[88e282102ae2e5b]

> They are qualified experts on child education.

This is absolutely false. Becoming a 3rd grade teacher is not that hard (being a third grade teacher, on the other hand, surely is).

> It’s more important than ever for students to understand the difference between equal as a result and equivalence in meaning from a young age because it is a fundamental computer science concept.

It's not though, because you can learn these things later in life and still understand them just as well. What exactly is lost if you don't have this figured out on your 9th birthday?

[jmilloy]

> What exactly is lost if you don't have this figured out on your 9th birthday?

Not much. But what exactly is lost if you get 1 out of 2 instead of 2 out of 2 on a quiz in 3rd grade?

If there is a problem, it's that we can't be told that we were partially correct instead of fully correct on silly problems without it being a big deal and a failing.

[scrollaway]

> But what exactly is lost if you get 1 out of 2 instead of 2 out of 2 on a quiz in 3rd grade?

Spoken like someone truly unaware of how children think! You should work in education, there's plenty of people like that there.

The child could in fact become horribly confused about multiplication because of a bullshit technicality, and this could set them back months. Or the child could be certain they're right and this breaks trust in authority -- non-obedient children are not inherently bad, but without careful handling they can become extremely aggressive.

I certainly relate. In fact, you can fairly easily identify, in all these comments, who has experienced similar BS and who is knee-deep stuck in theory without understanding the human component behind it (looking at you, pohl).

The child doesn't see the -1 and think "Oh, I immediately understand why my answer is wrong! Of course, I understood 3 groups of 5 instead of 5 groups of 3!". No, the child sees it, thinks "but you told me they're the same? ok...", and is now more confused than ever about what's actually been taught in the class. Most 9 year olds don't know how to introspect.

Urgh. The comments here are so infuriating because this complete disconnect is exactly the same as the one the people behind the design of the most atrocious curriculums and methods have! Damn it, who here is actually taking into account their own age compared to the kid? (And fun trivia: It's the same belittling, disconnected behaviour people have when they talk to 18-22 year olds about life experiences they can't reliably have had before the age of 35... except it's a lot more flagrant here)

[jmilloy]

I think you would find we agree much more than we disagree. Though what I find most infuriating is the blanket assumption (with similar level of disconnect) that what is being taught is mindless or confusing with no value, often simply because it's labeled as a "curriculum" or a "learning objective". You're not automatically right because you "experienced similar BS"; instead you have to realize that you, too, are coming into it with a bias and blindness.

What I see is a a bunch of people who can't stand seeing that red -1, maybe because it has been ingrained in them that they have to be perfect. Or maybe it's natural, and no one helped them git rid of that feeling.

It's so important for young students to feel like they understand and will continue to understand, in order for them to then achieve new understanding. I don't know how to write that without sounding like a theorist, but I sincerely believe it to be true. You've got to get rid of that fear of red ink.

There are tons of poor ways to teach, and poor curricula. This teacher could be doing a fine job with this student (and the parent's the ones that don't get it), or could be seriously hindering the child. I certainly wouldn't teach multiplication strategies this way. But it's not clear to me that marking this particular answer as only partially correct is inherently and unquestionably wrong.

[scrollaway]

You're still stuck in the theory, talking about how the people in this thread feel when none of them matter. The child matters, that's it.

> It's so important for young students to feel like they understand and will continue to understand, in order for them to then achieve new understanding. I don't know how to write that without sounding like a theorist, but I sincerely believe it to be true. You've got to get rid of that fear of red ink.

None of what has been applied in the photo is pedagogical and will lead to "getting rid of the fear of the red ink". Seriously man, take a step back, punishing a child for being right will make it worse if anything. Even if what you were talking about was a thing (it's not - the closest thing that comes to it is fear of failure and it's dealt with outside of tests), this would NOT help it.

[jmilloy]

The child isn't being punished.

The child wasn't right.

That's okay.

They child might not know it's okay. In that case, they should receive support.

Getting marked wrong doesn't help get rid of the fear of failure; we agree about that. Not sure why you got the impression I thought otherwise.

Many people in the thread are reacting against the lesson and grading because of how they feel, not about how the child feels. That's why how they feel matters, when discussing it in an ultimately irrelevant forum.

[aninhumer]

The purpose of marking a test is to communicate to the child whether they understand the topic. Marking an almost correct answer wrong (without elaboration) is bad feedback.

The problem that people are raising here isn't how the child feels, it's how the child thinks. And one thing they might think as a result of this answer is "Oh, I guess multiplication isn't the same both ways. I must have been mistaken." and it might take some time for this misunderstanding to clear up.