What is Primary 6 Vocabulary | Definition, Classification, Description and Explanation Language

Primary 6 definition and classification vocabulary is the language students use to say what something is, what group it belongs to, which features matter and how one category differs from another. Families searching for Grade 6 definition words, classification vocabulary, describe vs explain vs define, category words, examples and non-examples and 6th grade explanatory vocabulary are dealing with a core informational-text skill: naming a thing is not the same as defining it, and listing features is not the same as explaining why it belongs in a category.

Reading Rockets identifies definition-example as one of the common informational text structures, alongside cause-effect, comparison-contrast, problem-solution and proposition-support. Primary 6 learners therefore need functional vocabulary such as define, means, refers to, category, classify, feature, property, example, non-example, consists of, includes, differs from and characterised by. These terms help both readers and writers build conceptual structure.

This guide builds a Primary 6 definition-classification-explanation system. It distinguishes naming, defining, describing, classifying and explaining; shows how necessary features and examples work together; teaches hierarchy from broad category to specific member; and connects definitions to Science, Mathematics and English comprehension. The goal is concept clarity: the learner should know not only the label, but why it belongs.

The 50-second router

1. Name the concept.
2. State the broader category.
3. Give the defining feature or relationship.
4. Add a clear example.
5. Add a near non-example if confusion is likely.
6. Explain how the classification helps the task.

Naming is not defining

Repeating a label or replacing it with a loose synonym does not reveal concept structure.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Good definitions use category plus distinction

A strong learner-friendly definition often names the broader class and then the feature that separates the target from neighbours.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Examples make definitions concrete

A category can remain abstract until the learner sees valid members and can explain why they fit.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Non-examples reveal boundaries

A near non-example demonstrates what feature is missing and prevents overgeneralisation.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Classification uses criteria

Objects can be grouped in many ways. A classification is meaningful only when the criterion is explicit and relevant.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Hierarchies organise knowledge

Learners can move from broad category to subcategory to specific member, building a navigable semantic structure.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Describe and explain are different operations

Description states features or observations; explanation gives relationships, causes, functions or reasons.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Definitions can be context-sensitive

A technical school definition may focus on the sense relevant to the subject even when a word has broader everyday meanings.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Functional definitions can be useful

For tools, organs and system components, what something does may be essential to understanding what it is.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Classification supports comparison

Once items are grouped using the same criteria, similarities and differences become easier to reason about.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Definition language supports comprehension

Phrases such as refers to, means and is defined as signal that a text is establishing a concept.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

Definition language supports writing

Defining key terms early reduces ambiguity and makes later reasoning more precise.

For semantic organisation, use Primary 6 Semantic Mapping. For concept knowledge, use Primary 6 Vocabulary & Background Knowledge.

A practical operating framework

Term

What concept is being defined? Use this field as a decision point rather than a box to fill mechanically. The answer should change what the learner reads, says or writes next.

Category

What broader group does it belong to? Use this field as a decision point rather than a box to fill mechanically. The answer should change what the learner reads, says or writes next.

Distinguishing feature

What makes it this concept rather than a neighbour? Use this field as a decision point rather than a box to fill mechanically. The answer should change what the learner reads, says or writes next.

Example

What is a clear valid case? Use this field as a decision point rather than a box to fill mechanically. The answer should change what the learner reads, says or writes next.

Near non-example

What tempting case fails the definition? Use this field as a decision point rather than a box to fill mechanically. The answer should change what the learner reads, says or writes next.

Use

Where does the definition matter? Use this field as a decision point rather than a box to fill mechanically. The answer should change what the learner reads, says or writes next.

One hundred and twenty worked laboratories

Laboratory 1: increase in a bar graph

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with increase in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 2: proportion in a Science investigation

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with proportion in a Science investigation about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 3: equal in a class discussion

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with equal in a class discussion about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 4: bias in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with bias in a source-evaluation task about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 5: feature in a bar graph

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with feature in a bar graph about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 6: however in a Science investigation

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with however in a Science investigation about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 7: indicate in a class discussion

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with indicate in a class discussion about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 8: table in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with table in a source-evaluation task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 9: finding in a bar graph

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with finding in a bar graph about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 10: average in a Science investigation

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with average in a Science investigation about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 11: minority in a class discussion

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with minority in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 12: evidence in a source-evaluation task

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with evidence in a source-evaluation task about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 13: define in a bar graph

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with define in a bar graph about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 14: relationship in a Science investigation

