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.

I wouldn't think choked is an issue as I wouldn't really call it metaphorical. I know it would be hard to remove all metaphors and that it's not just found in poetry , I was using that as an instance where it would be expected, is a core part of the subject and where it couldn't be removed from.

I just mean that when preparing questions thought should be given to the clarity for those with ASD and whether unclear, illogical, metaphorical or ambiguous language adds anything to the question or whether it can be written in a better way.

I agree. The example given by KindDogsTail looks clear, to me.

Statistically
The sentence in the KS2 example reading test was that the road was choked with traffic (someone with ASD might be confused perhaps?). And the test was certainly looking for the understanding that choked was a metaphor.
From looking at the example papers this evening, I think being able to recognise and interpret metaphors must be a standard, required component of the KS2 reading test.

Yes, I see just what you mean about not adding any element to a question - in this case a grammar question - that makes it ambiguous.

Sorry, I had misunderstood you to mean it would be best to remove metaphors from all but say, an english poetry comprehension paper, which you mentioned before and in my opinion the ability to interpret is required when reading all sorts of texts.

This thread has brought up so many very interesting points to wonder about.

I understand they meant it as metaphor - I just mean it's more of an ambiguous example as dictionary definitions (just checked) include filling a space to make movement impossible (or similar.)

I'd expect metaphor/more complex English and the need to interpret it to still come up in other subjects - history for example - and I think it probably can be taught to at least some extent although I would think it will require a different approach for someone with ASD to help them recognise it. But there are also plenty of cases where (not just because of metaphor) questions are really poorly worded and if you don't understand the question then you've got bugger all hope of getting it right.

Assuming the wording is as the OP suggests then the question she gave had a nasty combination of both poor explanation and metaphor which combines to make a shitstorm of incomprehensible crap for many autistic people.

Yes, agreed he question must be very difficult for autistic people with that wording.

It would be good if the OP can bring back the exact question and how it was laid out visually.

EdwardBear1920 ought to put her/his maths version formula in a how to handbook. It looks as though it would help a lot for this KS2 grammar test.

the problem isn't about whether children on the spectrum should/could be tested on metaphors, but that the question given muddies the waters with both a grammar test and a metaphor. Plenty of tests ask for inferential reading and are easy to put together.

To use an earlier analogy, it's like saying to the kids that they are doing a chemistry lab, but instead of telling them to use the conical flask, you tell them that the 'pearly blue container' is to be used, and then wondering why the kid with color blindness can't tell which one to use. You've thrown in an extra element to the test without any warning, which will distract and confuse certain kids, and it is totally unnecessary to the task being set.

I started reading the OP thinking I'm good at logic, etc., so should be able to get it right. I have ASD & spent a few minutes debating what answer would be expected before I read on to realise that other people had the same issue. Now I feel cross that I've been robbed of my happy getting-it-right moment doesn't take much to please me! because the question wasn't well thought out.

FWIW, "choked up" by traffic makes me think of lots of exhaust fumes making it unpleasant/difficult to breathe. That works for me, I understand the implication. "Metaphors are practically in the air we breathe" makes me picture the letters of the word "metaphors" floating around in the air while someone tries to inhale them. It makes no sense & takes me a moment to decipher the original intent of the statement.

My DS has the same problem. We were reading a book the other day that talked about what could be down a hole next to a tree trunk, except they referred to the hole as "under" the tree & DS couldn't understand how they'd moved the tree to discover the hole. He's still quite young so I'm hopeful that he'll also develop the ability to consciously work through the phrase/context to find the meaning that others assume is obvious. Life is frustrating & exhausting when you feel like you're interpreting a different language half the time while pretending you're not because everyone expects you to understand because it's obvious to them!

I love Shakespeare though, I understand the language patterns & what level of interpretation is necessary to understand the plot. I did well in my English Lit exams that focused on Shakespeare, I wouldn't do so well if I'd been taught what a question style was asking for & then had an additional complication. The question does feel like a trick, more the sort of thing I'd expect to be presented with in an ASD assessment than the SATs! Hence why I'm still up & ranting about it at 2.30am!

AChickenCalledKorma potatoes please don't throw your Cambridge degree at me - I have one too.

I only gave my credentials when you said "you clearly don't understand grammar" which I think is fair enough. Was your degree in linguistics? Which college? Perhaps we were there at the same time.

