This original three-session project produces a classroom mini-exhibition. Its driving question is: How can we create an exhibit label that helps visitors separate what an object record shows from what remains to ask?
Supply two original object records
These are fictional descriptive records, not measured museum objects, photographs or evidence of historical provenance.
| Record | Supplied information | Information not supplied |
|---|---|---|
| O1 | Paper folder, 20 cm wide, printed label “Archive” | Maker, date and use |
| O2 | Card, 10 cm wide, label “Notes” | Maker, date and use |
Learners create labels that identify the record, distinguish supplied details from unknowns, and state a question that would require additional evidence. They may choose wording and presentation, but cannot fill a missing date with an attractive story.
Provide clean record cards, a source/question log, blank label space, a peer-question record and an individual contribution note. Arrange actual learner access and materials with the teacher. Physical objects or external images are not necessary for working with these supplied descriptions.
New Tech Network's public project-planning guide connects a driving question with benchmarks, scaffolds, assessment, peer feedback and group roles. This original exhibition packet uses that planning structure. The form-gated toolkit was not accessed, and no standards alignment or learning outcome is claimed from using this example.
Make each benchmark leave an inspectable artifact
Benchmark 1: source/question log. For every intended statement, name O1 or O2 and identify the supplied evidence. Mark maker, date and use unknown. Record a follow-up question without inventing its answer.
Benchmark 2: draft label and peer question. Retain the original draft. A peer identifies a specific statement and asks what supports it; the feedback should be traceable to that wording, rather than only “make it better.”
Benchmark 3: revised label and presentation plan. Retain the feedback and revision decision beside the changed label. Prepare a brief explanation of one supported statement and one remaining uncertainty for the intended audience.
Keep team product status separate from individual evidence. “Draft prepared” is a document state, not a grade for every team member.
A proposed three-session schedule
Each class session is 45 minutes; the project totals 135 in-class minutes.
| Session | Planned phases | Benchmark or evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Launch 5; inspect records 10; question log 15; label outline 10; exit 5 | Source/question log and original outline |
| 2 | Recap 5; draft 15; peer critique 10; revision plan 10; individual note 5 | Original draft, exact peer question and proposed revision |
| 3 | Setup 5; revise 15; audience rehearsal 10; individual explanation 10; reflection 5 | Revised label, rehearsal plan and individual explanations |
The first sequence sums to 5 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 5 = 45; the second to 5 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 45; the third to 5 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 45. Adjust the plan when actual access, discussion or revision needs differ.
Rotate the roles of evidence checker, label writer and presenter across sessions. Record the actual role and contribution afterward. A role assignment alone does not establish that the contribution happened, and rotation does not prove equal understanding.
Show a critique that changes the claim
Consider this separate hypothetical O1 draft: “An old school folder used in 1950.” None of its school-use or year claims appears in O1's record.
An original peer question is: “Where did the year and school use come from?” The revision should address that gap rather than replace 1950 with another invented date.
A bounded model label is:
O1: Paper folder, 20 cm wide, with the printed label “Archive.” The supplied record does not establish its maker, date or use. What additional evidence would establish when it was made or how it was used?
Retain the draft, question and decision to remove unsupported claims. O2's “Notes” label likewise does not establish who wrote notes, when, or for what purpose. It is supplied text to describe, not proof of an invented history.
Ask for an individual explanation
Give each learner a blank note asking:
- Which statement did you contribute or check? Name the record and exact wording.
- What evidence supports it, or what remains unknown?
- Which feedback affected the revision, and why?
Leave names, actual work and explanations blank until observed. A polished team label cannot populate these fields for every member. If an explanation is unclear, ask for the relevant record and statement before claiming the learner demonstrated the target.
The audience rehearsal is planned practice. Actual audience invitations, location, access and presentation arrangements remain to confirm. Do not describe a public exhibition as completed, send invitations or publish learner work through a review display.
Copy a benchmark-and-contribution project brief
Create one complete, self-contained US-English HTML companion for “Mini-exhibition • project and evidence studio”. Return the full HTML document, with inline CSS and any JavaScript needed for the local interactions. Use the original scenario, named records, numbers and expected cases below.
Design the page for this task: use clearly labeled input or source records, a readable result or worked example, and an adjacent explanation of the evidence. Use a restrained visual hierarchy, left-aligned text, readable tables or stacked records, and a responsive layout at 720px and 360px. Provide meaningful labeled controls for Learner materials; Teacher plan & illustration; O1; O2; Prepare source/question log; Keep original for this review; Reset this record’s draft; Prepare revision packet; Select packet text; Prepare individual note; Select note text; Prepare text. Use keyboard-accessible native controls and visible focus. Keep the complete content readable without an external dependency.
The following brief supplies the substantive content and constraints. Native-format requests describe the material to represent or copy manually; this HTML must not pretend to create DOCX, XLSX, PDF, PPTX, H5P or another native file, run Python/Flask/Django/Snowflake/Power BI, connect a live service, send messages, or perform an authorized real-world action. Where the task requires a native source, actual observation or separate approval, retain that requirement and leave unsupplied evidence blank.
Draft a project-based learning lesson packet in US English.
Class/access context, target and driving question: [enter]
Original or authorized source records with stable IDs: [paste]
Team product, benchmark artifacts and session budgets: [enter]
Roles, rotation and individual contribution/explanation fields: [enter]
Actual audience arrangements and required school/print format: [enter or TO CONFIRM]
Link each label claim to a record or mark it unknown. Retain original draft,
exact peer feedback, revision decision and revised product. Missing maker/date/
use cannot become an invented fact. Give each benchmark a concrete artifact. Separate team document status from individual demonstrated work. Keep actual
names, contributions and responses blank until supplied. Make each session's
phases sum to its budget. Plan audience rehearsal without claiming publication. Do not invent learner work, standards alignment, assessment or learning effects.