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with relationship in a Science investigation about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 15: infer in a class discussion

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with infer in a class discussion about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 16: condition in a source-evaluation task

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with condition in a source-evaluation task about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 17: frequency in a bar graph

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with frequency in a bar graph about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 18: fluctuate in a Science investigation

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with fluctuate in a Science investigation about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 19: fraction in a class discussion

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with fraction in a class discussion about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 20: less in a source-evaluation task

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with less in a source-evaluation task about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 21: verify in a bar graph

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with verify in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 22: compare in a Science investigation

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with compare in a Science investigation about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 23: measure in a class discussion

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with measure in a class discussion about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 24: result in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with result in a source-evaluation task about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 25: axis in a bar graph

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with axis in a bar graph about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 26: precise in a Science investigation

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with precise in a Science investigation about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 27: range in a class discussion

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with range in a class discussion about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 28: roughly in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with roughly in a source-evaluation task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 29: opinion in a bar graph

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with opinion in a bar graph about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 30: example in a Science investigation

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with example in a Science investigation about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 31: both in a class discussion

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with both in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 32: identify in a source-evaluation task

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with identify in a source-evaluation task about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 33: data in a bar graph

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with data in a bar graph about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 34: observation in a Science investigation

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with observation in a Science investigation about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 35: pattern in a class discussion

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with pattern in a class discussion about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 36: majority in a source-evaluation task

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with majority in a source-evaluation task about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 37: claim in a bar graph

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with claim in a bar graph about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 38: conclusion in a Science investigation

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with conclusion in a Science investigation about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 39: different in a class discussion

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with different in a class discussion about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 40: interpret in a source-evaluation task

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with interpret in a source-evaluation task about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 41: sequence in a bar graph

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with sequence in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 42: interval in a Science investigation

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with interval in a Science investigation about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 43: stable in a class discussion

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with stable in a class discussion about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 44: percentage in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with percentage in a source-evaluation task about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 45: greater in a bar graph

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with greater in a bar graph about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 46: reliable in a Science investigation

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with reliable in a Science investigation about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 47: process in a class discussion

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with process in a class discussion about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 48: variable in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with variable in a source-evaluation task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 49: suggest in a bar graph

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with suggest in a bar graph about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 50: graph in a Science investigation

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with graph in a Science investigation about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 51: accurate in a class discussion

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with accurate in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 52: difference in a source-evaluation task

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with difference in a source-evaluation task about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 53: exactly in a bar graph

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with exactly in a bar graph about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 54: fact in a Science investigation

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with fact in a Science investigation about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 55: category in a class discussion

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with category in a class discussion about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 56: unlike in a source-evaluation task

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with unlike in a source-evaluation task about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 57: describe in a bar graph

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with describe in a bar graph about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 58: criterion in a Science investigation

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with criterion in a Science investigation about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 59: sample in a class discussion

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with sample in a class discussion about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 60: trend in a source-evaluation task

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with trend in a source-evaluation task about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 61: quantity in a bar graph

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with quantity in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 62: fewer in a Science investigation

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with fewer in a Science investigation about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 63: reason in a class discussion

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with reason in a class discussion about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 64: similar in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with similar in a source-evaluation task about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 65: represent in a bar graph

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with represent in a bar graph about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 66: effect in a Science investigation

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with effect in a Science investigation about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 67: scale in a class discussion

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with scale in a class discussion about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 68: decrease in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with decrease in a source-evaluation task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 69: ratio in a bar graph

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with ratio in a bar graph about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 70: equivalent in a Science investigation

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with equivalent in a Science investigation about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 71: credible in a class discussion

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with credible in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 72: function in a source-evaluation task

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with function in a source-evaluation task about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 73: correspond in a bar graph

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with correspond in a bar graph about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 74: demonstrate in a Science investigation

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with demonstrate in a Science investigation about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 75: chart in a class discussion

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with chart in a class discussion about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 76: valid in a source-evaluation task

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with valid in a source-evaluation task about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 77: total in a bar graph

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with total in a bar graph about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 78: approximately in a Science investigation

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with approximately in a Science investigation about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 79: source in a class discussion

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with source in a class discussion about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 80: classification in a source-evaluation task

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with classification in a source-evaluation task about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 81: whereas in a bar graph

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with whereas in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 82: explain in a Science investigation

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with explain in a Science investigation about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 83: exception in a class discussion