What is ASD and why haven't I heard of it considering half the posters on this thread seem affected

potatoes no, I will admit that my degree was not linguistics, so you have me there

On a serious note, I wonder whether, between us, we have just demonstrated that these questions are much more clear-cut to "grammar experts" who understandably home right in on the technical grammar issue. Whereas those who simply have a good working knowledge of grammar, sufficient to read and write to a high standard, may read things differently.

The new primary curriculum does appear to have been written by grammar experts. I do wonder to what extent they also listened to the voice of "sometimes-unpredictable-child-with-or-without-special-needs" experts!

No apology then? I wasn't showing off. I was defending myself or my lack of understanding grammar.

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

Whereas those who simply have a good working knowledge of grammar, sufficient to read and write to a high standard, may read things differently.

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. These 10 can even be paired:

can and could
may and might
shall and should
will and would
must
ought to

I found this on theschoolrun.com

"In Year 5 children should be able to identify modal verbs in texts when reading and will be shown the different effects of using modal verbs in their writing" so the exam question was well within the bounds of the curriculum.

I think the question was deliberately tricky to catch out students who don't understand modality.

The new primary curriculum does appear to have been written by grammar experts. I do wonder to what extent they also listened to the voice of "sometimes-unpredictable-child-with-or-without-special-needs" experts!

Quite an exaggeration there. The grammar required all the way up to year 6 is fairly basic.

I guess the experts you're referring to are SENCOs? They don't need to be listened to when writing a curriculum. They are there to help implement it or help teachers do so.

I think the reason we're disagreeing is you think the questions should be worded so people with ASD (or whatever else) can answer them correctly. I think that some questions should muddy the water as exams are not fair and should discriminate. That's their purpose.

I think exams should discriminate between the level of skill people have in the subject they're trying to examine - so to use the pearly blue beaker example above it would be fine to use the description "pearly blue" in an art exam as colour is a key part of art and a person with colour blindness will expect to struggle with it. Using it as part of an instruction in a chemistry exam is unnecessary and doesn't give any further information about the ability of the person to conduct a chemistry experiment.

So in the original OP's example:
"Do the modal verbs in these sentences suggest that the statements are certain, possible or impossible" or "by considering the grammar and sentence structure decide whether these statements are certain, possible or impossible" is fine.

"Are these statements certain, possible or impossible?" is not fine as the instruction is unclear and is discriminating on the basis of the ability to intuitively understand that the examiner means "based only on the verbs rather than the factual accuracy of the statement" rather than discriminating based on grammatical ability which is what the question should be testing.

(obviously we don't know the exact wording!)

herecomethepotatoes, apologies for my pig ignorance, but why would "shall" and "should" be paired?

I think the reason we're disagreeing is you think the questions should be worded so people with ASD (or whatever else) can answer them correctly. I think that some questions should muddy the water as exams are not fair and should discriminate. That's their purpose.

I've been thinking about this over night, both as someone, as a child, who found exams and their trickier questions an entertaining way to flex my brain, and as a parent of a child with (probable) ASD.

I take your point that exams are supposed to discriminate, but I think there's a case that questions like this are discriminating against people with ASD. Metaphor and idiom are great. I love language, I like to play with it, but my DD finds it a lot harder to navigate. She has to logically work through a metaphor, she can't 'take it as read'. There's more work involved for her to understand what's going on and to apply it. To take other examples used, you wouldn't make part of a practical science exam harder for a wheelchair user and claim it was ok because exams are supposed to be discriminatory.

I was thinking about my DD's answer to this. I find it truly fascinating. She had access to all the available information in isolation - she understood the grammar, she understood the requirements of the question, she knew and understood what people mean by the phrase 'raining cats and dogs', but her brain didn't make the connections that a NT person's brain would. Because she understood that she was being asked about the modal verb, she was thinking about that, but I didn't mention the possibility of metaphor or idiom, so when that hit her, she had to rely on her own resources to work out what that part of the sentence meant. Partly because of her ASD her focus was narrowed and it didn't occur to her to watch out for metaphor. There's no innate understanding there. Her ability to do that is different from mine. Fundamentally different. However, I don't believe it is lesser, which is what you're ultimately arguing.

