American Realism and Social Naturalism emerged in the late 19th century as artistic styles that depicted everyday life and the experiences of ordinary people in a realistic or naturalistic manner. Realism sought to represent reality objectively while Naturalism applied scientific principles to the study of human behavior. These styles reflected the social realities of their time, including racial segregation and discrimination that Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting in 1957 as described in the document.
The document summarizes several scenes from a film about 12 jurors deciding the guilt or innocence of a man. The first scene uses a long shot to introduce the setting and main characters. A second scene uses an over-the-shoulder shot to show a juror discussing his relationship with his son. A third scene uses a close up and zoom to emphasize a piece of evidence being used to argue one side. Subsequent scenes use different shots like medium close up and over the shoulder to focus on different jurors arguing different perspectives in the debate over the man's guilt.
Juror #9 is described as a mild, gentle old man who is waiting to die after being defeated by life. He recognizes his own weaknesses but mourns no longer being able to show courage in his youth. At first, Juror #9 quietly goes along with voting guilty but changes his vote to not guilty after evidence arises that convinces him. He then helps convince another juror of his view by discovering that marks on a witness matched marks on another juror's glasses.
The document summarizes the 12 jurors in the play "12 Angry Men" as follows:
Juror 1 is quiet and doesn't share his opinions. Juror 2 goes along with the majority. Juror 3 is the leader of the guilty vote and votes based on personal reasons. Juror 8 was the first to vote not guilty and brought a knife to court to prove a point. Juror 11 is German and believes in reasonable doubt.
The film 12 Angry Men depicts a jury deliberating a murder trial where initially 11 jurors vote for a guilty verdict and one juror dissents. Through persuasive tactics and effective leadership, the dissenting juror is able to transform the opinions of the majority. He acts as a democratic leader by encouraging open discussion rather than committing to a position. Over time, as he presents alternative interpretations of evidence, more jurors begin to side with his not guilty view. His leadership contrasts with the disorganized majority and helps convince all jurors of reasonable doubt. The film demonstrates how dissent can stimulate divergent thinking and challenge unquestioned opinions of a previously steadfast majority.
Juror 8 is described as a mid-40s architect who is quiet, calm, sensitive, passionate, intelligent, and fair. After the trial, he was the sole juror voting not guilty. Through reasoned debate over many hours, he was able to persuade the other jurors of reasonable doubt in the case, leading them to also vote not guilty. He impacted the plot and changed other characters' views of him by proving his logical reasoning.
Juror Number 12 in Twelve Angry Men worked in advertising and wrote jingles and slogans. He was easygoing and his opinion could be easily changed by figures and arguments. He used advertising language to try to persuade others and calm tensions with clever sayings, playing a peacekeeping role despite not having strong convictions of his own.
American Realism and Social Naturalism emerged in the late 19th century as artistic styles that depicted everyday life and the experiences of ordinary people in a realistic or naturalistic manner. Realism sought to represent reality objectively while Naturalism applied scientific principles to the study of human behavior. These styles reflected the social realities of their time, including racial segregation and discrimination that Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting in 1957 as described in the document.
The document summarizes several scenes from a film about 12 jurors deciding the guilt or innocence of a man. The first scene uses a long shot to introduce the setting and main characters. A second scene uses an over-the-shoulder shot to show a juror discussing his relationship with his son. A third scene uses a close up and zoom to emphasize a piece of evidence being used to argue one side. Subsequent scenes use different shots like medium close up and over the shoulder to focus on different jurors arguing different perspectives in the debate over the man's guilt.
Juror #9 is described as a mild, gentle old man who is waiting to die after being defeated by life. He recognizes his own weaknesses but mourns no longer being able to show courage in his youth. At first, Juror #9 quietly goes along with voting guilty but changes his vote to not guilty after evidence arises that convinces him. He then helps convince another juror of his view by discovering that marks on a witness matched marks on another juror's glasses.
