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.
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
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)
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.
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)
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?
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.)
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.)
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...
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.
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.