I think this is a great quote defining the mistakes made by the test makers. The story was not meant to make sense. It was meant to have many different opinions and different explinaitions from each reader. How could the test makers create questions that have single answers when the reader can form so many different opinions about the story. Does this show an example of how rediculuous standardized testing has become? How can they expect students to read this nonsensical story without biases and come up with the same answers?

Michelle, I really like what your saying. The test makers should have done their research before putting such an odd story on the test! I feel like if they are going to make the test they should put more time into ensuring the test and its questions are reliable and valid. (It is their job!)

I think this is a good explination for the answer to this question. It make sense that the students could have deduced this answer from the story and not from their own personal experiences with owls. This test is meant to judge how well students can pull information from a text and not how well they can relate their previous experiences. Even though I do not agree with using this story on the test, this statement gives a good explination of how students may have determined this answer.

This statement makes a good argument on why the state tests are not a good form of assessment when it comes to questions of oppinion. Every student is different and has different experiences, which they bring to the table. With a nonsesical story each student is going to interpret it differently. However, with mulitple choice they can not express their reasoning and logic. Some of these students may not be correct in choosing the right choice, but their logic might make sense to the point where they deserve credit.

I found this description of the activity oriented curriculum very interesting. When I first read over the apple lessons, I though to my self how great this is. All of the classes are working together to show students how each disipline can have an impact on one subject. I thought it was great that the lessons were so engaging and the words Inquiry were flashign in my mind. However, it did not occur to me that through all of these good intentions, the learning goals were not made clear at all. I think this really connects to what Dr. Tiffin was saying about how inquiry is not always the best fit choice. Even though this lesson is very engaging are the students really learning what the lesson is intended to teach?

I thought it was a good note to say that the curriculum is used to specify a desired output. To plan this direction allows teachers to not only know what activities they will be using, but more importantly what is going to come of those activities, why am I using this activity and what will my students take a way from this lesson. Additionally I think this will help in our own reflections. Say if we plan a lesson to have a specific out come and things did not go as planned. This can now be focused on how the activity did not work as well for this specific goal and less on my learning goal did not come out of my activity planned. I feel this way of thinking takes away some of the guess work in what learning goal an activity will provide.

I think this goes along well with what Michelle highlighted in the pervious sentence. As new teachers we will not have an infinite amount of tools under our belts. However, each class is different and has different needs. We will need to keep changing and reflecting each time we have a different classroom of students.