It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Pineapple and the Hare. Simple reading comprehension question BAFFLES NY educators.

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
It made no sense up till the questions.

The questions are easily answerable. The point is to answer the questions not analyze the logical practicality of the "story". They aren't looking for logical or rational explanations of the absurd...

All the questions are easily answerable if you stick to answering the questions and refrain from adding assumptions to what the story "means"...the story doesn't MEAN anything...the story isn't meant to be deconstructed to find meaning or value...its meant to test someones ability to answer the questions by identifying irrelevant information and identifying it as such, discarding it and answering the question without adding assumptions regardless of whether or not they are logical or rational.

I totally understand where they were going with this question and the intent they had behind it.

The debatable part from my stand point is whether or not its appropriate for that age/grade group.




posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by questforevidence
 


This is very simple to understand. Only one of those questions actually requires thought and deduction.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


No syntax problem. The general rule is that if you were to take out the "you" would the sentence be proper saying "I" or "Me" and leave it as such.

For example:
"Lonnie and I like men." If you take out the existence of the other person "Lonnie" and take out that "and," you are left with "I like men." This is a statement and proper. You wouldn't say "Me like men." So you leave it as "I."

Now, if I said, "That giant fish walked in the desert and got Lonnie and me," take out "Lonnie" and "and" then I'm left with, "that giant fish walked in the desert and got me." I wouldn't say "that giant fish got I." So, I leave it as me.

That's how I was taught, anyway. English is such a picky language though.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


As a former educator, I can see why this had teachers and students up in arms. It really doesn't have as much to do with "teaching to the test" as it does with senseless morbidity and confusion. They (the writers of the story), personified the pineapple, giving it a personality, which automatically taps into a child's natural ability to empathize with characters. That was flaw number one. The second flaw was that they basically did a morbid parody of the Tortoise and the Hare, but the moral and ending was so dark and skewed, it made no sense. That was flaw number two.

From a psychological standpoint, the entire story is emotionally confusing, even for me. We teach our children to make decisions not only based on facts and experience, but on empathy and morals that "we" have given them to the best of our own abilities based on our experiences. This is the basic premise for critical thinking. To force children to empathize with a personified pineapple that challenges the Hare to race, in which it is not only ridiculed and accused of trickery, but loses and is EATEN by all the other characters in the story, is quite frankly, very disturbing to me.

The average brain will go "WTF??" after reading this story, because so many questions come to mind. As to which ones the brain addresses first, that's the problem. There is no character in this story they can reasonably identify with. I understand how this may have been an attempt to get children to overlook unimportant details and outlandish ideas to get to the bottom of something, but even that is a far stretch for me, since the moral of the story was just as absurd as the story itself. I would have guessed, in my adult critical thinking abilities, that the moral would/should have been more along the lines of, "don't challenge someone on an activity outside of your current capabilities". At least, that's the message that came across to me....otherwise, you'll obviously get eaten by your peers when you lose.


In my most professional opinion, the fact that the children and teachers raised a stink about this, says that critical thinking is very much alive and well!! Children know that this scenario would NEVER happen, nor anything remotely close to it. Who in their right mind would challenge someone to something they are incapable of doing, UNLESS they had a trick up their sleeve? That's the whole point. Children were left bewildered by a personified pineapple that was obviously bereft of good judgment. I think that is the most confusing part of this. In this light, perhaps the moral should have been, "If you challenge someone on something beyond your current capabilities, you deserve to be eaten". Good God, really??

I see this as being completely opposite...I think the children are smarter than the test question. The question would require children and adults alike to TURN OFF critical thinking skills, experience, and even empathy, in order to make sense of it...but it wouldn't make sense even at that point.
edit on 23-4-2012 by Gseven because: content



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Gseven
 


thank you for proving a point



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven
reply to post by antonia
 


As a former educator, I can see why this had teachers and students up in arms. It really doesn't have as much to do with "teaching to the test" as it does with senseless morbidity and confusion. They (the writers of the story), personified the pineapple, giving it a personality, which automatically taps into a child's natural ability to empathize with characters. That was flaw number one. The second flaw was that they basically did a morbid parody of the Tortoise and the Hare, but the moral and ending was so dark and skewed, it made no sense. That was flaw number two.