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with exception in a class discussion about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 84: distribution in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with distribution in a source-evaluation task about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 85: peak in a bar graph

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with peak in a bar graph about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 86: amount in a Science investigation

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with amount in a Science investigation about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 87: more in a class discussion

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with more in a class discussion about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 88: support in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with support in a source-evaluation task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 89: contrast in a bar graph

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with contrast in a bar graph about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 90: estimate in a Science investigation

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with estimate in a Science investigation about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 91: cause in a class discussion

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with cause in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 92: label in a source-evaluation task

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with label in a source-evaluation task about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 93: increase in a bar graph

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with increase in a bar graph about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 94: proportion in a Science investigation

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with proportion in a Science investigation about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 95: equal in a class discussion

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with equal in a class discussion about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 96: bias in a source-evaluation task

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with bias in a source-evaluation task about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 97: feature in a bar graph

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with feature in a bar graph about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 98: however in a Science investigation

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with however in a Science investigation about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 99: indicate in a class discussion

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with indicate in a class discussion about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 100: table in a source-evaluation task

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with table in a source-evaluation task about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 101: finding in a bar graph

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with finding in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 102: average in a Science investigation

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with average in a Science investigation about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 103: minority in a class discussion

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with minority in a class discussion about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 104: evidence in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with evidence in a source-evaluation task about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 105: define in a bar graph

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with define in a bar graph about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 106: relationship in a Science investigation

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with relationship in a Science investigation about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 107: infer in a class discussion

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with infer in a class discussion about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 108: condition in a source-evaluation task

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with condition in a source-evaluation task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 109: frequency in a bar graph

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with frequency in a bar graph about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 110: fluctuate in a Science investigation

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with fluctuate in a Science investigation about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 111: fraction in a class discussion

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with fraction in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 112: less in a source-evaluation task

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with less in a source-evaluation task about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 113: verify in a bar graph

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with verify in a bar graph about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 114: compare in a Science investigation

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with compare in a Science investigation about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 115: measure in a class discussion

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with measure in a class discussion about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 116: result in a source-evaluation task

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with result in a source-evaluation task about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 117: axis in a bar graph

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with axis in a bar graph about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 118: precise in a Science investigation

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with precise in a Science investigation about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 119: range in a class discussion

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with range in a class discussion about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Laboratory 120: roughly in a source-evaluation task

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with roughly in a source-evaluation task about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible.

Extended fieldbook: one hundred and forty transfer cases

Fieldbook 1: increase — water use

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with increase in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 2: majority — class survey

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with majority in a pie chart about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 3: credible — plant growth

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with credible in a Mathematics word problem about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 4: relationship — exercise

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with relationship in a news article about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 5: suggest — recycling

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with suggest in an oral presentation about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 6: distribution — teamwork

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with distribution in a source-evaluation task about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 7: range — weather

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with range in a revision worksheet about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 8: fewer — study time

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with fewer in a line graph about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 9: feature — energy use

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with feature in a survey summary about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 10: interpret — technology use

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with interpret in an informational paragraph about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 11: chart — digital safety

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with chart in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 12: fluctuate — school attendance

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with fluctuate in a project report about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 13: exactly — biodiversity

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with exactly in a textbook explanation about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 14: support — transport choices

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with support in a comprehension passage about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 15: both — financial decisions

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with both in a table about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 16: effect — sports performance

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with effect in a Science investigation about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 17: finding — public spaces

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with finding in a debate response about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 18: percentage — reading habits

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with percentage in a situational-writing email about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 19: source — healthy sleep

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with source in a comparison paragraph about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 20: compare — food choices

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with compare in a Secondary 1 preview task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 21: describe — water use

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with describe in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 22: label — class survey

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with label in a pie chart about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 23: pattern — plant growth

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with pattern in a Mathematics word problem about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 24: equivalent — exercise

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with equivalent in a news article about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 25: define — recycling

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with define in an oral presentation about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 26: variable — teamwork

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with variable in a source-evaluation task about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 27: exception — weather

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with exception in a revision worksheet about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 28: precise — study time

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with precise in a line graph about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 29: quantity — energy use

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with quantity in a survey summary about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 30: bias — technology use

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with bias in an informational paragraph about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 31: different — digital safety

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with different in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 32: demonstrate — school attendance

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with demonstrate in a project report about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 33: frequency — biodiversity

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with frequency in a textbook explanation about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 34: difference — transport choices

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with difference in a comprehension passage about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 35: more — financial decisions

