刷题刷出新高度,偷偷领先!偷偷领先!偷偷领先! 关注我们,悄悄成为最优秀的自己!

单选题

        The University in Transformation, edited by Australian futurists Sohail Inayatullah and Jennifer Gidley, presents some 20 highly varied outlooks on tomorrow’s universities by writers representing both Western and non-Western perspectives. Their

essays raise a broad range of issues, questioning nearly every key assumption we have about higher education today.

       The most widely discussed alternative to the traditional campus is the Internet University—a voluntary community to

scholars/teachers physically scattered throughout a country or around the world but all linked in cyberspace. A computerized

university could have many advantages, such as easy scheduling, efficient delivery of lectures to thousands or even millions of students at once, and ready access for students everywhere to the resources of all the world’s great libraries.

     Yet the Internet University poses dangers, too. For example, a line of franchised courseware, produced by a few superstar

teachers, marketed under the brand name of a famous institution, and heavily advertised, might eventually come to dominate

the global education market, warns sociology professor Peter Manicas of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Besides enforcing a rigidly standardized curriculum, such a “college education in a box” could undersell the offerings of many traditional brick and mortar institutions, effectively driving them out of business and throwing thousands of career academics out of work, note

Australian communications professors David Rooney and Greg Hearn.

      On the other hand, while global connectivity seems highly likely to play some significant role in future higher education,

that does not mean greater uniformity in course content—or other dangers—will necessarily follow. Counter-movements are

also at work.

      Many in academia, including scholars contributing to this volume, are questioning the fundamental mission of university

education. What if, for instance, instead of receiving primarily technical training and building their individual careers, university students and professors could focus their learning and research efforts on existing problems in their local communities and the world? Feminist scholar Ivana Milojevic dares to dream what a university might become “if we believed that child care workers and teachers in early childhood education should be one of the highest (rather than lowest) paid professionals?”

     Co-editor Jennifer Gidley shows how tomorrow’s university faculty, instead of giving lectures and conducting independent

research, may take on three new roles. Some would act as brokers, assembling customized degree-credit programmes for

individual students by mixing and matching the best course offerings available from institutions all around the world. A second group, mentors, would function much like today’s faculty advisers, but are likely to be working with many more students

outside their own academic specialty. This would require them to constantly be learning from their students as well as

instructing them.

      A third new role for faculty, and in Gidley’s view the most challenging and rewarding of all, would be as meaning-makers:

charismatic sages and practitioners leading groups of students/colleagues in collaborative efforts to find spiritual as well as

rational and technological solutions to specific real-world problems.

     Moreover, there seems little reason to suppose that any one form of university must necessarily drive out all other options. Students may be “enrolled” in courses offered at virtual campuses on the Internet, between—or even during—sessions at a

real world problem focused institution.

     As co-editor Sohail Inayatullah points out in his introduction, no future is inevitable, and the very act of imagining and

thinking through alternative possibilities can directly affect how thoughtfully, creatively and urgently even a dominant

technology is adapted and applied. Even in academia, the future belongs to those who care enough to work their visions into

practical, sustainable realities.

Which of the following is NOT seen as a potential danger of the Internet University?

A

Internet based courses may be less costly than traditional ones.

B

Teachers in traditional institutions may lose their jobs.

C

Internet based courseware may lack variety in course content.

D

The Internet University may produce teachers with a lot of publicity.

使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

A

解析:

【喵呜刷题小喵解析】:在文章中提到,互联网大学(Internet University)可能会带来一些危险,包括标准化课程可能会削弱传统大学的教育质量,导致传统大学被边缘化,使许多教师失业。同时,互联网大学可能会产生大量的课程软件,这些软件可能缺乏多样性,导致全球教育市场的单一化。然而,文章并没有提到互联网大学会使课程成本降低,因此选项A“互联网基础课程可能比传统课程更便宜”不是互联网大学的一个潜在危险。
创作类型:
原创

本文链接:Which of the following is NOT seen as a potential

版权声明:本站点所有文章除特别声明外,均采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议。转载请注明文章出处。

让学习像火箭一样快速,微信扫码,获取考试解析、体验刷题服务,开启你的学习加速器!

分享考题
share