Teacher Guide: Evidence-Reading Bridge

Read the student’s answer against the question and the actual story. Use the supplied answers as examples, accepting other defensible wording and interpretations. Keep the demands separate: a stated reason and a two-clue inference show different reasoning.

What to look for

• Question understanding: the response addresses the person, action and kind of explanation requested.
• Accuracy and relevance: each selected detail is in the story and helps answer this question.
• Connection: the learner explains how the detail supports the answer or inference.
• Inference: two distinct clues support a limited claim; the response does not invent outcomes or permanent traits.

Choose an actual task

If the response answers a different question, use Work Out What the Question Asks with the familiar score story. If a true but irrelevant detail is selected, use Choose a Detail That Helps, then its new story-card practice. If a detail is relevant but unexplained, keep that detail and model the link, then have the learner explain their own link on the score story. If two clues and connections are secure, use Connect Two Details to an Answer or Compare Two Possible Inferences. Check again with the corresponding later task.

Record conditions and keep the decision small

A blank or unclear answer is a reason to check access, wording, time and response mode. Permit pointing plus spoken or dictated explanation when appropriate. Record read-aloud, translation, prompting or familiar-story exposure; these conditions affect what the task shows about independent reading. Do not combine these observations into a placement score. The later stories are different tasks; interpret their own demands rather than assuming equivalent difficulty.

A Place for the Cards

1. The reason for the move.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: A paraphrase such as why she changed the position is acceptable; colours or location alone do not show understanding of the question.

2. She moved the box so people could take cards without moving models. Jae had to lift the model to reach the cards, so putting the box at the front removed that obstacle.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept the final spoken explanation or the earlier obstacle, accurately represented and connected to the reason. The model’s size alone needs a connection to reaching the cards.

3. No. The colours do not explain the problem of reaching the cards or how the move helped.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept equivalent reasoning. Saying only no shows a choice but does not make the connection visible.

Try It: Sharing the Score

1. So players could check a score even if they had not heard him call it out.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept keeping the score available to read or reducing the need to repeat it. Do not require the model wording.

2. Players twice asked for the number again, showing that calling it out was not enough; written cards let them check it.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept Ari’s spoken explanation with an explicit connection to seeing the number. Cards being yellow alone does not explain the change.

3. No. Their colour does not tell us why players needed another way to check the number.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: A carefully supported alternative could explain a role for a detail if it were in the story, but do not accept an invented claim that yellow was easier to see.

Try It: A Turn to Speak

1. He may be helping each member contribute ideas before the group chooses.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept gathering or organising everyone’s ideas, or giving the quiet member a chance to contribute, when grounded in the scene. Avoid personality or always claims.

2. He asks everyone to write and read each card, which lets each idea be considered. He moves the microphone and waits for the quiet member, which gives that member a chance to contribute.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept keeping that member’s suggestions with the other ideas as a second distinct action. Rephrasing one detail twice does not supply two different clues.

3. It does not show every meeting or how each person felt. It only shows his actions in this scene.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept any clear limit on the always/everyone claim; the story does not prove that the group chose all suggestions or that all members were happy.

The Puzzle Table

1. To keep the pieces together rather than let them slide away as the book was moved.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept a limited answer about stopping the pieces sliding toward the edge. The boat picture or the corner pieces do not explain this choice.

2. Pieces slid toward the edge when the book was moved. That problem explains why Evan wanted to keep them together on the cloth.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept his stated reason with an explicit connection to keeping the pieces from sliding. An answer need not claim the cloth was proved successful; the story gives his purpose, not a later result.

3. The picture does not explain why Evan changed the surface under the pieces.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept that it tells what the picture was, rather than what problem his choice addressed.

The Rehearsal Notes

1. He may be trying to make the play directions clearer by responding to readers’ questions.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept helping the group know where to put props and when to enter. The story does not prove that the revised directions work in a rehearsal.

2. He names the long bench after Mali asks which bench, making the place more specific. He names the bell after Jo asks which sound, making the timing cue more specific.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept accurate paraphrases. The two revisions answer different uncertainties; merely saying he wrote and used a pen does not supply two meaningful clues.

3. They have not tried the new directions yet, and the story does not tell us about other possible questions.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept a limited explanation that these changes address two questions but do not establish perfect directions or future success.

Return to A Turn to Speak

1. Jay may be helping each member contribute. Reading every card considers each person’s idea; moving the microphone and waiting gives the quiet member a chance to speak.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept supported alternatives from the lesson. Require two distinct actions and an explicit connection for each; do not judge the opinion by whether it matches a preferred character trait.

Return to Sharing the Score

1. For example: What made Ari change from calling scores to showing them? Players asked him to repeat scores; showing the number let them check it if they did not hear.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept a restatement that preserves the reason-for-change question, rather than asking only for the card colour or score. Use lesson guidance for the answer.

Try It: The Story Cards

1. So players could choose a story without lifting the whole stack. In the box they could only see the top card; spreading the cards made other choices visible.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept the stated purpose with its connection to seeing more than the top card. The dragon picture alone does not explain the change.

2. It describes the room, rather than why Rin changed how the cards were arranged.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept equivalent reasoning; do not accept an invented claim that the curtain blocked the cards.

Return to A Turn to Speak

1. Reading every card supports considering each person’s idea. Writing first and then reading the cards can support organising the discussion instead of speaking at the same time.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Both ideas can be defensible and can overlap. Accept other accurate details when connections are explained; no need to declare only one correct purpose.

2. No. His actions can fit both goals. Hearing his explanation or seeing another situation could help distinguish his priorities.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept a relevant further question or kind of evidence. Do not ask for personal experiences or infer a permanent trait from this scene.

The Bookmark Basket

1. So visitors could pick up a bookmark before adding stickers.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept putting the needed blank next to the stickers after visitors reached the stickers without one; avoid inventing a reason about the red handle.

2. Visitors went to the stickers and then needed something to stick them on. Moving the blanks beside them made the needed bookmark available at that step.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept Dana’s explanation with a connection to having the blank before decorating. The text gives her purpose, not evidence of later success.

3. No. Its colour does not explain the missing bookmark problem or the reason for moving the blanks.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept equivalent reasoning without assigning a role to colour that the passage does not supply.

The Folding Sheet

1. Sol may be making the folding directions clearer in response to places readers found uncertain.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept helping people follow the sheet without a demonstration, using the actual changes as evidence. The new sheet has not yet been tested in the scene.

2. Sol adds a position drawing after two friends pause and turn the paper differently. Sol adds a corners instruction after another friend asks about touching corners. Each change addresses a different uncertainty.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept accurate paraphrases that link each change to the corresponding uncertainty. Keeping notes can add support but should not replace both concrete changes.

3. It shows two changes in response to questions. Nobody has tried the new version, so it does not show that every step is clear.

Acceptable alternatives and limits: Accept a qualification about untested results or other possible difficulties, without assuming failure either.