# Facilitator and assessor guide — EDU-EDT-201

Academic Copy Editing and Source Verification | Version 1.0.0 | Public pilot, independent SME review pending

## Preparation

Confirm the audience meets: Strong written English, document editing skills and familiarity with academic referencing.
Environment: A word processor with tracked changes or a plain-text editor and diff; a browser for primary-source checks. Use only synthetic or authorized documents.
Reproduce every executable or editorial fixture before a cohort. Inspect official references and record actual versions. Do not claim this short course replaces employer qualification or experience requirements.

## Delivery plan

Allow 2 hours per foundational module: 15 minutes diagnostic retrieval, 25 minutes explanation and worked example, 55 minutes practice, 15 minutes feedback, 10 minutes evidence/cleanup. The capstone has a separate 4-hour planning budget. Adjust based on a pilot and record observed seat time.

For each topic, ask for a prediction before demonstrating the result. Use the module's unique comparison table or trace as the visual explanation. Give hints in stages: expected versus observed result, relevant rule, relevant location, then worked correction. Require a fresh transfer task after a full solution is shown.

## Role-specific evidence

1. Edited passage, style sheet and query log
2. Claim-to-source ledger with uncertainty decisions
3. Accessible before-and-after technical handout
4. A release packet containing clean copy, changes, queries and QA checklist

## Capstone and moderation

Edit an original 700-word teaching handout supplied by your assessor or written for this exercise. Include one numerical example, one table, two genuine references and three deliberately ambiguous claims. Deliver tracked and clean versions, a style sheet, a claim ledger and a release recommendation that separates resolved edits from author decisions.

Use the five-criterion rubric in Module 4. Level 3 requires correct, reproducible evidence; level 4 adds justified transfer and fault diagnosis. Reproduce at least one artifact. Record assistance and distinguish independent work. Double-mark a sample and all borderline or contested cases where institutional policy requires; agree the actual sampling policy before formal delivery. Preserve reasons for adjustments and provide an appeal/reassessment route.

Critical condition: Fabricated citations, silently changed assessment meaning or release of personal data prevents release.

## Assessment integrity and privacy

All examples and retrieval answers in this package are public formative materials. They are not a controlled summative test bank. Create any high-stakes variants in an approved private assessment service. No public-page score is an official grade. Confirm assessor authorization, evidence retention and learner support arrangements before a formal cohort. Do not publish learner submissions or identifying records.

## Accessibility and quality review

Review heading structure, keyboard access, zoom/reflow, text alternatives, both themes and meaningful feedback. Native tables provide an exact text representation of each worked example. There is no required video; any future video needs captions and a transcript. Record technical and pedagogical SME findings separately from automated build checks. No ISO, WCAG certification, SCORM or xAPI conformance is claimed.

## Review record

Reviewer role/name: unassigned
Date and environment: to be completed at review
Observed checks and evidence: to be completed at review
Decision: pilot pending independent subject review
Remediation and reassessment: record criterion, new task, evidence and decision