I think what I don't like about what you're saying is that a person with ASD may score lower in their literacy tests because they can't deal with metaphor/idiom/figures of speech so easily, but that's ok because that's what the tests are for. There's something screwy in there though because there's an implication that it's due to a lack of effort on the part of the child. It's not. You are arguing that it's ok to mark an ASD child down because you've potentially asked them to do something they cannot do. Not because they aren't putting the effort in, but because their body doesn't work that way. Actually, I'd argue, a lot of kids with ASD put loads more work into understanding metaphors and their application because they have ASD, maybe they should get extra marks.

It's particularly frustrating in this instance, because what was being tested was understanding of the modal verb. I don't think the idiom here was sorting higher levels of understanding from lower levels (someone upthread pointed out it would fit the shorthand may=possible way they taught their child), it was an obfuscation that WILL cause difficulty for ASD kids, but PROBABLY won't cause difficulty for the majority of NT kids. There are other ways to muddy the water (sentence structure, extraneous information) that would work for both ASD and NT kids. I can't see why they wouldn't be better used in this context.

To be clear. I'm not arguing that reference to metaphor be removed from all literacy/English exams. I think that's part of our language that adds richness and depth, and ASD kids can learn to understand and work with it, and actually my DD is pretty good at describing, spotting and creating metaphors because she does it from the ground up (TBF, she'd moan about me using that phrase), a bit like someone who learns English as a foreign language and has more correct grammar as a result.

Badlad

They're present and past tense forms, although the relationship is a little different from that of other verbs' present and past tense forms. The relationship is more tenuous for some pairs than others and for some pairs, like may and might, it depends on the speaker whether they're synchronically related or not.

They can be analysed as past-present pairs but the relationship between should and shall and between might and may is significantly less systematic than that between could and can or would and will. While could and would are unquestionably the preterite counterparts of present tense can and will respectively, the status of should and might as preterite forms is far less clear-cut.

Some linguists analyse all as unrelated in Modern English, treating the present–past relationship as a matter of etymology. But all do still appear in alternation, so some linguists see them as being related even though the relationship is clearly more complicated than that of a normal verb.

The main argument for treating them as pairs is from the relationship between them when backshifting conditionals

Take the examples:

a1 I shall easily finish before she returns. (original utterance)

a2 I knew l should easily finish before she returned. (backshifted report)

b1 If they offer me the job I shall certainly accept. (open conditional)

b2 If they offered me the job I should certainly accept. (remote conditional)

Shall can't be correctly used in a/b 2 constructions.

So, your pig-ignorance was actually very close to the mark .

I suspect they're treated as pairs when taught in KS2 is the alliteration and it's handy.

Right, I've postponed going to buy shampoo for long enough!

Hope that helped badlad.

I think exams should discriminate between the level of skill people have in the subject they're trying to examine - so to use the pearly blue beaker example above it would be fine to use the description "pearly blue" in an art exam as colour is a key part of art and a person with colour blindness will expect to struggle with it. Using it as part of an instruction in a chemistry exam is unnecessary and doesn't give any further information about the ability of the person to conduct a chemistry experiment.

Seconded. It doesn't add anything to the part of the curriculum that was being tested.

I completely agree with IdBuyThatForADollar too but don't want to quote the whole post!

I think what I don't like about what you're saying is that a person with ASD may score lower in their literacy tests because they can't deal with metaphor/idiom/figures of speech so easily, but that's ok because that's what the tests are for. There's something screwy in there though because there's an implication that it's due to a lack of effort on the part of the child. It's not. You are arguing that it's ok to mark an ASD child down because you've potentially asked them to do something they cannot do. Not because they aren't putting the effort in, but because their body doesn't work that way.

This bit in particular stood out.

I completely agree with IdBuyThatForADollar too but don't want to quote the whole post!

Snerk. I did rather ramble on.

I'dDoThatForaDollar

I think what I don't like about what you're saying is that a person with ASD may score lower in their literacy tests because they can't deal with metaphor/idiom/figures of speech so easily, but that's ok because that's what the tests are for.

I am. They can't deal with those aspects as easily and it's what the tests are there for

-------

There's something screwy in there though because there's an implication that it's due to a lack of effort on the part of the child. It's not.

Absolutely not. I have never said that. I haven't implied it, suggested it or otherwise alluded to it. If you find a single thing I said that led you to that conclusion then it was a mis-understanding.