From a psychological standpoint, the entire story is emotionally confusing, even for me. We teach our children to make decisions not only based on facts and experience, but on empathy and morals that "we" have given them to the best of our own abilities based on our experiences. This is the basic premise for critical thinking. To force children to empathize with a personified pineapple that challenges the Hare to race, in which it is not only ridiculed and accused of trickery, but loses and is EATEN by all the other characters in the story, is quite frankly, very disturbing to me.

The average brain will go "WTF??" after reading this story, because so many questions come to mind. As to which ones the brain addresses first, that's the problem. There is no character in this story they can reasonably identify with. I understand how this may have been an attempt to get children to overlook unimportant details and outlandish ideas to get to the bottom of something, but even that is a far stretch for me, since the moral of the story was just as absurd as the story itself. I would have guessed, in my adult critical thinking abilities, that the moral would/should have been more along the lines of, "don't challenge someone on an activity outside of your current capabilities". At least, that's the message that came across to me....otherwise, you'll obviously get eaten by your peers when you lose.


In my most professional opinion, the fact that the children and teachers raised a stink about this, says that critical thinking is very much alive and well!! Children know that this scenario would NEVER happen, nor anything remotely close to it. Who in their right mind would challenge someone to something they are incapable of doing, UNLESS they had a trick up their sleeve? That's the whole point. Children were left bewildered by a personified pineapple that was obviously bereft of good judgment. I think that is the most confusing part of this. In this light, perhaps the moral should have been, "If you challenge someone on something beyond your current capabilities, you deserve to be eaten". Good God, really??

I see this as being completely opposite...I think the children are smarter than the test question. The question would require children and adults alike to TURN OFF critical thinking skills, experience, and even empathy, in order to make sense of it...but it wouldn't make sense even at that point.
edit on 23-4-2012 by Gseven because: content


I agree and understand SOME of what you are saying however, the children in your explanations above would be doing things they were not asked to do. The questions are very simple and to the point, the story not so much. But the point isn't to answer the "story" its to answer the "questions" the reading comprehension doesn't stop when you are finished with the story, it continues on in reading the questions and doing what is asked and avoid answering questions that were not asked.

This test may possibly be out of its grade/age range.
edit on 23-4-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manouche
reply to post by tport17
 


And it will help you if the text is simple. But what if the text deals with difficult abstract concepts, ideas you are not familiar to. How do you learn ? How do you study economics, science, philosophy, law or whatever and read about things you don't have prior knowledge or experience ? Reading comprehension skills is critical.

Can someone answer what books 8th-graders study at school in the USA ?

edit on 23-4-2012 by Manouche because: (no reason given)


I know that through the fith grade they all read independently of each other. There is no class assigned books although they do read some books orally in class(always under my kids reading level). Then they test them on the computer with a test from a private vendor, for which I have always been refused access. So even if your child fails neither you or the teacher have any idea what they have trouble grasping. My kid either gets an A on these test or my kid fails them. Makes you wonder how many of them are set up like the question in the OP? I really think their needs to be class assigned books so the kids have aunoform standard for their individual reading.

As far as school goes, in Florida they are teaching the kids to a high level. I did well in school but would have struggled with their curriculum. That said, I revised this paragraph after writing the below. I have to say that a good portion of my kids success has come from a very hands approach. Without me the kid would have most likely had a very rough time of it.

I would ask any teachers to do the following for better results in their classrooms and from their students:

1. Before handing out any test, quiz, homework,etc. Take it yourself. Just about every test that comes home has a question that doesn't make sense or requires unclear assumptions to arrive at the right answer. I have also seen some where the correct answer isn't even a possible choice (2 1/3 + .3 2/3 = a.7 b. 5 3/9 c. 6 7/9 d. 5 1/2). Even worse is the teacher refusing to acknowledge the errors or correct the grading, even when the question makes sense and he marked it wrong.

