouse-gas emissions or increases their removal. AUTHORED OPTION: an adult reviews avoidable fossil-fuel energy use in a community building. Intended benefit: reduce a source of emissions. Check actual energy use before claiming a saving.

NASA Mitigation and Adaptation; authored application

Limit: Reducing emissions does not instantly remove existing climate impacts. Costs and feasibility need local evidence.

C Adaptation option

Adaptation adjusts to actual or expected climate impacts. AUTHORED OPTION: a community assesses flood protection. Intended benefit: reduce exposure to a stated impact. Use a checked local risk assessment before choosing a design.

NASA Mitigation and Adaptation; authored application

Limit: A flood defence is not, by itself, a reduction in fossil-fuel emissions. Do not promise protection everywhere.

D The decision test

Use a response grid: stated problem, response type, expected benefit, limitation and evidence needed. Different choices can be justified with different priorities. Our options are authored scenarios, not approved works or instructions to pupils.

Authored evaluation framework, 21 September 2026

Limit: The classroom cards cannot establish a real building budget, energy saving or flood risk.

Feedback loop

SPACE

VOICE · Cards A to C supply the climate…

AUDIENCE

INFLUENCE

SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting

Say or show your answer here: Cards A to C supply the climate examples. In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.

At Arrival task, 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 “Cards A to C supply the climate examples” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.

Did it with support → same task, new example: “Cards A to C supply the climate examples” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.

Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Cards A to C supply the climate examples” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.

Did it and explained → move on: Start the enquiry

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.

Starter

LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2

Start the enquiry

Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A. Work through the three decision cards and explain each match.

Choose help or a further challenge

Read one evidence card, identify its source and plan a reason before responding.

Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A. Work through the three decision cards and explain each match.

Propose a further evidence check and explain its value.

What I notice and what I need to check

Feedback loop

SPACE

VOICE · Place cause, impact and response in the…

AUDIENCE

INFLUENCE

SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting

Say or show your answer here: Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A. In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.

At Start the enquiry, 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 “Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.

Did it with support → same task, new example: “Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.

Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.

Did it and explained → move on: I do · a worked method

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

LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2

I do · a worked method

Choose help or a further challenge

Choose an option and link it to the precise need or risk.

Read all model steps

Question: Does a flood-defence proposal address a cause or an impact?

Evidence: NASA identifies flood defences as an adaptation example.

Explain: The proposal aims to reduce exposure to an impact; it is adaptation.

Check: It does not itself reduce fossil-fuel emissions. A real design needs local assessment.

Evidence and source credits

A Cause impact response

NASA links fossil-fuel burning to added CO2. Its response page describes sea-level rise as a climate impact and flood defences as an adaptation example. Keep cause, impact and response in separate parts of the decision grid.

NASA Causes; NASA Mitigation and Adaptation

Limit: A general example does not establish the risk at our school.

B Mitigation option

Mitigation reduces greenhouse-gas emissions or increases their removal. AUTHORED OPTION: an adult reviews avoidable fossil-fuel energy use in a community building. Intended benefit: reduce a source of emissions. Check actual energy use before claiming a saving.

NASA Mitigation and Adaptation; authored application

Limit: Reducing emissions does not instantly remove existing climate impacts. Costs and feasibility need local evidence.

C Adaptation option

Adaptation adjusts to actual or expected climate impacts. AUTHORED OPTION: a community assesses flood protection. Intended benefit: reduce exposure to a stated impact. Use a checked local risk assessment before choosing a design.

NASA Mitigation and Adaptation; authored application

Limit: A flood defence is not, by itself, a reduction in fossil-fuel emissions. Do not promise protection everywhere.

D The decision test

Use a response grid: stated problem, response type, expected benefit, limitation and evidence needed. Different choices can be justified with different priorities. Our options are authored scenarios, not approved works or instructions to pupils.

Authored evaluation framework, 21 September 2026

Limit: The classroom cards cannot establish a real building budget, energy saving or flood risk.

