Top 100 Vocabulary Words for Children | Connecting Fence Age 11

CHAPTER 1 OF 19

1. Start with the purpose

Back to contents

Did you know? Grammatical wording can still change a claim if it removes a condition or turns a possibility into a certainty. A familiar sentence can become more useful when it names one missing relationship. At Age 11, the selected focus is precise revision, but earlier location, reference and sequence models remain available whenever they help establish the intended meaning.

Choose an original statement and a proposed paraphrase or another familiar example with the same communication job. Ask: Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty? Let the learner show, say, draw or dictate the relevant relationship.

The word index offers one hundred selected models. Choose the word that serves the current purpose, then use its meaning question to inspect the example. Word meanings and short checking prompts recur across ages; the selected models and worked tasks carry the age-specific focus.

Contents · Next chapter

CHAPTER 2 OF 19

2. How to use the precise revision tasks

Back to contents

Put the original and proposed revision side by side. Identify the claim, its source, the conditions under which it applies and its degree of certainty. A grammatical revision can still alter any of these.

Remove unnecessary repetition only after checking meaning. Deleting a condition can broaden a claim; changing may to does can strengthen it. Let the author approve a revision that preserves the intended argument.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 3 OF 19

3. Observe the contribution and the support

Back to contents

For this guide, use the question: Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty? Record the actual response, whether spoken, drawn, demonstrated or recorded with help. A supported answer and an independent written account are different observations.

Keep the materials from an original statement and a proposed paraphrase available when discussing the response. Note which reference, example or condition needed clarification. Do not turn one successful exchange into a claim of general mastery.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 4 OF 19

4. Linking information, reasons, conditions and time

Back to contents

Word	Meaning in these models
and	adds related information; addition alone does not establish a cause
but	marks a contrast between the connected statements
or	offers alternatives; the situation determines whether one or several options are possible
because	introduces a reason or cause that should be known or explicitly qualified
so	links a situation with a result or chosen response
if	introduces a condition or possibility rather than asserting that it has occurred
when	connects an event with its time or occasion, or asks about time
while	links overlapping events or contrasts information, according to the sentence
before	places an event earlier than another reference event
after	places an event later than another reference event

1. and

Selected model. The revision preserves the central claim and states the limits of its supporting example.

Meaning check. What information is added? Does the sentence claim a cause, or only connect details?

Read this invented report: ‘Four pupils tested the new map. All four found the hall, and two asked for help locating the library.’ A shorter version says, ‘The pupils found the rooms.’ Ask what useful information has disappeared. The first account reports success for one destination and a difficulty for another. Joining those findings with and preserves their coexistence without pretending that the same result applied everywhere.

Try a faithful revision: ‘All four testers found the hall, and two needed directions to the library.’ The sentence still names the tested group, the two destinations and the different outcomes. Discuss whether ‘the map worked’ would be adequate for an organiser deciding what to improve. It may be a reasonable overall opinion, but it does not replace the specific observations.

For transfer, supply two facts about a classroom game: its instructions were readable and its pieces were incomplete. Ask the learner to connect them, then check that the sentence has not turned one finding into the cause of the other.

2. but

Selected model. The proposed wording is concise, but it removes a qualification that matters to the claim.

Meaning check. Which two facts or views are being contrasted? Can both remain true?

A fictional pupil writes, ‘The quiet reading corner helped me concentrate, but I used it only once.’ An editor removes the second clause and changes the statement to ‘The reading corner helps pupils concentrate.’ Invite the learner to underline every change in meaning. A personal observation has become a statement about pupils generally, and a limit on the experience has vanished.

Keep the contrast visible: ‘The pupil found the corner helpful, but the report describes only one visit.’ This version identifies the source and explains the limit without dismissing the pupil’s experience. Ask whether but means the first clause is false. It does not: something can be useful on one occasion while the available evidence remains narrow.

Now offer a different task: a notice about whether six readers can sit there together. The single pupil’s concentration report does not answer the capacity question. Let the learner name the missing information instead of adding an impressive sounding conclusion that the report cannot support.

3. or

Selected model. We can narrow the claim or gather more relevant information before making a broader statement.

Meaning check. What alternatives are available? Is a choice between them actually necessary?

Present two possible revisions of a fictional survey note. The source says, ‘Of the eight pupils asked, six preferred drawing their ideas.’ Revision A says, ‘Most of these eight pupils preferred drawing.’ Revision B says, ‘Most children prefer drawing.’ Ask which the source supports. The important choice concerns the group being described, even though both sentences use fluent English.

The learner can retain the limited statement or collect information from a different group before considering a wider claim. These are possible next actions, not a promise that a larger collection automatically proves the universal version. A useful model is, ‘We can report this group’s preference or investigate whether other groups respond similarly.’ Neither option requires changing the recorded six responses.

Invite the child to suggest a third sensible option, such as leaving the broader question open. This exposes a false choice when someone presents only two options as compulsory. Finish by asking which option best serves the immediate reader and what it would allow that reader to conclude.

4. because

Selected model. We retained the qualification because removing it would make the statement stronger than its evidence.

Meaning check. Which reason is stated? What would make it known rather than guessed?

Use an invented message from a pupil: ‘I moved my model because the table was needed for a group activity.’ A retelling says, ‘The model was moved because it was unstable.’ Both explanations are plausible in an ordinary classroom, but only one appears in the supplied account. Ask the learner to distinguish a stated reason from a reason that an editor has imagined.

A faithful summary could say, ‘The pupil says the model was moved to make space for the group.’ If the reporter did not witness the move, that attribution helps the reader understand the source. There is no need to add uncertainty about every word; simply make clear what the account actually provides.

For a second round, give only two observations: the table shook and the model was moved later. Ask whether because can safely join them. The timing suggests a possibility but does not establish the mover’s reason. Keep the facts separate or qualify the suggested explanation explicitly.

5. so

Selected model. The example supports only a limited claim, so the final sentence should acknowledge that scope.

Meaning check. Which result or response follows? Was that response the only possible choice?

An invented log records that a class display was difficult to read from the doorway, so the pupils enlarged its labels. A shortened account says, ‘The enlarged labels solved the problem.’ Pause at the difference between a response and a confirmed result. The original explains why the pupils acted; it does not report a later test of readability.

Try, ‘The pupils enlarged the labels after noticing that visitors struggled to read them from the doorway.’ Then decide what a useful next sentence would require. ‘A second group could read every label’ needs an actual observation in the scenario, not just confidence in the chosen solution. The learner may instead write, ‘The revised display still needs to be checked from the entrance.’

Offer a transfer case in which a noisy group moves to a quieter room. Ask for one sentence about the decision and a separate sentence about any observed outcome. This keeps so useful without letting it carry more evidence than the account contains.

6. if

Selected model. If the evidence is incomplete, the conclusion can remain provisional instead of sounding certain.

Meaning check. What condition is proposed? Has it actually occurred in this account?

Write this fictional rule: ‘If at least two adults are available, the garden group may use the outdoor tables.’ A condensed notice reads, ‘The garden group may use the outdoor tables.’ Ask what the revision allows a reader to assume. Removing if has removed the condition on permission. The sentence is shorter, but it now gives different guidance.

A concise repair is, ‘Outdoor tables may be used when at least two adults are available.’ Discuss why both the number and availability matter in this invented arrangement. Two names on a list do not necessarily show that two adults can attend. Keep the particular rule attached to this scenario rather than presenting it as a general school requirement.

Test the notice with three cases: one available adult, two available adults, and availability still unknown. The learner should identify the unresolved case without inventing permission. Invite them to add a contact or checking step in words, using a fictional role such as the organiser rather than fabricated real contact details.

7. when

Selected model. We reconsider the conclusion when new information does not fit the earlier explanation.

Meaning check. Which event supplies the time reference? Would the message change if it happened later?

An invented project note says, ‘We will compare the models when both groups finish measuring them.’ A summary says, ‘The groups have finished measuring, and we will compare the models now.’ Ask which event the original places in the future. When identifies the trigger for comparison; it does not tell us that the trigger has already occurred.

Repair the summary with, ‘Comparison is planned after both groups complete their measurements.’ Keep the distinction between a planned sequence and a completed event. If the task supplies an additional note saying that one group has finished, the word both still matters. Readiness depends on the state of the second group too.

For transfer, ask the learner to revise a message about returning borrowed materials when the display closes. A reader might need a clock time, but the child should not invent one. They can preserve the event based wording or mark the closing time as information to obtain. Clear revision keeps unknown timing visible while retaining the useful sequence.

8. while

Selected model. The writer can preserve a viewpoint while acknowledging evidence that limits the original claim.

Meaning check. Are actions overlapping, or is information being contrasted in this particular model?

Offer this fictional account: ‘While the first team preferred a spoken explanation, the second team wanted a diagram.’ Ask whether while is showing simultaneous activity or contrasting preferences. In this sentence, its main job is comparison. A summary that says ‘Both teams wanted the same explanation’ removes a difference that the organiser needs when preparing materials.

A faithful version might be, ‘The teams requested different formats: speech for the first and a diagram for the second.’ Discuss what remains unknown. Neither preference proves that every member of either team learns best in that format, and the note does not describe a permanent trait. Keep the request specific to the task and occasion.

Then give a sentence where while does mark overlapping activity: ‘One team drew while the other recorded measurements.’ Let the learner make a brief timeline or demonstrate both actions. Comparing these uses helps them preserve the intended relationship during revision instead of treating every while sentence as a statement about time.

9. before

Selected model. We inspect the original wording before deciding whether a paraphrase preserves its qualification.

Meaning check. Which event comes earlier? Show the event order without relying only on sentence order.

Create a fictional instruction card: ‘Check the measurements before cutting the card.’ A hurried summary says, ‘Cut the card and check the measurements.’ Ask the learner to act out both sequences with paper strips that can be rearranged without cutting. The shorter wording permits a different order, and checking afterwards may be too late to prevent a mistake.

Try moving the time clause: ‘Before cutting the card, check the measurements.’ The order of words changes, while the required order of actions stays the same. Ask the learner to explain that distinction to a partner. A revision is judged by the relationship it preserves, not by whether its phrases occupy the same positions.

For a less physical example, use ‘Read the source before summarising its conclusion.’ A learner can identify a proposed summary as preliminary until the source has been checked. Encourage a clear account of what was actually done; an instruction about what should happen does not prove that somebody followed it.

10. after

Selected model. After checking the evidence, we replaced the universal claim with a statement about the observed cases.

Meaning check. Which event has already happened at the reference point? Is the interval specified?

A fictional club log says, ‘After the timetable changed, three pupils began arriving later.’ A proposed summary reads, ‘The timetable change made pupils late.’ Ask what after establishes and what the revision adds. The original reports an order of events. It does not rule out other reasons for the changed arrival times, and it refers to three pupils rather than everyone.

A careful revision is, ‘Three pupils arrived later following the timetable change; the log does not explain why.’ The second clause is useful when a reader might otherwise infer a cause. If the task later supplies pupils’ explanations, those can be reported with their sources. They should not be silently written into an earlier account.

Invite the learner to name one question that would help investigate the possible connection, such as whether the pupils’ travel arrangements also changed. A good question need not settle the matter immediately. The goal is to preserve the observed sequence while making the explanatory gap easy to see.

Apply this group

Use “The revision preserves the central claim and states the limits of its supporting example.” as one starting example for an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty?

Compare it with “After checking the evidence, we replaced the universal claim with a statement about the observed cases.”. Identify the different job of the connecting word, then select the model that serves your current message. The two sentences are examples to discuss, not a script to recite.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 5 OF 19

5. Ordering events and locating them in the day

Back to contents

Word	Meaning in these models
first	identifies the beginning item, event or step in a specified order
next	identifies what follows from the current point in an order
then	introduces a following event or stage; sequence alone does not prove cause
finally	marks the ending stage in the current account
now	refers to the current moment or the present state of understanding
later	refers to a time after the current reference point
yesterday	refers to the day immediately before the current day
today	refers to the current day
tomorrow	refers to the day immediately after the current day
soon	refers to a short but unspecified interval, best supported by a clear cue

11. first

Selected model. First we distinguish the author's central idea from wording that can safely be changed.

Meaning check. What sequence is being discussed? Identify its actual beginning.

Give the learner an invented set of editing notes: ‘First identify the writer’s claim. Next check the evidence. Finally improve the phrasing.’ A shortened version begins, ‘First make the sentence sound confident.’ Ask why that changes the job. Confidence of expression has replaced accuracy as the starting point, so later improvements may polish a claim that the source never supported.

Use a modest claim such as, ‘Two testers found the large labels easier to read.’ Identify its subject, observation and limit before changing any words. A possible concise version is, ‘Large labels helped the two testers.’ Discuss whether easier to read is clearer than helped for this reader. The shortest version may lose the exact benefit that was observed.

Ask the learner to produce a three step editing plan using first once. They can record it as a diagram. Check that the first step creates information needed by the later steps, rather than merely occupying the first line of an attractive list.

12. next

Selected model. Next we test whether the revised sentence remains accurate under the stated conditions.

Meaning check. From which current point does the following step count as next?

In a fictional project meeting, one pupil says, ‘We have checked the numbers. Next we should ask whether the conclusion matches them.’ A summary reads, ‘Next we should collect the numbers.’ Ask which current stage the word next assumes. The revised instruction sends the group backwards because it loses the fact that the numbers are already available.

Write the completed action and proposed action in separate boxes. A faithful handover could say, ‘The count is complete; the next step is to check the claim against it.’ This tells a new helper what exists and what still needs attention. It also avoids suggesting that the checking has already happened.

For transfer, imagine an editor receiving a story after its author has corrected the characters’ names but has not checked the event order. Ask what should come next and why. Several sensible choices may exist, but the learner must connect their recommendation to the actual state of the work rather than reciting an identical sequence for every task.

13. then

Selected model. We checked the original claim, then read the revision back to see whether its scope had changed.

Meaning check. What order is stated? Is a causal relationship separately supported?