2. When you assign projects make them simple. Don't require a paper, bibliography, posterboard, written script and costume all in the same project. It is overkill. That is my kids year end project and I guess what they call parents hour. We get to watch the kids give talks on individual scientists while in the costume we manage to find for them. And they get to do all this work in order to do so. They say it is suppose to be fun. Woo-Hoo!!! Just decide what is most important and leave it to that. The chances of getting back excellent work will go up dramatically. Seperate written assignments and arts and craft projects. also do not overlap projects and thus anxiety.

3. Review what you send home to parents. Almost every communication I recieved from a teacher this year has had misspellings of simple words. I misspell all the time, but I am not a teacher. I am not sure what standard they hold the kids to on spelling, since I never get back most of their written papers I do ensure the spelling is correct before they hand it in though. You would think a teacher would do the same. It makes you look like you don't really care or that you are poorly educated. If you are sending home weekly updates, get together with the other teachers and include everything in one communication.

4. Don't give homework during breaks or during standardized testing periods. It is not fair to the parents or the kids. A break means a break. Breaks are provided for kids to go on vacations and give their brains a rest. I think only crappy teachers give homework on breaks try to make up for other percieved shortcomings.

5. Realize that parents hate confrontations with teachers. You should be able to justify and rationlize everything you have the kids do. If you can't, you should make adjustments so it makes more sense and admit as much to the parents voicing concern. The teachers that can do this I hold in high esteem. The ones that won't, I want to chase out of the teaching profession as they don't want to be held accountable..

6. If you have parents sign something, you need to review it when it comes back. I have corrected a dozen exams which i have had to sign and only once did I get a response back from a teacher. They all act surprised when I bring this up.

7. Send their tests home to keep at home. They are invaluable study aids for future times. There are many times when there simply were not any study aids availble prior to tests.

8. Limit the homework. Excess is waste!



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I've always been one to understand that the source of the answers does not come from you when reading a short story. It's the writers story, you follow their agenda. Follow the script and answer according to whats given to you vs what you believe is realistic and logical.

It's a story where pineapples can talk.... well, that's not realistic or logical at all. Therefore your answers should reflect that.

As to why they ate the pineapple.. That's vague as hell. You can only assume, because it does not really say. Resort to process of elimination.


A Hungry (If they were were hungry, they'd eat more than one pineapple.)

B Excited (No.)

C Annoyed (Seems correct due to the fact they wasted their time. They expected a pineapple to win.)

D Amused (No.)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
It made no sense up till the questions.

The questions are easily answerable. The point is to answer the questions not analyze the logical practicality of the "story". They aren't looking for logical or rational explanations of the absurd...

All the questions are easily answerable if you stick to answering the questions and refrain from adding assumptions to what the story "means"...the story doesn't MEAN anything...the story isn't meant to be deconstructed to find meaning or value...its meant to test someones ability to answer the questions by identifying irrelevant information and identifying it as such, discarding it and answering the question without adding assumptions regardless of whether or not they are logical or rational.

I totally understand where they were going with this question and the intent they had behind it.

The debatable part from my stand point is whether or not its appropriate for that age/grade group.


I have to disagree with this on a couple of the questions. One in particular asked what would have happened had they cheered for the hare. Really? They asked 8th graders this question?? This whole thing wreaks of a trick question, period, to include the story. Unless the possibility of the outcome could change, why ask that particular question at all, unless to completely insult their intelligence? In my mind, if I were asked this question, I would interpret it treading into more philosophical ideals. I think I'm too smart for this test as well.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


change a few nouns and one verb (ate) and the story is perfectly logical
you had no problem selecting the correct answer and giving an explanation as to why you thought it was the correct answer
how would the old man and the sea read if the old man was a yeti and the fish was a scuba diving grapefruit? would most people still be able to make sense of it? i would certainly hope so



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one

I agree and understand SOME of what you are saying however, the children in your explanations above would be doing things they were not asked to do. The questions are very simple and to the point, the story not so much. But the point isn't to answer the "story" its to answer the "questions" the reading comprehension doesn't stop when you are finished with the story, it continues on in reading the questions and doing what is asked and avoid answering questions that were not asked.

