#LitPro - 《Skills test》: 89% score
◆ Student Report Card
◆ Test: L3 LitPro Reading Comprehension
.
今天請Eugene來測LitPro更新後有的《Skills test》，來體驗看看能否發現新大陸🤣
.
因為近來我實在爆忙，今天下午累得很所以先補眠，請小E自己做這份測驗，她居然中途跑了兩次廁所甚至玩了起來，跳過了一題的測驗都不知道😅
.
測驗下來很有意思，和AR閱讀素養題的落點和弱點差不多，不過這是大方向的技巧測驗，LitPro和AR仍不相衝突~
.
部分題目我就截圖在留言處，特別是錯的題目。
L3共51題答錯6題，Skills Involved測驗方向為：
◆ Identifying Sequence of Events
◆ Drawing Conclusions
◆ Literary Devices
◆ Predicting
◆ Inferring
◆ Author's Craft
◆ Identifying Viewpoints or Arguments
◆ Summarizing and Synthesizing
◆ Identifying Main Ideas and Details
◆ Understanding Text Structures and Organizational Patterns
.
還有很多SJE閱讀相關的紀錄還欠著，我會再加把勁更新(握拳)~
.
#Eugene6Y1M紀錄
#LitPro
#大班自學生
#迪士尼美語延伸學習(Eugene's DWE)

Critical SAT and ACT Advice:

Don't take your school brain to the test!

What in earth does that mean?

Basically, if you are in a typical western schooling environment (e.g. TAS, TES, KC, etc), you are taught to draw conclusions in a big way. Teachers like to push you to use your imagination and infer all kinds of things that are not in reading passages. In fact, for many school teachers, especially literature teachers, the more you infer the happier they are.

So, what's the problem?

SAT, ACT, TOEFL, IELTS, GRE, and GMAT are standardized tests, which means that there can be only one correct answer. The kind of inferring that is common in school leads to multiple possible answers, so it's unsuitable for standardized tests.

The basic rule is this: only make one tiny inference - the smaller the better. Let me illustrate what I mean.

If your friend looks like he's in pain, and he's massaging his leg, what can you reasonably infer?

Only one thing: his leg hurts.

What can't you reasonably infer?
He got injured playing basketball.
He had an accident.
He woke up with a sore leg.
His sister kicked him.
A dog bit him.
He's malnourished.
He's got a rash.
Etc.

Even though this is boring as an inference, it's the only thing you can REASONABLY infer. Anything else is evidence of an overactive imagination and will give you a LOWER SCORE!

Remember: in a standardized test like the SAT and ACT, make the smallest inference possible. In fact, if you see direct evidence of an answer choice, that's even better than a choice you have to draw an inference about.

Always use what I term "the point test" - if you can't point directly to the evidence for an answer choice, it's probably wrong.

Thinking about it mathematically:
No inference > small inference > large inference

Remember: there is no place for imagination in a standardized test - always find evidence in the passage.

Critical SAT and ACT Advice:

Don't take your school brain to the test!

What in earth does that mean?

Basically, if you are in a typical western schooling environment (e.g. TAS, TES, KC, etc), you are taught to draw conclusions in a big way. Teachers like to push you to use your imagination and infer all kinds of things that are not in reading passages. In fact, for many school teachers, especially literature teachers, the more you infer the happier they are.

So, what's the problem?

SAT, ACT, TOEFL, IELTS, GRE, and GMAT are standardized tests, which means that there can be only one correct answer. The kind of inferring that is common in school leads to multiple possible answers, so it's unsuitable for standardized tests.

The basic rule is this: only make one tiny inference - the smaller the better. Let me illustrate what I mean.

If your friend looks like he's in pain, and he's massaging his leg, what can you reasonably infer?

Only one thing: his leg hurts.

What can't you reasonably infer?
He got injured playing basketball.
He had an accident.
He woke up with a sore leg.
His sister kicked him.
A dog bit him.
He's malnourished.
He's got a rash.
Etc.

Even though this is boring as an inference, it's the only thing you can REASONABLY infer. Anything else is evidence of an overactive imagination and will give you a LOWER SCORE!

Remember: in a standardized test like the SAT and ACT, make the smallest inference possible. In fact, if you see direct evidence of an answer choice, that's even better than a choice you have to draw an inference about.

Always use what I term "the point test" - if you can't point directly to the evidence for an answer choice, it's probably wrong.

Thinking about it mathematically:
No inference > small inference > large inference

Remember: there is no place for imagination in a standardized test - always find evidence in the passage.

