Inference versus copying in a Class 10 prose passage
Sharanya teaches Kannada BT to 42 Class 10 students in Kozhikode. Her unit test uses a 190-word descriptive passage about a village temple festival (ಹಳ್ಳಿಯ ಉತ್ಸವ), written in the simple past with three difficult words glossed in the margin. The comprehension section carries 10 marks: two literal questions at 1 mark each, three inferential questions at 2 marks each, and one vocabulary-in-context question at 2 marks. One inferential question asks, ಸಂಭ್ರಮದ ಉತ್ಸವ ಎಲ್ಲರದೂ ಎಂದು ಲೇಖಕ ಏಕೆ ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ? The key rewards the idea of shared ownership, not mere attendance. Anand copies a sentence from paragraph two that lists who came, then adds ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಬಂದರು. Fathima writes one original sentence that does capture the idea, but she misreads a glossed word, turning 'offering' into 'payment'. Sharanya has 40 minutes to correct all 42 scripts, and the class compares scores openly, so every mark she gives will be publicly challenged tomorrow.
1. Award a mark to Anand and to Fathima on the 2-mark inferential question, and justify each decision.
Read the worked answer
Anand gets 1 of 2. He has done half the work: he located relevant textual evidence and framed a sentence of his own. But the stem asks ಏಕೆ, and his answer restates who attended. Attendance is the evidence; shared ownership is the claim. Zero would punish him for quoting, which the passage invites, and teach him that evidence is worthless. Two would certify an inference he has not made and mislead him about what the board's marker will reward.
Fathima gets 2 of 2 on this question, with a margin note. Her sentence argues the claim from the closing line; the error is lexical, and the vocabulary item already tests the glossed words. Penalising one mistake twice is unfair and also distorts the diagnostic picture. Mark what each question tests: inference here, vocabulary there. If her misreading actually reverses her argument, drop to 1 and say so plainly, because then it is the distortion, not the word, that cost the mark.
2. Design a three-minute whole-class feedback move that fixes the reasoning without re-reading the passage.
Read the worked answer
Work on the stem and two anonymised sentences, not on the text.
- Write the stem on the board and ask the class to underline the word that decides the shape of the answer. They will find ಏಕೆ. Ask what an answer to ಏಕೆ must contain: a reason, not a list of people.
- Put Anand's sentence beside the last line of paragraph two and ask what is missing. Do not supply the answer; let a student say 'but why does that mean it belongs to everyone?'
- Build one sentence together in the frame ಲೇಖಕರು ... ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ, ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ... using the class's own words.
- Show Fathima's sentence and ask which words in the passage support it. This models justification rather than paraphrase.
Close by asking which of the two answers the question actually asked for. Three minutes, one stem, two sentences - and the class leaves knowing the difference between copying and concluding, which is also what the public comparison of scores needs to hear.
3. Rewrite the inferential stem so that copying cannot earn the mark, keeping the same passage and the same 2-mark weight.
Read the worked answer
The original stem is not defective, but it allows a fluent copier to hide. Two repairs work.
Repair A, adding a constraint: ಲೇಖಕರು ಉತ್ಸವ ಎಲ್ಲರದೂ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವಾಗ ಯಾವ ಎರಡು ಸಾಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಆಧಾರವಾಗಿ ಬಳಸುತ್ತಾರೆ? ನಿಮ್ಮದೇ ಮಾತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ವಾಕ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಿಸಿ. This makes evidence and explanation separately visible: the marker can see whether the two chosen lines actually support the claim, and the phrase ನಿಮ್ಮದೇ ಮಾತಿನಲ್ಲಿ blocks transcription.
Repair B, making it evaluative: ಉತ್ಸವದ ಖರ್ಚನ್ನು ಹಳ್ಳಿಯ ಜನ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂಬುದಕ್ಕೆ ಪಠ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಧಾರವಿದೆಯೇ? ನಿಮ್ಮ ಉತ್ತರಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣ ಕೊಡಿ. A yes/no plus reason cannot be answered by lifting a sentence.
Either version still fits 2 marks: 1 for the relevant evidence, 1 for the reasoning that links it to the claim. Keep the original wording only as a warm-up item worth 1.