What is the correct answer to the question?

[FutureGadgetsLab]

A practise English paper for year 6 question. The question was to work out whether something was certain, possible or impossible. So "I may go to Ella's house" is possible, "I am going out" is definite and so on.

The question was "it may rain cats and dogs, if we have a storm"

What would your answer to this question be? I'm convinced the answer book is wrong.

It wasn't meant to come across like that. Sorry.

Im just baffled that people can't see an exam is designed to be exclusive and to differentiate and if it doesn't it's a waste of time.

I stand by this question was necessary and if it means that anperson with ASD loses a mark then it's because they can't get past the metaphor to see the logical values of the sentence and answer correctly.

So your girl got there and got it right. Good for her / you / her teachers etc. She answered the same question as every other child. I've said that extra time seems entirely appropriate for some people but changing the (necessary) question doesn't

What is so odd about the OP test question is that it really does seem to be putting together two separate KS tests, the grammar and the reading one in a way which does not seem to be the standard practice in the KS2 example booklets I saw. So, maybe this was a one off.

Many posters have shown that the metaphor in the OP test is irrelevant,
that the only thing the student should look for is the may=possible formula. But the OP metaphor thrown into the grammar at this age especially will make the test more difficult to get right.

This would be especially true if the teacher is not like EdwardBear/others who teach the child not to look at anything else, only the formulas they each them.

Looking at the example booklets, the grammar KS2 tests seem to always have a modal verb test question; the reading KS2 to always have a recognition/interpretation of a simple metaphor one.

In either case, if these are kept separate, a young child can at least be taught what to expect in either paper, and he/she needs only to think about only one aspect at a time.

In the OP test though the question seems to diverge from the more straightforward type of grammar question in the KS example booklets. A metaphor has suddenly been added.

So the question in the OP is more muddling as Statistically pointed out. In theory the literal improbability has nothing to do with the answer, and no one has to know the metaphor to get the answer right. Many posters have explained this. (Thank you those who explained. I personally have learnt a lot at many x 10 years old!)

But Statistically and others have shown that in practice this particular question is very likely to throw a Year 6 child & especially one with ASD. (Perhaps there lots of others seeing this discussion, who like me, had no idea before of how many ASD children there are who might be struggling because of this sort of thing.)

In this though, the OP test does not seem typical of the example papers I saw which did seem better arranged (completely separating the issues) for children of this age learning general English grammar and reading.

Perhaps it was a rogue test test done just for practice. If not, perhaps there are grounds for a complaint to the exam board in that this raining cats-and-dogs grammar test question on modal verb/ possibility etc is far more complicated than the example ones published in the example KS grammar test booklets.

'm not entirely sure of your point though? Are you now determined to find an exam that ASD students just have to accept they 'aren't as good at'?

Kind of. I'm suggesting that we may have found none already.

You can't say that in an Eng. Lit exa! The student would be expecting a certain type of question and answer appropriately but in a Lang. exam using a metaphormis discriminatory.

On the other hand, my field is 100% logical. It's about turning language into absolutes and translating that into language / code for computers use. Many of the people who do that are on the spectrum. They excel at their jobs because the way their Brian is wired makes it perfectly natural for them.

I think YABU. The question is part of an English exam and is regarding critical thinking questioning, not testing meterological knowledge, what if the storm was in a parallel universe that did actually rain cats and dogs instead of water droplets?

By getting the question wrong it will teach your DD to think about carefully about the structure of each question and the context it is asked in, which will probably help her as she gets older, and will highlight to her that she does think literally, so sometimes may need to pause and think twice. I think most of the things I have learnt best are from the mistakes I have made on exams and papers.

I still remember an English test at a similar age and part of it was about cicadas making a noise. I did not know what a cicada was and asked the teacher. They told me it was an exam and they couldn't tell me, but that it wasn't relevant to the question. I struggled with that, having a bit of a perfectionist personality, and I think it unsettled me for that whole exam but it eventually taught me to think slowly about the whole question and not to get caught up on the little details.

Im just baffled that people can't see an exam is designed to be exclusive and to differentiate and if it doesn't it's a waste of time.

But being designed to differentiate and being discriminatory against a group are two different things. I find the original question somewhat discriminatory against children with ASD, particularly as this thread as now discovered another question that would do the job.

Essentially I feel like you think that being asked the same questions in the same way is a level playing field for everyone. I don't believe it is, I think it means a variety of kids with SEN start from behind and I don't think you can accurately differentiate children's genuine abilities unless you use some reasonable adjustments to level up the start lines. Kind of the opposite of handicapping horses I suppose.

Excise the typos! I'm fat fingered. But many of my colleagues have enormous Brians!

[Smile]

*not that she got it wrong, she got it right, But if she did get it wrong, or anyone else of course....

ticularly as this thread as now discovered another question that would do the job.

It hasn't though.

