Diagnosing Three Grammar Errors After a 30-Item Test
After a 30-item Kashmiri grammar test, Ms. N finds that 9 of her 14 Class 10 students miss the same three items. Item 7 tests the dative postposition with a human object; item 11 tests feminine adjective-noun agreement; item 19 tests the ergative case with a transitive verb in the past tense. In interviews, six students can recite the rule for item 19 but still choose the wrong form in a new sentence. Three students overgeneralise the feminine ending to masculine nouns. Ms. N has one 35-minute slot before the pre-board and a worksheet of 20 new sentences. She must decide whether to reteach the rules, drill the items, or use contrastive pairs. The exam will include 10 grammar marks, and the same error pattern appeared in the last two tests.
1. Group the three error types by underlying cause and explain what each group needs.
Read the worked answer
- Item 7 is a lexical-semantic choice: the student must choose the postposition that fits a human recipient, not a general direction. Remedy: meaning-based contrast, not a paradigm drill.
- Item 11 is a feature-agreement error: the adjective must copy the noun's gender; three students overgeneralise the feminine ending, so they need a feature-check routine.
- Item 19 is a procedural error: six students can state the ergative rule but cannot apply it under time pressure. Remedy: forced-choice production with immediate feedback, then a delayed retest.
The groups are not the same. Reteaching all three as 'grammar rules' would waste the 35-minute slot. The data support a sequence: semantic contrast for item 7, feature checking for item 11, automaticity for item 19.
2. Design a 15-minute reteach sequence for the most persistent error (item 19). Justify why rule recitation is not enough.
Read the worked answer
Most persistent = item 19, because students know the rule but still err.
- 3 min: Two contrasting sentences on the board-one transitive past with the ergative marker, one intransitive past without it. Students say what changed, not the rule.
- 5 min: Forced choice: eight new sentences, each with two verb forms; students hold up A/B cards. Teacher notes the first error, not every error.
- 4 min: Oral transformation: teacher gives a present-tense sentence; students produce past tense with the correct case marker. Immediate correction.
- 3 min: Exit ticket: two new sentences, one transitive and one intransitive.
Rule recitation is not enough because the error is procedural: the students can verbalise the rule but cannot select the form in real time. The sequence forces retrieval and discrimination, then checks transfer.
3. Write two minimal-pair items for the agreement error and state the expected answers and distractor logic.
Read the worked answer
Use the same adjective with a feminine and a masculine noun; the noun endings should not be a reliable clue, or the overgeneralisation will persist.
- Item A: '___ (old) kitaab' - feminine noun; expected feminine adjective form. Distractor: masculine form, which is what the overgeneralising students choose.
- Item B: '___ (old) masculine noun' - masculine noun; expected masculine form. Distractor: feminine form, because the noun's ending looks feminine.
The pair tests the feature, not the ending. In marking, accept only the form that agrees with the noun; do not award a mark for 'close' if the gender feature is wrong. If the textbook uses a different adjective, substitute it but keep the same feminine/masculine contrast.