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with more in a table about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 36: example — sports performance

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with example in a Science investigation about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 37: represent — public spaces

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with represent in a debate response about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 38: table — reading habits

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with table in a situational-writing email about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 39: stable — healthy sleep

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with stable in a comparison paragraph about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 40: approximately — food choices

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with approximately in a Secondary 1 preview task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 41: verify — water use

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with verify in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 42: unlike — class survey

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with unlike in a pie chart about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 43: cause — plant growth

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with cause in a Mathematics word problem about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 44: observation — exercise

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with observation in a news article about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 45: ratio — recycling

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with ratio in an oral presentation about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 46: evidence — teamwork

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with evidence in a source-evaluation task about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 47: process — weather

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with process in a revision worksheet about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 48: explain — study time

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with explain in a line graph about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 49: axis — energy use

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with axis in a survey summary about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 50: trend — technology use

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with trend in an informational paragraph about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 51: equal — digital safety

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with equal in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 52: conclusion — school attendance

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with conclusion in a project report about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 53: correspond — biodiversity

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with correspond in a textbook explanation about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 54: condition — transport choices

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with condition in a comprehension passage about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 55: accurate — financial decisions

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with accurate in a table about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 56: amount — sports performance

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with amount in a Science investigation about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 57: opinion — public spaces

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with opinion in a debate response about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 58: similar — reading habits

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with similar in a situational-writing email about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 59: indicate — healthy sleep

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with indicate in a comparison paragraph about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 60: interval — food choices

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with interval in a Secondary 1 preview task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 61: total — water use

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with total in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 62: less — class survey

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with less in a pie chart about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 63: category — plant growth

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with category in a Mathematics word problem about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 64: estimate — exercise

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with estimate in a news article about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 65: data — recycling

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with data in an oral presentation about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 66: decrease — teamwork

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with decrease in a source-evaluation task about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 67: minority — weather

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with minority in a revision worksheet about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 68: reliable — study time

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with reliable in a line graph about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 69: whereas — energy use

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with whereas in a survey summary about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 70: result — technology use

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with result in an informational paragraph about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 71: sample — digital safety

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with sample in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 72: proportion — school attendance

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with proportion in a project report about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 73: claim — biodiversity

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with claim in a textbook explanation about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 74: function — transport choices

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with function in a comprehension passage about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 75: infer — financial decisions

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with infer in a table about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 76: graph — sports performance

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with graph in a Science investigation about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 77: peak — public spaces

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with peak in a debate response about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 78: roughly — reading habits

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with roughly in a situational-writing email about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 79: reason — healthy sleep

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with reason in a comparison paragraph about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 80: however — food choices

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with however in a Secondary 1 preview task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 81: sequence — water use

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with sequence in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 82: valid — class survey

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with valid in a pie chart about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 83: fraction — plant growth

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with fraction in a Mathematics word problem about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 84: fact — exercise

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with fact in a news article about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 85: contrast — recycling

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with contrast in an oral presentation about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 86: identify — teamwork

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with identify in a source-evaluation task about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 87: scale — weather

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with scale in a revision worksheet about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 88: average — study time

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with average in a line graph about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 89: greater — energy use

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with greater in a survey summary about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 90: classification — technology use

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with classification in an informational paragraph about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 91: measure — digital safety

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with measure in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 92: criterion — school attendance

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with criterion in a project report about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 93: increase — biodiversity

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with increase in a textbook explanation about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 94: majority — transport choices

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with majority in a comprehension passage about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 95: credible — financial decisions

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with credible in a table about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 96: relationship — sports performance

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with relationship in a Science investigation about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 97: suggest — public spaces

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with suggest in a debate response about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 98: distribution — reading habits

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with distribution in a situational-writing email about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 99: range — healthy sleep

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with range in a comparison paragraph about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 100: fewer — food choices

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with fewer in a Secondary 1 preview task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 101: feature — water use

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with feature in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 102: interpret — class survey

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with interpret in a pie chart about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 103: chart — plant growth

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with chart in a Mathematics word problem about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 104: fluctuate — exercise

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with fluctuate in a news article about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 105: exactly — recycling

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with exactly in an oral presentation about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 106: support — teamwork

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with support in a source-evaluation task about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 107: both — weather

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with both in a revision worksheet about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 108: effect — study time

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with effect in a line graph about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 109: finding — energy use

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with finding in a survey summary about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 110: percentage — technology use

