# A-first · Staff evidence and individual next teaching ## Complete neutral source Original fictional puppet mechanic notes. Job: a short cue before the toy garage opens. Trial1: helper gently taps an empty plastic box once; supplied report “short tap”. Trial2: same box, helper rubs one edge once; supplied report “longer scratchy sound”. Same helper and observer spot are stated. Force was not measured. Before trials the helper predicted the two actions would give different reports. No trial with a real garage audience is supplied. ## Components ### Accept other responses Accept a different source-faithful response in text/drawing/speech/sign/AAC/exact scribing. No required wording, hearing performance or neatness score. Apply only the exact prompt/criterion; no unstated physical action or result required. ### Exact component criterion Names tap and rub and a supplied report difference; no measured pitch/loudness demanded. ### Exact prompt Name the two actions and one difference in the supplied reports. ### Full individual next learning #### Child invitation Help a florist reader separate the wanted delivery place, action and actual stopping clue. #### Guided different context For a new pretend florist desk, slide a paper flower towards a pot drawing. Child predicts a stopping place, then performs or directs the gentle slide and records its actual position. #### Id N01 #### Mode opportunity This is supported teaching after review. Actual performing, reasoning about supplied stories and model construction are recorded separately. New-context transfer is a small observed step, not annual mastery or a new official grade. #### Next decision If the named distinction is still unclear, return to two source-labelled cards in this unrelated context and one prompt at a time. If clear, offer a different job/source after further learning; do not retry this held case with the staff model rehearsed. #### Observable next evidence Child identifies actual action and reported result separately and leaves unperformed result open. #### Ordinary possible model “Roll the cart” names an action; “blue square” names the reported stopping place. #### Teacher preparation Full account/model and a separate blank child page; cards or paper drawings as named in the guided context. Offer pointing/AAC/exact scribing and quiet helper operation. No source collection or public publication is required. #### Teacher sequence - Read the complete new account and ask which event/reference is actually supplied before showing its ordinary model. - Place job, action and result labels in separate pockets; model the parcel record, then let child label the flower event without filling their result. - Guide the different new context above using an open question. After child chooses, pause so they can author/select/draw their own evidence distinction; the model answer stays a teaching example, never inserted into their own work. - Invite the child to explain one exact clue and one limit in the new task. Keep actual events, supplied stories and unperformed plans labelled. Use the observable check below to choose whether to revisit this meaning or offer a genuinely fresh task later. #### Title Parcel-ramp action labels #### Whole unrelated teaching account A fictional parcel desk rolls a toy cart down a flat paper path; record says it stopped beside the blue square. A second note says a card was slid to the red square. These are movement notes, not sound observations. ### Id A-first-1 ### Initial own value ### One possible staff response Tap and rub; the helper described the tap as short and rub as longer/scratchy. ### Staff focus U02 action/report variety partial knowledge ### Accept other responses Accept a different source-faithful response in text/drawing/speech/sign/AAC/exact scribing. No required wording, hearing performance or neatness score. Apply only the exact prompt/criterion; no unstated physical action or result required. ### Exact component criterion Identifies a supplied result/report rather than the before-trial prediction; exact source qualification retained. ### Exact prompt Which supplied clue shows what happened rather than only what was predicted? ### Full individual next learning #### Child invitation Help a fruit-stall reader find the after card, then explain how it differs from the before idea. Leave the second envelope’s result open. #### Guided different context Complete different fictional fruit-stall account: before opening a picture-envelope at10:00, the helper expected four drawn apples, using yesterday’s four-apple card as the clue. The10:05 after-opening card reports one drawn apple. A second envelope has no after card. Ask the child to choose which card shows what happened, then compare it with the earlier expectation; no actual food task is required. #### Id N02 #### Mode opportunity This is supported teaching after review. Actual performing, reasoning about supplied stories and model construction are recorded separately. New-context transfer is a small observed step, not annual mastery or a new official grade. #### Next decision If before and after still merge, reduce this new story to two labelled time cards and ask one question. If the after