Read this invented report aloud: ‘The pupil read the explanation, then solved one example with a reminder.’ A revised report says, ‘The explanation enabled the pupil to solve problems independently.’ Invite the learner to locate the lost details. Then supplies a sequence, while the wider revision introduces a causal conclusion, changes one example into problems generally, and removes the reminder.

A faithful shorter account is, ‘After reading, the pupil solved one example with a reminder.’ The wording can be warm and encouraging while remaining exact. Ask what further information would be needed before claiming independent performance. The task need not demand that information now; recognising its absence is enough.

Try another pair involving a rehearsal followed by a successful performance. The learner can describe the order without claiming that rehearsal was the only cause. Encourage them to keep useful context, such as which part was practised, if it matters to the reader’s decision about what to try next.

14. finally

Selected model. Finally we retain an honest limit rather than force a confident conclusion from incomplete evidence.

Meaning check. What ends here? Is this the end of the account or of the entire activity?

An invented experiment account ends, ‘Finally, we wrote a conclusion about these three trials.’ An editor changes this to, ‘Finally, we proved which design is always best.’ Ask what finally genuinely tells a reader. It marks the last stage in the account; it does not increase the strength or reach of the evidence gathered during the earlier stages.

A sound ending could read, ‘Finally, we recorded which design performed best in our three trials.’ If the available results show a tie or mixed outcomes, the ending should reflect that instead. The desire for a satisfying final sentence does not create a single winner. Let the child decide what the supplied observations justify.

Use a transfer task about choosing a story title. The final decision may be a preference rather than a fact proved by evidence. Ask the learner to distinguish finishing a decision from establishing a universal truth. Both activities can end clearly without pretending that every open question has been answered.

15. now

Selected model. The revised claim is now narrower and more faithful to the examples actually available.

Meaning check. Which present moment or current understanding supplies the reference?

Create two dated fictional notes. Monday’s note says, ‘We think the missing label belongs to the blue box.’ Tuesday’s note says, ‘The owner has now identified it as the green box’s label.’ Ask what now contributes. It signals that the present state of knowledge differs from the earlier tentative view, without requiring the earlier writer to have been dishonest.

A concise account is, ‘The label was first thought to belong to the blue box; its owner has now identified the green box.’ Check that the source of the correction remains visible. If there are two owners or two green boxes in the scenario, add the relevant name or identifier rather than relying on confidence of tone.

Invite the learner to revise a fictional notice after a room booking changes. The notice should distinguish current arrangements from the old message, especially if both versions remain visible. Ask a partner which arrangement they would follow and what in the revised wording establishes that it is the current one.

16. later

Selected model. A later revision may be needed if new evidence changes the limits of the current conclusion.

Meaning check. What familiar event or record helps identify the later time?

An invented story plan says, ‘The group will explain its choice later, after comparing the two drawings.’ A summary reads, ‘The group chose the first drawing because it was clearer.’ Ask the learner which information has been supplied and which has been filled in. The original promises a later explanation but gives neither the choice nor its reason.

A faithful revision is, ‘The group plans to compare the drawings before explaining its choice.’ The learner can state that the explanation is pending, without treating pending information as a failure. If a reader needs a deadline, that is a separate information gap. Later does not specify an exact date or time.

For a second task, give three events with a known sequence but no measured intervals. Ask the learner to write a short account using later while preserving that limitation. ‘Later that morning’ would add information unless the scenario supplies it. Practise choosing the narrowest time expression that the record actually supports.

17. yesterday

Selected model. The claim we wrote yesterday needs revision because a new observation changes its apparent scope.

Meaning check. Does this refer to the preceding day, or is another past reference needed?

Use an imaginary diary dated Thursday: ‘Yesterday, our group tested the two signs.’ A report written on Saturday repeats, ‘Yesterday, the group tested the signs.’ Ask the learner to place both statements on a weekly calendar. The copied time word now points to a different day because the reporting date has changed.

Repair the report with, ‘The group tested the signs on Wednesday,’ if the supplied calendar establishes that date, or ‘The group tested the signs the day before Thursday’s diary entry.’ In an ordinary article, a full date may be more useful than a weekday alone. The exercise can stay within its imaginary week without inventing a real calendar date.

Ask the child to summarise an audio message whose speaker says yesterday. They should identify the message date before converting the reference. If it is unavailable, a faithful summary can preserve the speaker’s wording with attribution. The important habit is to notice that a time expression travels with its original context, not automatically with the new report.

18. today

Selected model. Today we are testing whether a concise revision preserves the author's intended meaning.

Meaning check. Which current day or dated record is meant?

An invented notice dated Monday says, ‘Today we are collecting preferences for the class display.’ A summary placed in a folder two weeks later says, ‘Preferences are being collected today.’ Discuss why a reader may be misled even though the sentence was accurate when written. Today depends on the date of the original message, which the summary has left behind.

A useful revision could say, ‘The Monday notice invited pupils to submit their display preferences that day.’ This preserves the invitation as a past event and avoids implying that the collection is still open. If the purpose is to give current instructions, the writer must first check whether the organiser has set another collection period.

For transfer, let the learner compare two fictional notices with different dates. Ask them to mark which claims were current on each date and which remain useful without a date. This encourages selective editing: keep the time reference where it changes the meaning, rather than attaching unnecessary dates to every ordinary sentence.

19. tomorrow

Selected model. Tomorrow we may reconsider the conclusion if the relevant new information arrives.

Meaning check. Is the next-day plan certain, conditional or only hoped for?

Write a fictional message on a card labelled Tuesday: ‘Tomorrow we may test the revised map if the library is available.’ An enthusiastic retelling says, ‘The revised map will be tested tomorrow.’ Ask which two conditions on meaning have changed. The reporting day may differ, and may plus if has been replaced by an unqualified will.

A careful summary is, ‘On Tuesday, the group proposed testing the map the following day, subject to the library being available.’ The child can use simpler wording: ‘The group hoped to test it on Wednesday if the library was free.’ Discuss whether hoped is the best match for may in this particular source; the model can be adjusted to avoid attributing an emotion or intention the source does not express.

Try a new source that says ‘We have booked the room for tomorrow.’ Ask what this confirms and what it does not guarantee about the activity itself. Good revision preserves the confirmed booking while leaving ordinary future outcomes distinct from completed events.

20. soon

Selected model. We will finish soon after checking that the last revision preserves the necessary qualification.

Meaning check. What observable endpoint makes the imprecise interval easier to anticipate?

A fictional organiser writes, ‘We expect to reply soon after the last entry is checked.’ A summary announces, ‘Everyone will receive a reply today.’ Ask why the added precision is unsupported. Soon gives an approximate interval, expect signals an expectation, and the checking supplies a condition. None of these establishes the end of the current day as a deadline.

Repair the summary by retaining the relationship: ‘A reply is expected after the final entry has been checked.’ If waiting readers need a clearer estimate, the writer can ask the organiser for one. They should not manufacture a time simply because a specific deadline would make the notice easier to use.

For practice, give the learner two messages: ‘The bus should arrive soon’ and ‘The bus is scheduled for ten minutes from now.’ Ask which offers a checkable time reference and which remains approximate. Keep both attached to invented situations. The task is to compare the claims in the wording, not to promise that a schedule always predicts what will happen.

Apply this group

Use “First we distinguish the author's central idea from wording that can safely be changed.” as one starting example for an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty?

Compare it with “We will finish soon after checking that the last revision preserves the necessary qualification.”. Identify the different job of the connecting word, then select the model that serves your current message. The two sentences are examples to discuss, not a script to recite.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 6 OF 19

6. Questions, ownership questions and checking uncertainty

Back to contents

Word	Meaning in these models
who	asks about a person or introduces identifying information about a person
what	asks for or identifies information about a thing, action, event or idea
where	asks about or identifies a place, position or area of application
which	selects or identifies an option from a recoverable set
why	asks for a reason or cause; an answer may remain uncertain
how	asks about method, manner, degree or the way information connects
whose	asks about or identifies ownership, association or authorship
whether	introduces uncertainty or alternatives about a possibility
question	an inquiry that requests information, clarification or consideration
answer	a response that addresses an inquiry; it can be limited or uncertain

21. who

Selected model. The revision preserves who made the claim rather than presenting a reported view as established fact.

Meaning check. Which participant needs identifying before the rest of the message can be followed?

Give two invented statements: ‘Nora thinks the narrow path is quicker’ and ‘The narrow path is quicker.’ Ask who is responsible for the view in each version. The first names a person’s judgement. The second presents the judgement directly, leaving a reader to assume that the writer accepts it as an established fact.

A faithful summary could say, ‘Nora considers the narrow path quicker.’ It need not repeat every original word, but it must preserve the attribution. Add a separate statement from Idris, who prefers the wider path because it is easier to follow. His preference does not necessarily contradict Nora’s claim about speed; they may be considering different features.

Ask the learner to summarise the two views in one sentence that keeps both people identifiable. Then remove the names and read it again. If a new reader cannot tell who judged which feature, restore enough information to make the comparison fair and usable.

22. what

Selected model. What remains true after the wording is shortened and the claim's limits are made explicit?

Meaning check. What kind of information does the question request: an event, object, idea or change?

An invented observation sheet says, ‘The paper bridge bent in the middle when the third counter was added.’ A summary says, ‘The bridge was badly designed.’ Ask what the sheet actually records. It supplies a visible change and a condition; the summary replaces these with an evaluation that may need additional criteria or comparisons.

Try, ‘Adding the third counter was followed by a bend in the bridge’s centre.’ In this controlled fictional action, the simpler original wording may be clearer, so revision is optional. The point is to retain the observable event rather than automatically replacing concrete details with abstract judgement.

Ask what a designer would need to know next: where the supports stood, how the bridge was made, or whether the intended task required three counters. Let the learner select one question relevant to the stated purpose. A useful summary preserves information that allows the next decision; it does not merely sound more formal.

23. where

Selected model. The revision clarifies where the claim applies rather than extending it silently to every setting.

Meaning check. Is this a physical place, a textual position or the scope of a statement?

Read a fictional report: ‘The signs were easy to see in the bright entrance hall.’ Its summary says, ‘The signs were easy to see throughout the building.’ Ask where the observation applies. A location phrase can be part of the evidence’s boundary, rather than decorative detail that an editor may safely remove.

A faithful revision is, ‘Visibility was good in the entrance hall during the check.’ If the source says nothing about the time or lighting, those details should not be added. Here the bright setting is supplied, so retaining it may matter before anyone recommends the same design for a dim corridor.

Draw a simple floor plan with only the hall marked as checked. Ask the learner to colour confirmed locations and leave the rest unmarked. Then write a sentence that matches that picture. This visual check makes an overextended claim obvious: language about the whole building should not outrun the area represented by the evidence.

24. which

Selected model. Which qualification must remain if the shorter wording is to preserve the original claim?

Meaning check. What set of options and selection criterion does the listener need?

Set out three imaginary feedback cards: one praises a story’s opening, one finds its middle confusing, and one has not been completed. A summary says, ‘The feedback was positive.’ Ask which cards support that judgement and which have been overlooked. A blank response is not automatically a positive or negative opinion.

Revise with, ‘One reader praised the opening, while another found the middle confusing; the third card is blank.’ The statement is longer than the vague summary, but it gives the author an accurate basis for revision. If space is limited, ‘The two completed responses identify different strengths and difficulties’ may serve, provided those details are available nearby.

Invite the learner to choose which response should guide a specific edit to the middle. They should explain the selection criterion, not simply select the friendliest comment. Finish by checking that a summary of selected feedback is labelled as selected rather than presented as the complete set.

25. why

Selected model. Why would removing this phrase make the conclusion stronger than its evidence allows?

Meaning check. Can the reason be checked, or should the account explicitly remain uncertain?

Use an invented dialogue. ‘Why did you choose the blue cover?’ asks a partner. ‘I could read its title more easily,’ the pupil replies. A report says, ‘The pupil chose blue because it is their favourite colour.’ Ask why that explanation is unfaithful even if blue really is a favourite in another context.

The supplied answer gives a particular reason for this particular choice. A concise report is, ‘The pupil preferred the blue cover for its readable title.’ If favourite colour is also mentioned later, it can be recorded as another stated influence, with the relationship between the reasons kept clear.

For transfer, present a choice with no explanation at all. Ask the learner to generate a question that invites the chooser’s own reason. Compare ‘Why did you choose this?’ with ‘You chose this because it is prettier, didn’t you?’ Discuss how the second question supplies an answer before the person has given one.

26. how

Selected model. How can we make the claim concise while keeping its conditions and uncertainty visible?

Meaning check. Would showing the method answer the question more clearly than adding another sentence?

A fictional group explains its count: ‘We put one token beside every returned book, then counted the tokens.’ A summary says, ‘We counted all the books accurately.’ Ask how the group obtained its total and whether the source proves accuracy. The method is described, but a missed book or misplaced token is still possible.

A faithful concise version is, ‘The group counted returned books using one token per book.’ A separate checking action, if supplied, can strengthen the account: another pupil might compare the tokens with the stack. Do not turn that possible check into something the group definitely did.

Ask the learner to explain the method to someone who has not seen it. That listener can identify any missing step, such as when a token is removed. The response to how should make the process recoverable. A confident adjective such as carefully may express an impression, but it cannot replace the actions needed to understand the method.

27. whose

Selected model. Whose conclusion are we reporting rather than adopting as our own established finding?

Meaning check. Who owns or contributed the material? Is attribution known or merely assumed?

Offer an invented display label: ‘Pattern designed by Aisha; model assembled by Ben and Mei.’ A shortened label reads, ‘Ben and Mei’s design.’ Ask whose contribution has changed. The possessive form can imply authorship, so shortening the label has accidentally transferred credit from the designer to the people who assembled the model.

A compact repair is, ‘Aisha’s design, assembled by Ben and Mei.’ The wording keeps distinct kinds of contribution visible. It does not require ranking those contributions or deciding that one matters more. If the participants disagree about who did what, the editor should ask them rather than infer ownership from who presents the finished object.

