Making a Grade: Victorian Examinations and the Rise of Standardized Testing by James Elwick (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Making a Grade: Victorian Examinations and the Rise of Standardized Testing by James Elwick Peter Mandler (bio) Making a Grade: Victorian Examinations and the Rise of Standardized Testing, by James Elwick; pp. xii + 287. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2021, $74.00, $74.00 ebook. About fifty years ago, John Roach published a book on Public Examinations in England 1850–1900 (1971), which covered similar ground to the book under review. Like many academic monographs of the time, it was empirically sound and thorough and based on an extensive array of primary sources. James Elwick's Making a Grade: Victorian Examinations and the Rise of Standardized Testing thus offers a neat opportunity to see what the historiography of the intervening half century can contribute. Drawing on the insights of Michel Foucault, Bruno Latour, James C. Scott, and the historian of statistics Ted Porter, among others, Elwick is better able to see competitive examination as a system. Keeping Foucault "at a little distance," as he nicely puts it, Elwick portrays a system that builds a new infrastructural network aimed at embedding a new distribution of power in Victorian government and society—in that resonant phrase, it is an engine, not a camera—but also like all human networks one subject to looping, in which not only the developers but also the users of the infrastructure affect its shape and function (194). Like Roach, Elwick observes a practice that originates in universities—notably in the Cambridge Senate House Examination, the forerunner of the Mathematical Tripos—but then concatenates throughout the upper echelons of government and society, affecting [End Page 490] schools, technical training, government offices, even (though Elwick does not go there) music and sport. Unlike Roach, who focused on secondary schools for the middle class, Elwick is most interested in the technical qualifications offered by the Department of Science and Art (DSA), which tested two million candidates in science between 1861 and 1900. But he also covers, as does Roach, the Oxford and Cambridge Local Examinations (which led to the familiar school certificates of the later twentieth century, the O-level and A-level), University of London examinations used to certificate both admissions to and degrees from universities outside the United Kingdom, and more glancingly a much wider array of examinations with mostly educational purposes in mind. Elwick's systemic approach allows him to accommodate both the incredible pluralism of Victorian education and the growing homogeneity of its exam culture. Indeed, it allows him to show how the latter was a function of the former. France and Germany had their competitive examinations as well, but they could at least nominally teach and examine a centrally determined syllabus, whereas English exams themselves set a syllabus for a myriad of private, public, and freelance educational enterprises. They could also, therefore, certificate performance well beyond the reach of the UK government, in a manner suitable to a far-flung empire. It was a lot easier to import scripts (or even to export examiners) than to export pedagogues. Roach gives a better picture of the schools, but Elwick is focused more on the exams themselves as the linchpin of a system. Although only students of certificated teachers earned money for their teachers by performing on DSA exams, pretty much all comers could take them. As Elwick shows, they could accommodate great diversity of participation—girls and Muslim boys were given extra incentives to enter for DSA exams in Madras in the 1880s—and they also offered tremendous opportunities for grassroots efforts at gaming the system, whether by cramming, or cheating, or otherwise outwitting the examiners at their own game. He makes great play of a singular and well-documented case in 1878 of organized cheating on a DSA exam, which offers insights into regular as well as irregular exam conduct, not available to Roach. As Elwick shows, exams initially intended to assess (and therefore inculcate) a set of characterological virtues originally conceived as manly—not just intellect, but also "self-denial, emotional toughness, and physical striving"—could be appropriated by groups not immediately intended (notably women) and/or hijacked by strongly disapproved practices like cramming (10). While their statistical arrays offered irresistible opportunities...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».