You are arguing that it's ok to mark an ASD child down because you've potentially asked them to do something they cannot do

Yes. Of course I am. That's how exams work. I studied and worked in computational linguistics and would do well in exams. If I failed a creative writing exams because I can't do it I wouldn't be complaining it was discriminating against me.
___

Actually, I'd argue, a lot of kids with ASD put loads more work into understanding metaphors and their application because they have ASD, maybe they should get extra marks

No. They should be lauded for their effort but not extra marks.
_

It's particularly frustrating in this instance, because what was being tested was understanding of the modal verb. I don't think the idiom here was sorting higher levels of understanding from lower levels

I think it would sort the levels of understanding. You want the children to analyse the modal verb. If every situation used in the questions matched the modality then they wouldn't be being tested on the grammar but on the natuaral world, or whatever else was used in the questions.

__

It was an obfuscation that WILL cause difficulty for ASD kids, but PROBABLY won't cause difficulty for the majority of NT kids. There are other ways to muddy the water (sentence structure, extraneous information) that would work for both ASD and NT kids. I can't see why they wouldn't be better used in this context

It was an obfuscation that MAY cause difficulty and MAY NOT for NT children.

I don't think changing the sentence structure or superfluous information would muddy the water in the same way.

"It may rain heavily tomorrow if the clouds continue to gather" (still allows the child to answer the question based on their knowledge of the world and not grammar)

What alternative structures do you suggest?

The clauses can be swapped.

'It may rain if we have a storm' vs 'if we have a storm it may rain' but there's the same problem there in that the grammar isn't being tested to the same extent. You could do it in a Yoda-eqsue (object-subject-verb) style "rain cats and dogs it may" but I don't think that's what you meant.

To take other examples used, you wouldn't make part of a practical science exam harder for a wheelchair user and claim it was ok because exams are supposed to be discriminatory.

The exam they took would be the same as everyone else. Making arrangements for them to have a lower lab bench is reasonable and you are assessing their brain power / mental ability in this subject accurately.

Overall, I think that every attempt should be made to teach children with their different 'issues' (not meant to be offensive) taken into account so that they can all achieve their highest potential. BUT, when they get into the exam they're on their own and it's every man for himself.

I see exams as a good old-fashioned sports day with gold, silver and bronze. You seem to be more in the 'why compete, lets have a participation certificate for everyone'.

Like it or not, it's the way the world works and if you aren't as good at something as someone else, you have to accept it. Yes, people who work hard to overcome their difficulties deserve respect and recognition and anyone who maximises their potential is fantastic in my book, but it's the results that count.

Now I really need to go for that shampoo!

sorry, I'd buy that, not I'd do that

Like it or not, it's the way the world works and if you aren't as good at something as someone else, you have to accept it.

Right, I think we've found the nub of it for me. Because this isn't necessarily true. For example, I'm able-bodied and healthy. I'm good (well - competent!!) at climbing stairs. So, I'm good at getting into buildings that have steps up to them. People who aren't able-bodied and have to use (again the same example) a wheelchair are rubbish at steps. That's a problem, but it's one, as a society, we've now decided (quite rightly) lies with the steps, not the wheelchair user. The steps are disabling the person in the wheelchair and so, as a society, we have ramps and lifts and other ways of removing that obstacle.

So I completely disagree with what you are saying. That question, and the use of a metaphor in there, is disabling my DD (though not on the same scale). There is researched and documented evidence that ASD children are disabled by use of language that is nebulous, indirect, unclear or fanciful. It can be stressful, alienating and distressing and give rise to unnecessary anxiety. I've done it to my DD by accident loads of times. But I think the problem lies with me, not her. For e.g. when she was ill I once joked that I didn't care if she ate a whole packet of chocolate biscuits as long as she ate something. She then had a complete meltdown because I wouldn't let her eat the entire packet as hyperbole is just an odd looking word to her. However, I own that breakdown in communication, not her.

I don't believe in participation certificates over medals. However, I also don't particularly believe that language and literacy should be a competitive field. I think language is a vital communication tool in our society and that it improves and betters us all to make the use of that tool accessible, non-scary and inclusive for everyone. That doesn't mean I don't think there are people who create amazing feats of literature and poetry that are beyond most of us. Just that I believe in a society and a community that looks at how it works and as standard makes sure it isn't disadvantaging one set of people over another because 'that's just the way it is or has been'.

Seconded again IdBuyThatForADollar