What do we actually know?
Original fictional classroom material. The level is a teaching target, not a validated test result.
Teaching sequence
- 2 minutes: read the learner context and first draft. Ask what the writer wants the reader to understand or do.
- 3 minutes: answer the three decision questions. Require an explanation, not just a letter.
- 3 minutes: rewrite the original. Compare grammar, preserved meaning and communicative effect separately.
- 3 minutes: complete the new transfer task without copying the model.
- 1 minute: choose one reusable editing habit; revisit it in the linked activity.
Student task / print handout
Read the context on the learner page, then repair this message:
The new opening hours caused attendance to rise by 50%. This proves everyone prefers evening visits.
New situation: Fictional café data: on two Saturdays, reusable-cup use rose from 10 to 15. A discount and a new sign started together. Write an observation, one cautious explanation and a next step. Do not identify a proven cause.
Teacher answer guidance — separate before handing out
Use the learner page for Turkish instructions. These teacher notes and answer rationales are in English.
- Attendance rose from 8 to 12 in the trial. — The counts directly support a rise from 8 to 12.
- It offers another possible explanation. — The campaign is another possible explanation, not proof that hours had no effect.
- Collect more observations before drawing a stronger conclusion. — More observations can support a better assessment; they do not guarantee a conclusion.
Original repair: one possible version
In this four-evening trial, attendance rose from 8 to 12 visitors. The longer opening hours may have contributed, but the poster campaign could also have played a role. More observations would help us judge whether the change is useful.
The observed increase is 50%, but simultaneous changes prevent attributing it to one proven cause.
Preserve the numbers and the small observation window. Distinguish observation, possible explanation and further investigation.
Transfer: one possible version
Reusable-cup use rose from 10 to 15 in the two-Saturday trial. The discount may have helped, but the new sign could also have contributed. We should observe more Saturdays before attributing the change to one cause.
Feedback without false precision
Review three dimensions separately: target-form accuracy, preservation of supplied facts, and suitability for the reader and purpose. Do not deduct points for a valid alternative wording. Ask the learner to explain one choice. The three-item recognition score is not a writing proficiency or CEFR score.
Delayed retrieval
At the next lesson, ask for a fresh two-sentence message using the same target. Then use the linked practice; ask the learner to identify where grammar alone is not enough.
Full unit extension: 30–40 minutes
Objective: use Past modal inference versus observed past events in a new context. Suggested sequence: compare forms (6 minutes), explain two worked examples (4), recognition questions (4), controlled production (6), original contextual repair (6), independent transfer and feedback (8). Timing is adjustable.
Student worksheet: controlled production
- Complete: The sign may ___ helped.
- Complete with contribute: The poster could have ___.
- Complete with a possibility modal: The discount ___ have helped.
- Correct the verb phrase: The longer hours might has helped.
Independent task
Use this fictional observation: attendance was 20 on one evening and 24 on the next; both the timetable and advertising changed. Write 100–140 words separating observation, two possible explanations and a useful next measurement. Include two past modal phrases. Do not claim the change has a proven cause.
Controlled-production key
- have — May + have + helped.
- contributed — Have sonrasında past participle.
- may / might / could — Üçü de geçmiş olasılık için geçerli; neden kanıtlanmış olmaz.
- The longer hours might have helped. — Might + have; özne çoğul olsa da yapı değişmez.
Accept other grammatical answers where they satisfy the stated constraint and preserve meaning. The short automatic checker accepts listed alternatives and normalised contractions; a non-match is a request to compare, not proof that all other wording is wrong. Assess independent production for target form, meaning and communicative purpose, not exact wording. No automatic CEFR score.