Evidence record and descriptive rubric
For each component, describe what the child communicated/decided and the exact operator/evidence kind/support. Use “meaning demonstrated in this response”, “meaning shown after this scientific prompt/model”, “unclear or not yet evidenced in this response”, and “unobserved/unavailable for this route”. These are descriptive states, not marks, a total, speed rank, QCAA AP–BA/WW/C classification or whole-Year 2 judgement. Neutral reading/scribing alone does not lower demonstrated meaning. Guided comparison is part of I05; state the guidance actually provided rather than demand unrequested independence.
| Component | Meaningful evidence and scope | Next teaching if the distinction is missing |
|---|---|---|
| Material and physical action · U03 | Known provenance, named action and visible form/dimension difference; source explanation distinct from chemical proof. All four descriptor action examples are offered, but unavailable practical actions remain unsampled. | Reconnect the same labelled piece before/after; contrast known material with changing form and a physical change that does not completely undo. |
| Question and prediction · I01 | Child's testable question and prediction grounded in experience or named source, still marked untested before action. | Ask which record/experience supports the prediction; make an unknown visible and narrow the question to a safe visible change. |
| Safe plan and actual conduct · I02 | Suggested steps/change/keep/stop; actual safe procedure only if observed, including appropriate stopping. Adult operation and paper planning are separate. | Rehearse the safe stop or correct a changing condition before another locally approved opportunity. Never increase force to obtain a mark. |
| Observation and informal record · I03 | Actual/supplied/model distinctions, same mark/unit/viewpoint, meaningful known result or unknown. Child digital control only when actually observed. | Align equal units and the same marks/pose; separate guessed predictions, supplied values and unavailable results. |
| Organise and evaluate · I04/I05 | Provided table/model retains record provenance, compares prediction/others, identifies confounds and a further question with guidance. | Trace one record to a table entry; retain a contrary result; name which changed condition blocks attribution. |
| Useful prediction and communication · H01/I06 | A cautious daily-use explanation names a pattern/source, communicates findings with everyday/scientific words and an untested limit. Fictional workers are not interviews. | Point to the supporting record, replace a universal or safety claim with a bounded prediction and request a new safe check. |
Actual child manipulation, learner-directed adult manipulation, child observation of a real action, supplied report and drawn/physical/digital model are distinct records. Source-only interpretation can demonstrate material explanation/planning/table work while actual conduct/observation remains unobserved. Declining contact is not a science failure. A chosen response mode is not evidence of a fixed learning style. No one preferred physical result is keyed.
Ten first checks, next decisions and unused rechecks
The recheck is released only after teaching the missing component, never as ordinary worked practice or home/day material. Real versions take actual results; the exact supplied alternative is labelled invented. A recheck response that matches fiction cannot prove a physical procedure occurred.
S01 · Follow the material, then name the change
First check: Child names the known starting material, one action and one visible change, and labels the evidence real observation or supplied model. Do not require a return-flat result or claim that appearance proves composition.
After capture, next teaching: If material is renamed because its shape changed, reconnect before/after to the same labelled piece. If prediction is reported as an observation, keep it in a separate not-yet-tested box. If distinctions are clear, invite a question comparing actions on matched material.
Unused recheck: Unused R01: a clean fabric square is rolled loosely on the table and unrolled. Ask which part is material identity and which part is changed form. An adult may operate at learner direction; without a real operation, use a newly labelled invented account and mark source reasoning.
S02 · Choose one question and a safe comparison
First check: The plan gives a question, prediction with an experience/source, one intended difference (action or named material), two relevant kept conditions and a safe stop. A plan alone does not earn a completed-procedure observation.
After capture, next teaching: If two factors vary, lay out the proposed pieces and mark each difference before testing. If the prediction has no source, invite a remembered observation and allow uncertain. If safety is missing, rehearse the stopping action before a physical trial.
Unused recheck: Unused R02: compare one flat fresh card and one curved card, but the curved card began longer. Ask for one correction and a safe procedure using matched starting lengths. Accept a plan that keeps source, size and history consistent; collect first reasoning before showing matched pieces.