Return the proposed multi-session plan, clean source/task/peer materials,
separate illustrative keys and blank individual evidence record. If requested,
specify an HTML plan/material review with linked benchmark views. No automatic
grading, saved learner records, invitation sending or publication controls.
COMPLETE AUTHORED SCENARIO AND EXPECTED CASES
The following is the supplied reading/teaching/calculation record to represent in the companion. Preserve its particular content, examples, source references and unknowns. Wording about a future native implementation refers to that native task, not permission to omit this HTML companion.
# Project Based Learning Lesson Plan Template: Track the Team Product and Each Learner's Evidence
A team finishes an exhibit label, but one member cannot explain where its date came from. The completed product does not show what every learner contributed or understood. Plan the source record, critique and revision trail alongside individual explanations.
This original three-session project produces a classroom mini-exhibition. Its driving question is: **How can we create an exhibit label that helps visitors separate what an object record shows from what remains to ask?**
## Supply two original object records
These are **fictional descriptive records**, not measured museum objects, photographs or evidence of historical provenance.
| Record | Supplied information | Information not supplied |
| --- | --- | --- |
| O1 | Paper folder, 20 cm wide, printed label “Archive” | Maker, date and use |
| O2 | Card, 10 cm wide, label “Notes” | Maker, date and use |
Learners create labels that identify the record, distinguish supplied details from unknowns, and state a question that would require additional evidence. They may choose wording and presentation, but cannot fill a missing date with an attractive story.
Provide clean record cards, a source/question log, blank label space, a peer-question record and an individual contribution note. Arrange actual learner access and materials with the teacher. Physical objects or external images are not necessary for working with these supplied descriptions.
[New Tech Network's public project-planning guide](https://newtechnetwork.org/resources/pbl-lesson-plan-template/) connects a driving question with benchmarks, scaffolds, assessment, peer feedback and group roles. This original exhibition packet uses that planning structure. The form-gated toolkit was not accessed, and no standards alignment or learning outcome is claimed from using this example.
## Make each benchmark leave an inspectable artifact
**Benchmark 1: source/question log.** For every intended statement, name O1 or O2 and identify the supplied evidence. Mark maker, date and use unknown. Record a follow-up question without inventing its answer.
**Benchmark 2: draft label and peer question.** Retain the original draft. A peer identifies a specific statement and asks what supports it; the feedback should be traceable to that wording, rather than only “make it better.”
**Benchmark 3: revised label and presentation plan.** Retain the feedback and revision decision beside the changed label. Prepare a brief explanation of one supported statement and one remaining uncertainty for the intended audience.
Keep team product status separate from individual evidence. “Draft prepared” is a document state, not a grade for every team member.
## A proposed three-session schedule
Each class session is 45 minutes; the project totals **135 in-class minutes**.
| Session | Planned phases | Benchmark or evidence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Launch 5; inspect records 10; question log 15; label outline 10; exit 5 | Source/question log and original outline |
| 2 | Recap 5; draft 15; peer critique 10; revision plan 10; individual note 5 | Original draft, exact peer question and proposed revision |
| 3 | Setup 5; revise 15; audience rehearsal 10; individual explanation 10; reflection 5 | Revised label, rehearsal plan and individual explanations |
The first sequence sums to **5 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 5 = 45**; the second to **5 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 45**; the third to **5 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 45**. Adjust the plan when actual access, discussion or revision needs differ.
Rotate the roles of **evidence checker, label writer and presenter** across sessions. Record the actual role and contribution afterward. A role assignment alone does not establish that the contribution happened, and rotation does not prove equal understanding.
## Show a critique that changes the claim
Consider this separate **hypothetical O1 draft**: “An old school folder used in 1950.” None of its school-use or year claims appears in O1's record.
An original peer question is: **“Where did the year and school use come from?”** The revision should address that gap rather than replace 1950 with another invented date.
A bounded model label is:
> O1: Paper folder, 20 cm wide, with the printed label “Archive.” The supplied record does not establish its maker, date or use. What additional evidence would establish when it was made or how it was used?
Retain the draft, question and decision to remove unsupported claims. O2's “Notes” label likewise does not establish who wrote notes, when, or for what purpose. It is supplied text to describe, not proof of an invented history.
## Ask for an individual explanation
Give each learner a blank note asking:
- Which statement did you contribute or check? Name the record and exact wording.
- What evidence supports it, or what remains unknown?
- Which feedback affected the revision, and why?
Leave names, actual work and explanations blank until observed. A polished team label cannot populate these fields for every member. If an explanation is unclear, ask for the relevant record and statement before claiming the learner demonstrated the target.
The audience rehearsal is planned practice. Actual audience invitations, location, access and presentation arrangements remain **to confirm**. Do not describe a public exhibition as completed, send invitations or publish learner work through a review display.
## Copy a benchmark-and-contribution project brief
Implement the local companion rather than returning a text-only plan. Preserve every numerical fixture and the distinction between illustrative expectations and actual evidence. Any native-runtime or classroom tests mentioned above remain tests to perform in the proper environment; do not mark them passed. Keep edits and practice responses in this open page only, without claiming persistent storage. Provide invalid/missing-input feedback and reset behavior that agree with this specific brief. Do not claim accessibility certification, learning gains, real approvals or test results that were not observed.
Follow O1 from its record through the unsupported draft and revised label with a teaching colleague before launching the project. Keep actual team work and individual evidence in the approved school workflow, and evaluate each explanation against its source rather than assuming the finished exhibition represents every learner's understanding.