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with percentage in an informational paragraph about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 111: source — digital safety

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with source in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 112: compare — school attendance

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with compare in a project report about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 113: describe — biodiversity

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with describe in a textbook explanation about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 114: label — transport choices

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with label in a comprehension passage about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 115: pattern — financial decisions

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with pattern in a table about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 116: equivalent — sports performance

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with equivalent in a Science investigation about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 117: define — public spaces

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with define in a debate response about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 118: variable — reading habits

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with variable in a situational-writing email about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 119: exception — healthy sleep

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with exception in a comparison paragraph about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 120: precise — food choices

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with precise in a Secondary 1 preview task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 121: quantity — water use

A learner who reads values but misstates the trend works with quantity in a bar graph about water use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 122: bias — class survey

A learner who uses precise numbers but vague nouns works with bias in a pie chart about class survey. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 123: different — plant growth

A learner who states data but does not interpret it works with different in a Mathematics word problem about plant growth. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 124: demonstrate — exercise

A learner who uses similar when items share only one minor feature works with demonstrate in a news article about exercise. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 125: frequency — recycling

A learner who gives examples without defining the category works with frequency in an oral presentation about recycling. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 126: difference — teamwork

A learner who quotes a source without checking relevance works with difference in a source-evaluation task about teamwork. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 127: more — weather

A learner who uses average as if every value were the same works with more in a revision worksheet about weather. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 128: example — study time

A learner who uses majority to mean all works with example in a line graph about study time. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 129: represent — energy use

A learner who turns correlation into cause works with represent in a survey summary about energy use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 130: table — technology use

A learner who uses exact language for an estimate works with table in an informational paragraph about technology use. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 131: stable — digital safety

A learner who describes a graph without naming the variable works with stable in a class discussion about digital safety. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 132: approximately — school attendance

A learner who compares items on different criteria works with approximately in a project report about school attendance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 133: verify — biodiversity

A learner who uses however without a real contrast works with verify in a textbook explanation about biodiversity. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 134: unlike — transport choices

A learner who lists differences without explaining significance works with unlike in a comprehension passage about transport choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 135: cause — financial decisions

A learner who classifies by a superficial feature works with cause in a table about financial decisions. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 136: observation — sports performance

A learner who gives a definition that is too broad works with observation in a Science investigation about sports performance. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 137: ratio — public spaces

A learner who trusts a source because it looks professional works with ratio in a debate response about public spaces. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 138: evidence — reading habits

A learner who treats opinion as evidence works with evidence in a situational-writing email about reading habits. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 139: process — healthy sleep

A learner who confuses amount with proportion works with process in a comparison paragraph about healthy sleep. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Fieldbook 140: explain — food choices

A learner who uses bigger when percentage is required works with explain in a Secondary 1 preview task about food choices. Decide whether the task asks for naming, defining, describing, classifying or explaining. If defining, give a broader category and a distinguishing feature. Add one clear example and one near non-example. If classifying, state the criterion explicitly and test whether every member fits it. If explaining, add the relationship or reason that description alone cannot provide. Change the criterion or context and decide whether the classification still holds. The target is conceptual language that makes boundaries and relationships visible. After the first response, remove the original wording and require the learner to reconstruct the decision from meaning, evidence or relationship alone. Then move the same vocabulary problem into another subject or genre and ask what must remain stable. Record the first failure point—meaning, reference, evidence, quantity, category, comparison or inference—so the next practice targets the actual bottleneck instead of simply adding more words.

Where this fits in the eduKate Primary 6 vocabulary architecture

This article is a specialist child of the Primary 6 vocabulary apex. It does not replace the Top 100 Primary 6 high-utility vocabulary owner or the Primary 6 vocabulary practice owner. The master Vocabulary router and Vocabulary Learning Hub remain the wider routes across vocabulary levels and problems.

The lane remains add-only. Each page owns one search and teaching job, then routes into adjacent eduKate owners instead of duplicating them.

Sources and further reading

• MOE Singapore — Primary Mathematics Syllabus P1–P6.
• MOE Singapore — Primary Science Teaching & Learning Syllabus.
• Reading Rockets — Teaching Text Structure.
• Reading Rockets — Reading and Scaffolding Expository Texts.
• Reading Rockets — Compare, Contrast, Comprehend.
• Reading Rockets — Developing Research and Information Literacy.
• MOE Singapore — English Language Syllabus 2020 Primary.
• SEAB — 2026 PSLE English Language syllabus.