distinction is clear, offer a genuinely new ordinary before/after event later. These coached accounts are teaching, not untouched held evidence. #### Observable next evidence Child identifies the supplied after report rather than the prospective expectation and can keep the missing second result unknown; record each actual distinction and help separately. #### Ordinary possible model The08:50 three-book expectation is a before-opening prediction. The09:00 two-book entry is an after-opening report. It differs from that prediction; boxM’s missing count is still unknown rather than zero. #### Teacher preparation Print/read the complete library and fruit-stall accounts and their separate before/after headings. Keep the ordinary model on the staff page until the first meaning question. Offer big cards, AAC, drawing, signing or verbatim scribing with read-back; use no food, photos or sound. #### Teacher sequence - Read all library times and counts. Ask which statement was made before the box opened and which is an after report; keep the unseenM count blank. - Model the three-versus-two distinction with separate time-labelled cards. Explain why the previous return record can be a prediction clue without guaranteeing the next count. - Read the whole different fruit-stall account. Guide the first time label, then pause while the child chooses the actual supplied after card and compares it with four predicted apples; never insert your model into their own record. - Ask what remains unknown about the second envelope and note the child’s exact source-qualified distinction, mode and support. Choose another unrelated before/after job if needed; do not rehearse the held tap/rub key. #### Title Library return prediction and record #### Whole unrelated teaching account Complete original fictional library account. At08:50, before the return box was opened, the helper predicted boxL would contain three returned books because the previous displayed return record had three. At09:00 the supplied after-opening record says boxL contained two books. BoxM has no count recorded. These are supplied story records, not a real library event or the child’s own prior prediction. The purpose is to make a label that separates what was expected from what was reported. ### Id A-first-2 ### Initial own value ### One possible staff response The supplied rub report says longer scratchy; it is a report after its trial, while the before idea was a prediction. ### Staff focus I05 prediction/result distinction with source ### Accept other responses Accept a different source-faithful response in text/drawing/speech/sign/AAC/exact scribing. No required wording, hearing performance or neatness score. Apply only the exact prompt/criterion; no unstated physical action or result required. ### Exact component criterion Purpose-linked choice uses an exact source clue and identifies the real audience/job trial as still open; alternative faithful quiet choice accepted. ### Exact prompt For the stated short-cue job, what might you choose and why? Say what remains untried. ### Full individual next learning #### Child invitation Choose a pretend rest mat using a supplied/seen drawing clue, then ask what real outdoor information would still be needed. #### Guided different context Create a new pretend pet-rest scene with a roof drawing covering one paper mat and not another. #### Id N03 #### Mode opportunity This is supported teaching after review. Actual performing, reasoning about supplied stories and model construction are recorded separately. New-context transfer is a small observed step, not annual mastery or a new official grade. #### Next decision If the named distinction is still unclear, return to two source-labelled cards in this unrelated context and one prompt at a time. If clear, offer a different job/source after further learning; do not retry this held case with the staff model rehearsed. #### Observable next evidence Child gives a purpose-matched choice with evidence kind and a real-world question still open. #### Ordinary possible model For this pretend plan, tableP has the supplied shade clue; real comfort is untested. #### Teacher preparation Full account/model and a separate blank child page; cards or paper drawings as named in the guided context. Offer pointing/AAC/exact scribing and quiet helper operation. No source collection or public publication is required. #### Teacher sequence - Read the complete new account and ask which event/reference is actually supplied before showing its ordinary model. - Model purpose/clue/limit with the picnic; guide one roof-picture placement, then invite a distinct mat choice and child-authored question. Do not take children to observe the Sun. - Guide the different new context above using an open question. After child chooses, pause so they can author/select/draw their own evidence distinction; the model answer stays a teaching example, never inserted into their own work. - Invite the child to explain one exact clue and one limit in the new task. Keep actual events, supplied stories and unperformed plans labelled. Use the observable check below to choose whether to revisit this meaning or offer a genuinely fresh task later. #### Title Picnic