📘この動画内で紹介したおすすめ動画・ニコニコ動画は
知識のNetflix【Dラボ】で見放題！
今なら20日間無料→https://daigovideolab.jp/
🐈
立ち向かう自信をつける【レジリエンス強化法】
→【今なら20日間無料】https://daigovideolab.jp/

失敗を許せる自分に変わる【失敗許容力と自己肯定感】の身に着け方とは →【今なら20日間無料】https://daigovideolab.jp/

▶︎本日のオススメ
セルフ・コンパッション：最良の自分であり続ける方法 DIAMOND ハーバード・ビジネス・レビューを Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/35dRcOb

セルフ・コンパッション―あるがままの自分を受け入れる を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/2x4il9P

★本日の無料 DaiGoのオーディオブックがAmazonで無料で聞けます。詳しくは↓
▶︎後悔しない超選択術 https://amzn.to/346QeTv
▶︎知識を操る超読書術 https://amzn.to/39AZpfT
▶︎自分を操る超集中力 https://amzn.to/2w7RpFw
▶︎人を操る禁断の文章術 https://amzn.to/2yrHn2N など、他多数の著書が、Audible30日間無料体験にて1冊無料

Bellezza, Silvia, Francesca Gino, and Anat Keinan. (2013) The red sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity.

※この動画は、上記の参考資料および、動画を元に考察したもので、あくまで一説であり、真偽を確定するものではありません。リサーチ協力の鈴木祐さんの論文解説チャンネルもオススメです→http://ch.nicovideo.jp/paleo #今なら
#Dラボとオーディオブックが概要欄から無料

📘この動画内で紹介したおすすめ動画・ニコニコ動画は
知識のNetflix【Dラボ】で見放題！
今なら20日間無料→https://daigovideolab.jp/
🐈
【恐怖と欲望の説得術】歴史を動かした偉人の話し方
【前編】https://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/1589394903
【後編】https://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/1589662563

▶︎本日のオススメ
‬ファンダム・レボリューション　SNS時代の新たな熱狂 を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/35VgPUh

ファスト＆スローを Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/3ayKWSp

事実はなぜ人の意見を変えられないのか を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/35WD6RN‬

信頼はなぜ裏切られるのか を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/3cra672

‪戦争プロパガンダ10の法則 を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/2xYbvD7

‪プロパガンダ:広告・政治宣伝のからくりを見抜く を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/2WsgAx9 ‬

‪メディアとプロパガンダ を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/3dy5Wum‬


★本日の無料
DaiGoのオーディオブックがAmazonで無料で聞けます。詳しくは↓
▶︎後悔しない超選択術
https://amzn.to/346QeTv
▶︎知識を操る超読書術
https://amzn.to/39AZpfT
▶︎自分を操る超集中力
https://amzn.to/2w7RpFw
▶︎人を操る禁断の文章術
https://amzn.to/2yrHn2N
など、他多数の著書が、Audible30日間無料体験にて1冊無料

Morris, Michael, et al. (2002) Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations.
Cheng, Joey T et al. (2016)Listen, follow me: Dynamic vocal signals of dominance predict emergent social rank in humans.
Stephen M. Smith et al. (1991) Celerity and Cajolery: Rapid Speech May Promote or Inhibit Persuasion through its Impact on Message Elaboration
Jerry M. Burger et al. (2001) The Effect of Fleeting Attraction on Compliance to Requests
Cory R. Scherer et al. (2005) Indecent influence: The positive effects of obscenity on persuasion
Adam M. Grant, et al. (2015) Busy brains, boasters' gains: Self-promotion effectiveness depends on audiences cognitive resources
Nora A. Murphy et al. (2015) Appearing Smart: The Impression Management of Intelligence, Person Perception Accuracy, and Behavior in Social Interaction
Weaver, Kimberlee,Garcia, Stephen M.,Schwarz, Norbert,Miller, Dale T.(2007) Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus.
Daniel J. O’Keefe. et al. (2008) Do Loss-Framed Persuasive Messages Engender Greater Message Processing Than Do Gain-Framed Messages? A Meta-Analytic Review
Aiwa Shirako, et al. (2015) Is there a place for sympathy in negotiation? Finding strength in weakness
Kumkale, G. et al. (2004)The Sleeper Effect in Persuasion: A Meta-Analytic Review.
Adam Grant(2014)How I Overcame the Fear of Public Speaking
advantages of being unpredictable: How emotional inconsistency extracts concessions in negotiation
Dariusz DolinskiaRichard Nawratb et al. (1998) Fear-Then-Relief” Procedure for Producing Compliance: Beware When the Danger Is Over
Franklin J. Boster et al. (2009) Dump-and-Chase: The Effectiveness of Persistence as a Sequential Request Compliance-Gaining Strategy
Boaz Hameiri, et al. (2014) Paradoxical thinking as a new avenue of intervention to promote peace
Chenhao Tan et al. (2016) Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussions

※この動画は、上記の参考資料および、動画を元に考察したもので、あくまで一説であり、真偽を確定するものではありません。リサーチ協力の鈴木祐さんの論文解説チャンネルもオススメです→http://ch.nicovideo.jp/paleo #今なら
#Dラボとオーディオブックが概要欄から無料

📘この動画内で紹介したおすすめ動画・ニコニコ動画は
知識のNetflix【Dラボ】で見放題！
今なら20日間無料→https://daigovideolab.jp/
🐈
【恐怖と欲望の説得術】歴史を動かした偉人の話し方
【前編】https://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/1589394903
【後編】https://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/1589662563

▶︎本日のオススメ
‬ファンダム・レボリューション　SNS時代の新たな熱狂 を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/35VgPUh

ファスト＆スローを Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/3ayKWSp

事実はなぜ人の意見を変えられないのか を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/35WD6RN‬

信頼はなぜ裏切られるのか を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/3cra672

‪戦争プロパガンダ10の法則 を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/2xYbvD7

‪プロパガンダ:広告・政治宣伝のからくりを見抜く を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/2WsgAx9 ‬

‪メディアとプロパガンダ を Amazon でチェック！ https://amzn.to/3dy5Wum‬


★本日の無料
DaiGoのオーディオブックがAmazonで無料で聞けます。詳しくは↓
▶︎後悔しない超選択術
https://amzn.to/346QeTv
▶︎知識を操る超読書術
https://amzn.to/39AZpfT
▶︎自分を操る超集中力
https://amzn.to/2w7RpFw
▶︎人を操る禁断の文章術
https://amzn.to/2yrHn2N
など、他多数の著書が、Audible30日間無料体験にて1冊無料

Morris, Michael, et al. (2002) Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations.
Cheng, Joey T et al. (2016)Listen, follow me: Dynamic vocal signals of dominance predict emergent social rank in humans.
Stephen M. Smith et al. (1991) Celerity and Cajolery: Rapid Speech May Promote or Inhibit Persuasion through its Impact on Message Elaboration
Jerry M. Burger et al. (2001) The Effect of Fleeting Attraction on Compliance to Requests
Cory R. Scherer et al. (2005) Indecent influence: The positive effects of obscenity on persuasion
Adam M. Grant, et al. (2015) Busy brains, boasters' gains: Self-promotion effectiveness depends on audiences cognitive resources
Nora A. Murphy et al. (2015) Appearing Smart: The Impression Management of Intelligence, Person Perception Accuracy, and Behavior in Social Interaction
Weaver, Kimberlee,Garcia, Stephen M.,Schwarz, Norbert,Miller, Dale T.(2007) Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus.
Daniel J. O’Keefe. et al. (2008) Do Loss-Framed Persuasive Messages Engender Greater Message Processing Than Do Gain-Framed Messages? A Meta-Analytic Review
Aiwa Shirako, et al. (2015) Is there a place for sympathy in negotiation? Finding strength in weakness
Kumkale, G. et al. (2004)The Sleeper Effect in Persuasion: A Meta-Analytic Review.
Adam Grant(2014)How I Overcame the Fear of Public Speaking
advantages of being unpredictable: How emotional inconsistency extracts concessions in negotiation
Dariusz DolinskiaRichard Nawratb et al. (1998) Fear-Then-Relief” Procedure for Producing Compliance: Beware When the Danger Is Over
Franklin J. Boster et al. (2009) Dump-and-Chase: The Effectiveness of Persistence as a Sequential Request Compliance-Gaining Strategy
Boaz Hameiri, et al. (2014) Paradoxical thinking as a new avenue of intervention to promote peace
Chenhao Tan et al. (2016) Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussions

※この動画は、上記の参考資料および、動画を元に考察したもので、あくまで一説であり、真偽を確定するものではありません。リサーチ協力の鈴木祐さんの論文解説チャンネルもオススメです→http://ch.nicovideo.jp/paleo #今なら
#Dラボとオーディオブックが概要欄から無料