You can't say that in an Eng. Lit exa! The student would be expecting a certain type of question and answer appropriately but in a Lang. exam using a metaphormis discriminatory.

Actually, I can. I'm not being deliberately rude, but I don't think you understand enough about ASD to say that. My DD interprets things said to her literally because that's how she understands the world. However, she is also teachable, so she has learnt that in fiction and creative writing people say things they don't literally mean to illustrate what they do mean. However, she understands that intellectually, she doesn't think that way. I suppose like I understand basic French and so can translate, but I don't ever think in French, or expect people in an unexpected context to speak to me in French, and if they did so it would confuse me. Using a metaphor in a setting where my DD isn't expecting one causes her a lot of confusion. That's not a perfect analogy BTW, because I can't think of one, maybe someone else can do better. Also, bear in mind, I'm only talking about my DD, who is AFAIK fairly high functioning, so has an easier time of it than others.

But nearly everyone is teachable and that's my point.

I have many terrible qualities but one of my good ones is a strong argument can
change my mind and I'm perfectly happy to admit I was wrong but nothing here has made me think that the question discriminated against anything other than understanding of the topic. Not least because there hasn't been an "alternative question that the thread's discovered".

The thread has been fascinating though.

Potatoes I don't think you understand how the mind of someone with ASD works. That's not an insult, I don't understand the mind of an NT and probably never will. However if people with ASD and experiences of ASD are trying to explain why something is inappropriate, and there's legislation supporting it, perhaps you should take it on board.

I thought the nonsense question was a good alternative?

That sounds rude reading it back, I apologise, that was unintentional

That's okay.

You're right. I'll never 100% understand and the best I can do is listen to others.

The nonsense question is significantly more difficult. You would have to say that some of the words used were nouns and some verbs. You'd have to say that the two verbs weren't mutually exclusive and you would then have to explain mutually exclusive to a year 5 student.

I think it's safe to say that the legislation doesn't extend to eliminating metaphor from examination questions.

Any rational person would agree that usually discrimination is terrible. The aspect of this we aren't agreeing on is that;

1. I don't think questions should be adapted. Even more so when the particular question is designed in such a way as to catch out those who don't analyse the question from the correct standpoint in terms of the exam.

1. There is no alternative here or at least none I can see. Nonsense questions have their place but test something different (and more difficult). Questions without the metaphors test something different. This question allows the examiner to say "child A couldn't see past the literal meaning to the grammatical one and lost a mark." It's a necessary differentiation.

Potatoes

That's interesting you think the nonsense question is harder. They're often featured in IQ tests, something people with ASD often score high on. Interesting how what is more complicated for someone NT, is easier for someone with ASD.

Why should the exam only cater for NT people?

You also aren't understanding that with ASDs it's not catching out those who don't understand the grammar rules. With ASD it's testing something else entirely.

It's checking knowledge of 'English' idioms and metaphor or rather, an old-fashioned version of them. No-one really says this in real life - and surely it only crops up in Famous Five books to allow the kids to have a break from solving heinous crimes and have scones and lashings of ginger beer.

Anyway, it's 'possible' - if you're 50 years plus and were fed such books as a child (I was).

They should have asked:

'It may piss down'. Bet year 6 would have got that correct.

It isn't checking knowledge of idioms - you don't need to know what the phrase means to answer the question.

Splendide but if you have ASD you won't process it that way.

Oh sorry yes I agree with you on that, but that is a problem with how the question is worded (I presume - I haven't seen the question) not with that phrase as one of the examples.

Thanks to I'dBuyThat for linking to the legislation about disability.

As a teacher I have had it drummed into me that I absolutely have to make reasonable adjustment for all students with a disability otherwise I am breaking the law.

So - yes, the Equality Act of 2010 is the most up to date and relevant piece of legislation. It can be found under Gov.UK if anyone isn't sure about the legal requirement to be inclusive of people with any form of impairment.

btw - I teach in the US (now, but taught in UK for 14 years), where there is also a legal obligation to make reasonable accommodations. It's pretty widespread and well know about - remember when shops had to provide access for people with physical disabilities and suddenly ramps appeared? How houses have to be built with access? All part of the same legal requirements.

If there is a test on grammar, doesn't it make the test better if it focuses on grammar rather than having other elements? As a teacher I would think that I had done a bad job if I wanted to know how much grammar my students knew, but came away knowing what idioms they had learnt.

The task itself should be very clear so that everyone, NT or not can understand what they're supposed to be doing.

But I disagree with the 'it's a grammar exam so idioms are irrelevant', exams should reflect past lessons as well. I hate this tendency of teaching things into little blocks and categories as if doesn't work like that. For example, not referencing to what you learn about history when reading something.

btw - the question could be phrased

"It may pour down, if we have a storm."

It's possible to have a storm with strong wind, thunder & lightning but fairly light rain, so it makes logical sense, and doesn't distract from the grammatical focus of the sentence.

I'm autistic too. The question as laid out in the OP was: whether something was certain, possible or impossible.

e.g.

