Lesson Design and Questioning Technique Assessment for Teachers and TrainersA class can answer every question and learn nothing new. The difference is in the moves.

Methodology: Thirty-eight original exercises across five formats: sixteen written classroom and training-room situations with four graded moves each; six select-every-change exercises on a lesson plan or a practice plan; six true-or-false claims about how learning actually behaves; five match-the-following exercises pairing an intended outcome, a question or a kind of wrong answer with the check or response that fits it; and five ordering exercises on the sequence of a session, a modelling sequence, a questioning sequence, a practice schedule and a planning order. Construct statement: this measures judgement about teaching moves in written situations in one sitting, in five parts, questioning that reveals thinking, checking what the room understood, sequencing and prior knowledge, practice and transfer, and responding to a wrong answer; it does not measure anybody's actual teaching, their subject knowledge, their relationships with learners, their qualifications, or how learners in their care perform, and it is never a basis for a decision about anybody's employment. One response instruction is declared for the whole instrument and it is a BEHAVIOURAL TENDENCY instruction: every situation asks what the respondent is most likely to do, never what should be done, and the claim, matching and ordering exercises ask what they would rely on, plan or set. Scoring has two parts that sit beside each other and are never combined. The keyed judgement figure is graded partial credit on every exercise, corrected per exercise against a declared marginal: on each situation an authored share of ordinary respondents expected to choose each move, on each claim an authored share expected to answer true, on each select-all an authored selection share per option from which the expected overlap with the key is computed exactly over every possible selection, on each matching exercise an authored share expected to place each left-hand item correctly, and on each ordering exercise an authored share expected to place each position correctly. Zero on the keyed figure means no better than a respondent answering the way people typically answer, the null is that declared marginal and never uniform random, and observed answer shares replace the authored ones once live data exist. An unanswered exercise leaves the numerator, the denominator and the chance term together; an empty sitting scores exactly zero; a sitting with fewer than fourteen answered exercises, or fewer than six answered situations, is refused a report rather than given one; a part with fewer than eight answered exercises or an assumed omega under .70 carries a three-way placement and no number, and the refusal is printed. Beside the keyed figure sit four one-tailed tendency scales, counted from the respondent's own option choices on the situations and never self-reported: closing a question rather than asking one that shows thinking, taking the first right answer as the room's, sampling only the hands that go up, and scaffolding before the learner has struggled. Each is the share of moments where that move was available on which the respondent chose it; a tendency is raised only above a declared threshold of half of those moments, with at least four such moments answered, and it is reported as a flag with a described behaviour and the situation that triggers it, never as a percentile and never as a level, because such a scale is zero for most respondents by construction. The spread gate that a continuous score must pass is therefore applied to the keyed judgement figure and not to the tendency scales. Every reported figure carries its standard error band from an assumed omega that is printed unrounded; no percentile appears anywhere because there is no norm group. A careless-responding flag count is computed for the operator and never shown to the respondent as a judgement. No item keys on matching teaching to a learner's preferred style: the controlled evidence does not support that practice, and where a distractor is built on it the rationale says so. No item keys on any country's curriculum, examination system, age grade, inspection regime or school type; every situation is written for a group, a session and a set of learners so that a school teacher and a workplace trainer sit the same instrument. Every item is an original work; the instrument reproduces no item from any published test, is not affiliated with any commercial instrument, learning-styles inventory, teaching framework or certification body, and no such mark is used. Sources drawn on across the construct: Rowe on wait time and what changes when a teacher pauses longer; Black and Wiliam on formative assessment and eliciting evidence from every learner; Wiliam on hinge questions and whole-class response; Roediger and Karpicke on retrieval practice against re-reading; Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted and Rohrer on spacing and the distribution of practice; Rohrer and Taylor on interleaving; Bjork on desirable difficulties; Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan and Willingham on the relative utility of study techniques; Sweller on cognitive load and the worked-example effect; Renkl and Atkinson on fading worked examples; Kalyuga on the expertise reversal effect; Rosenshine's principles of instruction; Hattie and Timperley on the three questions and the four levels of feedback; Kluger and DeNisi on feedback interventions; Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork on the absence of evidence for learning styles; Chi on self-explanation and active, constructive and interactive engagement; Nuthall on the hidden lives of learners; Slavin on individual accountability in cooperative learning; Crouch and Mazur on peer instruction; and McDaniel, Hartman, Whetzel and Grubb and Lievens, Peeters and Schollaert on situational judgement test validity and behavioural-tendency response instructions.