![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Мэйнстрим в образовании
Feb. 5th, 2013 11:28 am Всё это происходило во второй половине ХХ века, подчёркиваю. Радио, ракеты, атомная энергия, все дела уже присутствуют в полный рост.
http://sthinks.livejournal.com/306151.html
Все еще пытаясь вникнуть в суть, сунулась в тусовки профессионалов... Тут-то я и узнала от жрецов всё о подобных мне выскочках, которые учат детей соображать запретному сакральному.
Мнения слегка разделились. Одни говорили, что я не имею права подготавливать кого-либо к конкретному тесту, т.е. к специфическому набору заданий; а просто логогриф-другой - это ничего, простительно. Другие же шли дальше и требовали, чтоб я раз и навсегда прекратила развивать калечить юные умы своими шифрами-анаграммами. Впрочем, обе группы были солидарны в том, что я опасный еретик вредитель, и меня следует по ip вычислить и примерно наказать ("Но как, Холмс?").
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/12/17/011217crat_atlarge
From the moment he set up shop on Avenue K, Stanley Kaplan was a pariah in the educational world. Once, in 1956, he went to a meeting for parents and teachers at a local high school to discuss the upcoming S.A.T., and one of the teachers leading the meeting pointed his finger at Kaplan and shouted, “I refuse to continue until that man leaves the room.” When Kaplan claimed that his students routinely improved their scores by a hundred points or more, he was denounced by the testing establishment as a “quack” and “the cram king” and a “snake oil salesman.” At the Educational Testing Service, “it was a cherished assumption that the S.A.T. was uncoachable,” Nicholas Lemann writes in his history of the S.A.T., “The Big Test”:
The whole idea of psychometrics was that mental tests are a measurement of a psychical property of the brain, analogous to taking a blood sample. By definition, the test-taker could not affect the result. More particularly, E.T.S.’s main point of pride about the S.A.T. was its extremely high test-retest reliability, one of the best that any standardized test had ever achieved. . . . So confident of the S.A.T.’s reliability was E.T.S. that the basic technique it developed for catching cheaters was simply to compare first and second scores, and to mount an investigation in the case of any very large increase. E.T.S. was sure that substantially increasing one’s score could be accomplished only by nefarious means.
http://sthinks.livejournal.com/306151.html
Все еще пытаясь вникнуть в суть, сунулась в тусовки профессионалов... Тут-то я и узнала от жрецов всё о подобных мне выскочках, которые учат детей соображать запретному сакральному.
Мнения слегка разделились. Одни говорили, что я не имею права подготавливать кого-либо к конкретному тесту, т.е. к специфическому набору заданий; а просто логогриф-другой - это ничего, простительно. Другие же шли дальше и требовали, чтоб я раз и навсегда прекратила развивать калечить юные умы своими шифрами-анаграммами. Впрочем, обе группы были солидарны в том, что я опасный еретик вредитель, и меня следует по ip вычислить и примерно наказать ("Но как, Холмс?").
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/12/17/011217crat_atlarge
From the moment he set up shop on Avenue K, Stanley Kaplan was a pariah in the educational world. Once, in 1956, he went to a meeting for parents and teachers at a local high school to discuss the upcoming S.A.T., and one of the teachers leading the meeting pointed his finger at Kaplan and shouted, “I refuse to continue until that man leaves the room.” When Kaplan claimed that his students routinely improved their scores by a hundred points or more, he was denounced by the testing establishment as a “quack” and “the cram king” and a “snake oil salesman.” At the Educational Testing Service, “it was a cherished assumption that the S.A.T. was uncoachable,” Nicholas Lemann writes in his history of the S.A.T., “The Big Test”:
The whole idea of psychometrics was that mental tests are a measurement of a psychical property of the brain, analogous to taking a blood sample. By definition, the test-taker could not affect the result. More particularly, E.T.S.’s main point of pride about the S.A.T. was its extremely high test-retest reliability, one of the best that any standardized test had ever achieved. . . . So confident of the S.A.T.’s reliability was E.T.S. that the basic technique it developed for catching cheaters was simply to compare first and second scores, and to mount an investigation in the case of any very large increase. E.T.S. was sure that substantially increasing one’s score could be accomplished only by nefarious means.