S03 · Bend and twist; keep action and result separate
First check: Record names the actual action and material, gives an observed difference or no observed difference, and specifies the viewpoint/unit if used. Do not call a change in projected span a loss of material.
After capture, next teaching: If action and result are merged, ask what the operator did first and what the observer saw next. If a span is treated as disappearing material, show the same intact piece in a different pose without inventing a new measurement.
Unused recheck: Unused R03: a different card in an invented record changes left-to-right span from 7 paper units flat to 5 curved. The decrease is 2 span units; ask why this alone cannot show that card vanished. If a real version is used, use its actual measurements instead.
S04 · Measure a gentle stretch without forcing a result
First check: Child uses the same unit/marks and distinguishes rest, held and released records, including unknown. A prediction can differ from the observed result. Recognise the safe stop; no strength or universal return-to-size claim.
After capture, next teaching: If the child changes units, align equal unit pieces beside the same two marks. If unknown is filled with a guess, separate prediction from the empty observation. If a safe stop is mistaken for failure, name the safe procedure and choose source reasoning or another approved opportunity.
Unused recheck: Unused R04: invented new cloth mark distances are rest 6, held 7, released 7 equal units. The held increase is 1 and the final is 1 greater than the initial. Ask why the known material can remain cloth even though its final recorded distance did not return, and what remains unknown about force and other cloth; do not physically reproduce these numbers to obtain a mark.
S05 · A whole and its pieces: what material is present?
First check: Child traces large pieces to their known whole, names a physical action and distinguishes material identity from number/size/colour. An unsuccessful safe tear is recorded honestly; no required break result or equal-part claim.
After capture, next teaching: If two pieces are called two new materials, connect each to the starting source label. If colour alone controls the sorting, contrast same-colour items with different known provenance. If the action was only reported, keep the evidence label supplied provenance.
Unused recheck: Unused R05: a new provenance account shows 2 large pieces from one known card rectangle and 2 large pieces from one known cloth rectangle. There are 4 pieces in total, grouped 2 card and 2 cloth. Ask how the source establishes the two material groups and why equal piece counts do not establish equal size or mass. This changes both the arrangement and group counts from the ordinary 3/1 example; actual tearing is not required.
S06 · Organise records so a pattern can be checked
First check: The table retains the source, unit and unknowns, correctly associates each action with its result, and states a pattern only across the available records. No personal data, neatness or typing speed score.
After capture, next teaching: If unknown becomes zero, contrast a measured zero difference with a missing final observation. If action/result are swapped, return to the original note and read headings aloud. If a universal claim appears, count the available records and request a bounded sentence.
Unused recheck: Unused R06: invented records have one card bent into a curve, one cloth twisted with a remaining fold, and one cloth with no after note. Put them in the correct action/material/result cells; there are 2 known after records and 1 missing. The remaining fold is accepted, rather than repaired to match earlier examples.
S07 · Repeat the question and keep the contrary result
First check: Child retains both results, compares them with a prediction and identifies a relevant condition or question with guidance. They do not invent peer findings or assert a cause from an unexplained difference.
After capture, next teaching: If a result is changed to fit prediction, restore the original note and compare the two openly. If different action/history is ignored, map the two setups side by side. If an explanation is asserted as proved, label it possible explanation and plan what evidence would distinguish it.
Unused recheck: Unused R07: fictional fresh card A and card B receive different actions, loose curve and sharp fold; A rests flat and B keeps a crease. Ask why this is not evidence about repeating one identical action, then plan a matched gentle-curve comparison. No need to perform a sharp fold for assessment.
S08 · Use observations for a careful everyday prediction
First check: The explanation identifies the observation/source behind a useful prediction and one untested limit. A chosen purpose or attractive plan is not substituted for a checked outcome or a real worker's testimony.
After capture, next teaching: If the prediction is reported as a completed result, put the unseen trial beside the source record and mark it unknown. If no pattern/source is named, ask the learner to point to an earlier note. If the claim becomes a safety guarantee, narrow it to the actual tabletop question.
