Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

:
.- . . .-.\.
.- :. \y ,:. . . .- I. .
dreamed up independently by qtlality controllers who, as a result,
sustained a certain amount of personal denigratioi to \\hich Doll (If)
also refers. Some viewed the changeo\-cr as diitct attacks on their
areas of espertisc. pedagogical approaches, or organizational divi -
‘.
!:
sion ‘of labor. Some saw the change as a plan worthy of resistance
or subversion. as f.he Louisville administrators foresaw !Ig).
Even so, these members of the staff responded positively to three
kinds of suggestive challcn~e in the military setting:
First--Look at the kind of testing \-MI are doing nvw. If your
lifs depended upon thcl ability of one of Four students to perform in
your area of cspertise, would xou say he/ \~as qualified on the basis
I
of the test you give now?
Y
‘Second--If you cannot show how youl, J subject applies to the gr,x!u-
ate’s job, I\!-;. not delete yo’lr subject from that course?
Thit-d--If sppl;calion of the facts ycu I
teach is taught by someone
I
else, why not stop trying to tes: rnplicyion noiv? --\Vhy not get
together with the other instruction and il.-. later?
(SLIDE OFF)
/
Popham’s reason 4 (6~) is shown on this slide.
311