For practice, give separate cards for writer, illustrator and reader of an invented class story. Ask the learner to make a short attribution line that fits the actual task. Check whether a possessive phrase would remain clear when several people share a name or when the audience has not met the contributors.

28. whether

Selected model. We can check whether the paraphrase preserves the difference between a possibility and a certainty.

Meaning check. Which possibility is unresolved? What information could help settle it?

Read this fictional note: ‘We have not yet checked whether the taller shelf fits beside the door.’ A revised plan says, ‘The taller shelf fits beside the door.’ Ask what has happened to the unresolved question. Whether introduces a possibility to be checked; deleting that frame has turned an unknown result into a positive finding.

A faithful revision is, ‘The shelf’s fit beside the door is still unconfirmed.’ The learner can use simpler language if preferred: ‘We still need to check if it fits.’ Both preserve the information gap. A drawing that looks plausible is not automatically a measurement in this scenario.

Add a width measurement but leave the door’s opening space unspecified. Ask whether the new information settles every practical concern. The child may identify a narrower confirmed fact while keeping another question open. This is a useful revision skill: evidence can resolve part of a whether question without licensing an unrestricted statement that everything will work.

29. question

Selected model. A useful question can expose a missing condition that a confident conclusion had hidden.

Meaning check. What information gap gives the inquiry its purpose?

An invented survey asks, ‘Why is the new reading corner better than the old one?’ Invite the learner to identify the assumption hidden in the question. A respondent who prefers the old corner has no straightforward way to answer without first challenging the premise. The wording may shape the information collected.

Try a more open question: ‘What differences do you notice between the two reading corners?’ A follow-up can ask which features the respondent prefers and why. This separates description from judgement and allows mixed answers. The learner need not make every question broad; a focused question can be useful when it names a genuine information need without supplying the conclusion.

For transfer, give a fictional request to improve a lunch menu. Ask the child to write one question about a specific feature and one about overall preference. Check that the eventual report answers the questions actually asked rather than claiming a wider endorsement from a narrow response.

30. answer

Selected model. The final answer can be limited and provisional when the available evidence is limited.

Meaning check. Which part of the inquiry does the response address, and what does it leave open?

A fictional pupil is asked, ‘Which route was shorter, and which was easier to follow?’ Their answer is, ‘The garden route had fewer turns.’ Ask which part of the question this addresses. Fewer turns may be relevant to ease of following, but it does not establish the route’s distance or the pupil’s actual judgement of difficulty.

A careful summary is, ‘The pupil noted fewer turns on the garden route; the response did not compare distances.’ This describes the available answer without criticising the person for failing to supply information they may not have measured. A useful follow-up can ask about distance separately.

Give the learner a second answer: ‘I found the garden route easier, but I do not know which was shorter.’ Ask them to preserve both the preference and the uncertainty in a concise report. An answer can be helpful while incomplete. Editing should make its coverage clear rather than fill the remaining space with a plausible guess.

Apply this group

Use “The revision preserves who made the claim rather than presenting a reported view as established fact.” as one starting example for an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty?

Compare it with “The final answer can be limited and provisional when the available evidence is limited.”. Identify the different job of the connecting word, then select the model that serves your current message. The two sentences are examples to discuss, not a script to recite.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 7 OF 19

7. Keeping objects, ideas and groups identifiable

Back to contents

Word	Meaning in these models
this	identifies one currently focused item or idea
that	identifies an item or idea, or introduces a clause in a larger statement
these	identifies more than one currently focused item or idea
those	identifies a recoverable set through distance, contrast or earlier reference
it	refers to a recoverable singular item or idea, or forms an impersonal expression
they	refers to an identified group or to a person using they
them	refers to an identified group or person using they as an object or recipient
one	a single member, or a substitute for an understood countable noun
another	an additional or different member, example or possibility of a known kind
both	the two members of an identified pair

31. this

Selected model. This revision narrows the claim without removing its central useful information.

Meaning check. Could another nearby item or idea fit this reference? Add a noun if needed.

An invented paragraph describes a new timetable, a shorter break and a larger classroom. It ends, ‘This made the afternoon easier.’ Ask what this refers to. The writer may mean the timetable alone or the combination of changes. A concise sentence is not clear if a reader must guess which event supports its conclusion.

Try two repairs: ‘The revised timetable made the afternoon easier to organise’ and ‘Together, these changes made the afternoon easier to organise.’ Ask the original writer which matches the intended claim. Neither repair should be chosen merely because it sounds better; they attribute the effect differently.

For transfer, ask the learner to underline this in a short fictional report and write its referent in the margin. If two answers fit, add a precise noun such as this change or this observation. Then check the evidence again. Clarifying what a claim concerns does not by itself prove that the claimed effect occurred.

32. that

Selected model. The writer acknowledges that the evidence does not establish a universal rule.

Meaning check. Is the word pointing to something or introducing a clause?

Compare two invented sentences: ‘The organiser said that the room might be available’ and ‘That room is available.’ In the first, that introduces the content of a reported statement. In the second, it helps identify a room. Ask the learner to explain why removing the reporting frame changes more than the sentence’s length.

A faithful summary is, ‘The organiser suggested that the room might be available.’ Check whether suggested matches said in the scenario; if the tone is unknown, retain the neutral said. The key information is the source and the possibility, not a stronger claim about a confirmed booking.

Next, place two room pictures on a table and ask which room that identifies in a spoken message. A pointing gesture may help face to face but disappear in writing. Let the learner replace the gesture with a room name supplied in the task. The two uses of that require different kinds of checking during revision.

33. these

Selected model. These qualifications keep the conclusion aligned with the scope of its examples.

Meaning check. Which set of items or ideas is being referred to? Name its boundary.

Show three invented trial records on separate cards. Two concern paper boats on still water; the third concerns a cardboard raft in moving water. A draft concludes, ‘These tests show that the boat design is stable.’ Ask which tests these is meant to include and whether the records concern comparable designs and conditions.

A narrower statement might be, ‘In the two still-water trials, the paper boats remained upright.’ The raft card can be discussed separately. The learner does not need specialist terminology to see that a plural reference must identify the relevant set. Putting all available papers in one pile does not make them evidence for the same claim.

For transfer, use a set of story comments about different chapters. Ask the child to introduce these comments with a noun phrase that names the chapter or feature they address. Then check that a following conclusion remains within that set, especially when other comments elsewhere in the folder report a different experience.

34. those

Selected model. Those stronger claims require support beyond the two examples discussed here.

Meaning check. Can a new listener recover the intended set without the original pointing gesture?

An invented discussion contains two suggestions: shorten the notice and move it nearer the entrance. A later message says, ‘Those ideas were rejected.’ Ask whether a new reader can recover which ideas those refers to and who rejected them. Distance from the original conversation can make an apparently simple reference unreliable.

Try, ‘The two suggestions about the notice’s length and position were rejected.’ If only one suggestion was rejected, the revision must name that one. A plural phrase should not make a decision apply to options that were never considered or were still open.

Ask the learner to prepare a handover for someone who missed the meeting. They can use a short list to establish the options before using those. The listener should be able to point to the correct items using the message alone. This tests reference, not memory of a shared conversation, and keeps the report’s account of agreement or rejection proportionate.

35. it

Selected model. The original conclusion was tentative; it should remain tentative in the paraphrase.

Meaning check. Name the referent. Would another singular noun create an ambiguity?

Read an invented note: ‘The poster was placed beside the timetable, but it was difficult to read.’ Ask which item it names. Both poster and timetable are singular, so the sentence may be ambiguous. A summary that chooses one without checking could direct the next person to repair the wrong item.

Prepare two clear versions, one naming the poster and one naming the timetable. Ask the imagined author which observation they intended. If the author is unavailable, preserve the uncertainty rather than quietly selecting the more likely object. A report can state that the note does not identify which item was difficult to read.

For transfer, give a paragraph containing a claim and its supporting example. Ask whether a later it refers to the claim, the example or the whole situation. Adding a noun phrase can be more helpful than rewriting the entire paragraph. The aim is a recoverable reference, not avoiding pronouns altogether.

36. they

Selected model. The revised statements retain their conditions, so they do not imply certainty beyond the records.

Meaning check. Identify the group or person referred to before continuing the account.

A fictional report says, ‘The five pupils who tested the game said they understood the first rule.’ A shortened version reads, ‘Pupils understood the rules.’ Ask which boundaries disappear. They originally refers to five identified testers, and their report concerns the first rule. The summary broadens both the group and the material understood.

A faithful revision is, ‘The five testers reported understanding the first rule.’ Discuss why reported remains useful. A self-report about understanding is meaningful, but it is a different observation from seeing each pupil apply every rule without help. The account should identify which evidence was collected.

Now add a second group that has not tried the game. Ask the learner to use they in a paragraph without merging the two groups. A repeated group name may be needed when the subject changes. Invite a listener to track each they with coloured counters and flag any point where the intended group becomes unclear.

37. them

Selected model. We retain the relevant limits rather than remove them merely to make the conclusion sound decisive.

Meaning check. Who receives or is affected by the action? Is the group already identified?

An invented instruction says, ‘Give the completed feedback forms to the two organisers so they can compare them.’ Ask the learner to identify the receiver and the object being compared. Them refers to the forms, while they refers to the organisers. Shortening both references without checking can blur who acts on what.

Try a concise handover: ‘The two organisers will compare the completed forms.’ This preserves the action and participants but omits the delivery step. Decide whether that omission is acceptable for a summary or harmful in an instruction intended for someone carrying the forms. A good edit depends on the reader’s purpose.

For transfer, offer a report about returning drawings to their creators. Ask the child to distinguish the drawings from the people when replacing nouns with pronouns. If a sentence has several plausible referents, restore one noun. The learner should be able to show the movement or relationship using objects before deciding that the final wording is clear.

38. one

Selected model. One concise qualification may preserve an important limit in the final claim.

Meaning check. Which understood noun does this substitute for, or is an exact single member intended?

An invented notebook records, ‘One of the four models stayed upright during the trial.’ A summary reads, ‘The model stayed upright.’ Ask what one contributes. It identifies a single member of a known group, and the original result may be important precisely because the other three did not have the same outcome.

A faithful version is, ‘Only one of the four models stayed upright,’ but include ‘only’ only if the record confirms that the other three fell. If the source merely notes one model and says nothing about the others, the stronger wording is not justified. This small distinction gives a useful reason to inspect the whole record.

For transfer, use one as a substitute: ‘The red label was clearer than the blue one.’ Ask which noun one replaces and which feature was compared. The child can shorten the sentence without dropping the comparison, but should not turn one clear feature into a claim that the whole object is superior.

39. another

Selected model. Another plausible explanation can remain open when the evidence does not distinguish the possibilities.

Meaning check. Is this an additional member or a replacement? Show the difference.

An invented account suggests that a visitor missed the notice because it was too small. A partner proposes another explanation: the notice may have been hidden by an open door. Ask what another adds. It keeps an additional possibility available; it does not automatically prove that the first explanation is wrong or the second is correct.

A careful revision is, ‘The missed notice could reflect its size, its position behind the door, or a combination of factors.’ Use this only when the scenario makes those possibilities relevant. The learner can then ask which observation would help distinguish them, such as whether the notice remains visible when the door opens.

Try a replacement use of another: ‘This label is torn; choose another.’ Here the new label replaces the damaged one rather than adding a second label to the same place. Ask the child to demonstrate the difference between another explanation and another label, then choose wording that preserves the intended relationship.

40. both

Selected model. Both revisions are grammatical, but only one preserves the original degree of uncertainty.

Meaning check. Identify the pair and the property shared by its two members.

Offer two invented reviews. Review A says the story’s opening is clear. Review B says the ending is memorable. A summary reads, ‘Both reviewers praised the opening.’ Ask what both commits the writer to. It applies the same statement to each member of an identified pair, so it cannot merge two different compliments into one shared judgement.

A faithful summary is, ‘Both reviews are positive about an aspect of the story: one praises the opening and the other the ending.’ If a reader needs detailed editing advice, retaining the two separate comments is more useful than saying the story received praise. The distinction matters even when the overall tone is favourable.

For transfer, give two designs with one shared feature and one difference. Ask the learner to write a true both sentence about the shared feature and a separate contrast about the difference. Check that the shared statement names a precise property rather than implying that the designs match in every respect.

Apply this group

Use “This revision narrows the claim without removing its central useful information.” as one starting example for an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty?

Compare it with “Both revisions are grammatical, but only one preserves the original degree of uncertainty.”. Identify the different job of the connecting word, then select the model that serves your current message. The two sentences are examples to discuss, not a script to recite.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 8 OF 19

8. Ownership, contributions and members of a set

Back to contents

Word	Meaning in these models
my	the speaker's possession, association or contribution before a noun
your	the listener's possession, association or contribution before a noun
our	possession, association or contribution of a group including the speaker
their	possession or association of an identified group or person using they
his	possession or association of an identified male person
her	possession before a noun, or an identified female person as an object
mine	the speaker's possession or contribution without a following noun
yours	the listener's possession or contribution without a following noun
each	every member considered individually within a defined set
every	all members of a stated set; the claim must allow no exception within that set

41. my

Selected model. My conclusion can change when new evidence shows that its original scope was too broad.

Meaning check. Who is speaking, and what contribution or association is genuinely theirs?

An invented pupil reflection says, ‘My second explanation was easier for my partner to follow.’ An editor changes it to, ‘Second explanations are easier to follow.’ Ask how my limits the original account. The pupil describes a particular attempt and a particular listener, not a general rule about everyone’s repeated explanations.

A concise report could say, ‘The pupil’s partner followed the second explanation more easily.’ Check what evidence supports that judgement in the task. Perhaps the partner completed the instructions correctly or said what became clearer. If the source only reports the pupil’s impression, keep that source visible instead of presenting the partner’s experience as independently established.