The document summarizes the 12 jurors in the play "12 Angry Men" as follows:
Juror 1 is quiet and doesn't share his opinions. Juror 2 goes along with the majority. Juror 3 is the leader of the guilty vote and votes based on personal reasons. Juror 8 was the first to vote not guilty and brought a knife to court to prove a point. Juror 11 is German and believes in reasonable doubt.
The film 12 Angry Men depicts a jury deliberating a murder trial where initially 11 jurors vote for a guilty verdict and one juror dissents. Through persuasive tactics and effective leadership, the dissenting juror is able to transform the opinions of the majority. He acts as a democratic leader by encouraging open discussion rather than committing to a position. Over time, as he presents alternative interpretations of evidence, more jurors begin to side with his not guilty view. His leadership contrasts with the disorganized majority and helps convince all jurors of reasonable doubt. The film demonstrates how dissent can stimulate divergent thinking and challenge unquestioned opinions of a previously steadfast majority.
Juror 8 is described as a mid-40s architect who is quiet, calm, sensitive, passionate, intelligent, and fair. After the trial, he was the sole juror voting not guilty. Through reasoned debate over many hours, he was able to persuade the other jurors of reasonable doubt in the case, leading them to also vote not guilty. He impacted the plot and changed other characters' views of him by proving his logical reasoning.
Juror Number 12 in Twelve Angry Men worked in advertising and wrote jingles and slogans. He was easygoing and his opinion could be easily changed by figures and arguments. He used advertising language to try to persuade others and calm tensions with clever sayings, playing a peacekeeping role despite not having strong convictions of his own.
The 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men, is on the list of every ‘top 10 movies’ list I’ve ever seen. And for good reason.
The movie opens with a jury of 12 men, who are instructed to consider the case of a young man who has allegedly killed his father. Juror No. 8 is the only one to initially vote ‘Not Guilty’, not because he believes the boy didn’t do it, but because he is not totally convinced that he did. As the movie progresses, one by one, he convinces the jury to vote ‘Not Guilty’.
The movie is an apt case study for good/bad arguments and emotional intelligence! About 90% of a Manager’s job is spent communicating with people (Project Smart), so being skilled in arguing and being empathetic is key for success! This is why we watched the movie on the Lancaster MBA Mindful Manager module.
So many things can be learned from the movie, but I have highlighted three main things that I personally took away.
1) The document describes decision making as the process of selecting a course of action from multiple alternatives, and characterizes the 12 jurors in the play/film 12 Angry Men.
2) It provides descriptions of each of the 12 jurors, noting their personalities, biases, and roles in the deliberation process.
3) It also describes some situations from the film where jurors struggle to voice their own opinions but eventually gain confidence to speak up and change their votes.
This document discusses the 12 Angry Men film and analyzes the personalities and roles of the 12 jury members. It describes each jury member's traits and how they initially voted and changed their positions during deliberations. It focuses on Jury #8 who was logical, prepared, and able to use critical thinking and leadership to influence others and eventually convince the majority to vote not guilty. The document also addresses how stereotypes and personal prejudices of some jury members affected their initial perceptions and decisions.
Juror 10 is portrayed as a bitter, angry bigot in his forties. He is prejudiced against those not like himself, finding fault in most people of different races or financial classes. He makes openly racist and antagonistic comments, claiming those different from him are "trash" and "wild animals" that want to destroy others. The quotes provided demonstrate his biased and prejudiced views towards others.
The document provides character summaries for each of the 12 jurors in Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men. Each juror brings different backgrounds, prejudices, and ideas about justice to deliberations about a murder trial. The jurors represent a variety of perspectives on justice and struggle with doubts, fears, perceptions shaped by class and life experiences, and coming to an understanding of the complexities of the case. Rose uses these diverse characters to examine themes of justice, prejudice, and uncertainty in decision-making.
