题目内容
In the late 1960s, a television producer named Joan Gantz Cooney set out to start an epidemic. Her target was three-, four-, and five-year-olds. Her agent of infection was television, and the "virus" she wanted to spread was literacy. The show would last an hour and run five days a week, and the hope was that if that hour was contagious enough it could serve as an educational Tipping Point; giving children from disadvantaged homes a leg up once they began elementary school, spreading prolearning values from watchers to nonwatchers, infecting children and their parents, and lingering long enough to have an impact well after the children stopped watching the show. Cooney probably wouldn"t have used these concepts or described her goals in precisely this way. But what she wanted to do, in essence, was create a learning epidemic to counter the prevailing epidemics of poverty and illiteracy. She called her idea Sesame Street. By any measure, this was an audacious idea. Television is a great way to reach lots of people, very easily and cheaply. It entertains and dazzles. But it isn"t a particularly educational medium. Gerald Lesser, a Harvard University psychologist who joined with Cooney in founding Sesame Street, says that when he was first asked to join the project, back in the late 1960s, he was skeptical. "I had always been very much into fitting how you teach to what you know about the child, " he says. "You try to find the kid"s strengths, so you can play to them. You try to understand the kid"s weaknesses, so you can avoid them. Then you try and teach that individual kid"s profile ... Television has no potential, no power to do that. " Good teaching is interactive. It engages the child individually. It uses all the senses. It responds to the child. But a television is just a talking box. In experiments, children who are asked to read a passage and are then tested on it will invariably score higher than children asked to watch a video of the same subject matter. Educational experts describe television as "low involvement. " Television is like a strain of the common cold that can spread like lightning through a population, but only causes a few sniffles and is gone in a day. But Cooney and Lesser and a third partner—Lloyd Morrisett of the Markle Foundation in New York—set out to try anyway. They enlisted some of the top creative minds of the period. They borrowed techniques from television commercials to teach children about numbers. They used the live animation of Saturday morning cartoons to teach lessons about learning the alphabet. They brought in celebrities to sing and dance and star in comedy sketches that taught children about the virtues of cooperation or about their own emotions. Sesame Street aimed higher and tried harder than any other children"s show had, and the extraordinary thing was that it worked. Virtually every time the show"s educational value has been tested—and Sesame Street has been subject to more academic scrutiny than any television show in history—it has been proved to increase the reading and learning skills of its viewers. There are few educators and child psychologists who don"t believe that the show managed to spread its infectious message well beyond the homes of those who watched the show regularly. The creators of Sesame Street accomplished something extraordinary, and the story of how they did that is a marvelous illustration of a rule of the Tipping Point, the Stickiness Factor. They discovered that by making small but critical adjustments in how they presented ideas to preschoolers, they could overcome television"s weakness as a teaching tool and make what they had to say memorable. Sesame Street succeeded because it learned how to make television sticky. Which of the following did Cooney and her partners exclude from the production of the show
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Choose from the list[A]to[F]after the passage the best sentences to fill in the gaps in the text. There are more sentences than gaps. Brevity Those of us who are small in physical stature are often reassured by kindly friends who say: " The best things come in small packages... A little person is a beautiful thing... It"s the size of the brain that counts..." and so on. For the man who craves those extra inches in order to dominate an audience, for the woman who regularly has to speak in public while resting her chin on the table, these thoughts provide little consolation. But they do contain a germ of truth.【K1】______. Tall people cannot stretch out in the bath or extend their legs in a sleeper or couchette. They can peer over the top of the crowd but seldom slide through it. As with people, so with letters. There are times when a letter must be long to achieve its purpose. But generally, the shorter the words, the sentences and the letter, the more effective the results will be. Even the longest epistle should be broken up into brief sections. There is no excuse for the sentence that stretches into a paragraph, nor the paragraph that becomes a page. 