GWD-7-Q10 to GWD-7-Q12:
Linda Kerber argued in the mid-
1980’s that after the American Revolution
(1775-1783), an ideology of “republican
Line motherhood” resulted in a surge of edu-
(5) cational opportunities for women in the
United States. Kerber maintained that
the leaders of the new nation wanted
women to be educated in order to raise
politically virtuous sons. A virtuous citi-
(10) zenry was considered essential to the
success of the country’s republican form
of government; virtue was to be instilled
not only by churches and schools, but
by families, where the mother’s role
(15) was crucial. Thus, according to Kerber,
motherhood became pivotal to the fate
of the republic, providing justification for
an unprecedented attention to female
education.
(20) Introduction of the republican moth-
erhood thesis dramatically changed
historiography.  rior to Kerber’s work,
educational historians barely mentioned
women and girls; Thomas Woody’s 1929
(25) work is the notable exception. Examining
newspaper advertisements for acade-
mies, Woody found that educational
opportunities increased for both girls
and boys around 1750.  ointing to “An
(30) Essay on Woman” (1753) as reflecting
a shift in view, Woody also claimed that
practical education for females had
many advocates before the Revolution.
Woody’s evidence challenges the notion
(35) that the Revolution changed attitudes
regarding female education, although it
may have accelerated earlier trends.
Historians’ reliance on Kerber’s “repub-
lican motherhood” thesis may have
(40) obscured the presence of these trends,
making it difficult to determine to what
extent the Revolution really changed
women’s lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD-7-Q10:
According to the passage, within the field of educational history, Thomas Woody’s 1929 work was
- innovative because it relied on newspaper advertisements as evidence
- exceptional in that it concentrated on the period before the American Revolution
- unusual in that it focused on educational attitudes rather than on educational practices
- controversial in its claims regarding educational opportunities for boys
- atypical in that it examined the education of girls
===================================
請問答案為什麼是B呢~
line22說在K學者的作品出現以前,教育歷史學家很少提到女性教育的問題,
但是T學者在1929的作品卻是個有名的例外,
照這樣推斷,那麼應該暗示說T學者的作品有提到女性教育的問題,
這樣答案應該是E阿,為什麼是B呢~~
困惑阿~~
謝謝解答~!!
|