Unused recheck: Unused R08: a fictional cloth outline changes span from 10 to 5 units after a fold, beside a 6-unit drawn space. The 5-unit span is 1 smaller; ask for a cautious predicted fit across that one model dimension and one missing real-use check. Do not repeat the lesson's 8/4/5 values.
S09 · Fresh E: a new cloth arrangement
First check: Fresh E first evidence is kept before feedback: known material/source, question/prediction, safe suggested step if applicable, exact result/source, prediction comparison and one next question. Practical components are judged only when actually observed.
After capture, next teaching: Teach only the missing distinction after retaining the first response: material/form, source/observation, prediction/finding or safe planning. Then offer reserved RE, not E again; an unavailable practical component stays unobserved until a suitable opportunity occurs.
Unused recheck: Reserved RE: a new invented source reports a known cloth loosely draped over a low smooth block, then actively removed and laid flat again by the fictional adult; no numerical span values. Ask the same evidence distinctions with the different action/arrangement. Optional actual approved draping records its own result and operator. This source is held away from practice/home/day cards.
S10 · Fresh F: can the comparison support that claim?
First check: Fresh F first response labels fiction, states a supported span/form comparison, identifies relevant confounds, makes a safe clearer plan and communicates an unknown. It does not infer material strength/composition from a span or confer whole-year attainment.
After capture, next teaching: If the learner endorses the strong claim, mark source differences and teach one-variable comparison using an ordinary new example; retain the first answer. Use RF only afterwards. Handover names evidenced components, support/source and the next actual opportunity, rather than a total score or finished-standard claim.
Unused recheck: Reserved RF: new fictional records compare fresh long cloth gently curved with shorter already-creased card twisted; no numerical values. Ask what limits attribution, then choose a stated question and propose matched relevant conditions. A named different-material comparison may match action/size/history/view; a same-material action or repeat question is also accepted. This unused recheck remains held away from ordinary learning/home/day cards.
Separate daily recheck keys, R01–R08
| Recheck | Descriptive worked answer |
|---|---|
| R01 | The known piece remains fabric; rolling/unrolling changes its form. No universal return result or composition-from-appearance conclusion. Name actual operator/observation, or invented-source status. |
| R02 | Starting length differs as well as flat/curved action. Use matched fresh same-source lengths/history, a consistent table view and one gentle approved action versus unchanged comparison, with a safe stop. A corrected plan is not completed conduct. |
| R03 | The supplied projected tabletop span changes 7→5: decrease 2 units. This view alone does not show lost card, smaller full strip length or composition change; actual values would replace fiction in a real test. |
| R04 | Supplied mark distances 6→7→7: held increase 1; released distance remains 1 above the initial. Known cloth can have a retained physical dimension change; return is not the definition. Force and other cloth behaviour remain unknown. |
| R05 | Provenance gives 2 card pieces and 2 cloth pieces, total 4. Equal group counts do not imply equal piece size, mass or composition; no actual tearing by the learner is evidenced by this source. |
| R06 | Two known after-records and one missing after-record cannot establish that all three changed identically. Retain unknown and the contrary cloth result rather than choose only a preferred pattern; name exact records and evidence kind. |
| R07 | Loose curve and firm fold are different actions/history conditions. Compare fresh matched pieces under the same agreed safe action for a repeat question, and retain any differing outcomes; the source does not prove a cause. |
| R08 | Fictional span changes 10→5, compared with a 6-unit model space: one-dimensional clearance 1. Predict cautiously for that model dimension; depth, actual fit and real-use suitability need a separate safe check. |
Fresh E · unfamiliar original source and neutral prompt
Status: NEW original invented source; held teacher-side; not in ordinary aids, routes' worked data, home or day cards.
Exact supplied source: Three original frames show the same known cotton cloth: A flat on a table with left-to-right span 4 equal paper units; B loosely gathered into a mound with span 2 units; C released and actively arranged flat by the fictional adult with span 4 units. A fictional adult performed the action. These are invented illustration/record values, not measured class data or a guaranteed real cloth response.
