Kate Coldrick explains how autistic learners can approach AQA GCSE English Language Question 3 on structure with an inclusive, accessible strategy.

From summer 2026, AQA are revising Paper 1, Question 3. Instead of the familiar open-ended “How has the writer structured the text to interest you as a reader?”, the question will now specify a single effect – for example: “How has the writer structured the text to create suspense?” This adjustment is clearly intended to reduce the vagueness that has long puzzled students. By narrowing the focus, it removes some of the overwhelming openness of the task, which could leave students unsure of where to begin.

But while this change is welcome, it does not tackle the deeper issue: the question still rests on a set of normative assumptions about how readers should engage with texts. It assumes that “suspense” or any other named effect will be experienced in a standardised way, and that students can easily step into this shared viewpoint. It still frames success around explaining effects through the lens of an imagined “typical reader,” without recognising that different students will come to texts with different ways of processing, noticing, and questioning. For many autistic learners, this remains a barrier: not because they lack the ability to analyse structure, but because the task is presented in a way that is misaligned with their thinking style.

The old wording made this gap especially visible. The phrase “interest you as a reader” could easily be taken literally. An autistic student might think quite reasonably: “Well, this part didn’t interest me at all,” and stop there – which is an honest personal response, but not one the mark scheme rewards. Others may worry that their own reading isn’t the “right” one and try to guess what a hypothetical “typical” reader is supposed to feel. This is where Damian Milton’s idea of the double empathy problem helps us see the real issue. The difficulty doesn’t lie in autistic students lacking perspective-taking skills. It lies in the exam question being written from a narrow, neurotypical standpoint and treating that as the standard. When autistic learners bring a different but equally valid way of engaging with a text, their authentic response is marginalised by the assumptions built into the question.

Add to this the abstract hierarchy of the mark scheme (“simple,” “clear,” “perceptive”), and the requirement to move from what happens, to how it is structured, to why it creates an effect, and it becomes clear why many autistic students either freeze, or retreat into retelling the story instead of analysing its shape. The 2026 change narrows the scope of the question, but it does not change these underlying barriers.

How I Reframe the Task

To bridge these barriers, I use a method that makes structure concrete and predictable: reverse-engineering the writer’s plan. This shifts the focus from guessing what “a reader” is meant to feel, to observing what the writer actually chose to do.

Step 1: Rebuild the plan
Students draft a simple outline of what the writer might have planned before writing: opening, shifts, developments, ending.

Step 2: Map plan to text
For each step, they identify the part of the text where that plan plays out.

Step 3: Ask-the-writer questions
Students generate concrete questions they would want to ask the writer about that step:

• What might happen next?
• Why does the focus shift here?
• How is the character feeling?
• Why does this moment happen suddenly?

Step 4: Build the answer
We then turn these steps into exam responses: state the structural choice, give evidence, and frame the student’s “ask-the-writer” question as an effect (e.g. “This makes the reader expect… / worry about… / notice the change in…”).

Why This Works

What this reframing achieves is a shift in the cognitive demand. Instead of starting with abstraction and subjective judgement, it starts with observation and logical sequencing – areas where autistic learners often excel. The writer’s plan provides a concrete frame that narrows the field of choice, helping students see the structure as a sequence of deliberate steps rather than a vague set of possibilities. The “ask-the-writer” stage validates the learner’s own perspective, transforming their authentic questions into the kind of effect statements examiners reward. This bypasses the normative assumptions of the original question while still fulfilling the assessment objective: to analyse how structural choices influence the reader.

By making the invisible visible – showing that structure is simply the writer’s plan playing out in text – the task becomes one of reconstruction rather than speculation. That difference is critical. It allows autistic learners to approach Question 3 with confidence, not second-guessing what a “reader” is supposed to think, but instead working methodically through what the writer actually did.

This approach continues to work under the new 2026 wording. Whether the question asks about suspense, tension, or surprise, the steps remain the same: rebuild the writer’s plan, map it onto the text, and phrase the “ask-the-writer” questions in terms of the named effect.

For example, imagine the extract reads like this:

The kitchen was filled with the clink of spoons and the low murmur of voices. Sunlight fell across the table where the family sat together, buttering toast and pouring tea. Suddenly, three sharp knocks rattled the front door. The sound cut through the calm like a warning, and everyone froze, cups half-raised.

A student using the plan method might write:

• Plan step: Start with a calm breakfast scene and then interrupt it with a loud knock on the door.
• Ask-the-writer questions: “Who’s outside?” and “It sounds urgent and maybe even authoritative – what does the person knocking on the door want? Is it bad news or danger?”
• Exam answer: “The shift from the quiet family breakfast to the sudden knock on the door creates suspense. By breaking the calm so abruptly, the writer makes the reader wonder who is outside and whether the knock signals bad news or danger.”

Here the student has:

• Written a simple plan step in their own words.
• Linked it directly to what happens in the text.
• Turned their authentic questions into an effect statement that directly answers the exam’s demand to explain how suspense is created.

The barrier, then, was never in the student’s ability to analyse structure; it was in the framing of the question. Once reframed through the writer’s plan, autistic learners are not just able to access Question 3 (old or new), but are positioned to succeed on their own terms.

Written by Kate Coldrick, tutor and resource creator specialising in GCSE English Language and autism-inclusive approaches. Browse my full set of teaching resources in my TES shop, or explore more articles and guides on my blog at katecoldrick.com

Written by Kate Coldrick, an educator and writer based in Woodbury near Exeter.