HCD.27:5.1 - A distributed adult programme with a real return
This constructed additional block has twelve adults comparing the use of evidence in permitted project fragments. It is separate from HCD.28’s diagnostic product. Each learner prepares a short question, ground and conditional conclusion asynchronously; three groups of four will compare selected cases on Wednesday evening.
The initial design promises feedback on twelve fragments between 13:00 and 14:00 Tuesday. At eight assessor-minutes each, 96 minutes are required. The hour cannot supply the promise. The provider instead confirms a two-hour window, reserving 96 minutes for checking and feedback and 24 for unexpected clarification. If that window is unavailable, the group designer must change the sequence or obtain qualified capacity before making the promise.
| Occasion | Material or action that becomes available | Next use |
|---|---|---|
| Tuesday noon | Twelve permitted fragments, including their decisive grounds | The assessor checks them in the confirmed 13:00–15:00 window. |
| Tuesday 15:00–15:20 | The facilitator selects three contrasting pairs, preserving relevant source conditions | Each group receives a pair it can actually compare. |
| Before Wednesday 18:00 | Learners use the returned feedback to repair any missing ground; they read the selected pair | The shared episode begins with accessible reasoning rather than unexplained conclusions. |
| Wednesday, group starts 18:00, 18:08 and 18:16 | Each group performs the thirty-minute sequence below; one prepared mentor visits at 18:18, 18:26 and 18:34 | Every learner uses the qualified response before finishing their own retained or revised grounds. |
| Thursday noon | Personal applications to a changed own or substitute case | The assessor checks the twelve returns in another confirmed two-hour window with the same 96-minute demand and 24-minute reserve. |
| Friday noon, then 13:00–14:00 | Learners submit corrections by noon; the assessor uses 48 minutes for twelve four-minute correction checks and reserves twelve minutes for unresolved help | The result states what is supported; demand beyond the reserve requires another obtained window or an explicit remaining limit. |
The Wednesday mentor is booked from 18:16 to 18:46. The groups have confirmed different starts, with the following joint allocation. All four initial judgements take twelve minutes, peer comparison takes six, qualified help takes six, and each learner has ninety seconds within the final six to explain what they will keep or revise.
| Group | Initial judgements, 4 × 3 min | Peer comparison | Subject help | Personal retained or revised grounds, 4 × 1.5 min |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 18:00–18:12 | 18:12–18:18 | 18:18–18:24 | 18:24–18:30 |
| B | 18:08–18:20 | 18:20–18:26 | 18:26–18:32 | 18:32–18:38 |
| C | 18:16–18:28 | 18:28–18:34 | 18:34–18:40 | 18:40–18:46 |
The one mentor can now make all three visits: eighteen direct minutes, two-minute transitions between visits, two minutes before the first visit and six minutes after the last fit the thirty-minute booking. The cases are familiar from preparation. Each group’s recorded judgements and bounded unresolved question are ready at the start of its visit; inspection and the response occur inside the six-minute allowance. The mentor need not have heard all eighteen preceding minutes. A longer unresolved question requires a changed allocation or an explicit remaining gap.
Each group still performs thirty active minutes without waiting for its visit, but the whole cohort spans 18:00–18:46. HCD.21 must establish these actual availabilities before confirming the arrangement. If everybody is available only until 18:30, this staggered option is unavailable: obtain different capacity or timing. Longer movement, a fourth group or excess help demand also reopens the allocation. The existing contact and coordination allowance covers obtaining the three starts only as a planning assumption to test. Learner preparation, reading, exchange, return and correction enter the product’s full time estimate; the table alone does not establish a price or learning outcome.
Four initial fragments arrive without grounds. The facilitator can use prepared permitted contrasts for Wednesday, while those learners restore their own fragments before personal application. This preserves a comparison opportunity but does not turn the missing first work into an observed contribution. If the missing ground reflects an unavailable subject method, preparation within the same day may be impossible; return that dependency rather than merely extending the deadline.