Evidence and factual claim record

Exact unit scheme and access text

Authored scenarios and limits

Watch the captioned model video

Silent authored model with four caption cards. Read, pause and rehearse each step; use the matching transcript for access.

We do

LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2

We do · choose and explain

Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A. Work through the three decision cards and explain each match.
Compare mitigation and adaptation: benefit, limitation and needed evidence. Agree a provisional choice for an authored scenario and justify it.

Choose help or a further challenge

Choose an option and link it to the precise need or risk.

Our explanation of the decision

Evidence beside the activity

A Cause impact response

NASA links fossil-fuel burning to added CO2. Its response page describes sea-level rise as a climate impact and flood defences as an adaptation example. Keep cause, impact and response in separate parts of the decision grid.

NASA Causes; NASA Mitigation and Adaptation

Limit: A general example does not establish the risk at our school.

B Mitigation option

Mitigation reduces greenhouse-gas emissions or increases their removal. AUTHORED OPTION: an adult reviews avoidable fossil-fuel energy use in a community building. Intended benefit: reduce a source of emissions. Check actual energy use before claiming a saving.

NASA Mitigation and Adaptation; authored application

Limit: Reducing emissions does not instantly remove existing climate impacts. Costs and feasibility need local evidence.

C Adaptation option

Adaptation adjusts to actual or expected climate impacts. AUTHORED OPTION: a community assesses flood protection. Intended benefit: reduce exposure to a stated impact. Use a checked local risk assessment before choosing a design.

NASA Mitigation and Adaptation; authored application

Limit: A flood defence is not, by itself, a reduction in fossil-fuel emissions. Do not promise protection everywhere.

D The decision test

Use a response grid: stated problem, response type, expected benefit, limitation and evidence needed. Different choices can be justified with different priorities. Our options are authored scenarios, not approved works or instructions to pupils.

Authored evaluation framework, 21 September 2026

Limit: The classroom cards cannot establish a real building budget, energy saving or flood risk.

Choose one useful support: fewer visible cards, reading together or a private response. Try it and decide whether it helped.

Paper cards and partner routine

Shared investigation

1. Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A. Work through the three decision cards and explain each match.

2. Compare mitigation and adaptation: benefit, limitation and needed evidence. Agree a provisional choice for an authored scenario and justify it.

Work with a partner or adult, or use your own table. One person suggests; the other checks the evidence. Swap after one turn. Passing is allowed.

Move or match the cards

Cards to use
Address causes and existing impacts
Reduce exposure to a climate impact
Reduce a source of greenhouse gases

Possible labels: Mitigation / Adaptation / Both together

Our explanation

Support: Read one evidence card, identify its source and plan a reason before responding.

Further challenge: Propose a further evidence check and explain its value.

Feedback loop

SPACE

VOICE · Place cause, impact and response in the…

AUDIENCE

INFLUENCE

SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting

Say or show your answer here: Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A. 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 “Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.

Did it with support → same task, new example: “Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.

Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.

Did it and explained → move on: Check the method

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.

Check

LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2

Check the method

Does a flood-defence proposal address a cause or an impact?

My first answer

Choose help or a further challenge

Read one evidence card, identify its source and plan a reason before responding.

Place cause, impact and response in the decision grid using card A. Work through the three decision cards and explain each match.

Propose a further evidence check and explain its value.

Feedback loop

SPACE

VOICE · Check the method

AUDIENCE

INFLUENCE

SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting

Say or show your answer here: Check the method In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.

At Check the method, 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 “Check the method” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.

Did it with support → same task, new example: “Check the method” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.

Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Check the method” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.

Did it and explained → move on: Independent application

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

LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2

Independent application

Choose one route and one response mode. Keep the same learning goal.

Standard task

Complete the grid for both mitigation and adaptation options.
Use a cited detail to identify a benefit and a limitation of each.
Independently choose one for a stated problem and explain what needs checking locally.

Use the cards and organiser. Choose your own evidence and explanation.