【K2】______. The bore, the windbag, the person whom we would all go the longest distance to avoid, is also the writer whose letters we least like to read. "Oh, him again, " you say, recognizing the prolix prose. " I"ll read it later... if I have time. " So the writer joins the rank of the great unread. In the world of journalism there are newspapers that pay by the word or column inch. This puts a premium on padding.【K3】______. " We only want 500 words, " writes the editor. " We pay ￡ x per thousand words. " " I shall be delighted to write your piece! " the journalist replies. " But it will be harder for me to condense the material you want into 500 words than to produce a piece of 1, 000. I suggest that it would be fairer to pay the rate of ￡ x + ￡ y for the 500-word piece. It will take me longer to write and will cost more in care. " With luck, the editor will agree—as a professional, he will know that length and value are seldom the same. Quality counts. Brevity matters. 【K4】______. In the world of public speaking there is a trite saying: " Stand up, speak up and then shut up. " But at least the spoken work is transitory. Unless you are on radio or television, or you are a politician who produces some glorious gaffe—or, of course, you slander someone—your words will probably go unrecorded and unremembered. Commercial correspondence, though, have their words preserved in files, to be used in evidence if necessary. So keep those words short, accurate arid to the point. If you find your letter is too long, take out your equivalent of the sub-editor"s blue pencil. Peel away the extra words with which your thoughts are clothed and leave them to stand on their own naked merits. If you are ashamed of them when they stand stripped, then think again. Redraft, rewrite, rethink...【K5】______. A magazine once asked millionaire Paul Getty for a short article explaining his success. The editor enclosed his cheque for ￡ 200. The multi-millionaire wrote: " Some people find oil. Others don"t. " Be brief, then. Or in the famous words of another oil man, " If you don"t strike oil soon, stop boring!"[A]Churchill was once asked how long it took him to prepare a speech. " If it"s a two-hour speech, " he replied, " ten minutes. If it"s a ten-minute speech, two hours.[B]Many professional writers do their best to avoid this sort of yardstick[C]Excess verbiage not only offends, bores and muddles the reader. It also fools the writer[D]Length is fine in its way, but it may be a nuisance[E]When General Eisenhower appointed Arthur Bums as Chairman of his Economic Advisors, Bumssuggested sending the President a memo outlining plans to organize the flow of economic advice.Ike said, "Keep it short. I can"t read. " Bums replied, "That"s fine, Mr. President. I can"twrite!" So they had a one-hour weekly conference instead[F]Brevity is the soul of a good letter. Short, snappy, concise, clear and pungent paragraphs.Thoughts neatly packed into words with punch. Neat, lively expressions, shorn of padding andpomposity. These are the keys to successful correspondence 【K4】
In the late 1960s, a television producer named Joan Gantz Cooney set out to start an epidemic. Her target was three-, four-, and five-year-olds. Her agent of infection was television, and the "virus" she wanted to spread was literacy. The show would last an hour and run five days a week, and the hope was that if that hour was contagious enough it could serve as an educational Tipping Point; giving children from disadvantaged homes a leg up once they began elementary school, spreading prolearning values from watchers to nonwatchers, infecting children and their parents, and lingering long enough to have an impact well after the children stopped watching the show. Cooney probably wouldn"t have used these concepts or described her goals in precisely this way. But what she wanted to do, in essence, was create a learning epidemic to counter the prevailing epidemics of poverty and illiteracy. She called her idea Sesame Street. By any measure, this was an audacious idea. Television is a great way to reach lots of people, very easily and cheaply. It entertains and dazzles. But it isn"t a particularly educational medium. Gerald Lesser, a Harvard University psychologist who joined with Cooney in founding Sesame Street, says that when he was first asked to join the project, back in the late 1960s, he was skeptical. "I had always been very much into fitting how you teach to what you know about the child, " he says. "You try to find the kid"s strengths, so you can play to them. You try to understand the kid"s weaknesses, so you can avoid them. Then you try and teach that individual kid"s profile ... Television has no potential, no power to do that. " Good teaching is interactive. It engages the child individually. It uses all the senses. It responds to the child. But a television is just a talking box. In experiments, children who are asked to read a passage and are then tested on it will invariably score higher than children asked to watch a video of the same subject matter. Educational experts describe television as "low involvement. " Television is like a strain of the common cold that can