Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Pineapples don't have sleeves!

I have been annoyed with lots of people, but I have never eaten them! LOL It is a weird leap in logic to suggest that the animals would eat the pineapple just because they were annoyed wih it. And since they are animals (even though they talk!) one could assume that the reason they would eat ANYTHING is just because they were hungry, but the story does not mention anything about them being hungry.


Since I am writing this post as a way of procrastinating from grading 47 college level essays, I must say that this approach does seem to exist beyond the standardized testing world and this article gave me a little bit of insight into why my students might think that a long essay with big words is "good" writing. I don't think I saw mention in either article of the elements of a well-structured essay or a solid argument. Even if your facts are off, you can make a strong, well formed argument if you've been taught that skill. For example, my students are supposed to make policy recommendations to address a social problem of their choice. I know I will see MAYBE a quarter of the essays that present an argument for their recommendations as instructed rather than a gathering of opinionated statements on the subject.

Best classes I took in high school were two years of journalism that taught me to be clear and concise, gave me the skills to write a well structured essay on ANY topic, and that a well communicated idea is not necessarily the one that uses the biggest words and takes the longest to write.

I think that two major problems in US education are that 1. we've tried to industrialize education and assessment, and 2. and very few people question this idea.

What were those questions in pineapple story actually measuring? What's meaningful about the outcome if the animals had cheered for the hare instead? Isn't it bloody obvious? And what's so wise about an owl saying that pineapples don't have sleeves? Isn't that bloody obvious, too? Besides, the moose was speaking metaphorically and the owl didn't get that. Pineapples don't have mouths or nervous systems either, yet this one could talk. It seems reasonable that if he could talk with no mouth, he could have found a way to win a race with no, emm, sleeves. Wouldn't it have been better to ask students to write a composition on absurdity and this piece?

IMO, the scan-and-score tests favored in the United States don't measure a student's ability to think about something and draw conclusions from ideas. They just measure how quickly he can yank answers out of a passage. Do we want to educate our kids so that they can consider many facets of an idea, or just teach them how to move quickly from factoid to factoid?

Compare with the Irish Junior Certificate. Students take this test when they're 14 or 15 (the pineapple story is aimed at US 14 year olds). This is only the ordinary level paper (but check sections 4 & 5). Here's an advanced-level exam aimed at students we might call honor students.

There's a world of difference between the US tests and the Junior Cert exams. People have to read the Junior Cert papers and think about them a bit (Ireland doesn't use robograders). But we don't seem to be willing to do this in America. We seem to carry our national pastime of being in a hurry down to the level of young kids. IMO, we're cheating kids and our society by not teaching people how to slow down and think about something.

But a citizenry with critical thinking and reading skills would be a huge drag on the media, politicians and corporations. They might have to make their reports more accurate and their arguments more logical! Much easier to deal with a population that is satisfied with colorful factoids.