This test may possibly be out of its grade/age range.
edit on 23-4-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)


As I stated to another poster, I have to respectfully disagree. A few of the questions were just as confusing as the story. Again, as a former educator, a child cannot be expected to answer reading comprehension questions, if the story they are reading doesn't make sense. Part of the reasoning and comprehension that goes into critical thinking, is exactly what short-circuits many of the brains that have called foul in this. I am one of them. I think this story and it's questions require a LACK of comprehension, to be honest. Most children would comprehend far more than what this story intended, and I think that's what most folks are trying to convey here. It uncovers an amazing level of emotional intelligence that people are grossly overlooking.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven

Originally posted by Sly1one
It made no sense up till the questions.

The questions are easily answerable. The point is to answer the questions not analyze the logical practicality of the "story". They aren't looking for logical or rational explanations of the absurd...

All the questions are easily answerable if you stick to answering the questions and refrain from adding assumptions to what the story "means"...the story doesn't MEAN anything...the story isn't meant to be deconstructed to find meaning or value...its meant to test someones ability to answer the questions by identifying irrelevant information and identifying it as such, discarding it and answering the question without adding assumptions regardless of whether or not they are logical or rational.

I totally understand where they were going with this question and the intent they had behind it.

The debatable part from my stand point is whether or not its appropriate for that age/grade group.


I have to disagree with this on a couple of the questions. One in particular asked what would have happened had they cheered for the hare. Really?


The answer is the only one that was given to you in the story. Every other possible answer is an ASSUMPTION...

The only possible answer to that question that is NOT an assumption is the one that was given to you in the story. "They would be happy they cheered for the winner" is the answer which was deduced from the part of the story that flat out tells you "So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple."

no where else in that story can you get any of the other answers to that question WITHOUT making assumptions:

What would have happened if the animals had decided to cheer for the hare?

A The pineapple would have won the race. = ASSUMPTION
B They would have been mad at the hare for winning. = ASSUMPTION
C The hare would have just sat there and not moved. =ASSUMPTION
D They would have been happy to have cheered for a winner. = "So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple."

very simple to understand...the question didn't ask what some are attempting to answer...



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Does nobody have an imagination anymore? What is so hard to follow about the story?
Sure it's silly and imaginative but I don't see why people couldn't read it and answer the questions the best they felt they could.

you make a cartoon about a sponge that lives under the sea in a pineapple and has a snail for a pet and a squid for a friend and THAT people understand......

All these ridiculous reality shows people understand...........

I think as time goes on people are just getting stupidyier (I know that's not a word, just trying to fit in)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mizzijr
I've always been one to understand that the source of the answers does not come from you when reading a short story. It's the writers story, you follow their agenda. Follow the script and answer according to whats given to you vs what you believe is realistic and logical.

It's a story where pineapples can talk.... well, that's not realistic or logical at all. Therefore your answers should reflect that.

As to why they ate the pineapple.. That's vague as hell. You can only assume, because it does not really say. Resort to process of elimination.


A Hungry (If they were were hungry, they'd eat more than one pineapple.)

B Excited (No.)

C Annoyed (Seems correct due to the fact they wasted their time. They expected a pineapple to win.)

D Amused (No.)


OR the answer would be (A) because:

A Hungry (its the only reason one would eat anything) think Occam...
B Excited (assumption)
C Annoyed (assumption)
D Amused (assumption)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mizzijr
I've always been one to understand that the source of the answers does not come from you when reading a short story. It's the writers story, you follow their agenda. Follow the script and answer according to whats given to you vs what you believe is realistic and logical.

It's a story where pineapples can talk.... well, that's not realistic or logical at all. Therefore your answers should reflect that.

As to why they ate the pineapple.. That's vague as hell. You can only assume, because it does not really say. Resort to process of elimination.