spread like lightning through a population, but only causes a few sniffles and is gone in a day. But Cooney and Lesser and a third partner—Lloyd Morrisett of the Markle Foundation in New York—set out to try anyway. They enlisted some of the top creative minds of the period. They borrowed techniques from television commercials to teach children about numbers. They used the live animation of Saturday morning cartoons to teach lessons about learning the alphabet. They brought in celebrities to sing and dance and star in comedy sketches that taught children about the virtues of cooperation or about their own emotions. Sesame Street aimed higher and tried harder than any other children"s show had, and the extraordinary thing was that it worked. Virtually every time the show"s educational value has been tested—and Sesame Street has been subject to more academic scrutiny than any television show in history—it has been proved to increase the reading and learning skills of its viewers. There are few educators and child psychologists who don"t believe that the show managed to spread its infectious message well beyond the homes of those who watched the show regularly. The creators of Sesame Street accomplished something extraordinary, and the story of how they did that is a marvelous illustration of a rule of the Tipping Point, the Stickiness Factor. They discovered that by making small but critical adjustments in how they presented ideas to preschoolers, they could overcome television"s weakness as a teaching tool and make what they had to say memorable. Sesame Street succeeded because it learned how to make television sticky. Gerald Lesser was skeptical about Sesame Street, because______.
Choose from the list[A]to[F]after the passage the best sentences to fill in the gaps in the text. There are more sentences than gaps. Brevity Those of us who are small in physical stature are often reassured by kindly friends who say: " The best things come in small packages... A little person is a beautiful thing... It"s the size of the brain that counts..." and so on. For the man who craves those extra inches in order to dominate an audience, for the woman who regularly has to speak in public while resting her chin on the table, these thoughts provide little consolation. But they do contain a germ of truth.【K1】______. Tall people cannot stretch out in the bath or extend their legs in a sleeper or couchette. They can peer over the top of the crowd but seldom slide through it. As with people, so with letters. There are times when a letter must be long to achieve its purpose. But generally, the shorter the words, the sentences and the letter, the more effective the results will be. Even the longest epistle should be broken up into brief sections. There is no excuse for the sentence that stretches into a paragraph, nor the paragraph that becomes a page. 【K2】______. The bore, the windbag, the person whom we would all go the longest distance to avoid, is also the writer whose letters we least like to read. "Oh, him again, " you say, recognizing the prolix prose. " I"ll read it later... if I have time. " So the writer joins the rank of the great unread. In the world of journalism there are newspapers that pay by the word or column inch. This puts a premium on padding.【K3】______. " We only want 500 words, " writes the editor. " We pay ￡ x per thousand words. " " I shall be delighted to write your piece! " the journalist replies. " But it will be harder for me to condense the material you want into 500 words than to produce a piece of 1, 000. I suggest that it would be fairer to pay the rate of ￡ x + ￡ y for the 500-word piece. It will take me longer to write and will cost more in care. " With luck, the editor will agree—as a professional, he will know that length and value are seldom the same. Quality counts. Brevity matters. 【K4】______. In the world of public speaking there is a trite saying: " Stand up, speak up and then shut up. " But at least the spoken work is transitory. Unless you are on radio or television, or you are a politician who produces some glorious gaffe—or, of course, you slander someone—your words will probably go unrecorded and unremembered. Commercial correspondence, though, have their words preserved in files, to be used in evidence if necessary. So keep those words short, accurate arid to the point. If you find your letter is too long, take out your equivalent of the sub-editor"s blue pencil. Peel away the extra words with which your thoughts are clothed and leave them to stand on their own naked merits. If you are ashamed of them when they stand stripped, then think again. Redraft, rewrite, rethink...【K5】______. A magazine once asked millionaire Paul Getty for a short article explaining his success. The editor enclosed his cheque for ￡ 200. The multi-millionaire wrote: " Some people find oil. Others don"t. " Be brief, then. Or in the famous words of another oil man, " If you don"t strike oil soon, stop boring!"[A]Churchill was once asked how long it took him to prepare a speech. " If it"s a two-hour speech, " he replied, " ten minutes. If it"s a ten-minute speech, two hours.