1. "Are these sentences certain, possible or impossible"

a. "it may rain cats and dogs, if we have a storm"

That's not a good question, not because of phrase a, but because of 1. It was potentially asking two different things - either modal auxiliary verbs, or some form of reasoning/comprehension.

Potatoes first post said "I assume the paper is referring to modal verbs", which is the problem. You have to make an assumption about what the examiners are asking rather than it being clear, but one group of people are disproportionately likely to make the wrong assumption. I took one look at OP and argued both possible and impossible, not because I don't understand what a modal verb is, but because I wasn't sure what I being asked to do. So I answered in several different ways, but an answer without a question is a bit useless. As soon as potatoes said "modal verbs" the correct answer was very obvious, as was the fact that it was the only correct answer, because I DO know some grammar. I LIKE grammar. I love the rules, and the categorisation. I hate ambiguity. Ask me a clear question and I'll answer it.

To make the question fairer, you don't necessarily need to change phrase a, you do need to change the introductory sentence though.

1. "Modal verbs can tell us whether something is certain, possible or impossible. Are these sentences expressing something certain, possible, or impossible?"

a. "it may rain cats and dogs, if we have a storm"

That solves it for me. I now have absolutely no difficulty with this unaambiguous question, unlike before, and yet fundamentally the same question is being asked. Now my knowledge is actually being tested. I've accidently added in another test though, which is the ability to read the whole question, rather than screen out the top sentence, and then to connect the first two sentences together. Other ASD folks (and your children), is question 2 any clearer for you than question 1, or not? I am sure it could be worded even more clearly.

2. Modal verbs can tell us whether something is certain, possible or impossible. Are these sentences expressing something certain, possible, or impossible?"
a. "it may rain cats and dogs, if we have a storm

Your No 2 looks does look clearer Maximilian

But to be fair, if the raining cats and dogs test in the OP was a KS2 test for Year 6 olds, it may have looked more like your No 2 version than the OP made it seem.

In this example test linked here:
First the test cover is actually labelled "Grammar"
Then, No 15 in the test has a heading mentioning Modal verbs - as you suggested.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439299/Sample_ks2_EnglishGPS_paper1_questions.pdf

Maybe the OP can give more details.

herecomethepotatoes, thank you for taking the trouble to write such a detailed reply.

You wrote: See, I think modal verbs are fairly basic. There are really only 10 (there are more, but not appropriate here) and they only really cover possibility, ability, advice, permission and obligation.

I think I would add "intention" to that list, and that's where "shall" and "should" seem very different to me. "I shouldn't eat the cake" is very different to "I shan't eat the cake". I take your point that they are equivalents in the first and second conditional (sorry to abandon your terms in favour of ones that I tend to use) but that's very much a less common usage, I think. I think most second conditional sentences would probably use "would", rather than "should".

I personally don't think I'd pair them if explaining them to someone who didn't know much about modals.

Future

That's interesting you think the nonsense question is harder. They're often featured in IQ tests, something people with ASD often score high on. Interesting how what is more complicated for someone NT, is easier for someone with ASD.

I think the nonsense question is harder because it is entirely abstract and to properly understand it brings in truth tables. Without giving lots of information along with the question, you could argue that you took the meaning of the question to be "if the flumps die, they may be alive" ie. impossible and it's this extra information which makes it trickier.

//--------------

Why should the exam only cater for NT people?

It shouldn't but a TNT (typically neuro-typical) person should get 50% correct with everyone else on a continuum either side of this.

If the only way to test a particular aspect makes it harder for a particular group then are you suggesting it isn't tested for? There still hasn't been a viable alternative to the original question.

//----------------

kissangel

If there is a test on grammar, doesn't it make the test better if it focuses on grammar rather than having other elements? As a teacher I would think that I had done a bad job if I wanted to know how much grammar my students knew, but came away knowing what idioms they had learnt.

Just one more time - the idiom is deliberately irrelevant. You don't need to know what it means.

//-------------

badlad

I'm a little confused at to what you mean by 'intention'. 'I should go to the ball' is weak obligation. 'I shall go to the ball' is a strong certainty. Do you mean as in a request "Will you tell me?"?

I used the word 'really' twice as there are more modal verbs and more meanings. It's an incredibly complex topic.

Talking about first, second etc conditionals is different to the preterite forms I mentioned in my previous post. The terms aren't synonymous.

I suspect 'would' is more common in second conditional forms than 'should' but of course, 'should', 'could' or 'might' can all be used instead of 'would'.

I personally don't think I'd pair them if explaining them to someone who didn't know much about modals.

Okay. I have only ever taught 2nd year undergrads. I'm a terrible teacher.
I did say in my first post to you that the link between 'shall' and 'should' is tenuous compared to other modals.

//----------------

From the link kinddogs posted, how would you all feel if the cats and dogs question was asked in this format? I've posted a picture of it.