إنّ, dual agreement, and 38 scripts before a revision period
After a unit on «إنّ وأخواتها», 38 scripts from a 10-mark Nahw question are on the teacher’s desk. The item asked students to correct and explain «إِنَّ الْمُعَلِّمَيْنِ مُخْلِصُوْنَ». Only 11 scripts give «مُخْلِصَانِ»; 19 keep «مُخْلِصُوْنَ» and write that «إنّ» makes the predicate accusative; 8 change the subject to «الْمُعَلِّمُوْنَ» to fit the predicate. A separate item with «كَانَ الطُّلَّابُ مُجْتَهِدِيْنَ» is correct in 26 scripts. The teacher has one 40-minute revision period before the test and must decide whether to reteach the whole family or target dual/plural agreement. The mark scheme gives 2 marks for case, 3 for agreement, and 5 for explanation.
1. Which misconception explains both the 19 scripts and the 8 scripts, and what evidence from the «كان» item supports your diagnosis?
Read the worked answer
Dominant misconception. The 19 scripts show a category error: they know that «إنّ» governs case, but they extend it to the predicate. In fact «إنّ» makes its اسم منصوب and leaves its خبر مرفوعًا. The 8 scripts show a different error: they notice the dual/plural mismatch but repair it by changing the subject, which avoids the target structure instead of correcting it. The 26 correct answers on «كان» suggest the class can handle a governing verb when the predicate’s case is familiar; the weak point is the division of labour inside the إنّ construction and the dual ending.
Evidence to use in class. Put the two sentences side by side:
- «إِنَّ الْمُعَلِّمَيْنِ مُخْلِصَانِ» - اسم إنّ منصوب (dual, ـَيْنِ), خبر إنّ مرفوع (dual, ـَانِ).
- «كَانَ الطُّلَّابُ مُجْتَهِدِيْنَ» - اسم كان مرفوع, خبر كان منصوب. The contrast makes clear that the predicate does not copy the case of the اسم.
Conclusion. The reteach should target the boundary between government and agreement, not the whole family from zero.
2. Design the 40-minute revision period. Justify why you do not simply reteach the whole family.
Read the worked answer
40-minute plan.
- 0–5 min: diagnostic contrast. Write the two sentences above; ask students to box the governor, underline its اسم, and circle its خبر. Do not explain yet.
- 5–15 min: i‘rab table. Build a three-column table: operator, اسم, خبر. Fill «إنّ» and «كان» with the same root «مخلص». Students state case and marker orally.
- 15–25 min: dual/plural transformation drill. Give four pairs: singular/dual/plural with «إنّ» and «كان». Students transform and say which word carries the number marker. Focus on «مُخْلِصَانِ» vs «مُخْلِصُوْنَ».
- 25–35 min: error analysis. Use three anonymous sentences, including «إنّ المعلمين مخلصون» and the subject-change repair. Groups write the minimal correction and one rule.
- 35–40 min: exit ticket. One new sentence with a dual اسم under «إنّ»; students correct and write one line of i‘rab.
Why not reteach everything. The «كان» data show partial mastery; a full reteach would consume the period and leave the dual agreement unaddressed. The sequence spends most time on the actual fault line.
3. How should the 8 scripts that changed the subject to «المعلمون» be marked under the 2/3/5 scheme?
Read the worked answer
Marking the 8 scripts. They changed the subject from «الْمُعَلِّمَيْنِ» to «الْمُعَلِّمُوْنَ». The result is grammatical, but it is not a correction of the given sentence and it destroys the dual meaning.
- Case (2 marks): 0/2. The new subject is nominative, so the script does not show that «إنّ» makes its اسم accusative.
- Agreement (3 marks): 0/3. «مخلصون» agrees with the new plural subject, but the target contrast dual/plural has been avoided.
- Explanation (5 marks): 0–2. Award 1–2 only if the script explicitly says that the predicate should be dual or that the subject and predicate must agree in number. A vague «the sentence was wrong» earns 0.
Feedback line. «You saw a mismatch, but you solved it by changing the meaning. Keep the subject and change the predicate to مُخْلِصَانِ; then explain why the predicate is marfu‘.» This rewards the partial insight without pretending the target was met.