[B]Many professional writers do their best to avoid this sort of yardstick[C]Excess verbiage not only offends, bores and muddles the reader. It also fools the writer[D]Length is fine in its way, but it may be a nuisance[E]When General Eisenhower appointed Arthur Bums as Chairman of his Economic Advisors, Bumssuggested sending the President a memo outlining plans to organize the flow of economic advice.Ike said, "Keep it short. I can"t read. " Bums replied, "That"s fine, Mr. President. I can"twrite!" So they had a one-hour weekly conference instead[F]Brevity is the soul of a good letter. Short, snappy, concise, clear and pungent paragraphs.Thoughts neatly packed into words with punch. Neat, lively expressions, shorn of padding andpomposity. These are the keys to successful correspondence 【K2】
Read the following passage carefully and then decide whether the statements which follow are true(T)or false(F). Most serious scientists spend a good part of their waking hours amid papers and preprints, equations and equipment, conducting experiments, talking about graphs and data, arguing about ideas and theories, teaching, and writing grant proposals. But if they browse in bookstores or glance in the book review sections of journals, they cannot fail to find a fascinating phenomenon in the scientific landscape; books proclaiming the extrarational implications of science are proliferating. Religion and mysticism are inching their way back into the arena of science whence(some thought)they had been gradually weeded out during the past two centuries. Right from the days of Kepler and Galileo, scientists have generally had a religious side to them: After all, except when they encounter faiths of a different shade, religions normally have only civilizing effects on the human heart. Isaac Newton believed in a personal God, explicitly calling himself His servant. Leonard Euler was deeply religious, and so were Augustin Cauchy and Michael Faraday. One author has written a 100-page volume filled with quotations from eminent scientists expressing their religious convictions. No reflecting scientist can be immune to the awe and majesty of the physical world, nor insensitive to the deep mystery underlying life and consciousness, though some troy not express it in traditional ways. But the scientific worldview arrived at by collective and extensive inquiries, fortified by countless instruments and carefully-erected conceptual tools, has been in awkward contradiction to explanations of how the world began and behaves, or how life emerged, as reported in the holy books of human history. As a result, ever since the Copernican revolution, there have been confrontations between scientific theories and religious worldviews. In 1896, A. D. White published his erudite work, which was an embarrassingly candid exposure, instance after instance, of the dogged obstinacy of the religious establishment in upholding ancient doctrines in the face of mounting scientific evidence to the contrary. After a full century, however, the situation seems to have changed drastically. A plethora of extrapolations of science are cropping up whose goal is to reestablish prescience. Many popular books, TV specials, magazine articles, and conference papers are joyously declaring that the ancients were not as much in the dark as Bacon and company had imagined; that, if anything, they had, through intuition and revelation, pretty much summed up the essence of twentieth-century physics and cosmology: from the strange physics of vacuums to the big bang. In the view of quite a few writers(including some practicing scientists of repute), physics has shown that Hindu mystics were right in picturing the cosmos as the Dancing Divine; that Chinese philosophers were on target when they spoke of yin and yang, for these referred implicitly to the conservation of matter and energy; and that the Book of Genesis formulates the principle of evolution in metaphorical meters. It has been claimed that receding galaxies provide experimental confirmation of what cabalists had already recognized in medieval times, and inklings of the esoteric formulations of quantum physics(the so-called S-matrix theory)have been detected in Buddhist sutras. Whether or not mainstream professional scientists take note of it, whether or not they attach weight to such claims, a significant fact in the closing decade of our century is that mysticism and old-time religion are back in full vigor in public consciousness, not just as enriching dimensions of the human spirit, nor even as competing modes of knowing or perceiving, but as profound intuitive visions that have at long last been "scientifically proven". A good deal of academic discussion is dedicated either to showing how limited and misleading the intellect is or to proving that nonrationally-derived insights have been confirmed by the most recent scientific theories. The coming back of old-time religion and mysticism in the arena of science is not surprising, as insightful ancient intuitions and recent scientific theories have arrived at similar worldviews.
微信支付 
支付宝支付