This seminar forced me
to analyze the PIA exam in a whole different way. Before this seminar, I
used to make all sorts of excuses for why I struggled with the exam. I believed
that the test was written poorly, or that the questions were phrased badly.
However, during the seminar I began to see the mistakes that I had
made, and how they had led me to that conclusion. For instance, on the question
that was comparing Martin Luther King's speech and Roosevelt's speech, I was
sure that both A and B were correct and that the test was misleading. However,
when my classmates explained why B was correct, I realized that Martin Luther
King's main point was not how we should treat each other, but was that
supervision is needed for people to do the right thing. I had thought answer A
was correct because both passages mentioned that detail, but the question was
asking for similar main ideas. Thus, it was simply a matter of me not reading
the question accurately. Another point that made me think about something more
in depth was when our group was discussing the last question. I thought that
the phrase, "Justice is blind," meant that justice was not fair
because it did not see what was really happening. During the seminar,
however, my classmates challenged this by explaining that this phrase
means that Justice does not change based on who you are or what you look like,
it is constant and fair. This changed my whole approach to the question and
made me realize that I should not jump to conclusions on what things mean.
The
statement that I most agreed with was that the social message of the Jane Eyre
passage dealing with John being homeschooled due to bad nutrition was poor
parenting. Many people believed that it was poor nutrition but I disagree
because although that was a part of the problem, the passage clearly stated
that the doctor did not agree with John's mother's choices. He thought she was
being selfish and that it was hurting her son. This is clearly trying to prove
a point about her lack of good parenting skills, and thus I agreed with that as
the correct answer. The statement I agreed with the least was when Ryan said
that Roosevelt believed the main problem America was facing was unjustified
fear. Roosevelt states in his very speech that only a foolish optimist can look
away from the dark realities of the moment. Roosevelt believes that fear is
needed to push people to make a difference. The correct answer, I believe, was
selfish wrongdoing because Roosevelt consistently states it as a major problem
that needs to be addressed. If I could say anything else in the seminar it
would be that I do not believe many of the questions really have a "right
answer." Obviously, the comprehension questions will have only one answer.
However, on some of the analysis questions, I truly believe that some of the
answer choices that were "wrong" could be argued to be correct.
Sometimes I got a little angry during the seminar because someone would make a
great point that I agreed with, but I still had to say that they were
"wrong" just because it wasn't the answer that the PIA was looking
for. I think that we learn in school to analyze everything and form our own
arguments about a text, but the PIA doesn't allow us to utilize those skills.
Rather, it forces us to think very literally which can be challenging and hard
when you try to overthink it.
I
think that many things worked very well in the seminar. I think one of the
major highlights was Ryan's discussion leading. We worked in a timely fashion,
and we were able to complete all the questions we were assigned. Another
positive part of the seminar was that people really built off of
each other's ideas. In past seminars, people would often not really
listen to each other and then just state a new opinion. These seminars were
still interesting, but we didn't reach that level of deeper thinking and
analysis because once someone made a statement, it wasn't further
addressed. This was not the case in this seminar. People listened to each
other, challenged each others statements, and furthered each others ideas. It
was really cool to be able to see that happen and reach those levels of
thinking. Lastly, I think that people were well prepared for this seminar.
Everyone had answers to all of the problems beforehand and thus, everyone was able
to participate.
However,
some things did not work as well in the seminar. There were a lot of dominators
in the conversation, which made a lot of people hesitant to contribute. I saw a
lot of people starting to say something and then stopping because someone else
began to talk. This was hard to see because everyone has great opinions and
things to share and I wish that everyone had a chance to share them, rather
than hearing from the same people. This also created a competitive vibe in the
seminar in which people were fighting to speak and talking over each other.
This made the seminar very stressful and not very welcoming. I believe that a
big factor of this was the timing situation. I don't believe anybody in the
seminar felt that it was long enough, and many of us felt pressured to talk
because we were feeling rushed.
No comments:
Post a Comment