Invite the learner to write a short reflection beginning with my and supported by one concrete example. Then ask them to summarise it in the third person. The change in viewpoint should preserve who experienced the difficulty, who supplied feedback and how much the example actually shows about the learner’s progress.

42. your

Selected model. Your revision is more precise because it preserves the condition while removing an unnecessary repetition.

Meaning check. Who is being addressed? Would changing the listener change the reference?

Read a fictional exchange: ‘Your map helped me find the hall,’ says a visitor to Hana. A report says, ‘Your map helped visitors find the hall.’ Ask who your refers to in each setting. A direct quotation addresses Hana, but the report’s reader may be someone else. The plural visitors also broadens the original single response.

A faithful summary is, ‘One visitor told Hana that her map helped them find the hall.’ If the visitor’s preferred pronoun is unspecified, singular them keeps the sentence clear without inventing personal information. The important point is that one piece of feedback remains one piece of feedback.

For transfer, give a note reading, ‘Your explanation needs an example.’ Ask the learner to name the intended recipient before forwarding or summarising it. Feedback can become confusing when a direct address is copied into a new context. A clear report identifies the writer, recipient and specific work being discussed.

43. our

Selected model. Our final wording reflects the evidence available rather than a preferred sounding conclusion.

Meaning check. Which people are included? Was the activity or judgement actually shared?

A fictional group writes, ‘Our results show that Design B carried more counters in these two trials.’ A summary for a class newsletter reads, ‘Our school proved that Design B is strongest.’ Ask what our includes in each version. The small testing group has become the whole school, while a limited comparison has become a broad proof.

A careful revision is, ‘The group found that Design B carried more counters in its two trials.’ This keeps the result useful without speaking for people who did not participate. It also names the measured feature, since strongest might include durability, stiffness or other properties that the trials did not examine.

Ask the learner to prepare a team statement using our. Before accepting it, have the fictional contributors identify which decisions or findings they actually share. One pupil’s opinion can appear with attribution, but should not automatically become our opinion merely because it is written on the group’s final sheet.

44. their

Selected model. The writers revised their claims after checking a limitation in the supporting record.

Meaning check. Which identified group or person supplies the possessive reference?

An invented meeting note says, ‘The art group preferred a colourful cover; the library group preferred larger lettering.’ A summary reads, ‘Their main concern was the cover colour.’ Ask which group their is meant to represent and whether the statement merges two distinct priorities.

Try, ‘The groups expressed different priorities: colour for the art group and letter size for the library group.’ This does not imply that either group disliked the other feature. A preference on one question should not be stretched into a complete account of a group’s views. Keep the wording tied to the actual discussion.

For transfer, give two pairs of pupils different reasons for choosing a game. Ask the learner to use their in a paragraph that keeps each pair identifiable. When the referent changes, repeat the group name. Let a new reader match every reported reason to its source without having to infer which people are being described from the writer’s tone.

45. his

Selected model. His revised claim is narrower because the original example applied to only one arrangement.

Meaning check. Is the person identified, and is the claimed possession or contribution known?

Read this invented sentence: ‘Arun showed Ben his revised explanation.’ Ask whose explanation was revised. Both names could supply the referent of his. A polished summary that chooses Ben’s work without checking may misattribute the contribution, even though every individual word is grammatically ordinary.

Write two alternatives: ‘Arun showed Ben Arun’s revised explanation’ and ‘Arun showed Ben the revision of Ben’s explanation.’ These versions are deliberately explicit. Once the intended ownership is established, the learner can make the sentence smoother while preserving that information. Clarity may require changing the sentence structure rather than simply deleting a repeated name.

For a second task, attribute a comment accurately: ‘Ben said his explanation was unfinished.’ A summary should preserve that Ben is reporting the state of his own work. Ask whether the available source supports a wider judgement about its quality. Unfinished does not by itself mean inaccurate, careless or unhelpful.

46. her

Selected model. Her paraphrase preserves the original uncertainty while making the reference clearer.

Meaning check. Is this possession before a noun or a reference to a recipient or object?

Offer a fictional note: ‘Mei thanked Sara for checking her account of the trip.’ Ask whether her names Mei’s account or Sara’s. The likely interpretation may feel obvious in conversation, yet a report read later can lack the shared context that made it obvious to the participants.

A clear revision is, ‘Mei thanked Sara for checking Mei’s trip account,’ if that is the supplied meaning. Then ask what checking involved. Correcting spelling, confirming dates and verifying events are different contributions. The writer should not turn a general thanks into a claim that Sara independently confirmed every detail.

Try a transfer sentence in which her is the person receiving an action: ‘The organiser gave her the corrected list.’ Ask the learner to identify both the recipient and the document. Comparing these uses encourages them to trace the actual relationship expressed by the word instead of assuming that her always indicates ownership.

47. mine

Selected model. This conclusion is mine to revise when relevant new information changes its support.

Meaning check. Would the ownership reference change if another person said the sentence?

An invented dialogue reads, ‘The blue notebook is mine, but the diagram inside it was drawn by Kiran.’ A summary says, ‘The speaker drew the diagram in their notebook.’ Ask why ownership of the object does not establish authorship of everything it contains. Mine identifies the notebook’s owner; the second clause deliberately gives different information about the diagram.

A faithful version is, ‘The speaker owns the notebook, while Kiran drew its diagram.’ Neither contribution needs to disappear for the sentence to become concise. If the discussion concerns permission to reproduce the diagram, knowing who owns the notebook may not answer the relevant question.

For practice, use a folder containing several pupils’ fictional contributions. Ask the learner to distinguish ‘This folder is mine’ from ‘This work is mine.’ Let them label ownership, authorship and borrowing separately where needed. The goal is accurate relationships, not a contest over which contributor can claim the largest part of the finished project.

48. yours

Selected model. The final wording is yours to approve after checking that it preserves the intended scope.

Meaning check. Does the listener have a genuine choice about this personal contribution?

A fictional tutor says, ‘This suggestion is mine; the final choice is yours.’ A report reads, ‘The tutor chose the final wording.’ Ask what yours preserves about the learner’s role. It assigns the decision to the person being addressed, even though the tutor has contributed an option.

A careful summary is, ‘The tutor offered a suggestion and left the final wording to the learner.’ If the learner accepts the suggestion, the report can record both the support and the choice. It should not imply that the wording was produced without help, or that receiving help removed the learner’s contribution altogether.

Ask the child to compare ‘Is this draft yours?’ with ‘Did you write every sentence without help?’ These questions are related but not identical. A draft may belong to a learner who received support. In the task, record the assistance accurately and keep the possessive form yours free of an apostrophe when writing the final version.

49. each

Selected model. Each qualification should be checked for meaning before being removed as unnecessary wording.

Meaning check. What defined set is considered one member at a time?

An invented checklist says, ‘Each of the four models was tested once.’ A summary reads, ‘The models were thoroughly tested.’ Ask what each establishes. It tells us that the stated action applied to all four individual models in the defined set. It does not say that there were many trials, varied conditions or a complete investigation.

A faithful concise account is, ‘All four models received one test.’ The learner can create four boxes and put one mark in each to represent the evidence. If one box is empty, the original each sentence is unsupported. If a box has three marks, the phrase once needs reconsidering even though every model was tested.

For transfer, ask the learner to write a handover about feedback given to group members. Distinguish a comment addressed to the group from an individual comment for each person. A useful record names what happened, allowing the next tutor to see which learners have received personal feedback and which have not.

50. every

Selected model. Every universal claim needs scrutiny when its support comes from a small set of examples.

Meaning check. Could a member of the stated set be an exception? Check before keeping the claim.

A fictional observer checks six library labels and finds one spelling error. A draft says, ‘Every label is correct.’ Ask the learner to test the universal wording against the single exception. Every applies to the whole identified set, so one incorrect label is enough to make that claim false for the six labels checked.

A repair could say, ‘Five of the six checked labels were correct.’ If there are more labels elsewhere, keep checked in the sentence to avoid implying that the entire library has been examined. The learner can write a separate practical instruction: ‘Correct the error on the sixth label.’ This combines a proportionate report with a useful action.

For transfer, compare ‘Every label was checked’ with ‘Every label was correct.’ The first describes coverage of an action; the second describes its result. Ask the child to invent a small scenario in which the first is true and the second is false, then explain the difference to a partner.

Apply this group

Use “My conclusion can change when new evidence shows that its original scope was too broad.” as one starting example for an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty?

Compare it with “Every universal claim needs scrutiny when its support comes from a small set of examples.”. Identify the different job of the connecting word, then select the model that serves your current message. The two sentences are examples to discuss, not a script to recite.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 9 OF 19

9. Locating a scene and showing a crossing

Back to contents

Word	Meaning in these models
in	location within a place, text, account or other identified frame
on	location on a surface, or dependence and support in an abstract relation
under	a lower position or the conditions within which a statement applies
above	a higher position or an earlier visible position in a layout
below	a lower position or a later visible position in a layout
beside	a position at the side of another identified item
behind	a position at the back, or reasoning and circumstances underlying something
between	a relation or space involving identified reference points or alternatives
across	movement or comparison extending over an identified space or set
through	movement within a passage or progression through a process or explanation

51. in

Selected model. The necessary qualification remains in the final sentence after the revision.

Meaning check. What place, text or conceptual frame contains the relevant information?

Put this invented qualification inside a source paragraph: ‘In the two afternoon trials, the wide ramp was quicker.’ A summary says, ‘The wide ramp was quicker.’ Ask what the opening phrase contains: it names the set of observations within which the result was recorded. Removing it may make a reader assume a much wider comparison.

A concise repair is, ‘The wide ramp was quicker in both afternoon trials.’ The qualification can move within the sentence while keeping its limiting role. If the morning trials produced different results, that further context matters when summarising the whole investigation. A report of selected trials should not present itself as a report of every trial.

For transfer, ask the learner to place a necessary condition in a short final sentence rather than leaving it only in their private notes. A reader cannot use a limit they never receive. Check that the condition is visible where the main claim is stated and remains understandable without the editor explaining it aloud.

52. on

Selected model. The revised wording is on a separate card so its meaning can be compared with the original.

Meaning check. Does this model describe a surface location or an abstract basis for a statement?

Create two cards: an original fictional statement on white paper and a revision on blue paper. The source says, ‘Three readers said the new ending surprised them.’ The revision says, ‘The ending surprised every reader.’ Ask the learner to place a finger on the exact words that change the group being described.

Keeping the versions on separate cards makes the comparison recoverable. The child can move the cards together, mark a correction and read both aloud. A faithful revision might say, ‘The three responding readers found the new ending surprising.’ Check whether responding adds a fact supplied by the task; if all that is known is three readers, keep that simpler description.

Now discuss ‘on the evidence available’. Here on names the basis of a judgement, not a paper surface. Ask which card contains that evidence and which contains the claim. The learner should be able to trace the conclusion back to something specific instead of using the phrase as a decoration that makes an unsupported sentence sound authoritative.

53. under

Selected model. The claim applies under the conditions described rather than under every possible arrangement.

Meaning check. Is the word about position or about the conditions limiting a claim?

An invented craft test reports, ‘Under dry indoor conditions, the paper joints held for ten minutes.’ A summary says, ‘The joints are durable.’ Ask the learner which conditions and duration have been lost. Under introduces the circumstances within which the observation applies; it is not a minor detail if the design will later be used somewhere wet.

Try, ‘The paper joints held during a ten-minute dry indoor test.’ This is concise and preserves the record’s scope. It does not claim that moisture would make the joints fail, because that would require another observation. A careful limitation identifies what was tested without pretending to know every untested outcome.

For transfer, use a game rule that applies under a particular scoring arrangement. Ask the child to explain why changing the arrangement could make an old conclusion unsuitable. They can identify the changed condition first, then decide whether more information is needed before carrying the earlier claim into the new situation.

54. above

Selected model. The qualification above the final example still limits the conclusion that follows.

Meaning check. Which layout or physical reference point makes the higher position meaningful?

A fictional worksheet places the sentence ‘All figures are estimates’ above a table of journey times. A pupil copies the table into a report but leaves the sentence behind. Ask what the reader now loses. The note’s position above the table does not make it optional; it tells the reader how to interpret every figure beneath it.

A repair can integrate the qualification into the table’s heading: ‘Estimated journey times’. If the report uses prose instead, include estimated beside the relevant numbers. The learner can shorten the note while preserving its function. They should not add decimal places that imply precision absent from the source.

For transfer, rearrange two short sections on a sheet. A phrase such as ‘the example above’ may now point to the wrong material. Ask the child to replace it with a descriptive reference when needed. Editing layout and editing meaning are connected: moving material can break a relationship even when every individual sentence remains unchanged.

55. below

Selected model. The alternative wording below the original should preserve its uncertainty rather than silently remove it.

Meaning check. Which reference point makes the lower position meaningful? Does position imply importance here?

Place an invented original statement above two revisions: ‘The group may finish today if the remaining pieces arrive.’ Below it, write ‘The group will finish today’ and ‘Finishing today depends on the remaining pieces arriving.’ Ask the learner which version preserves the condition and which one strengthens the prediction.

The lower position of a sentence does not mean it is a correction or the preferred answer. Mark the alternatives clearly so readers know their roles. If the learner selects the second revision, discuss whether it keeps the original may: even with the pieces present, completion is still only possible unless the source promises it.

A closer repair is, ‘The group may finish today, provided the remaining pieces arrive.’ For transfer, ask the child to label two alternative captions below a picture. The task is to compare their meanings, not to assume that the last or neatest caption is automatically more accurate than the earlier one.

56. beside

Selected model. The revised claim is beside the original so a change in scope remains visible.

Meaning check. What two items are placed together, and how does that help the listener?

Set a fictional summary beside its source. The source says, ‘Two pupils asked for a larger diagram; one preferred the existing size.’ The summary says, ‘The pupils wanted a larger diagram.’ Ask the learner to connect matching pieces with pencil lines. Which observation has no match in the summary?