Problem and response typeBenefit and supporting sourceLimitation and evidence neededPreferred response and reason

Compare your reasoning with one alternative.

Save before closing the lesson.

Feedback loop

SPACE

VOICE · Choose one route and one response mode.

AUDIENCE

INFLUENCE

SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting

Say or show your answer here: Choose one route and one response mode. In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.

At Independent application, 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 “Choose one route and one response mode” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.

Did it with support → same task, new example: “Choose one route and one response mode” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.

Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Choose one route and one response mode” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.

Did it and explained → move on: Review and improve

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.

Review

LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2

Review and improve

Check the required evidence: evaluation, targeted questioning and two exit questions.

Choose help or a further challenge

Choose an option and link it to the precise need or risk.

One thing I checked or improved

Model knowledge check

Question: Does a flood-defence proposal address a cause or an impact? Evidence: NASA identifies flood defences as an adaptation example. Explain: The proposal aims to reduce exposure to an impact; it is adaptation. Check: It does not itself reduce fossil-fuel emissions. A real design needs local assessment.

Feedback loop

SPACE

VOICE · Review LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 ·…

AUDIENCE

INFLUENCE

SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting

Say or show your answer here: Review LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2 Check the required evidence: evaluation, targeted questioning and two… In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.

At Review and improve, 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 “Review LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2 Check the required evidence: evaluation, targeted questioning and two” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.

Did it with support → same task, new example: “Review LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2 Check the required evidence: evaluation, targeted questioning and two” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.

Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Review LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2 Check the required evidence: evaluation, targeted questioning and two” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.

Did it and explained → move on: Exit ticket

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

LAUNCH · Humanities · Summer 1 · Week 2

Exit ticket

1. Justify one response using evidence.

Use a named detail and your own explanation.

My response

2. What local evidence is still needed?

Use a named detail and your own explanation.

My response

Share privately, speak, point, type or write. Save or print your work before closing.

Feedback loop

SPACE

VOICE · Use a named detail and your own…

AUDIENCE

INFLUENCE

SPACE available · VOICE waiting · AUDIENCE waiting · INFLUENCE waiting

Say or show your answer here: Use a named detail and your own explanation. In-lesson edit; structured verbal response; for full essays, deferred edit.

At Exit ticket, 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 “Use a named detail and your own explanation” with the smallest prompt that works, then wait.

Did it with support → same task, new example: “Use a named detail and your own explanation” again with a fresh example and one prompt fewer.

Did it independently → explain a reason: ask why for “Use a named detail and your own explanation” and take the reason in the pupil’s own mode.

Did it and explained → move on: Exit ticket

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.

Word	Meaning
mitigation	Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions or increasing their removal
adaptation	Adjusting to actual or expected climate impacts
impact	An effect of a change
evaluation	A judgement using evidence and limits

Judging climate responses

Arrival task

1. What does mitigation target?

2. What does adaptation target?

3. Is fossil-fuel burning a cause or a response in card A?

4. Which option concerns flood protection?

1. How do cause and impact differ?

2. What intended benefit does mitigation offer?

3. What limitation applies to the flood option?

4. Can a general NASA source establish our school’s flood risk?

1. Why might a community use both response types?

2. Why is a promised saving not a measured saving?

3. What evidence could change a response choice?

4. How can people disagree without rejecting the evidence?

A Cause impact response

B Mitigation option

C Adaptation option

D The decision test

Start the enquiry

I do · a worked method

A Cause impact response

B Mitigation option

C Adaptation option

D The decision test

We do · choose and explain

A Cause impact response

B Mitigation option

C Adaptation option

D The decision test

Shared investigation

Move or match the cards

Check the method

Does a flood-defence proposal address a cause or an impact?

Independent application

Supported task

Standard task

Stretch task

Review and improve

Exit ticket

1. Name a response and its type.

2. Give one benefit or limit.

1. Justify one response using evidence.

2. What local evidence is still needed?

1. How could mitigation and adaptation complement each other?

2. Which condition could change your choice?