Repairing an Ambiguous Motion-Verb Multiple-Choice Item
A Russian I teacher writes this multiple-choice item for a unit test: «Вчера Анна ___ на работу пешком.» Options: A. шла B. пошла C. ходила D. ехала. The answer key says B. пошла. A colleague reviewing the item argues that A is also correct. The teacher replies that «вчера» plus «пешком» points to one completed trip, so only B fits. The test is scheduled for tomorrow with 28 students, including three heritage speakers. The department requires a single unambiguous key or removal of the item. The teacher has 15 minutes to decide and revise, and wants to keep assessing motion verbs: unidirectional versus multidirectional, and perfective versus imperfective. The item is worth two points. The teacher also worries that removing it will weaken coverage of a required grammar point.
1. Is option A defensible? Evaluate all four options in the sentence as written.
Read the worked answer
A is defensible. «Вчера Анна шла на работу пешком» is a normal imperfective description of the process or background: yesterday she was walking to work on foot. B is also defensible: «пошла» presents the single completed departure or going. C is possible in a 'went and came back' or habitual reading, though less natural without more context. D is the only clear misfit because «ехала» conflicts with «пешком». Since at least A and B fit the sentence as written, the item has no single unambiguous key. The teacher's argument that «вчера» plus «пешком» forces one completed trip is wrong: «вчера» can frame a process, and «пешком» specifies manner, not boundedness. The item must be revised or removed.
2. Revise the item so that it tests the intended contrast unambiguously. Provide the revised item, key, and a brief rationale.
Read the worked answer
Add a duration marker that forces the process reading: «Вчера Анна ___ на работу пешком полчаса». Key: A. шла. «Пошла» does not take a duration phrase here; «ходила» is odd with «на работу» and «полчаса»; «ехала» contradicts «пешком». This keeps the intended contrast between imperfective process and perfective completed action. If the goal is unidirectional versus multidirectional, use a two-sentence context: «Обычно Анна ___ на работу пешком, но вчера она ___ на автобусе». Key: «ходит» / «поехала». Do not try to test both contrasts in one bare sentence. Write the key before writing the distractors, and check that no other option is defensible in the same context.
3. What should the teacher consider about the heritage speakers in the class, and what is the fairness argument for revising or removing the item?
Read the worked answer
Heritage speakers may have strong intuitions but not necessarily the standard written norm; the item should not reward a guess from home speech. A clear context protects them and everyone else. Avoid 'trick' items where two answers are defensible; they measure test-taking luck, not grammar. If the revised item still draws a challenge, remove it and replace the two points with a short contextualized writing task. The teacher can still assess motion verbs with the two-sentence item above. Fairness means one defensible key and a context that makes the intended meaning recoverable. The teacher should also avoid treating heritage-speaker colloquial forms as evidence that the whole class needs remedial drilling; the issue is item quality, not student deficit.