Inference Versus Literal Copying in an Attitude Question
An exam item asks: 'What is the lead researcher's attitude towards language-learning apps?' The text says: 'A 2023 study of 1,200 Spanish secondary students found that those who used language apps for 20 minutes a day improved vocabulary scores by 12%, but their speaking scores did not improve. The lead researcher noted, "Apps are a useful supplement, not a substitute for classroom interaction."' The candidate answers: 'The researcher is positive because students improved their vocabulary by 12% with apps.' The item is worth 2 points: 1 for attitude and 1 for evidence. The teacher wants to use this response to teach the difference between literal copying and inference.
1. Does the candidate earn both points? Explain what is missing and what the correct answer should contain.
Read the worked answer
The candidate earns at most 1 point, and arguably only a partial one.
- Attitude point: The candidate says 'positive'. That is half-right, but the researcher's attitude is qualified or cautiously positive, not simply positive. The quotation 'a useful supplement, not a substitute' explicitly limits the enthusiasm. A full attitude point needs that qualification.
- Evidence point: The candidate uses the 12% vocabulary gain, which is relevant, but ignores the second half of the finding: speaking scores did not improve. The evidence is therefore selective. It supports 'apps help vocabulary' but not the researcher's overall attitude.
- What is missing: the contrast between vocabulary gains and lack of speaking improvement, and the researcher's warning that apps cannot replace classroom interaction. A complete answer should mention both the benefit and the limitation.
The candidate has copied a statistic rather than inferred the speaker's stance. The item tests pragmatic inference: the researcher praises apps while restricting their role.
2. Write a model 2-point answer in 25–40 words that captures the nuance.
Read the worked answer
Model answer (36 words): 'The researcher is cautiously positive: apps help vocabulary, with a 12% gain, but do not improve speaking, so they are a useful supplement rather than a substitute for classroom interaction.'
This earns both points because:
- Attitude: 'cautiously positive' captures the mixed evaluation. It is not neutral or negative, but it is not unqualified praise either.
- Evidence: it cites the vocabulary gain and the lack of speaking improvement. Both are needed to justify the qualification.
- Own words: 'useful supplement rather than a substitute' paraphrases the quotation; it does not merely copy the whole sentence. This shows understanding.
The answer is concise enough for a 2-point item and avoids adding unsupported claims such as 'the researcher recommends banning apps'.
3. What distractor would you write to test whether students confuse the researcher's attitude with the study's statistics, and why would it work?
Read the worked answer
A strong distractor would be: 'The researcher is negative because speaking scores did not improve.'
Why it works:
- It uses a true statistic (speaking did not improve), so students who match words will be tempted.
- It draws the wrong inference: the researcher does not say apps are ineffective; she says they are a useful supplement. The distractor overstates the negative half of the finding.
- It tests whether students can separate the researcher's stance from the study's mixed results. A student who only scans for positive or negative words may choose it.
A second possible distractor is: 'The researcher recommends replacing classroom interaction with apps.' This inverts the quotation directly and catches students who read 'substitute' without the negation. Both distractors are plausible because they use textual language but distort the relationship between evidence and attitude.