Twelve Angry Men depicts a jury deliberating the guilt of a defendant in a murder trial. The jury is made up of 12 men with different personalities that impact their views of the case. An assistant football coach acts as the foreman. A stockbroker and European watchmaker are analytical, while a messenger service owner and garage owner are sentimental. Through deliberation, reasonable doubts emerge about eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. In the end, the jury agrees on a not guilty verdict, though the defendant's true guilt is left ambiguous.
The 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men, is on the list of every ‘top 10 movies’ list I’ve ever seen. And for good reason.
The movie opens with a jury of 12 men, who are instructed to consider the case of a young man who has allegedly killed his father. Juror No. 8 is the only one to initially vote ‘Not Guilty’, not because he believes the boy didn’t do it, but because he is not totally convinced that he did. As the movie progresses, one by one, he convinces the jury to vote ‘Not Guilty’.
The movie is an apt case study for good/bad arguments and emotional intelligence! About 90% of a Manager’s job is spent communicating with people (Project Smart), so being skilled in arguing and being empathetic is key for success! This is why we watched the movie on the Lancaster MBA Mindful Manager module.
So many things can be learned from the movie, but I have highlighted three main things that I personally took away.
1) The document describes decision making as the process of selecting a course of action from multiple alternatives, and characterizes the 12 jurors in the play/film 12 Angry Men.
2) It provides descriptions of each of the 12 jurors, noting their personalities, biases, and roles in the deliberation process.
3) It also describes some situations from the film where jurors struggle to voice their own opinions but eventually gain confidence to speak up and change their votes.
This document discusses the 12 Angry Men film and analyzes the personalities and roles of the 12 jury members. It describes each jury member's traits and how they initially voted and changed their positions during deliberations. It focuses on Jury #8 who was logical, prepared, and able to use critical thinking and leadership to influence others and eventually convince the majority to vote not guilty. The document also addresses how stereotypes and personal prejudices of some jury members affected their initial perceptions and decisions.
Juror 10 is portrayed as a bitter, angry bigot in his forties. He is prejudiced against those not like himself, finding fault in most people of different races or financial classes. He makes openly racist and antagonistic comments, claiming those different from him are "trash" and "wild animals" that want to destroy others. The quotes provided demonstrate his biased and prejudiced views towards others.
The document provides character summaries for each of the 12 jurors in Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men. Each juror brings different backgrounds, prejudices, and ideas about justice to deliberations about a murder trial. The jurors represent a variety of perspectives on justice and struggle with doubts, fears, perceptions shaped by class and life experiences, and coming to an understanding of the complexities of the case. Rose uses these diverse characters to examine themes of justice, prejudice, and uncertainty in decision-making.
Twelve Angry Men depicts a jury deliberating the guilt of a defendant in a murder trial. The jury is made up of 12 men with different personalities that impact their views of the case. An assistant football coach acts as the foreman. A stockbroker and European watchmaker are analytical, while a messenger service owner and garage owner are sentimental. Through deliberation, reasonable doubts emerge about eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. In the end, the jury agrees on a not guilty verdict, though the defendant's true guilt is left ambiguous.
2. 1. 교육평가의 과제
이론적 측면
1. 교육관의 재정립
:: 교육관이란 교육을 보는 관점이나 입장을 의미한다.
개인이 가진 교육관 및 사회의 일반적인 교육관은 평가에 영향을 줄
뿐 아니라 때로는 국가 교육 정책에 부정적이라 사회 갈등을 유발하
기 때문에 건전한 교육관을 가지도록 유도할 필요가 있다.
2. 새로운 평가이론의 보급
:: 평가 이론이 제대로 보급되기 위해서 교사들이나 실제 평가 관련 업
무를 담당하는 사람에게 전문적인 평가 관련 지식을 체계적으로 교
육할 필요가 있다.
3. 평가 목적의 명료화
:: 왜 평가를 도입해야 하는가에 대한 분명한 이유를 제시하고 이를 바
탕으로 평가 목적을 명확하게 밝혀야 한다.
