Causal Language from a Before-and-After Source
Mr. Lew's Grade 7 class is writing an evidence-based paragraph on the question: Should our school start at 9:00 instead of 8:15? Students have three sources. Source A is a 2019 report from one neighbouring school district stating that after its start time moved to 9:00, the share of students late to first period fell from 19% to 7%. Source B is a 2014 policy statement from a national pediatric association recommending that middle and high schools start no earlier than 8:30, citing sleep research. Source C is a news article summarizing both. Dante writes: "Source A proves that a 9:00 start causes better grades, because when the district changed the time, lateness dropped." He also writes, "Source C says experts agree," without naming the experts or the claim. Of 26 students, 11 wrote some version of "proves" or "causes." The class has one 40-minute period before the paragraph is due.
1. Diagnose Dante's two problems precisely enough to plan instruction - what exactly is wrong with each claim?
Read the worked answer
Problem 1: the claim outruns the data, and even shifts the outcome.
- Source A reports punctuality, not grades. Dante's sentence begins with lateness and ends with "better grades" - a substitution he never notices.
- The design is a single-group before-and-after with no comparison group. Lateness could have fallen because of a new attendance policy, a change in bus routing, or better weather. That makes the finding consistent with a start-time effect, not proof of one.
- "Proves" and "causes" are certainty words that a one-district before-and-after cannot earn. The honest verb is "suggests" or "is associated with."
Problem 2: borrowed authority. "Experts agree" attributes a claim to Source C, which is a summary of A and B, not an independent authority. The expert voice actually belongs to Source B - and Source B is about sleep and start times generally, not about this district's lateness numbers.
Instructional target: not "use better words," but match the strength of the verb to the strength of the design, and trace a claim to its primary source.
2. Design a 15-minute reteach for the 11 students who wrote "proves" or "causes." What sequence, and what will you use as the check for understanding?
Read the worked answer
Sequence (15 min):
- Sort, don't lecture (4 min). Give pairs three strips: "The district's lateness rate fell after the start time changed"; "Later start times improve grades"; "Later start times may improve attendance." Ask which one Source A actually supports. The physical sort makes the gap visible before any terminology arrives.
- Name the test (5 min). Two questions: What changed, and what was measured? and Who else could explain this? Apply both to Source A. Record student-generated rival explanations on the board - this is the intellectual work, not a definition to copy.
- Verb line (3 min). Post a continuum: proves - shows - suggests - may be linked to. Students place each claim on it and justify with one word of evidence about the source design.
- Rewrite (3 min). Each student rewrites one sentence of their own paragraph using a verb they can defend in one clause ("...suggests, because the report compares one district before and after").
Check for understanding: collect the rewritten sentence and look for two things - a hedged verb and a because-clause that refers to the design rather than the result. A student who writes "suggests" but cannot say why has swapped vocabulary without learning the reasoning.
3. The paragraph is due at the end of the period. What feedback is realistic, and what should be deferred?
Read the worked answer
Realistic in the time available: a single, consistent annotation. Underline every certainty word ("proves," "causes," "definitely," "all") and write one marginal code - S for "source strength?" - rather than rewriting sentences for students. Return the 11 flagged paragraphs first, so the students who most need the reteach get it before the deadline, and let them revise one sentence only.
Defer: the "experts agree" attribution problem. Fixing two reasoning errors in one pass produces confusion, and the borrowed-authority issue belongs to a separate lesson on primary versus secondary sources. Note who wrote it; that list becomes the next day's small-group focus.
Also defer: conventions. A run-on here is not evidence about the reasoning standard, and marking it now dilutes the feedback students just received.
Why this ordering: the reteach already targeted verb strength, so feedback must reinforce exactly that target or the 15 minutes are wasted. Attribution is a different skill with a different source set; stacking it onto a due date rewards surface correction over thinking.