A Hungry (If they were were hungry, they'd eat more than one pineapple.)

B Excited (No.)

C Annoyed (Seems correct due to the fact they wasted their time. They expected a pineapple to win.)

D Amused (No.)



I agree with some of what you said, but not all. I think we need to all remember that these are 13 year olds, not college kids. The content itself was inappropriate for their age group, because it forced them to tap into, (and in the most distracting way), their empathy and their emotional intelligence. As I've said a few times already, it would force them to turn this off in order to make sense of these questions...it would be like pointing at a train wreck happening, while telling your child to look at your finger, not the wreck itself. Ugh, it's maddening really, and I can see how this frustrated many educators. Some children and adults simply cannot "turn off" their personal reasoning skills...this is how their brains function, period.

I am more inclined to believe this is a right brain, left brain thing. The ones who function primarily with one side or the other, either get it or completely miss it. However, I believe it may be the ones who function equally with both sides of the brain, that find this story to be in contradiction of itself, along with some of it's questions. This story is a walking contradiction on many levels, and unless you already understand this aspect, you will likely disagree, because you don't have that active contradiction going on in your head. Nothing wrong with this, it just points out that we all function on varying degrees of left and right brain activities.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gseven
 


its a walking contradiction? stories and questions dont walk!
but then again this could be a right brain left brain thing people who use one or the other might not understand this statement or understand completely but those who use both see the contradictions in it
its like this post was a walking contradiction and unless you understand that its likely youll disagree because you dont have that active contradiction going on in your head
i think im also too smart for this post
edit on 23-4-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one

Originally posted by Gseven

Originally posted by Sly1one
It made no sense up till the questions.

The questions are easily answerable. The point is to answer the questions not analyze the logical practicality of the "story". They aren't looking for logical or rational explanations of the absurd...

All the questions are easily answerable if you stick to answering the questions and refrain from adding assumptions to what the story "means"...the story doesn't MEAN anything...the story isn't meant to be deconstructed to find meaning or value...its meant to test someones ability to answer the questions by identifying irrelevant information and identifying it as such, discarding it and answering the question without adding assumptions regardless of whether or not they are logical or rational.

I totally understand where they were going with this question and the intent they had behind it.

The debatable part from my stand point is whether or not its appropriate for that age/grade group.


I have to disagree with this on a couple of the questions. One in particular asked what would have happened had they cheered for the hare. Really?


The answer is the only one that was given to you in the story. Every other possible answer is an ASSUMPTION...

The only possible answer to that question that is NOT an assumption is the one that was given to you in the story. "They would be happy they cheered for the winner" is the answer which was deduced from the part of the story that flat out tells you "So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple."

no where else in that story can you get any of the other answers to that question WITHOUT making assumptions:

What would have happened if the animals had decided to cheer for the hare?

A The pineapple would have won the race. = ASSUMPTION
B They would have been mad at the hare for winning. = ASSUMPTION
C The hare would have just sat there and not moved. =ASSUMPTION
D They would have been happy to have cheered for a winner. = "So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple."

very simple to understand...the question didn't ask what some are attempting to answer...


No, I get all that, really...I do. And I did answer all these questions properly, (and differently than some on here), according to my own reasoning skills. (Oh God, the psychological issues with story is astounding....please tell me I'm not the only one who has taken psychology classes? Maybe that's why I'm in the minority here.)

I'm not questioning the ability to answer the questions. I'm questioning the story and the way that it invoked other aspects of a child's reasoning skills. You HAVE to understand what I'm getting at here. It has nothing to do with imagination or lack thereof, or even a lack of reasoning skills. It goes much further than this, and I believe this issue uncovers something far more amazing that the vast majority of people are overlooking. Mark my words...this will come into play again later on as research evidence, but in a positive way.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sirhumperdink
 


I am uncertain if you're mocking me, but kudos for the contradiction in your agreement/disagreement.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
It made no sense up till the questions.

The questions are easily answerable. The point is to answer the questions not analyze the logical practicality of the "story". They aren't looking for logical or rational explanations of the absurd...

