Now you see me,now you don’t: From reader to student and back again in A‐Level English literature

In this paper I investigate students’ experience of the assessment regime in A‐Level English literature, and present data from a small‐scale interview study with students intending to study English at university. Research has shown that students experience conflict between reading for pleasure and reading for assessment; and I draw upon Bernstein’s work on invisible and visible pedagogies to explain how the personal response hinders interpretation of text they do not find pleasurable. Interview data explore some strategies that students might adopt, perhaps helping us to understand how they become, or fail to be, successful.     

Stanley Cavell in Conversation with Paul Standish

Having acknowledged the recurrent theme of education in Stanley Cavell's work, the discussion addresses the topic of scepticism, especially as this emerges in the interpretation of Wittgenstein. Questions concerning rule‐following, language and society are then turned towards political philosophy, specifically with regard to John Rawls. The discussion examines the idea of the social contract, the nature of moral reasoning and the possibility of our lives' being above reproach, as well as Rawls's criticisms of Nietzschean perfectionism. This lays the way for the broaching of questions of race and America. The theme of the ordinary, which emerges variously in Cavell's reflections on Emerson, Wittgenstein and Austin, is taken up and extended into a consideration of Thoreau's ‘experiment in living’. The conversation closes with brief remarks about happiness.     

The dimensionality of attitude scales: a widely misunderstood idea

Summated rating scales to measure attitudes (and other human characteristics) commonly consist of numerous items whose scores are summed to yield a total score. A central assumption underlying the use of this technique is that the items in the scale reflect a common construct. If this assumption is not met, the scoring procedure produces largely meaningless, uninterpretable data. Although this important psychometric principle has been known for a long time, numerous studies in the research literature demonstrate a neglect of this principle. Some studies make no attempt at all to conceptualise the construct to be measured; others conceptualise the construct but then ignore the possibility that it may be multi‐dimensional; still others actually contain evidence which indicates that the construct is multi‐dimensional and then proceed to ignore that evidence. A possible contributor to the confusion is the widespread misunderstanding about the related yet distinct concepts of internal consistency and uni‐dimensionality. This paper presents case studies of poor and good instrument design, in the (forlorn?) hope that clarification of the issues might make a difference in the future.