Restore the minority view: ‘Two pupils preferred a larger diagram, while one preferred the existing size.’ The report can still identify the more common preference in this small group without erasing disagreement. Beside names a useful comparison arrangement here: both versions remain visible, reducing the need to remember the source while evaluating the edit.

Try the task orally by reading the original, then showing a brief written summary. If memory becomes the main difficulty, return to the side-by-side cards. The learner’s task is to judge fidelity, not to prove they can retain every detail unaided. Record any support so the observed editing contribution remains clear.

57. behind

Selected model. The reasoning behind the conclusion must remain distinguishable from confidence in its phrasing.

Meaning check. Is the model about physical position or underlying reasoning? Keep the senses distinct.

An invented pupil concludes, ‘The larger labels were easier to read.’ Ask what reasoning lies behind the sentence. The task supplies two readers who could identify the larger labels from the doorway but needed to approach the smaller ones. This gives a specific basis for the conclusion, with an equally specific limit on who and what was tested.

A revision might say, ‘In this comparison, both readers identified the larger labels from farther away.’ The wording reports the observation rather than relying only on the broad judgement easier. It should not become ‘Larger text is always clearer’, since other features and settings have not been compared.

For transfer, give a convincing sounding conclusion with no supporting notes. Ask the learner to identify the missing basis instead of inventing one. Compare the reasoning behind an answer with an object physically behind a screen. The word serves different relationships, and the child can explain which sense makes the sentence meaningful.

58. between

Selected model. The distinction between possible and certain should survive the paraphrase.

Meaning check. Which reference points or alternatives are necessary for the comparison?

Present two fictional claims: ‘The new route might be quicker’ and ‘The new route is quicker.’ Ask the learner to describe the difference between them without discussing which route they personally prefer. The first leaves the result open; the second states it directly. A faithful paraphrase must preserve that difference in commitment.

Supply a single walk on which the new route took less time. The learner can now write a narrower established observation: ‘The new route was quicker on this walk.’ That does not require choosing between total ignorance and a universal conclusion. Careful language can express a definite local result alongside an open wider question.

For transfer, use a statement that someone could attend a meeting and another that they confirmed attendance. Ask the child to sort messages between these two meanings and explain any ambiguous case. The useful distinction concerns what the words commit the speaker to, not merely whether the sentences have different verbs.

59. across

Selected model. The conclusion should retain the same degree of caution across its summary and detailed explanation.

Meaning check. What space or set does the movement or comparison extend over?

An invented report’s heading says, ‘The new storage system works for everyone.’ Its detailed paragraph says, ‘Three pupils tried it, and two found their materials quickly.’ Ask whether the degree of confidence stays consistent across the heading and the body. A cautious paragraph cannot fully repair a headline that promises more than the report shows.

Try a heading such as, ‘Three pupils test a new storage system’. The detail can then state the mixed results plainly. The learner may prefer a more engaging title, but should check it against the same evidence. Short pieces of text still carry claims, even when they are intended mainly to attract attention.

For transfer, compare a caption, a chart label and a concluding sentence about the same invented count. Ask the child to trace the group size and qualification across all three. A change in format should not silently turn a limited finding into a claim about a larger population.

60. through

Selected model. We work through the revision by checking meaning before polishing its style.

Meaning check. Does the model trace a passage, a process or a line of explanation?

Give the learner a short fictional revision to work through in stages. The source says, ‘After one practice session, Lian completed the first two instructions with a reminder.’ The proposed report says, ‘Practice made Lian independent.’ Start by marking the observed action, then the amount of practice, then the support supplied.

Write a faithful version: ‘Following one practice session, Lian completed two instructions with a reminder.’ Discuss what remains useful in that result. It records participation and completion without claiming a causal explanation or independence that the evidence does not establish. Careful wording can recognise progress while remaining exact about its circumstances.

Ask the child to talk a partner through the edits, explaining one decision at a time. The partner can ask which source detail justified each change. This makes the process visible and helps an adult distinguish a reasoned revision from a sentence copied from a model without understanding why the qualifications matter.

Apply this group

Use “The necessary qualification remains in the final sentence after the revision.” as one starting example for an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty?

Compare it with “We work through the revision by checking meaning before polishing its style.”. Identify the different job of the connecting word, then select the model that serves your current message. The two sentences are examples to discuss, not a script to recite.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 10 OF 19

10. Routes, origins, accompaniment and absence

Back to contents

Word	Meaning in these models
to	a destination, recipient, relevance relation or other link selected by the sentence
from	a source, starting point or basis for information
into	movement inside, or transformation into another arrangement or form
onto	movement to a supported surface or location
towards	direction or support for a possibility without guaranteeing arrival or proof
around	a surrounding route or an organising focus for a discussion
along	following a course, route or developing line of reasoning
past	movement beyond a reference point or continuation beyond an earlier stage
with	accompaniment, a tool, comparison or another relation supplied by context
without	absence of an item, action or condition, including an avoided change in meaning

61. to

Selected model. The final wording should be faithful to the limits stated in the original account.

Meaning check. Which destination, recipient or relevance relationship does the sentence establish?

A fictional pupil says to a partner, ‘Your explanation helped me understand why the character changed her mind.’ A summary for the author reads, ‘The explanation helped readers understand the whole story.’ Ask how changing the recipient and audience affects the claim. One person’s feedback about one relationship has become a broad statement about readers and complete understanding.

A faithful report is, ‘One partner found the explanation helpful for understanding the character’s change of mind.’ The writer can then decide whether that feedback is relevant to the author’s current revision. A comment about one scene may be useful without answering every question about the story.

For transfer, ask the learner to adapt the same accurate finding to two readers: the author and a class librarian. The amount of explanation may change with the reader’s purpose, but the underlying observation should remain stable. Being faithful to a source allows changes in presentation while keeping its meaning and limits intact.

62. from

Selected model. The conclusion follows from the available examples only within their stated scope.

Meaning check. What is the actual source or starting point, and how reliably is it known?

Offer three invented source cards: a pupil’s recollection, a dated observation note and a drawing made afterwards. A report says, ‘From these records, we know exactly what happened.’ Ask what kind of information each source actually supplies. A detailed drawing may illustrate a recollection without becoming an independent observation of the event.

A careful account can name the source of each detail: ‘The note records the start time; the pupil remembers the order of the performances.’ If the sources disagree, preserve the disagreement until there is a reason to resolve it. The word from should help a reader trace information, not blur several sources into one apparently certain voice.

For transfer, ask the child to attach a small source label to each sentence of an invented event report. They can leave a sentence unlabelled when its basis is missing. That visible gap tells the editor what to check before using the information, rather than encouraging a fluent but unsupported addition.

63. into

Selected model. We can turn a broad claim into a limited one while preserving the observed result.

Meaning check. Is something crossing a boundary or being transformed into another form?

An invented draft says, ‘The game is confusing.’ The feedback actually reports that two players misunderstood the final scoring instruction. Ask the learner to turn the broad judgement into a more precise statement. The change should preserve the observed difficulty while locating it in the part of the game the feedback describes.

Try, ‘Two players misunderstood the final scoring instruction.’ A separate recommendation can suggest rewriting that instruction. The recommendation is a proposed response, while the first sentence is a report. Keeping the two roles distinct helps the designer see both what happened and what the writer thinks might improve it.

For transfer, convert a list of three observations into one short paragraph. Ask the learner to mark where an observation has become an interpretation. Transformation into a new form is useful, but it should not erase the boundary between evidence and suggestion. Read the paragraph back against the list before treating the revised form as complete.

64. onto

Selected model. We copied the revised sentence onto a new card so both versions remained available for comparison.

Meaning check. Which surface or displayed location is reached by the movement?

In a fictional editing activity, a pupil copies a corrected sentence onto the final display card. The source reads, ‘Most of the twelve respondents preferred the outdoor performance if the weather was dry.’ The final card says, ‘Most people preferred the outdoor performance.’ Ask which details disappeared during the move.

The learner can compare the two cards and restore the defined group and condition. A concise version is, ‘Most of the twelve respondents preferred performing outdoors in dry weather.’ Check whether the respondents were discussing watching or performing; the source’s meaning must decide that detail. A smoother verb should not accidentally assign an activity to the wrong people.

For transfer, move a caption from a rough page onto a poster with less space. Ask the child to choose what can be shortened and what must remain. The available space creates a practical constraint, but it does not authorise a different claim. Another line or a shorter accurate sentence may solve the problem.

65. towards

Selected model. The new information points towards a narrower conclusion without proving every alternative false.

Meaning check. What direction or possibility is indicated without guaranteeing arrival or proof?

A fictional set of observations shows that three pupils locate books more quickly when shelf labels include pictures. The writer says, ‘These observations point towards using picture labels.’ Ask what towards expresses here. It indicates support for a possible decision without claiming that the observations settle every question about every reader or shelf.

A precise recommendation might be, ‘Picture labels helped these three pupils in the trial, so we suggest testing them on another shelf.’ The next action matches the limited evidence. It does not promise that pictures will help everyone or that words should be removed from the labels.

For transfer, offer a puzzle with two clues supporting one explanation but an unanswered question remaining. Ask the learner to describe which explanation the clues point towards and what would strengthen or weaken it. A useful tentative conclusion gives the reader a direction while identifying the remaining gap, rather than hiding uncertainty behind a confident final phrase.

66. around

Selected model. The revision is organised around preserving meaning rather than making the wording sound impressive.

Meaning check. Does the sentence describe a route or an organising focus for ideas?

An invented report about a class performance contains comments on costumes, sound, seating and the programme. Its summary is organised around the claim that the sound was clear. Ask the learner which details genuinely support that focus. A colourful costume may be worth mentioning elsewhere, but it does not establish whether the audience heard the dialogue.

Choose two relevant notes, such as a listener’s report about the back row and an observation of the microphone test. Keep their sources distinct. A summary organised around one question can be selective, provided it does not claim to represent every aspect of the performance or omit a relevant contrary observation.

For transfer, let the child choose a different organising question, such as whether visitors could find their seats. The same collection of notes will yield a different selection. Ask them to explain why each chosen detail belongs. This makes the paragraph’s focus a reasoned decision rather than a collection of facts that happen to sound interesting.

67. along

Selected model. The reader can follow the claim along with its qualification instead of encountering an unsupported summary.

Meaning check. Which course or line of reasoning can the listener follow?

A fictional editor sends a shortened conclusion along with the original notes. The conclusion says, ‘The folding method worked in all three trials, with adult help.’ The notes identify where the adult held the card. Ask why the supporting information should travel with the summary when another tutor plans the next activity.

Removing the help phrase would change what the report suggests about independent performance. The learner can keep a concise qualification in the summary and leave fuller detail in the notes. Both levels serve a purpose: one gives the central result, while the other makes the support recoverable for someone who needs it.

For transfer, ask the child to follow a claim along a chain of three sentences: observation, interpretation and recommendation. At each step, identify what has been added. The final recommendation may be sensible, but the reader should still be able to find the original observation and distinguish it from the writer’s proposed next move.

68. past

Selected model. The revision moves past a vague judgement by naming the precise condition that limits it.

Meaning check. Which reference point is passed, and what information is added beyond it?

An invented pupil first writes, ‘The instructions are bad.’ After reviewing the evidence, they move past that vague judgement: ‘Two players reversed the order of the last two steps.’ Ask what the revision adds. It names the people, the location of the difficulty and the action that was observed, making a practical response easier to discuss.

A next sentence can propose numbering the final steps more clearly. Keep the proposal separate from a claim that numbering will certainly solve the problem. A later test could show whether players follow the revised order. The child can make a useful recommendation while leaving its outcome open.

For transfer, give a broad comment about a story, model or display and ask the learner to replace it with one specific observation. Do not require a longer sentence. Moving past a vague judgement means improving its informational value. A short, concrete description can offer more help than a paragraph of general praise or criticism.

69. with

Selected model. We check the concise wording with its author before treating the revision as final.

Meaning check. Is this accompaniment, tool use, comparison or another context-dependent relationship?

Read this invented report: ‘With a diagram and one spoken reminder, the pupil explained the sequence correctly.’ A summary says, ‘The pupil independently explained the sequence.’ Ask what with tells us about the conditions of the successful response. The diagram and reminder are part of the observation, and omitting them changes the reported level of support.

A faithful revision is, ‘The pupil explained the sequence correctly using a diagram and one reminder.’ This recognises the successful contribution clearly. It does not require treating supported work as less valuable; it simply tells the next adult what helped make that contribution possible.

For transfer, compare two examples using with: ‘We checked the wording with its author’ and ‘We checked the total with counters.’ One names a collaborator and the other a tool. Ask the child to state what each contributed to the task. A precise account of assistance helps another reader reproduce the useful conditions without inventing an unsupported claim of independence.

70. without

Selected model. The revision can be shorter without removing the qualification that makes the claim accurate.

Meaning check. What is absent or avoided? Does removing it affect the intended meaning?

An invented source says, ‘The model stood for five minutes without extra supports on a level table.’ Its summary reads, ‘The model needs no support.’ Ask why the revision reaches beyond the observation. Without identifies an absence during a specific test, while the broader sentence suggests a general requirement under unspecified conditions.

A faithful shorter version is, ‘The model stood unsupported for five minutes on a level table.’ The learner should retain the surface condition if it matters to the intended use. Nothing in the test shows what would happen on an uneven surface or over a much longer period.

Now use without for the editing process itself: shorten the source without dropping its necessary qualification. Ask the child to remove repetition, replace a wordy phrase or split a sentence. Compare the result against the original facts. Concision comes from expressing the same relationships efficiently, rather than making the claim broader by deleting the parts that limit it.

Apply this group

Use “The final wording should be faithful to the limits stated in the original account.” as one starting example for an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty?