Staged capture: Release only Stage 1 (before flat known cotton cloth 4 units; planned loose gathering). Ask and retain “What do you predict the planned action may change, and why?” BEFORE Stage 2 (gathered 2, then released and actively arranged flat 4). Record prior exposure if present.
Neutral teacher prompt after Stage 2: Name the material and action from this source. What visible form/span changed? Compare one prediction with this supplied record. What did you actually observe or do yourself, and what came from the invented source? Suggest one safe further question. If you instead undertake a real approved gathering investigation, record its actual result, operator and unit; do not use these source values as a required result.
Separate descriptive teacher key, after capture
In the source: known cotton cloth, loose gathering, flat-to-mound form, span 4→2→4; source span decreases by 2 then returns to 4. Those values describe tabletop span, not cloth lost or mass measured. The physical change does not change the known material into another material; returning flat is not the definition of physical change. The source adult actively arranges it flat; release alone is not shown to restore the form. A source-based prediction comparison and further safe question are acceptable with explicit fiction label. Real-route results have no fixed expected values; use accurate observed description, safe steps and provenance. Adult operation and learner handling are separate; a model-only response leaves actual physical observations/procedures unsampled.
Fresh F · unfamiliar original source and neutral prompt
Status: NEW original invented source; held teacher-side; unused in ordinary/home/day teaching.
Exact supplied source: Record A: a known clean cloth piece begins flat with tabletop span 9 equal paper units; a fictional adult gives it one half-turn twist; its recorded left-to-right span is then 3. Record B: a known smooth card piece begins flat with span 7 equal units; a fictional adult gently curves it; its recorded span is then 4. Same unit is stated, but material, starting span and action differ. The fictional claim to evaluate is: Cloth is always better at changing shape than card.
Neutral teacher prompt: What comparison can these invented records support? What prevents the always claim? Plan a safer clearer comparison for one question, naming what would change and stay. What remains unknown without a real investigation? Communicate by your chosen mode; no practical handling is needed for source interpretation.
Separate descriptive teacher key, after capture
A's supplied span change is 9−3=6 units; B's is 7−4=3; the resulting spans are 3 and 4. Any accurate source-supported comparison is accepted without requiring arithmetic as the main Science judgement. Material, initial span and action differ; full strip length, force, history and practical suitability are not established, so no always/better/strength or composition-from-appearance conclusion follows. A clearer plan might compare matched fresh same-source/same-size cloth pieces, one gently curved and one left flat, for a visible-form question; or matched fresh same-source pieces given a consistent agreed action for a repeat question. Name operator, safe stop and actual result if later performed. The supplied source alone demonstrates interpretation/planning, not child physical investigation or a real worker result.
Unused RE and RF: source and separate worked keys
RE staged capture: Stage 1 is known cloth flat and a fictional adult planning a loose drape over a low smooth block. Retain prediction BEFORE Stage 2 states it was draped, then the adult actively removed and laid it flat. No numeric span is supplied. Read this same literal sequence when no aid is used.
RE learner source: A new invented account names a known cloth laid flat, loosely draped over a low smooth block, then actively removed and laid flat again by the fictional adult. A fictional adult operates; no span measurement is given. Ask the material/action/form/source distinction, one prediction comparison and one safe further question. An actual approved version records its own result/operator.
RE separate key: The named material is cloth; loose draping changes the visible form around the block, then the fictional adult removes it and actively lays it flat; this is not spontaneous return after release. That final source description is not an actual learner observation or a universal return rule. No numeric length, force, mass or chemical test is supplied. One suitable further question is whether a comparable fresh piece shows a similar form under an agreed safe drape; record a plan until actually checked. Real response/form has no required value. This different action/arrangement rechecks material/form, provenance and prediction/finding rather than repeating E's mound/4–2–4 source.
RF learner source: New fictional records compare fresh long cloth gently curved with shorter already-creased card twisted. No numerical value is given. Ask what limits attributing any difference to material, and propose a safer clearer comparison for one stated question.