shade choice #### Whole unrelated teaching account A fictional picnic plan wants a card to stand in shade. Supplied toy-scene note says umbrella drawing covers tableP, not tableQ; no real sunlight observation exists. ### Id A-first-3 ### Initial own value ### One possible staff response I could try the tap for the short cue because its supplied report was short. The real garage audience trial is untried. ### Staff focus H01/I06 purpose-bound communication ### Accept other responses Accept a different source-faithful response in text/drawing/speech/sign/AAC/exact scribing. No required wording, hearing performance or neatness score. Apply only the exact prompt/criterion; no unstated physical action or result required. ### Exact component criterion Gives one relevant planned similarity and a further comparison question; guidance permitted, no actual new performance required. ### Exact prompt With guidance, suggest one way to keep a new action comparison similar and ask a further question. ### Full individual next learning #### Child invitation Suggest one change and one similarity for a useful toy-travel question, then ask a further question with guidance. #### Guided different context Lay two flat paper textures with a toy/card approved by adult. Plan a new question about travel without slopes, and leave any result open unless gently tried. #### Id N04 #### Mode opportunity This is supported teaching after review. Actual performing, reasoning about supplied stories and model construction are recorded separately. New-context transfer is a small observed step, not annual mastery or a new official grade. #### Next decision If the named distinction is still unclear, return to two source-labelled cards in this unrelated context and one prompt at a time. If clear, offer a different job/source after further learning; do not retry this held case with the staff model rehearsed. #### Observable next evidence Child connects comparison choices to the question and recognises an unmeasured factor. #### Ordinary possible model Mat was the planned change; unmeasured push limits a mat-only cause claim. #### Teacher preparation Full account/model and a separate blank child page; cards or paper drawings as named in the guided context. Offer pointing/AAC/exact scribing and quiet helper operation. No source collection or public publication is required. #### Teacher sequence - Read the complete new account and ask which event/reference is actually supplied before showing its ordinary model. - Show the car source in two panels. Ask what changed, what was only planned similar and what was not measured. Child directs a new safe plan without being told the result. - Guide the different new context above using an open question. After child chooses, pause so they can author/select/draw their own evidence distinction; the model answer stays a teaching example, never inserted into their own work. - Invite the child to explain one exact clue and one limit in the new task. Keep actual events, supplied stories and unperformed plans labelled. Use the observable check below to choose whether to revisit this meaning or offer a genuinely fresh task later. #### Title Toy-car mat comparison #### Whole unrelated teaching account A fictional car desk compares the same toy rolled from a blue line on paper then cloth; stopping places differ. Release push was not measured. ### Id A-first-4 ### Initial own value ### One possible staff response Use the same box and observer spot for a new gentle action comparison. Would the reports differ again? Force still was not measured. ### Staff focus I02/I05 planned consistency/further question, no conducting claim ## Delivery Read/display the exact whole neutral source and prompts, with one question at a time if wanted. Do not read criteria/worked/next accounts. Each own page has initial-closed same-page full neutral source disclosure and an external whole-source link; paper mat repeats this source identity and four exact prompts. ## Eligibility Staff records learning opportunity, familiarity with source, prior answer exposure, adult help/operation/scribing, mode, self-directed versus guided reasoning and whether actual practical evidence was offered. After coaching on this source, use it as teaching and arrange genuinely fresh later evidence. ## Exact four prompts - Name the two actions and one difference in the supplied reports. - Which supplied clue shows what happened rather than only what was predicted? - For the stated short-cue job, what might you choose and why? Say what remains untried. - With guidance, suggest one way to keep a new action comparison similar and ask a further question. ## First later First and later are eligible local evidence opportunities, not required timing or a numerical progress scale. Describing supplied outcomes does not demonstrate practical conducting; keep actual observations in a separate folio. ## Id A-first ## Own response values - - - - ## Role neutral held assessment source; teacher offered only after relevant learning opportunity; independent staff criterion/models separate ## Source kind original supplied fiction; any reference fact/model explicitly labelled ## Title Puppet mechanic action notes