Compare it with “The revision can be shorter without removing the qualification that makes the claim accurate.”. Identify the different job of the connecting word, then select the model that serves your current message. The two sentences are examples to discuss, not a script to recite.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 11 OF 19

11. Present, past, possession and possible next actions

Back to contents

Word	Meaning in these models
is	a present form of be used with a singular subject in these models
are	a present form of be used with plural subjects or you in these models
was	a past form of be used with I or a singular third-person subject in these models
were	a past form of be used with plural subjects or you in these models
has	a form of have used with a singular third-person subject; its job depends on the sentence
have	possession, availability or another have construction selected by the sentence
had	a past form of have; the example determines its possession or helping-verb role
can	ability, possibility or permission according to context
could	a possibility, suggestion, polite request or past ability according to context
will	a future action, prediction or commitment, whose certainty depends on context

71. is

Selected model. The conclusion is provisional because the relevant evidence remains incomplete.

Meaning check. What subject and present state or action are linked in this model?

A fictional report says, ‘The conclusion is provisional because the second trial is incomplete.’ A summary reads, ‘The conclusion is correct.’ Ask what follows is in each version. The verb links the subject to a different description, so retaining is while changing the following word does not preserve the original meaning.

Try, ‘The conclusion remains provisional until the second trial is complete.’ Discuss whether until adds a promise that completion will settle the issue. A safer version may be, ‘The incomplete second trial leaves the conclusion provisional.’ The learner can inspect how even a well-intended revision introduces a new implication.

For transfer, compare ‘The room is available’ with ‘The room is expected to be available.’ Ask what a reader could reasonably act on in each case. The second statement reports an expectation, while the first directly states availability. A faithful editor keeps the relevant qualification even when the shorter sentence sounds clearer or more decisive.

72. are

Selected model. The revised claims are appropriately limited to the examples actually discussed.

Meaning check. What subject controls this present form? Remember that you can address one listener.

An invented feedback sheet says, ‘The two revised examples are clearer than their earlier versions.’ A summary says, ‘The explanations are clear.’ Ask which examples are being described and what comparison has vanished. Clearer is relative to an earlier version; it does not necessarily mean that no reader will find any part confusing.

A concise repair is, ‘Both revised examples are clearer than before.’ If the original feedback comes from one partner, attribution may still be useful: ‘The partner found both revisions clearer.’ The learner should choose based on the purpose of the report and the evidence supplied, rather than treating one fixed sentence as the answer to every case.

For transfer, write a plural subject such as ‘The labels beside the large poster’ and ask what are describes. The nearby singular noun poster should not distract the learner from the labels. Accurate agreement and accurate scope work together: the sentence must be grammatical and identify the right set of objects.

73. was

Selected model. The original claim was stronger than the available examples could justify.

Meaning check. Which earlier state or action is described, and what establishes that past reference?

Read a fictional log: ‘The side entrance was closed during Tuesday’s rehearsal.’ A visitor guide says, ‘The side entrance is closed.’ Ask whether the old observation establishes the current state. Was locates the closure in the past, and the rehearsal phrase further limits the occasion being described.

A faithful historical report is, ‘The side entrance was closed for Tuesday’s rehearsal.’ If the guide must help visitors today, the writer needs a current check. Changing the tense does not supply new evidence. The learner can mark the entrance status as information to confirm instead of guessing that the earlier arrangement continues.

For transfer, use a story draft in which a character was worried before receiving an explanation. Ask the child to keep that earlier state distinct from the character’s later response. A precise revision can shorten the account while preserving a change over time, rather than turning a temporary feeling into a fixed description of the person.

74. were

Selected model. The necessary conditions were retained when the final statements were shortened.

Meaning check. Which subject and earlier reference point make this form appropriate?

A fictional checklist reads, ‘The first three notices were checked; the final two were still awaiting review.’ A shortened account says, ‘The notices were checked.’ Ask what the plural subject now seems to include. The verb is grammatically suitable, but the summary has hidden an incomplete part of the process.

A faithful version is, ‘Three notices were checked, and two still needed review.’ The learner can represent the five notices with cards and turn over only the checked ones. This makes the scope of the completed action visible. It also prevents a report of progress from being mistaken for a statement that everything is finished.

For transfer, give a past description of two models that were stable before extra pieces were added. Ask the child to preserve the time boundary. A later change does not make the earlier observation false, and an earlier success does not establish the later state. The wording should allow both observations to remain in the account.

75. has

Selected model. The revised claim has a qualification that prevents an unsupported generalisation.

Meaning check. Is have expressing possession, inclusion or helping another verb here?

An invented editor writes, ‘The revised notice has a condition that the earlier version omitted.’ Ask the learner to find that condition in the supplied text. Has names something included in the current version. It should be checkable in the actual wording, rather than accepted simply because the editor says a repair has been made.

Use a condition such as ‘when an organiser is present’. Compare a revision that includes it beside the permission with one that places it in an unrelated paragraph. The phrase may exist somewhere on the page but still fail to clearly limit the relevant instruction. The learner can move it without changing its meaning.

For transfer, compare ‘The writer has a correction’ with ‘The writer has corrected the notice.’ The first reports possession of a proposed change; the second reports a completed action. Ask which the source supports. A correction prepared on a separate sheet is not automatically a correction already applied to the published notice.

76. have

Selected model. We have enough support for this limited claim rather than for every possible wider statement.

Meaning check. What is available, possessed or expressed through the larger verb construction?

Give an invented group this evidence: two timed attempts, one unfinished attempt and a note about a broken part. Its draft says, ‘We have enough evidence to name the best design.’ Ask what have establishes. The group possesses records, but the existence of records does not settle whether they address the intended comparison.

Ask the learner to state the question first. If the purpose is to describe what happened in the two completed attempts, the records may support a clear account. If the purpose is to recommend a design for repeated use, the unfinished attempt and broken part may need attention. Sufficiency depends on the decision being made.

For transfer, let the child replace ‘We have evidence’ with a sentence naming the actual material: timings, observations or reported preferences. This makes the basis easier to assess. Avoid adding an impressive quantity of unrelated notes just to strengthen the sound of the claim; relevance matters alongside the number of records available.

77. had

Selected model. The earlier conclusion had omitted a condition that the evidence made important.

Meaning check. Which earlier reference is established, and is this possession or a helping-verb use?

An invented narrative says, ‘By the time the group changed its conclusion, it had noticed the missing measurement.’ A summary says, ‘The group noticed the missing measurement after changing its conclusion.’ Ask the learner to place the two events on a line. Had noticed locates the observation before the later decision described in the original.

A simpler faithful version is, ‘The group noticed the missing measurement and then changed its conclusion.’ Check whether the original also explains why the conclusion changed. The sequence may suggest a connection, but a summary should not add a reason that the account leaves unstated.

For transfer, use ‘The team had three labels before making two more.’ Here had describes possession at an earlier point rather than helping another verb. Ask the child to identify the difference between the two uses. Both require a clear past reference, and both can become misleading if the editor changes the sequence while trying to make the wording shorter.

78. can

Selected model. A concise revision can remain careful and useful without sounding absolute.

Meaning check. Does the model express ability, permission or possibility?

Compare three fictional messages: ‘Aisha can assemble the stand’, ‘You can use this room’ and ‘The card can bend under pressure.’ Ask what can does in each. It may express ability, permission or a possibility in specified circumstances. A summary must keep the intended relationship, not replace every can with will.

Take the permission message and add its local condition: ‘You can use this room if the organiser confirms the booking.’ A shortened notice saying ‘The room will be used’ describes a future event instead. The permission does not establish that somebody has chosen or completed the action.

For transfer, ask the learner to revise ‘This method can help with checking the order’ into a faithful practical instruction. They might say, ‘Try this method to check the order.’ Discuss the change from a possibility claim to a suggestion, and keep any relevant limits. A useful recommendation need not promise success for every learner or task.

79. could

Selected model. The author could narrow the statement while keeping its central practical insight.

Meaning check. Is this a suggestion, tentative possibility, polite request or past ability?

An invented pupil writes, ‘We could add a picture beside the instructions.’ The meeting summary says, ‘The group agreed to add a picture.’ Ask whether a suggestion has become a decision. Could offers an available possibility in the source, but it does not say that the group accepted it or that the picture was produced.

A faithful note is, ‘One suggestion was to add a picture beside the instructions.’ If the group later agrees, record that as a separate decision. The learner can keep a simple table of proposed, agreed and completed actions to avoid merging these stages during a summary.

For transfer, compare a tentative explanation, ‘The missing label could explain the confusion’, with a claim about past ability, ‘Last term, the pupil could read these labels.’ Ask which meaning fits each context. Keeping the sense clear matters more than replacing could with a more formal word that accidentally strengthens or changes the claim.

80. will

Selected model. We will check the scope of the final statement before accepting the polished wording.

Meaning check. Is this a commitment, plan or prediction? What uncertainty remains?

Present a fictional organiser’s statement: ‘We will check every entry before displaying it.’ Ask whether this reports a commitment, a prediction or an action already completed. In the supplied context it is a commitment. A summary saying ‘Every entry has been checked’ wrongly moves the promised action into the past.

A faithful report is, ‘The organiser has committed to checking every entry before display.’ The child can use simpler wording: ‘The organiser says every entry will be checked first.’ If the purpose is to confirm readiness for display, the writer still needs evidence that the checking took place.

For transfer, compare ‘I will bring the cards’ with ‘The cards will arrive tomorrow.’ The first can express a person’s undertaking; the second may be a prediction based on information not supplied. Ask the learner what source or condition would make the second message useful. Future wording should reveal the basis of confidence when that distinction matters to the reader.

Apply this group

Use “The conclusion is provisional because the relevant evidence remains incomplete.” as one starting example for an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty?

Compare it with “We will check the scope of the final statement before accepting the polished wording.”. Identify the different job of the connecting word, then select the model that serves your current message. The two sentences are examples to discuss, not a script to recite.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 12 OF 19

12. Intentions, joint decisions and making a message clearer

Back to contents

Word	Meaning in these models
want	a desire, preference or intended effect
need	a requirement relative to a purpose or care situation
choose	select among available options
decide	settle on a choice or judgement, including a decision to leave a question open
plan	an intended arrangement or sequence, or the process of preparing one
try	make an attempt or test an option without guaranteeing success
change	alter an identified feature, arrangement, statement or interpretation
agree	share a stated view or acceptance; agreement may be limited to one point
explain	make a method, reason or relationship clearer
describe	state identifying features, events or relationships without necessarily establishing a cause

81. want

Selected model. I want the revision to preserve both the author's meaning and the evidence's limits.

Meaning check. Whose preference or intended effect is actually known?

A fictional pupil says, ‘I want the story ending to feel surprising without confusing the reader.’ A summary reads, ‘The ending surprised readers.’ Ask the learner to distinguish an intended effect from an observed response. Want tells us what the author hopes to achieve; it does not establish how anyone experienced the finished text.

A faithful summary is, ‘The author aims for a surprising but understandable ending.’ To report the result, the writer would need feedback or another relevant observation. A reader saying ‘I did not expect that’ supplies different information from a reader explaining the events correctly. The two aims may need separate checks.

For transfer, ask the child to state a goal for revising a notice and one question that would help check the result. Keep the goal and the response in separate sentences. This allows the learner to recognise a worthwhile intention while remaining honest about whether its intended effect has been established.

82. need

Selected model. The conclusion needs a qualification because its examples cover only a limited set of cases.

Meaning check. What stated goal makes the item or information necessary?

An invented group says, ‘We need the route’s length before comparing walking times fairly.’ A summary says, ‘We need more facts.’ Ask what the specific need serves. The route length is linked to a comparison question, whereas more facts could include many details that do not help answer it.

Let the learner inspect the task. If the question is simply which of two recorded journeys took longer, the existing times may answer it. If the group wants to compare walking speed, distance becomes relevant. The word need depends on the stated purpose, so changing the question can change which information is necessary.

For transfer, distinguish a preference from a requirement in a fictional poster task. A pupil may want gold lettering while needing a readable title. Ask them to explain the purpose behind each statement without dismissing the preference. A precise revision preserves the difference between something desirable and something required for the chosen communication job.

83. choose

Selected model. I choose the revision that retains the original uncertainty rather than merely the shortest version.

Meaning check. Are the options real, and what criterion or preference guides selection?

Give three revisions of an invented claim: ‘All pupils liked the game’, ‘Seven of the ten respondents liked the game’ and ‘The game received feedback’. The source records seven positive responses, two negative responses and one undecided response. Ask the learner to choose wording for a report about the feedback.

The second sentence preserves a useful count and defined group. The first overstates the result, while the third is accurate but too vague for this purpose. Discuss why an accurate sentence can still be unhelpful if it omits the information the reader needs. Choice involves both truthfulness and relevance.

For transfer, change the purpose to a brief progress note confirming that feedback has been collected. The third sentence may now serve better, with details stored elsewhere. Ask the child to explain the changed choice. A good editing decision is tied to the reader’s task, rather than treating one sentence length or level of detail as universally best.

84. decide

Selected model. We can decide whether the claim is too broad by comparing it with the support available.

Meaning check. What judgement is being settled? Could leaving a question open be a reasonable decision?

A fictional group has two accounts of a missing prop. One pupil remembers leaving it backstage; another remembers returning it to the cupboard. A summary says, ‘The prop was definitely left backstage.’ Ask whether the available information permits that decision. Two conflicting recollections require attention; the writer cannot settle the location merely by choosing the more confident speaker.

The group can decide to leave the location unresolved while checking the cupboard and rehearsal area. A faithful report is, ‘The accounts differ, so the prop’s last confirmed location is unclear.’ If an earlier verified location is supplied, name it separately rather than inventing one.

For transfer, ask the learner to sort decisions into three kinds: what the evidence establishes, what action to take next and what question remains open. They can decide on a practical search without deciding that one witness is wrong. This keeps useful action possible while preserving uncertainty about the underlying event.

85. plan

Selected model. Our plan checks accuracy, scope and authorship before a final stylistic revision.

Meaning check. Which actions are intended, and which outcomes remain unconfirmed?

An invented plan says, ‘We aim to finish the labels on Friday, provided the final names arrive by Thursday.’ A progress report says, ‘The labels will be finished on Friday.’ Ask what the report has changed. A conditional aim has become an unconditional prediction, even though the work depends on information not yet received.