3. 1. 교육평가의 과제
이론적 측면
4. 이해관련자들의 의견 수렴
:: 학생, 학부모, 교사 등 평가 결과에 직접적으로 영향을 줄 수 있는 이
해관계자들의 합의를 이끌어내는 것은 평가 성공에 있어서 매우 중
요한 요소.
5. 평가 결과의 활용과 공개
:: 평가 결과 공개는 평가 자체에 대한 공정성과 책무성을 검증하고 평
가의 신뢰를 높여준다. 그리고 평가 결과의 활용은 개인, 기관, 사회
와 국가의 발전에 영향을 준다.
6. 평가 전문가의 부족
:: 평가 이론, 평가 윤리 등 체계적이고 전문화된 교육이 요구되며 대학
원이나 학회 에서 평가전문가가 따로 양성되어야 하고 학교 현장의
평가를 맡고 있는 교사들은 평가에 대한 소양을 지녀야 한다.
4. 1. 교육평가의 과제
실제적 측면
1. 총괄 중심의 평가
:: 총괄평가적 성격으로만 치우쳐 있다. 또한 교육 목적 달성의 정도를
측정하기 위함이 아니라, 평가에서 높은 점수를 얻는 게 목적이 되
어가는 목적전도현상이 일어난다.
2. 규준참조평가 선호
:: 규준참조평가는 상대평가라 학생들의 상호 비교 점수가 궁극적 기준
이며 준거참조평가는 절대평가라 학생들이 도달해야 하는 특정한 성
취 수준에 주목한다. 교육현장에서는 준거참조평가 도입이 타당하다.
3. 측정관과 평가관의 혼동
:: 측정관 – 존재하는 실체는 물질적이든 정신적이든 안정성이 있다.
평가관 – 존재하는 실체나 인간의 특성은 변화한다.
교육 현장에서 평가관을 중시하는 질적, 가치적 시각이 미흡하다.
5. 1. 교육평가의 과제
실제적 측면
4. 학생의 학업 성취 평가 위주
:: 학생의 성장 모습에 대한 정확한 평가와 함께 교사, 교육과정, 학교
조직과 운영 등 모든 측면들이 평가의 대상이 되어야 한다.
5. 지적 영역 중심의 평가 관행
:: 많은 시간과 교육적 관심이 수반되어야 하고 정의적 영역과 심동적
영역에 관한 평가가 어려워 지, 정, 의 중 지적 평가만 집중적으로 실
시되고 있다.
6. 평가 결과 활용의 문제
:: 궁극적으로 평가 자료는 학생과 교사, 그리고 학교 안에서 발생하는
모든 교육적 행위와 상황을 이해하며 교육과정을 개선하기 위해 수
집되고 활용되는 것이 바람직하다.
6. 2. 교육평가의 전망
개선 방향
1. 교육과정 중심의 평가
:: 교과서 중심의 평가가 교육과정 중심의 평가가 되도록 하기 위해서
는 평가의 내용이 교과서에 한정되지 말고 교육과정 목표와 평가내
용의 직접적 연계를 강화해야 한다.
2. 전인적 평가 중심
:: 정의적, 심동적 평가의 비중을 높이고 특성의 개념과 절차, 평가이론
과 평가방법에 대한 구체적 대안이 마련되어야 한다. 특별활동, 봉사
활동 등 학교생활 전반에 대한 평가가 활성화되어야 한다.
3. 고등정신 능력의 평가
:: 학습한 내용을 문제 사태를 통하여 배울 수 있도록 창의적 문제가 강
조되어야 한다. 주관식 문항 중심, 오픈북 테스트도 도입할 만 하다.
7. 2. 교육평가의 전망
개선 방향
4. 과정 중심의 평가
:: 학습하는 방법의 학습이나 탐구하는 과정이 중요하므로 교과별 평가
모형에서 최종 성취 정도가 아니라 성취과정, 즉 교육목표에 도달하
는 과정을 평가에 포함시켜야 한다.
