了解相同的东西:大规模考试、证书和共享知识的基础设施

IF 1 4区 综合性期刊 Q3 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
James Elwick
{"title":"了解相同的东西:大规模考试、证书和共享知识的基础设施","authors":"James Elwick","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2023.2173457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The nineteenth century was one in which millions of people acquired certificates and other credentials attesting that they knew what they claimed to know. These credentials resulted from mass examinations: systems of infrastructure that aspired to procedural objectivity. Among the key feature of these exams were the new numerical marking systems used to compare and commensurate different answers on these exams, because these numbers could generate averages and other formal abstractions of knowledge. While the resulting tests could be restrictive for the individual, they could be positive and even creative. Exam successes and credentials helped people work collectively in groups, giving each group member the confidence that other members knew what they claimed to know.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"48 1","pages":"202 - 215"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Knowing the same things: mass examinations, credentials, and infrastructures of shared knowledge\",\"authors\":\"James Elwick\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03080188.2023.2173457\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The nineteenth century was one in which millions of people acquired certificates and other credentials attesting that they knew what they claimed to know. These credentials resulted from mass examinations: systems of infrastructure that aspired to procedural objectivity. Among the key feature of these exams were the new numerical marking systems used to compare and commensurate different answers on these exams, because these numbers could generate averages and other formal abstractions of knowledge. While the resulting tests could be restrictive for the individual, they could be positive and even creative. Exam successes and credentials helped people work collectively in groups, giving each group member the confidence that other members knew what they claimed to know.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"202 - 215\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2023.2173457\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2023.2173457","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在十九世纪,数以百万计的人获得了证书和其他证书,证明他们知道自己声称知道的事情。这些证书来自大规模考试:渴望程序客观性的基础设施系统。这些考试的关键特征之一是新的数字评分系统,用于比较和匹配这些考试的不同答案,因为这些数字可以产生平均值和其他形式的知识抽象。虽然由此产生的测试可能对个人有限制,但它们可能是积极的,甚至是创造性的。考试的成功和证书帮助人们在小组中集体工作,让每个小组成员都相信其他成员知道他们声称知道的事情。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Knowing the same things: mass examinations, credentials, and infrastructures of shared knowledge
ABSTRACT The nineteenth century was one in which millions of people acquired certificates and other credentials attesting that they knew what they claimed to know. These credentials resulted from mass examinations: systems of infrastructure that aspired to procedural objectivity. Among the key feature of these exams were the new numerical marking systems used to compare and commensurate different answers on these exams, because these numbers could generate averages and other formal abstractions of knowledge. While the resulting tests could be restrictive for the individual, they could be positive and even creative. Exam successes and credentials helped people work collectively in groups, giving each group member the confidence that other members knew what they claimed to know.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 综合性期刊-综合性期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
20
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Interdisciplinary Science Reviews is a quarterly journal that aims to explore the social, philosophical and historical interrelations of the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, medicine and technology with the social sciences, humanities and arts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信