Title: Proof

Author: Gary Lonesborough

Reviewer: Natalie Lincoln

Audience:  Stages 3/4

Set in an indeterminate future on an alternate, simulated world, Gary Lonesborough’s short story ‘Proof’ balances the otherworldly with familiarity to capture a moment in protagonist, Tanner’s, life. With few friends, Tanner leaves school early one day and heads out to do some research with his sister into the mystery surrounding the sickness everyone seems to be getting.

With references to an ‘Earth Museum’, a newsworthy hundred and fiftieth birthday celebration and descriptions of the icy, crater ridden Callisto that they exist on, the author provides just enough information to have a reader ponder the world they inhabit. Masie, the aging android, is a likeable technological addition, who endearingly is helpful and non-threatening, giving a nod to the human intelligence behind her, as opposed to the oft seen fear of robots.

For the planet of Callisto and its inhabitants, it seems that even on an alternate planet, humans can’t quite work with nature to keep themselves safe – people are dumping rubbish and degrading the natural crystal filtration systems, warming the planet with their lack of care and making people sick. Thankfully, the insight of Rachel, Tanner’s sister, gives hope as she acknowledges their ancestors who “listened to the land”. Her smarts, and the curiosity of her younger brother, set the scene for an imagined future that can embrace the past.

As part of the Future You program that aims to spark an interest in STEM, Proof succeeds in prompting the asking of questions about climate change and waste. Aimed at 8 to 12 year olds, the story inspires future thinking with a sprinkling of current ideas to ground students in the reality of the impact of humans on resources, but also their capacity to foster beneficial change.

Imagining the Future Activity Matrix Feedback

Having used a similar matrix in the past, I like the idea and do think students enjoy being able to make choices.

The biggest comment I would make would be about the advice to “award the same points for completion of each task.” While I agree theoretically about the value behind this, I think people will find students will generally tend to pick the ‘easier’ tasks rather than the higher level thinking Blooms Taxonomy activities, especially if there is no extra reward for doing so. As I am a secondary teacher though, maybe primary school students are more intrinsically motivated?

While going against the idea of not wanting academic achievement to be the sole determinant, to encourage students to try the harder tasks, a total value of tasks can be advised to be attempted. For example, you might say students have to complete tasks up to a value of, say, 20 (or whatever). Knowing, Understanding and Applying tasks could be worth 5 and Analysing, Creating and Evaluating worth 10. Then students can choose whether to complete 4 x 5 mark tasks, 2 x 10 mark tasks or a combination. This provides some equity about the time required for the activities.

Personally, I would also add some word count / list amount guides for the tasks, otherwise students will spend the whole time asking how long it has to be. E.g. “Write a list of musical instruments someone could play…” becomes “Write a list of 5 musical instruments someone could play…”, and for the written tasks add in 100 words, 200 words or whatever the expectation is. This provides an aim for the length of the task and avoids some kids giving a 50 word answer and others writing much more.