RF separate key: Material, starting length, action and prior creasing/history all differ; neither material superiority nor a cause is established. A clearer repeat question uses matched fresh same-source/same-size/same-history pieces, the same agreed gentle action and table view, with a named operator and safe stop. For an action-effect question, change one agreed action while relevant conditions stay, such as a curve versus untouched matched piece. No result is invented before a real investigation; a corrected source plan leaves actual practical comparison unsampled. This uses a different nonnumeric curve/twist/history confound from F and remains held until feedback.
For E/F and RE/RF, keep the original first response, feedback, later response and any unavailable components separate. Teach only the missing distinctions, then use the reserved source; do not demand a complete product or erase first evidence. The next action could be suitable actual investigation, better sourced observation, safer planning, a same-unit record, guided fairness comparison or clearer communicated claim. No invented teacher/child success or viewer feedback is reported.
Exact arithmetic witnesses in the supplied material
These arithmetic checks verify fictional records and keys only. They do not prescribe physical results or make arithmetic speed the Science criterion.
| Witness | Operation | Expected value |
|---|---|---|
| S03-context1-span-decrease | 6 − 4 | 2 |
| S04-context1-held-increase | 5 − 4 | 1 |
| S05-context1-piece-increase | 2 − 1 | 1 |
| S05-context2-piece-total | 3 + 1 | 4 |
| S06-context2-rest-difference | 5 − 5 | 0 |
| S07-context2-release-difference | 5 − 4 | 1 |
| S08-context1-model-clearance | 5 − 4 | 1 |
| R03-span-decrease | 7 − 5 | 2 |
| R04-held-increase | 7 − 6 | 1 |
| R05-piece-total | 2 + 2 | 4 |
| R08-model-clearance | 6 − 5 | 1 |
| E-supplied-span-decrease | 4 − 2 | 2 |
| F-supplied-A-span-decrease | 9 − 3 | 6 |
| F-supplied-B-span-decrease | 7 − 4 | 3 |
| R04-released-increase | 7 − 6 | 1 |
| S04-home-held-increase | 3 − 2 | 1 |
| S03-context2-rest-difference | 3 − 3 | 0 |
| S09-context1-rest-difference | 6 − 6 | 0 |
| C17-span-decrease | 12 − 6 | 6 |
| C17-model-clearance | 8 − 6 | 2 |
| C18-cloth-decrease | 10 − 8 | 2 |
| C18-card-decrease | 10 − 9 | 1 |
Accepted different-material question
A fair question may change the action while matching material/source, size, relevant history and viewpoint. A different-material question is also valid: name the two materials as the intended difference, match relevant starting size, action, history and view, and keep each source known. Do not demand one material for every fair test; do not attribute a result to material when other relevant conditions also differ.
An acceptable F/RF improved plan may compare named cloth and card under matched relevant size/history/view/action conditions, with known separate provenance, safe operator/stop and actual outcome left open. Same-material action or repeat comparisons are also accepted when they answer the named question.
Two staff workflow scenarios, excluded from twenty science-context count
Staff scenario 1 · Real route with no operation
Fully solved workflow context: a learner predicts that gathering a cloth might make a taller mound, but chooses not to handle it and no adult demonstration occurs. They draw their proposed form and ask whether it would return flat. Solution: record a prediction, model plan and next question; physical action, observation of the result and returning-flat outcome are unobserved. The teacher offers a later suitable opportunity or the explicitly supplied E source rather than recording failure, inventing a result or demanding touch. The choice supplies meaningful planning evidence only.
Staff scenario 2 · End-of-sequence handover
Fully solved fictional workflow: a learner's records clearly distinguish material/form and sort supplied data, but all physical operations were performed by an adult and the only repeat comparison came from fiction. Solution: retain the learner's demonstrated explanation/organisation, record adult-operated actual observations where present, and leave learner physical procedure and actual repeated data collection unsampled. Next teaching offers an approved child-selected practical role or further communicated planning, without downgrading meaning because response was dictated or inflating source interpretation into a completed investigation.
©2026 NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd · SubjectNest · Codex assisted. Original prose/data/art: CC BY 4.0. Retain credit, licence link and indicate changes. External national/QCAA/font/code terms remain separate.