A faithful update is, ‘Friday remains the planned completion date if the names arrive by Thursday.’ The learner can also report the current state of the names separately. If some have arrived, say how many only when the task supplies the number. A clear plan distinguishes intended actions, dependencies and completed work.

For transfer, ask the child to prepare a two sentence handover for a small group project. One sentence states what has been done; the other gives the next planned step and any condition. A partner should be able to tell which parts are established facts and which describe the group’s intended future course.

86. try

Selected model. We can try a narrower claim and check whether it still preserves the useful result.

Meaning check. What can the attempt show even if the expected result does not occur?

A fictional reflection says, ‘We tried adding arrows, but two visitors still asked where to turn.’ An edited report reads, ‘Arrows solved the navigation problem.’ Ask the learner to compare the attempted response with the observed outcome. Try records an attempt; it does not guarantee that the intended improvement followed.

A faithful summary is, ‘The group added arrows, but two visitors still needed directions.’ The report can then identify a next question, such as whether the arrows were visible before the junction. That question is useful without pretending the group already knows why the visitors asked for help.

For transfer, let the learner try one revision to a confusing instruction and ask a partner to follow it. Record exactly what became clearer and what remained uncertain. If the attempt does not fully work, the child still has information for the next edit. A precise account of partial improvement is more useful than labelling the whole attempt either a success or a failure.

87. change

Selected model. We can change the scope without changing the observed facts.

Meaning check. What changes, and which part of the intended meaning should remain?

An invented source says, ‘The first design held six counters in the recorded trial.’ A writer wants to change the conclusion from ‘This design is best’ to ‘This design performed better in this trial.’ Ask what changes and what remains. The observation stays the same; the reach of the claim becomes narrower.

Check whether the source includes a comparison design. Without its result, even better may be unsupported. A faithful statement may simply be, ‘The design held six counters in the trial.’ This shows that a revision can improve one problem while still needing another check. Narrower wording is useful only when it matches the available information.

For transfer, ask the learner to change the audience of a short explanation from a teammate to a visitor. They may explain a familiar abbreviation or identify an object more fully. The presentation changes, but the event, evidence and degree of certainty should remain stable unless new information justifies a substantive correction.

88. agree

Selected model. We agree that the shorter wording must preserve the condition stated in the original.

Meaning check. What precise point is accepted? Does agreement extend to the entire account?

A fictional meeting record says, ‘Everyone agreed to test the new timetable; two members remained unsure whether it would improve the afternoon.’ A summary says, ‘Everyone agreed that the new timetable was better.’ Ask what exact point of agreement the source establishes. Agreement to try something does not require agreement that it will succeed.

A faithful revision is, ‘The group agreed to a trial, while some members reserved judgement about the result.’ If the number two matters to the reader, keep it. The report can describe a shared decision without hiding different expectations. This is especially useful when a later discussion reviews what was actually promised.

For transfer, give two pupils partly overlapping views about a story. Ask the learner to write one sentence about what they agree on and another about the remaining difference. Neither sentence should make one person endorse the other’s complete interpretation. The aim is to locate common ground accurately, including its boundaries.

89. explain

Selected model. We explain why the qualification matters before deciding whether it can be removed.

Meaning check. What relationship becomes clearer: a method, reason or connection between information?

An invented report states, ‘A listener at the back could not hear the final line.’ A suggested explanation says, ‘The actor spoke quietly.’ Ask whether the second sentence explains the difficulty on evidence supplied by the task or merely offers one possibility. A faulty microphone, background noise or the listener’s position could also matter, depending on the scenario.

A careful version might be, ‘The final line was not heard by the listener at the back; the account does not establish why.’ If the task supplies an observed drop in volume, that can be added as relevant evidence. The learner should not use explain as permission to fill every gap with the most familiar cause.

For transfer, ask the child to explain why a qualification must remain in a summary. They can point to a specific difference: removing ‘in these two trials’ makes the result sound general. Here the explanation concerns a visible relationship between wording and meaning, which can be checked directly against the two versions.

90. describe

Selected model. We describe the limitation clearly instead of weakening it with an unsupported confident ending.

Meaning check. What is reported directly, and where would a causal explanation require more support?

Give the learner an invented observation: a pupil paused, looked at the diagram and asked for the second instruction again. A report describes the pupil as uninterested. Ask which details were observed and which interpretation was added. The actions may have several explanations, and the source does not establish the pupil’s inner attitude.

A faithful description is, ‘The pupil paused to look at the diagram, then requested the second instruction again.’ If the pupil says they were confused, that can be reported as their own explanation. Description and interpretation can both be useful, provided the reader can distinguish their sources and degrees of certainty.

For transfer, use a fictional character’s actions in a short story. Ask the learner to describe the visible behaviour before suggesting what the character may feel. The interpretation can remain plausible and tentative. This practice helps the writer preserve evidence while avoiding a summary that turns one possible reading into the only account of what happened.

Apply this group

Use “I want the revision to preserve both the author's meaning and the evidence's limits.” as one starting example for an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty?

Compare it with “We describe the limitation clearly instead of weakening it with an unsupported confident ending.”. Identify the different job of the connecting word, then select the model that serves your current message. The two sentences are examples to discuss, not a script to recite.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 13 OF 19

13. Amounts, sufficiency and precise comparisons

Back to contents

Word	Meaning in these models
more	an additional amount, degree or continuation of an identified thing
less	a smaller amount or degree relative to a stated comparison
fewer	a smaller number of countable items
many	a context-dependent large number of countable items
much	amount or degree, usually with uncountable information or material in these models
enough	sufficient for an explicitly identified purpose
same	matching in a specified respect, not necessarily identical in every respect
different	not matching in an identified respect; difference alone is not opposition
similar	alike in relevant respects while allowing differences
opposite	an opposing direction or meaning within a specified relation, not merely any difference

91. more

Selected model. The wider claim needs more support than this limited set of examples provides.

Meaning check. What specific addition would serve this purpose rather than merely increase length?

An invented report contains two comments about a notice’s colour and no comments about whether its instructions are understood. The writer wants more evidence for the claim that the instructions are clear. Ask what kind of additional information would serve that purpose. Ten more colour preferences would increase the amount of feedback without necessarily answering the comprehension question.

A useful next step might invite a reader to explain or follow one instruction. Keep this as a proposed check, not an event that has already occurred. A precise summary of the current state is, ‘The available comments concern appearance; understanding of the instructions has not yet been checked.’

For transfer, give the learner a long paragraph and ask what more could mean in a revision request: another relevant example, a missing explanation or simply extra words. They should name the information gap before expanding. More useful detail can improve the account, while additional material without a clear role can make its main relationship harder to follow.

92. less

Selected model. The revised claim is less absolute and more faithful to the evidence.

Meaning check. Which amount or degree is reduced, and what is the comparison reference?

Compare two fictional conclusions: ‘The new arrangement always saves time’ and ‘The new arrangement saved time in the two observed sessions.’ Ask why the second is less absolute. It reports a bounded result instead of claiming that the result holds on every occasion. The recorded time saving can remain definite within those two sessions.

Avoid repairing every strong claim merely by adding perhaps. ‘Perhaps the arrangement always saves time’ still leaves an extremely broad possibility in the foreground. Often a more useful revision names the actual observations and leaves untested occasions open. The learner can be precise about what is known and cautious about what extends beyond it.

For transfer, ask the child to make a fictional review less sweeping while keeping its useful criticism. ‘The guide is useless’ might become ‘The guide did not explain the final step I needed.’ The reader gains a concrete limitation, and the writer avoids turning one unmet need into a judgement about every possible use.

93. fewer

Selected model. The concise version uses fewer words while preserving the original condition and uncertainty.

Meaning check. What countable members are compared? Is the numerical difference actually checked?

Give an original fictional sentence: ‘The group may use the outdoor tables if two organisers are available.’ A shorter version says, ‘The group may use the outdoor tables.’ Ask the learner to count the words, then identify what the reduction removed. Fewer words are not automatically an improvement when the deleted phrase carries a necessary condition.

Try another concise version: ‘Outdoor tables are available to the group when two organisers can attend.’ Check whether available accurately represents permission in this invented rule; if it creates ambiguity, keep the original wording. The aim is faithful communication, not winning a competition for the smallest word count.

For transfer, compare two drafts with a visible count of repeated phrases. The child can remove a duplicated explanation while retaining all distinct conditions. Ask them to show which countable units became fewer, such as sentences or repeated examples. Then read the revision for meaning, because a numerical reduction alone cannot establish that the edit is successful.

94. many

Selected model. Many plausible interpretations can remain open when the evidence does not distinguish them.

Meaning check. Is the model an approximate quantity statement or a question asking for an exact number?

An invented class poll records that eight of ten respondents preferred the afternoon performance. A summary says, ‘Many people preferred the afternoon.’ Ask what many leaves unclear. The reader cannot tell the size of the responding group or how common the preference was within it. The source supplies a more useful bounded count.

A faithful report is, ‘Eight of the ten respondents preferred the afternoon performance.’ It should not become ‘Eight pupils preferred the afternoon’ unless the task establishes that all respondents were pupils. Precise numbers still need accurate labels for the people or items counted.

For transfer, give the same count of eight preferences in a group of forty respondents. Ask why the sentence ‘Many preferred the afternoon’ may create a different impression despite using the same words. The learner need not calculate a percentage; comparing eight out of ten with eight out of forty makes the importance of the whole group visible.

95. much

Selected model. The wording should not imply much greater certainty than the source actually expresses.

Meaning check. Which uncountable amount or degree is relevant to the task?

A fictional source says, ‘The second instructions were a little easier for one tester to follow.’ Its summary says, ‘The revision was much easier for everyone.’ Ask which changes enlarge the claim. A little becomes much, one tester becomes everyone, and a specific difficulty with instructions becomes an unrestricted judgement of the whole revision.

A careful version is, ‘One tester found the second instructions slightly easier to follow.’ If the source gives a particular example, include it when useful: perhaps the tester located the starting point without a reminder. Do not invent a numerical improvement to make slightly sound more exact than the observation allows.

For transfer, ask the learner to compare claims about how much help was supplied. One reminder, repeated prompts and a complete demonstration are different forms of support. A summary such as ‘with help’ may be sufficient for one purpose, while a tutor handover may need the more specific account to plan the next activity fairly.

96. enough

Selected model. The examples are enough for a limited description rather than a universal conclusion.

Meaning check. What goal defines sufficiency, and would a different goal change the answer?

An invented group has photographs of both sides of a model. Ask whether those images provide enough information. The answer depends on the question: they may be enough to describe its visible colours, but not enough to state its weight, construction time or performance during a trial.

Let the learner choose one purpose and write a bounded conclusion. ‘The photographs show a blue front and a white back’ uses the available evidence directly. ‘The model is lightweight’ requires information the images do not provide. The task encourages the child to connect sufficiency with a specific decision rather than treating enough as a fixed quantity of pages or pictures.

For transfer, give a short story summary and ask whether it contains enough information for a reader to identify the main conflict. It may do so without revealing every event. Then change the purpose to reconstructing the final sequence. The learner can identify the additional details needed without declaring the earlier summary generally incomplete or wrong.

97. same

Selected model. The paraphrase should preserve the same degree of uncertainty as the original.

Meaning check. Which feature or meaning matches? What other differences may remain?

Compare two invented statements: ‘The group may finish today’ and ‘Finishing today is possible for the group.’ Ask whether they express approximately the same degree of uncertainty in the supplied context. Then compare either with ‘The group will finish today.’ The future wording is more definite, even though the topic and expected day remain the same.

A faithful paraphrase can change sentence structure while preserving the claim’s conditions and commitment. The learner should also check the source of the statement. ‘The organiser expects the group to finish’ reports someone’s expectation; it is not automatically the same as the writer independently predicting completion.

For transfer, give two descriptions of a model that share its colour but differ about its size. Ask in what respect they are the same. Naming the shared feature prevents the reader from inferring complete identity. This habit supports precise comparisons in summaries: the same topic, wording pattern or number does not guarantee the same overall meaning.

98. different

Selected model. Different wording can preserve a meaning, while one changed qualification can alter it substantially.

Meaning check. Which relevant feature differs? Does that establish a contradiction or only another option?

An invented source says, ‘The pupil prefers drawing an explanation for this task.’ A summary says, ‘The pupil cannot explain ideas in writing.’ Ask why different wording has become a different claim. A stated preference on one occasion does not establish inability in another format, and the source gives no general assessment of writing.

A faithful alternative is, ‘For this activity, the pupil chose a drawn explanation.’ Check whether chose is supported by an actual selection in the scenario; if the source only states a preference, retain prefers. The exercise shows that even a sympathetic revision needs close attention to the action or attitude actually reported.

For transfer, ask the learner to write two different sentences that preserve a simple conditional message. A partner can compare who acts, what happens, under which condition and with what certainty. The wording may vary substantially while those relationships remain stable. Conversely, changing one small word can alter a condition even when most of the sentence stays identical.

99. similar

Selected model. The two conclusions sound similar, but only one retains the condition that limits the claim.

Meaning check. Which resemblance matters, and what differences limit the comparison?

Present two fictional rules: ‘You may borrow the kit if the organiser is present’ and ‘You may borrow the kit when the organiser has checked it.’ Ask why the sentences sound similar yet set different requirements. Presence and completed checking are related possibilities, but one does not necessarily establish the other.

The learner can test both rules with an organiser who is present but has not checked the kit. This case reveals the distinction more clearly than comparing the sentence lengths. A summary must preserve the actual requirement given in the source, rather than replace it with a familiar looking condition that seems close enough.

For transfer, compare two survey results with similar totals but different questions. Six pupils preferring a blue cover and six finding its title readable are different findings. Ask the child to name both the resemblance and the relevant difference. Similarity can help organise information while still leaving the distinct meaning of each observation visible.

100. opposite

Selected model. The word possible does not mean its opposite, impossible, when a claim remains unconfirmed.

