Response to investigate
It broke so we made it stronger.
Practical disciplinary literacy
Design Technology: disciplinary literacy in practice
Interpret a specification, report a repeatable test and justify a design revision.
The task students are answering
Material to use
Teaching specification: a bridge model must hold 500 g for 30 seconds without joint failure. Illustrative test record: the joint bends at 20 seconds. The support span and load position were recorded. No retest has happened yet.
Ask students
Did the model meet the specification? Use the test evidence to propose one design revision and explain how a fair retest would check it.
Expected response
A specification–result–revision–retest record. Include the load, duration, proposed change and conditions held constant.
What to look for
- Compares 20 seconds with the required 30 seconds at 500 g.
- Links the revision to the observed joint problem.
- Keeps span and load position consistent and does not claim improvement before retesting.
How a response can develop
The model and sample responses below address the question above. Reveal the teaching interpretation after discussing what is clearer in the improved response.
Criterion
Teaching specification: support 500 g for 30 seconds without joint failure.
Test
Illustrative trial: the joint bends at 20 seconds. Record load placement and support span.
Revise
Reinforce the joint, repeat the same test and compare performance; changing several factors would weaken the comparison.
More precise response
The joint bent after 20 seconds under a 500 g load. We will reinforce that joint and repeat the test with the same span and load position to check whether performance improves.
Reveal the teaching interpretation
The original response omits the criterion and test conditions. Ask for a test sketch and recorded measurements, then build the evaluation sentence.
These are invented teaching samples. One response alone does not establish proficiency, attainment or a learning difficulty.
Teacher preparation and teaching sequence
Prepare the material described in Visual model. Read the exact student question aloud and show the expected response before modelling. For Music and PE, supply the recording or demonstration first.
- Read or observe: introduce the task: Evaluate a model bridge against a load-bearing specification.
- Model: think aloud through the three-part model, connecting each decision to the evidence.
- Notice: compare the two sample responses. Identify one meaning difference, not just a difference in length.
- Rehearse: Create a specification–test–revision log and identify variables that must stay consistent.
- Transfer: Evaluate a fresh prototype result, including criterion, evidence and a testable revision.
Useful language to notice
The joint bent after 20 seconds under a 500 g load. We will reinforce that joint and repeat the test with the same span and load position to check whether performance improves.
Highlight words that connect evidence, explanation and qualification. Choose a small useful phrase set rather than asking learners to memorise the entire model.
Use the task with your class
Student instructions
Did the model meet the specification? Use the test evidence to propose one design revision and explain how a fair retest would check it.
Produce: A specification–result–revision–retest record. Include the load, duration, proposed change and conditions held constant.
Independent follow-up
New illustrative result: a revised model holds 500 g for 30 seconds, but bends when tested at 700 g. State whether it meets the original specification and what the higher-load result adds.
Use the fresh task after practice. Record what the learner achieves and which supports remain necessary.
Adapt and keep your resource
Edit these fields for your class or department. Drafts stay in this browser; use anonymised evidence. Download an editable text copy to keep it elsewhere.
Model the decisions, then invite a response
“Which criterion was not met, and how will the retest be comparable?”
“What evidence supports that connection?”
“Which condition, exception or limitation matters here?”
Respond to the sample
The original response omits the criterion and test conditions. Ask for a test sketch and recorded measurements, then build the evaluation sentence.
First establish the learner’s subject meaning through talk, a sketch or a familiar-language response. Then address one English choice that helps communicate that meaning.
Access, independence and department use
Access: introduce essential terms with a representation; allow bilingual notes, partner rehearsal and a brief sentence frame. Keep the subject reasoning.
Independence: use fresh content and remove the full model. Retain required access arrangements and record any prompts.
Department pilot: use this routine in one unit. Collect a small anonymised sample before and after teaching, note the support provided and review with an EAL colleague.
Plan a manageable pilotDesign Technology: disciplinary literacy in practice
Everyday communication and academic language
BICS is a useful shorthand for interpersonal communication; CALP draws attention to the language demands of academic learning. They are not two learner categories or a direct WIDA/CEFR conversion. Familiar conversation can conceal difficulty with a dense text or an unfamiliar subject explanation. Look at the task, context, support and individual language domains.
Plan from what learners can do
WIDA’s Key Uses provide a useful way to identify the communicative purpose: recount, explain, argue or discuss. Use the grade-band descriptors with the learner’s domain-specific evidence and choose support that keeps the subject thinking intact.
- Recount: Describe the stages used to develop a prototype.
- Explain: Explain how a design feature responds to a user need.
- Argue: Recommend a material using test results, cost and a relevant limitation.
- Discuss: Compare proposed changes against the agreed design criteria.
Open the subject language planner
Original teaching examples informed by WIDA Can Do Descriptors. They are not official descriptors or predicted assessment outcomes.