5. 진단, 활용 중심의 평가
:: 평가결과의 활용이 극대화되어 학생, 교사, 학부모 모두에게 도움을
주기 위해서는 학생 행동의 변화 기록, 장점 중심 기록, 누가기록, 절
대평가에 의한 개인 내적 차이 비교 기록 등 다각적 검토가 필요하다.
8. 2. 교육평가의 전망
미래의 교육평가
1. 평가의 재음미
:: 교육평가는 평가에 대한 전문적인 지식과 능력을 가진 교육자에 의
해 실시되어야 하며 성취도, 행동 변화의 평가에서 evaluation이 아닌
assessment의 의미로 사용되어야 한다.
2. 교육관과 평가
:: 선발적 교육관 - 소수의 선택된 사람들만을 위한 우선 교육
발달적 교육관 – 교육을 통해 개인의 적성이나 소질을 개발·육성
목적에 따라 다르게 활용될 수 있으므로 어떤 교육관이 옳고 그르다
판단하기 어렵다.
3. 평가 방법
:: 지필평가와 수행평가 중 하나를 선택함이 아니라 서로 병행하면서
평가 목적이나 평가 결과의 활용에 따라 사용해야 한다.
9. 2. 교육평가의 전망
미래의 교육평가
4. 평가 판단
:: 비교를 목적으로 하는 선발적 교육관에 의한 평가 판단은 규준참조
평가, 달성 정도를 목적으로 하는 발달적 교육관에 의한 평가 판단은
준거참조평가로 나타난다.
5. 평가 활용
:: 평가 결과의 활용은 왜 평가를 하는가에 대한 답이다.
평가 결과 활용 여부에 따라 평가 방법, 평가의 판단, 점수 부여 방법
이 달라질 수 있다.
10. 3. 평가의 확대
평가의 대중화
1. 평가는 교육뿐 아니라 다른 분야에까지 유용성을 증가시킬 것이다.
2. 평가는 복지, 환경, 생명공학 등 다른 분야나 학문으로 넓혀질 것이다.
3. 평가는 점차 선진국뿐 아니라 개발 도상국들에서도 제도화될 것이다.
4. 평가가 적용되지 않는 나라는 없으니 전 세계적으로 확대될 것이다.
5. 실제 학회나 기관에서 평가 관련 경험을 할 기회가 많아질 것이다.
6. 어려움에도 불구하고 장점이 큰 내부 평가가 중요하게 될 것이다.
7. 평가에서 전문적 협회와 활동이 꾸준히 증가할 것이다.
8. 평가 관련 증거 자료가 양적·질적으로 증가될 것이다.
11. 3. 평가의 확대
평가의 정교화
1. 대규모 평가는 점차 줄어들고 형성평가와 질적 연구가 이루어질 것이다.
2. 평가 접근이 다양한 유형으로써 상황에 맞게 채택되고 절충될 것이다.
3. 평가와 평가자가 정치적으로 더 세련될 것이다.
4. 평가의 신뢰성을 높이는 등 윤리적 쟁점에 관심이 증가될 것이다.
5. 기술적 발달로 비디오, 오디오 형태의 평가 보고서 작성 방법이 보편화될 것이다.
6. 자료 수집과 분석 방법이 다양화될 것이다.
7. 평가를 민주화하려는 노력이 계속될 것이다.
8. 수행평가 측정 운동이 활발해질 것이다.
12. 3. 평가의 확대
평가의 비전
1. 평가에 대한 전반적인 가치를 높여야 한다.
:: 평가자를 지원하고 평가 정책이나 방법에 대한 관심을 고조시켜야 한다.
2. 평가의 다양한 목적을 위하여 다면적인 방법과 절충적 접근의 구성적 활용을 연
구하고 적용할 필요가 있다.
:: 질적 양적 방법을 병행하고 다양한 상황에서 새로운 방법을 적용해야 한다.
3. 평가 실제를 개선하기 위하여 메타평가의 활용을 높여야 한다.
:: 평가를 평가하므로 평가나 평가 과정에 대하여 개방적이어야 한다.