Meaning check. What specific opposing relationship is meant? Is this merely a difference instead?

Use an invented statement: ‘It is possible that the missing card is in the cupboard.’ A summary says, ‘The card is not in the cupboard because nobody has confirmed it.’ Ask why lack of confirmation does not establish the opposite. The original leaves the location open; the revision rules out a location without supporting evidence.

Compare three careful labels: confirmed in the cupboard, confirmed elsewhere and location unconfirmed. The learner can place information cards under the appropriate heading. An empty evidence box belongs with unconfirmed, not automatically with the negative claim. This gives a concrete way to preserve uncertainty when a summary feels pressured to choose a definite answer.

For transfer, examine ‘not all labels are correct’ and ‘all labels are incorrect’. They are not equivalent: one wrong label can establish the first while the others remain correct. Ask the child to draw a small set demonstrating the difference. Precise opposition depends on the complete statement, including words such as all and not.

Apply this group

Use “The wider claim needs more support than this limited set of examples provides.” as one starting example for an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. Did the revision preserve the condition and degree of certainty?

Compare it with “The word possible does not mean its opposite, impossible, when a claim remains unconfirmed.”. Identify the different job of the connecting word, then select the model that serves your current message. The two sentences are examples to discuss, not a script to recite.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 14 OF 19

14. Worked tasks for precise revision

Back to contents

Worked case: shorten a trial report without changing its claim

This fictional exercise gives the learner a complete editing decision. A school exhibition team is choosing whether to repeat a map activity. The task is to shorten one organiser’s note for a planning sheet. Keep the author, the group studied, the conditions and the uncertainty visible. No outside facts about real schools or pupils are needed.

Original note. “During Tuesday’s trial, six of the eight volunteers completed the map without asking for a direction prompt. The other two finished after one prompt each. I think the map may be suitable for another small group if an adult is available to read the starting instruction. We have not tried it with a larger group.”

Proposed summary. “The map works for everyone because all the children finished independently. The exhibition should use it without adult help.”

Before rewriting, ask the learner to separate a report from a recommendation. The first two sentences record what happened in the trial. The third gives the organiser’s tentative judgement under a condition. The final sentence records a limit on the experience. A shorter version needs the pieces relevant to the planning decision; it does not need to repeat every phrase.

Check “everyone” first. Eight volunteers took part, and the note does not describe every possible user. It also does not identify their ages. Calling them children introduces a detail the record has not supplied. Replace the invented population with the actual group. “All eight volunteers finished” is supported, provided the summary also keeps the difference in help when independence matters.

Next inspect “independently”. Six finished without asking for a direction prompt, while two received one prompt each. Even the first six are not described as working without any assistance: the note does not settle whether someone read the starting instruction during that trial. A faithful account can name the observed support instead of stretching it into a general independence claim.

Now test “because”. Completion alone does not establish that the map will work for every group. The summary links an observation to a universal conclusion without a sufficient bridge. Removing because will not repair the claim if “works for everyone” remains. Both the relationship and the scope need attention.

Finally compare “may be suitable … if” with “should … without”. The proposed version turns a tentative judgement into a recommendation and reverses the support condition. The adult’s availability is part of the organiser’s suggestion. It cannot be removed merely because the planner wants a neat sentence.

A faithful planning summary. “In Tuesday’s trial, all eight volunteers completed the map; two needed one direction prompt each. The organiser thinks it may suit another small group if an adult can read the starting instruction. Larger groups have not been tried.”

Ask the author whether “can read” preserves the intended requirement. If availability, rather than actual reading, is the important distinction, retain the original wording: “if an adult is available to read the starting instruction”. Concision is useful only while the practical condition remains clear. The learner should be allowed to keep a longer phrase when the shorter one changes the decision.

For a second round, change the planning question. If the reader only needs the number of completed maps, “All eight volunteers completed the map during Tuesday’s trial” may be sufficient. If the reader is allocating adult support, the prompts and starting instruction become relevant again. Selection depends on the reader’s purpose, while every retained claim still needs to be faithful.

End with a handover record: “Compared the note and summary with adult reading support; restored the group size, the two prompts and the conditional recommendation.” Keep the actual revision alongside it. This records a visible contribution without claiming that one successful edit establishes independent mastery of every word in the bank.

Age 11 focus: Choose a bounded task

Use two versions of a conclusion about a familiar practical comparison as a starting point, or choose another familiar topic with the same communication job. Identify the central claim and its source. Keep the activity small enough that the relationship remains visible. An adult can read, draw or record as needed; the child’s contribution may be a selection, demonstration, spoken account or revision.

Choose a real reader or listener before selecting the detail to explain. Use a familiar topic and state the immediate purpose in one sentence. A purpose such as helping someone choose a route is more manageable than explaining everything about travel.

Let the contributor choose the example where possible. Ask what information the audience already has, but treat that as something to check rather than a hidden thought the child must know. A listener can clarify their own information need.

Age 11 focus: Inspect the actual information

Use two versions of a conclusion about a familiar practical comparison as a starting point, or choose another familiar topic with the same communication job. Check what the available examples actually support. Keep the activity small enough that the relationship remains visible. An adult can read, draw or record as needed; the child’s contribution may be a selection, demonstration, spoken account or revision.

Inspect the actual picture, wording or model before interpreting it. Name what can be seen or reliably read aloud. Keep an uncertain memory separate from a detail available in the present record.

If the needed information is missing, record the gap. A useful account can say that a stage, date or cause is unknown. Fluency is not a reason to fill an unobserved part with a plausible invention.

Age 11 focus: Make the relationship explicit

Use two versions of a conclusion about a familiar practical comparison as a starting point, or choose another familiar topic with the same communication job. Retain necessary conditions and qualifications during paraphrase. Keep the activity small enough that the relationship remains visible. An adult can read, draw or record as needed; the child’s contribution may be a selection, demonstration, spoken account or revision.

Use movable cards or a spoken account to put the related pieces together. Ask what relationship the second piece adds to the first: an example, contrast, sequence, condition or possible explanation. Keep the discussion grounded in the selected task.

Offer one complete model if the relationship is hard to express. Then return the floor to the child. They can accept, reject or demonstrate a correction. The adult model should preserve their meaning rather than introduce a different story.

Age 11 focus: Invite one useful clarification

Use two versions of a conclusion about a familiar practical comparison as a starting point, or choose another familiar topic with the same communication job. Let the author approve a revision that preserves the intended meaning. Keep the activity small enough that the relationship remains visible. An adult can read, draw or record as needed; the child’s contribution may be a selection, demonstration, spoken account or revision.

Invite one focused question from a willing listener. Ask which object, time, condition or example remains unclear. Respond to that actual question instead of adding a long list of facts the listener did not request.

Compare the message before and after the clarification. Check whether the added relationship resolves the gap and whether any original meaning was lost. A short successful clarification can be enough for the activity.

Age 11 focus: Revise without changing the author’s idea

Read or describe the revision back to its author. Check whether it preserves the intended event, relationship and viewpoint. Supported reading and recording remain available; independent written production is not required to take part.

Keep a necessary condition or uncertainty marker even if removing it makes the sentence sound stronger. End when the account serves its stated purpose, or leave an honest question open if the information does not settle it.

Worked revision: preserve a paper-bridge claim’s limits

Supplied source. This invented project note concerns one paper-bridge design. It reports two trials carried out indoors on Tuesday: one trial of an untaped version and one trial of a taped version. These are classroom practice records for evaluating wording; no real experiment or general material property is being reported.

The recorded trials. “In the untaped trial, the bridge held 6 counters. We stopped adding counters at that point. In the taped trial, the bridge held 9 counters. We stopped adding counters at that point.” The note records the loads actually tried. It does not give a collapse load or establish either version’s maximum capacity. The record also does not establish that every other relevant condition was identical.

The source author’s interpretation. “Tape may help this design, but we have only one trial for each version. We have not tested damp conditions.” May marks a tentative interpretation. This design, one trial each and the untested damp conditions all limit the claim. They are part of the meaning, not spare words that an editor can remove to make the statement more impressive.

Inaccurate draft. “Tape makes every paper bridge stronger, even when wet.” This changes a possible contribution into an asserted cause, extends one design to every paper bridge, and invents a result for a condition the source did not test. It also describes strength as though the trials measured maximum load, although the source says testing stopped at the stated loads.

Worked revision. “The fictional project note reports that an untaped version of this design held 6 counters in one indoor trial on Tuesday, while a taped version held 9 counters in another. The author suggests that tape may help this design. These two trials do not establish that tape caused the difference, identify either version’s maximum capacity or show how the design would perform in damp conditions.”

Why the revision is faithful. The response keeps the numerical observations, identifies their source and preserves the author’s uncertainty. While contrasts the two recorded trials without claiming a controlled causal result. The final sentence names three limits that matter to the proposed conclusion. A difference of three counters between the recorded loads is not, by itself, evidence of a particular increase in maximum strength or a guarantee about another bridge.

Transfer check. Change only one phrase in the worked revision: replace “one indoor trial” with “every test”. Ask which source detail no longer supports the wording, then restore the actual number of trials. Alternatively, add a new fictional damp-condition record and identify precisely which previously unanswered question it addresses. Do not let one extra record settle unrelated questions automatically. The learner may highlight the numbers and scope words, dictate a shorter faithful summary or explain why a stronger claim needs more evidence.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 15 OF 19

15. Repair two common problems

Back to contents

A paraphrase removes uncertainty

Restore the original degree of certainty before polishing style. Possible and established do not make the same claim.

An edit drops the limiting condition

Check whether removing it broadens the statement. Keep it when the evidence applies only under that condition.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 16 OF 19

16. Parent and tutor handover

Back to contents

Name the purpose of the precise revision task and the format the learner used. Record one actual example, the help supplied and what became clearer to the listener. Avoid a broad label such as knows all the words.

Choose one useful next step within an original statement and a proposed paraphrase. A reading aid, a drawn representation or adult recording can stay available. Agree on the relationship to practise rather than a compulsory number of repetitions.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 17 OF 19

17. Progression and useful return routes

Back to contents

Age 11 continues the Connecting Fence bank through precise revision. Its practical purpose is to preserve meaning, attribution, conditions and uncertainty when shortening or qualifying an account. These are teaching choices for adults, not claims that every child reaches identical language control at the same birthday.

Begin with a familiar example and one relationship. Identify the central claim and its source. Then check what the available examples actually support. Keep props, pictures or adult-read notes available. Removing every support at once is not required to make a contribution meaningful.

The key boundary remains: Grammatical wording can still change a claim if it removes a condition or turns a possibility into a certainty. A clear account should not imply more than the available information supports. A practical demonstration, relevant clarification or accurate shorter version may be a better next step than a longer sentence.

Observe flexibility and record support. Imitation, a demonstrated relationship, a dictated explanation and independent writing are different observations. Avoid merging them into one mastery label. One successful example and one unanswered question are each limited pieces of information, not a complete account of the child’s ability.

Base Essential words establish familiar meanings. Connecting Fence clarifies relationships. Maximum Fence explores richer distinctions and ideas. These related educational jobs do not constitute clinical stages or compulsory levels, and useful earlier words need not be abandoned.

Continue with the published Connecting Fence Age 12, with attention to short synthesis, attribution and the limits of a conclusion. Continue selecting tasks by their usefulness to the present reader or listener rather than by a required paragraph length or a completion total.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 18 OF 19

18. Questions about this guide

Back to contents

Must every child aged 11 produce these models?

No. The bank is a flexible adult reference, not a syllabus, assessment or birthday checklist. Choose a useful relationship, recognise different response formats and keep support available. Richer constructions may remain listening models while a simpler account communicates successfully.

What changes from Connecting Fence Age 10?

This guide supplies 100 new expanded models focused on precise revision. The same headwords return in new communication contexts. The new models show how familiar language can preserve meaning, attribution, conditions and uncertainty when shortening or qualifying an account; they are options rather than mandatory performance targets.

Must the response be independently written?

No. Spoken, drawn and adult-supported work can serve the task. Record the support honestly and do not infer an independent reading or handwriting skill from assisted production.

How should earlier guides be used?

Use the hub to choose an earlier experience when a word relationship is unclear. A familiar object, action or listener can reduce competing demands while a new connection is explored. Returning to an earlier example is a teaching choice, not a judgement about the learner.

Contents · Previous chapter · Next chapter

CHAPTER 19 OF 19

19. Scope and continuation

Back to contents

The selected Age 11 models are educational examples. Age labels organise the series; they are not an official syllabus or a developmental test. The examples do not establish the truth of an imagined event or certify independent literacy skills.

Contents · Previous chapter

Continue exploring the series

Open the complete Children’s Vocabulary Ages 1–12 series hub · Vocabulary Learning System.

Age 1: Everyday Age 1 · Base Age 1 · Connecting Age 1 · Maximum Age 1

Age 2: Everyday Age 2 · Base Age 2 · Connecting Age 2 · Maximum Age 2

Age 3: Everyday Age 3 · Base Age 3 · Connecting Age 3 · Maximum Age 3

Age 4: Everyday Age 4 · Base Age 4 · Connecting Age 4 · Maximum Age 4

Age 5: Everyday Age 5 · Base Age 5 · Connecting Age 5 · Maximum Age 5

Age 6: Everyday Age 6 · Base Age 6 · Connecting Age 6 · Maximum Age 6

Age 7: Everyday Age 7 · Base Age 7 · Connecting Age 7 · Maximum Age 7

Age 8: Base Age 8 · Connecting Age 8 · Maximum Age 8 · Everyday Age 8

Age 9: Base Age 9 · Connecting Age 9 · Maximum Age 9 · Everyday Age 9

Age 10: Base Age 10 · Connecting Age 10 · Maximum Age 10 · Everyday Age 10

Age 11: Base Age 11 · Connecting Age 11 (this guide) · Everyday Age 11 · Maximum Age 11

Age 12: Base Age 12 · Connecting Age 12 · Maximum Age 12 · Everyday Age 12