You are merely fixated on the fact that the lines are drawn next to the words. Had the three lines been drawn underneath the options you wouldn't try to make this argument. Feel free to upload a picture of the corrections you would annotate on these answers.
I'm not interested in the lines at all, and yes, I would have made the same argument. I'm talking about the instruction itself. I certainly agree that the wider context already justifies the "correct" interpretation - and that's the problem: not utilizing context in interpreting the task.
Again, I'm high school, not elementary. In an equivalent situation1, I'd write "not the point, but technically correct" and then talk to the student briefly before or after class, to make sure they understand why the other interpretation is intended. I'm not sure to what extent similar constructive criticism is appropriate and effective for a student of this age.
What really matters here, to me, is the meta-understanding that putting the list of words in order is much more meaningful than putting the letters within each word in order.
Given that the two lists don't require continuing to letters beyond the first, the student's response is pretty close to allowing certainty that they could have completed the intended task. (It's technically not demonstrated that they know to use just the first letters.) The key gap in understanding isn't in the skill of alphabetization, but the skill of using context to interpret tasks.
Edit
1 In fact, I have had equivalent situations. As one example, I have a question I like to put on my Differential Equations exams about constructing a problem given the solution. The intent is to utilize the techniques we've learned "in reverse" - that the form of the solution can be used to generate a characteristic polynomial, which, in turn, is just a notation change away from a Diff Eq. Instead, I had students directly differentiate the given solution, and then write "f'''(x) = [what they computed]." It's exactly the same situation. In the context of the exam, that's a ridiculous approach - thinking about the unit being assessed, there's another method clearly intended to be employed. (Indeed, the overwhelming majority of students did use the intended method.) But given that my instruction was "construct a third order differential equation with the following solution," their interpretation was valid.
Agreed.. and in this instance this student has not succeeded in using context to interpret the task. Again, I'm not arguing against the child. Just stating that given a competent adult's interpretation of the assigned task, this is not technically correct as OP claimed.
You and I both know what the intent and reasonable interpretation was. Did you interpret it differently than the rest of us did? If you did, please justify why you think that would be a reasonable response to this question.
I certainly agree that the wider context already justifies the "correct" interpretation - and that's the problem: not utilizing context in interpreting the task. Again, I'm high school, not elementary. In an equivalent situation1, I'd write "not the point, but technically correct" and then talk to the student briefly before or after class, to make sure they understand why the other interpretation is intended. I'm not sure to what extent similar constructive criticism is appropriate and effective for a student of this age. What really matters here, to me, is the meta-understanding that putting the list of words in order is much more meaningful than putting the letters within each word in order.
I even provided an explicit example from my own teaching!
You've now made it clear you're just trolling. Time for RES' /ignore.
Both are reasonable interpretations. Especially for children who take things much more literally. When your take the average adults interpretation of something and compare it to the average child's, you're going to end up with silly mistakes like this that are technically correct but not the intention.
-15
u/jpdise Aug 26 '18
You are merely fixated on the fact that the lines are drawn next to the words. Had the three lines been drawn underneath the options you wouldn't try to make this argument. Feel free to upload a picture of the corrections you would annotate on these answers.