夢想在前方，努力在路上。對于考生來說，拿到證書就是我們向往的遠(yuǎn)方。以下是“雅思閱讀素材積累：Now you know”，歡迎閱讀參考！更多相關(guān)訊息請關(guān)注！
雅思閱讀：Now you know
When should you teach children, and when should you let them explore?
IT IS one of the oldest debates in education. Should teachers tell pupils
the way things are or encourage them to find out for themselves? Telling
children "truths" about the world helps them learn those facts more quickly. Yet
the efficient learning of specific facts may lead to the assumption that when
the adult has finished teaching, there is nothing further to learn—because if
there were, the adult would have said so. A study just published in Cognition by
Elizabeth Bonawitz of the University of California, Berkeley, and Patrick Shafto
of the University of Louisville, in Kentucky, suggests that is true.
Dr Bonawitz and Dr Shafto arranged for 85 four- and five-year-olds to be
presented, during a visit to a museum, with a novel toy that looked like a
tangle of coloured pipes and was capable of doing many different things. They
wanted to know whether the way the children played with the toy depended on how
they were instructed by the adult who gave it to them.
One group of children had a strictly pedagogical introduction. The
experimenter said "Look at my toy! This is my toy. I'm going to show you how my
toy works." She then pulled a yellow tube out of a purple tube, creating a
squeaking sound. Following this, she said, "Wow, see that? This is how my toy
works!" and then demonstrated the effect again.
With a second group of children, the experimenter acted differently. She
interrupted herself after demonstrating the squeak by saying she had to go and
write something down, thus suggesting that she might not have finished the
demonstration. With a third group, she activated the squeak as if by accident.
To a fourth, the toy was simply presented with the comment, "Wow, see this toy?
Look at this!"
After these varied introductions, the children were left with the toy and
allowed to play. They might discover that, as well as the squeaker, the toy had
a button inside one tube which activated a light, a keypad that played musical
notes, and an inverting mirror inside one of the tubes. All the children were
told to let the experimenter know when they had finished playing and were asked
by the instructor if they were done if they stopped playing for more than five
consecutive seconds. The entire interaction was recorded on video.
Footage of each child playing was passed to a research assistant who was
ignorant of the purpose of the study. The assistant was asked to record the
total playing time, the number of different actions the child performed, the
time spent playing with the squeak, and the number of other functions the child
discovered.
The upshot was that children in the first group spent less time playing
(119 seconds) than those in the second (180 seconds), the third (133 seconds) or
the fourth (206 seconds). Those in the first group also tried out four different
actions, on average. The others tried 5.3, 5.9 and 6.2, respectively. A similar
pattern (0.7, 1.3, 1.2 and 1.2) pertained to the number of functions other than
the squeak that the children found.
The researchers' conclusion was that, in the context of strange toys of
unknown function, prior explanation does, indeed, inhibit exploration and
discovery. Generalising from that would be ambitious. But it suggests that
further research might be quite a good idea
雅思閱讀：Now you know
When should you teach children, and when should you let them explore?
IT IS one of the oldest debates in education. Should teachers tell pupils
the way things are or encourage them to find out for themselves? Telling
children "truths" about the world helps them learn those facts more quickly. Yet
the efficient learning of specific facts may lead to the assumption that when
the adult has finished teaching, there is nothing further to learn—because if
there were, the adult would have said so. A study just published in Cognition by
Elizabeth Bonawitz of the University of California, Berkeley, and Patrick Shafto
of the University of Louisville, in Kentucky, suggests that is true.
Dr Bonawitz and Dr Shafto arranged for 85 four- and five-year-olds to be
presented, during a visit to a museum, with a novel toy that looked like a
tangle of coloured pipes and was capable of doing many different things. They
wanted to know whether the way the children played with the toy depended on how
they were instructed by the adult who gave it to them.
One group of children had a strictly pedagogical introduction. The
experimenter said "Look at my toy! This is my toy. I'm going to show you how my
toy works." She then pulled a yellow tube out of a purple tube, creating a
squeaking sound. Following this, she said, "Wow, see that? This is how my toy
works!" and then demonstrated the effect again.
With a second group of children, the experimenter acted differently. She
interrupted herself after demonstrating the squeak by saying she had to go and
write something down, thus suggesting that she might not have finished the
demonstration. With a third group, she activated the squeak as if by accident.
To a fourth, the toy was simply presented with the comment, "Wow, see this toy?
Look at this!"
After these varied introductions, the children were left with the toy and
allowed to play. They might discover that, as well as the squeaker, the toy had
a button inside one tube which activated a light, a keypad that played musical
notes, and an inverting mirror inside one of the tubes. All the children were
told to let the experimenter know when they had finished playing and were asked
by the instructor if they were done if they stopped playing for more than five
consecutive seconds. The entire interaction was recorded on video.
Footage of each child playing was passed to a research assistant who was
ignorant of the purpose of the study. The assistant was asked to record the
total playing time, the number of different actions the child performed, the
time spent playing with the squeak, and the number of other functions the child
discovered.
The upshot was that children in the first group spent less time playing
(119 seconds) than those in the second (180 seconds), the third (133 seconds) or
the fourth (206 seconds). Those in the first group also tried out four different
actions, on average. The others tried 5.3, 5.9 and 6.2, respectively. A similar
pattern (0.7, 1.3, 1.2 and 1.2) pertained to the number of functions other than
the squeak that the children found.
The researchers' conclusion was that, in the context of strange toys of
unknown function, prior explanation does, indeed, inhibit exploration and
discovery. Generalising from that would be ambitious. But it suggests that
further research might be quite a good idea