The example turns three fictional events into reaction-and-reason comparisons. Select a card and a reaction to see an authored explanation, then write a different explanation for teacher review. The poster card accepts both celebration and admiration as discussion models. The page does not grade a learner's feelings or automatically judge free text.
Put the event before the emotion
E1 says Sam finds a key after checking the bag. E2 says an empty box unexpectedly falls from a shelf. E3 says a team finishes its original poster. Read these exact facts aloud or provide them in writing. Offer Phew, Oh no, Hooray, and Wow as a reaction bank. Keep the event visible while learners decide what their speaker is expressing; the reaction must not replace the event with a new story.
For E1, an authored model is “Phew! Sam found the key.” The search followed by finding can support relief. Compare it with “Sam found the key.” In these two sentences, the key-finding fact stays while the first speaker also expresses a reaction. Ask learners to point to the expressive word and the event detail separately. This is a comparison of those sentences, not a rule about removing every interjection from every possible utterance.
Compare explanations rather than volume
For E3, choose Hooray to discuss celebration of finishing together. Choose Wow to discuss admiration for the completed work. Neither choice establishes that the poster won a prize or looked beautiful. A useful learner explanation might say, “I chose Hooray because finishing the team project is something this speaker celebrates.” A partner can then propose Wow and explain the changed stance. The teacher reviews whether the interpretation fits the supplied event without demanding an exact copy of the model sentence.
E2 needs particular care: the box is empty. “Oh no, someone was hurt” invents an injury that the card never supplies. A response about concern at an unexpected fall can stay closer to the facts. If a learner imagines an added context, label that addition before discussing it. The reaction bank is an invitation to reason about expression, not a dictionary assigning one unchanging emotion to each word. Other defensible responses remain available for teacher discussion.
Leave a reviewable response
Rotate event reader, responder, and explainer. A written contribution, observation role, or pass can replace a spoken performance. Record event ID, event fact, reaction, intended stance, supporting detail, and explanation. Keep speed and loudness out of the review. An empty explanation is unfinished; it is not evidence of an emotion or inability. On the page, editing the explanation clears its previous review message; the review button only confirms that there is text for a teacher to read.
Use “Which detail supports that reaction?” as the closing question. Keep the authored explanations visibly labeled as models and actual student writing on its own sheet. The page's Reset restores the first event and clears the current practice note. It neither erases paper observations nor saves classroom results. Before reusing the packet, review whether a second reaction still preserves the event and whether the explanation names the speaker's stance rather than inventing what the characters must feel.
Make your own working example
Build an original classroom interjection practice page with three event buttons: E1 Sam finds the key after checking the bag; E2 an empty box unexpectedly falls from a shelf; E3 the team finishes its original poster. Provide Phew, Oh no, Hooray, and Wow buttons and an editable explanation field. Keep the supplied event fact separate from the expressive reaction.
Start on E1 with a labeled authored Phew model linking the completed search to relief. For E3, Hooray models celebration and Wow models admiration. Do not enforce a single universal emotional answer. Other combinations invite teacher discussion without inventing injuries, prizes, or personal feelings. Show a sentence with the chosen reaction and the unchanged event. Include the comparison Phew! Sam found the key versus Sam found the key.
The explanation review button reports missing text or that a human should review the submitted explanation; it must not grade semantic quality. Editing text clears that review. Reset returns to E1 and clears practice text. Label examples as teacher models, with no learner outcomes or saved records.
Use one self-contained HTML file with no remote dependency. Keep the initial sample, output, and labeled controls near the top. Use at least 16px text, strong contrast, visible focus, and a stacked layout at 360px without horizontal overflow. Use explicit type=button click handlers and explicit DOM selectors; do not depend on native form submission. Clear stale feedback when task inputs change. Render entered text safely. Keep practice data local to the current page; do not imply saving, sending, or production integration. Return only the finished HTML.
Prepare the next class copy
Before the next round, clarify the E3 instruction so learners explain celebration or admiration rather than hunt for one secret word. In NOS, eligible static instructions can be revised in visual editing mode without asking AI to regenerate the HTML. Keep the teacher's source packet and actual learner work separately; use the reading copy to clarify the next activity.