All the questions are easily answerable if you stick to answering the questions and refrain from adding assumptions to what the story "means"...the story doesn't MEAN anything...the story isn't meant to be deconstructed to find meaning or value...its meant to test someones ability to answer the questions by identifying irrelevant information and identifying it as such, discarding it and answering the question without adding assumptions regardless of whether or not they are logical or rational.

I totally understand where they were going with this question and the intent they had behind it.

The debatable part from my stand point is whether or not its appropriate for that age/grade group.


Before reaching page 5, I was going to say something similar. I agree with these thoughts in this post and those following.

I think most of the objections people have over this story are insignificant. The story is a story to test reading comprehension, NOT a story meant to be contrasted with so called "real" life, with the goal to be the pointing out of inconsistency, nor a story meant for the individual to personally interpret.

The prime example being, of course, the question on whose the wisest. Who the individual personally perceives to be the wisest is not relevant, which I think is a severe hang up for most people here, and elsewhere (the problem is separating the contextually objective, from the subjective opinion, which Ive noticed throughout my life is a problem for most people). The question is practically answered for the individual in the final line of the story. Morals of stories are impartments of wisdom, thus the one who most closely reinforced that moral in the story was the most wise IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STORY AND QUESTION, which is the only thing that is relevant.

But since everyone seems to be adding their own take on who was the wisest, Ill add mine. It was the pineapple, because the pineapple, IMO, successfully played everyone else for a fool.

Honestly within the context of the story, the questions to me are easily and logically answerable.
edit on 4/23/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/23/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven

Originally posted by Sly1one

Originally posted by Gseven

Originally posted by Sly1one
It made no sense up till the questions.

The questions are easily answerable. The point is to answer the questions not analyze the logical practicality of the "story". They aren't looking for logical or rational explanations of the absurd...

All the questions are easily answerable if you stick to answering the questions and refrain from adding assumptions to what the story "means"...the story doesn't MEAN anything...the story isn't meant to be deconstructed to find meaning or value...its meant to test someones ability to answer the questions by identifying irrelevant information and identifying it as such, discarding it and answering the question without adding assumptions regardless of whether or not they are logical or rational.

I totally understand where they were going with this question and the intent they had behind it.

The debatable part from my stand point is whether or not its appropriate for that age/grade group.


I have to disagree with this on a couple of the questions. One in particular asked what would have happened had they cheered for the hare. Really?


The answer is the only one that was given to you in the story. Every other possible answer is an ASSUMPTION...

The only possible answer to that question that is NOT an assumption is the one that was given to you in the story. "They would be happy they cheered for the winner" is the answer which was deduced from the part of the story that flat out tells you "So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple."

no where else in that story can you get any of the other answers to that question WITHOUT making assumptions:

What would have happened if the animals had decided to cheer for the hare?

A The pineapple would have won the race. = ASSUMPTION
B They would have been mad at the hare for winning. = ASSUMPTION
C The hare would have just sat there and not moved. =ASSUMPTION
D They would have been happy to have cheered for a winner. = "So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple."

very simple to understand...the question didn't ask what some are attempting to answer...


I'm not questioning the ability to answer the questions. I'm questioning the story and the way that it invoked other aspects of a child's reasoning skills.


This is why I agree it may be inappropriate for age/grade.

Intelligence is context appropriate and in THIS context...the context of a "reading comprehension test" they seemed to have failed to answer correctly. IF the context were different their genius/intelligence might be validated or shine through to realization. A more philosophical context or logical/rational context would allow this to happen, but the context of the test questions is "reading comprehension", nothing more, nothing less.

I understand psychology well, I work in the mental health field. I understand that success/failure is largely based on the context that people are tested in and where their strengths are. I don't think anyone is implying the children are generally unintelligent or overall unintelligent. They may very well be and that is to be seen and be tested under a different context.

However, in regards to the reading comprehension context they didn't seem to do so well by evidence that they didn't even understand WHAT exactly was being asked of them. This may be due to age/grade inappropriateness...




top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join