Dan's class of ten: high matching scores, low short-text scores
Dan teaches an evening class of ten learners, six weeks before their SELT. There is no budget for new materials and 90 minutes of class time a week.
A timed reading mock gave a class average of 58%. Item analysis:
- Matching statements to paragraphs in a long article: eight of the ten learners scored at least 6 out of 8.
- Short texts (notices, emails, adverts): the same eight learners scored 2 or 3 out of 6. When Dan asks them to show where the answer is, most point at a single word that appears in both the text and the option.
- Four-option questions on two longer texts: most wrong answers are the option that reuses vocabulary from the passage, even where the meaning is different.
- Two learners had never done a timed paper and left a third of the items blank.
- Mei finishes in 22 minutes with 55% and cannot explain any of her answers; she says she 'goes by feeling'.
1. What in this data suggests word-matching rather than reading, and how would you check before changing the scheme of work?
Read the worked answer
Three signals point the same way.
- The split between matching (high) and short texts (low) is unusual if comprehension were the issue. Matching items often reward a single shared word per paragraph; short texts reward reading the whole message, where one word decides the meaning ('no entry before 9 a.m.' is not the same as 'closed').
- The learners' justification is the smoking gun: pointing at one word that appears in both text and option is matching form, not meaning.
- In the four-option items, the chosen wrong answers recycle passage vocabulary. That is exactly what a word-matcher selects.
Before rewriting the scheme, verify with a five-minute check: four items, each requiring an underlined line of text plus one sentence of reason. If accuracy collapses when justification is required, the matching score was partly luck. If it holds, the class has a gist skill and a short-text problem, and you plan differently.
2. Plan the 90 minutes so the weakest area gets the most time. What do you stop doing?
Read the worked answer
10 min - paraphrase warm-up. Eight pairs: text word / option word ('banned' / 'not allowed', 'free of charge' / 'at no cost'). This is the skill both weak areas need.
20 min - short texts in pairs with one rule: underline the line that decides the answer and say why the other options are wrong. Whole-class feedback on two items only, in depth.
20 min - four-option items. For each question, find the word the trap option stole from the passage and state what the passage actually says about it.
15 min - timed mini-paper, three short texts and one long one, strictly timed, no-blank policy applied.
15 min - error log and exam routine. 10 min - individual targets.
Stop: whole-class teaching of the matching task. It is their strength; keep it alive as homework and one warm-up item. Stop reading passages aloud round the class - that spends reading time on pronunciation.
3. What do you do about Mei, and about the two learners who left a third of the paper blank?
Read the worked answer
Mei: speed plus inability to justify means she is choosing on impression. Do not give her more papers; give her harder texts and a rule - no answer without a line reference. Use her as the explainer in feedback, which forces justification and helps the class. Her 22-minute finishing time is an asset once answers are evidence-based; until then it is guessing at speed. Track justified-correct answers, not raw score.
Blank-leavers: the cause is unfamiliarity with time pressure, so the fix is routine, not reading skill. Teach elimination: cross out two options you can rule out, choose from the rest, mark the question, return only if time. Institute a two-minute end-of-paper sweep in every practice: no blank leaves the room. Their first timed paper must not be their last - schedule two more before the test.