题目内容

Schools throughout the world are experiencing a period of rapid change and, in many cases, are finding that extremely【M1】 difficult to achieve a balance among a number of critical concerns. Some of the issues that educators and schools are facing include certainty about what academic and cultural knowledge and skills【M2】 will be needed by students in the future, wholesale revisions of curricula, experimentation in teaching strategies, the need for teachers and students to become aware and competent in using【M3】 new technologies, dramatic changes in bureaucratic and legislating【M4】 policies and regulations, and increased demands on teachers. With the exception of the education system in the United States, perhaps no education system has been studied more【M5】 intensively than of Japan. In 2001, in a well-balanced presentation【M6】 of the Japanese model of schooling, including its similarities to and fro differences with that in the United States, Tsuneyoshi【M7】 characterized the American approach to education as one that places an emphasis on competitiveness, individual attention from teachers along with individual accomplishment on the part of students, development of cognitive abilities, and separation of teachers in terms of their disciplines. In contrary, the Japanese【M8】 approach(particularly at the elementary school level)focuses on the "whole child"; close interactions between teachers and pupils for long periods of time in cooperative settings with attention to collected goals, tasks, and rewards; and efforts to provide the same【M9】 or very similar treatment for all students. One advantage of the American approach that is seriously missed in the Japanese【M10】 approach is the formers attention to diversity and a sensitivity and concern for minority rights.
【M1】

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

In an effort to explain how most of language, which is not so directly relatable to meaning, derived from an onomatopoeic beginning, the discipline of etymology began. Through studying the derivational history of words(etymology)the naturalists tended to【M1】 demonstrate that the origin of all of language was ultimately relatable to words which directly reflected the meanings of their referents. The first philosophical forum on language eventually was【M2】 developed into a discussion on the regularity of language patterns. Two basic theoretical positions merged as explanatory frameworks【M3】 for language, that which opted for irregularity and that which insisted that language was essentially regular. From the pre-eminence of latter position it became popular to explain the【M4】 irregularities of language on the basis language somehow became【M5】 corrupted with proper usage through time; this theoretical position【M6】 regarded the older forms of language to be the pure forms.【M7】 By the Nineteenth Century there was a severe reaction to the highly speculative nature of the philosophizing about the original language of man which had characterized much of the study of language up until then. The interest was still historical, and the【M8】 goal was not so idealistic. It was a romantic era of a rediscovery of the national past; the mother tongues of nations and families of nations rather than the mother tongue of the whole human race became the focus of attention. The romantic nationalism was a definite influence, but perhaps a more basic cause of the more real【M9】 goal was the reaction to previously unscientific speculations.【M10】
【M1】

Whom can you trust these days？ It is a question posed by David Halpern of Cambridge University, and the researchers at the Downing Street Strategy Unit who take an interest in "social capital". In intervals they go around asking people in assorted【M1】 nations the question: "Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted？" The results are fascinated. The conclusion that leaps from the【M2】 figures and into sensational headlines are that social dislocation,【M3】 religious decline, public scandals, family fragmentation and the fear of crime have made us more trusting. Comparative surveys【M4】 over 40 years suggest that British trustfulness had halved: in the【M5】 1950s 60 per cent of us answered "yes, most people can be trusted", in the 1980s 44 per cent, today only 29 per cent. Trust levels also continue to fall in Ireland and the US—meanwhile, the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes and Dutch express tremendous confidence in one and anothers honesty: levels are actually rising.【M6】 In Mexico and Japan the level of trust is also increasing, that is【M7】 interesting if mild bewildering. And the Palme dOr(金棕榈奖)【M8】 for mutual suspect goes to the Brazilians—with less than 3【M9】 per cent replying "yes"—and the Turks with 6.5 per cent The French, apparently, never trusted each other and still dont. Nevertheless we【M10】 become less Scandinavian and more French(or Turkish)every year.
【M1】

Poetry doesnt matter to most people. One has to wonder if poetry has any place in the 21st century, when music videos and satellite television offer daunting competition for poems, which demand a good deal of attention and considerate analytic skills, as【M1】 well as some knowledge of the traditions of poetry. In the 19th century, poets like Scott, Byron, and Longfellow had huge audiences around the world. Their works were best sellers, yet they were cultural heroes as well. But readers had few【M2】 choices in those days. One imagines, perhaps false, that people【M3】 actually liked poetry. It provided them with narratives that entertained and inspired. They gave them words to attach to their【M4】 feelings. They enjoyed folk ballads, too. In the sense, music and【M5】 poetry joined hands. In the 20th century, something went to amiss. Poetry became【M6】 "difficult". That is, poets began to reflect the complex of modern【M7】 culture, its fierce disjunctions. The poems of Ezra Pound, Hilda Doolittle and T.S. Eliot asked a lot of the reader, including a range of cultural references to topics when even in the early 1900s had【M8】 become little known. To read Pound and Eliot with easy, for【M9】 instance, one needed some knowledge of Greek and Latin poetry. That kind of learning had been fairly common among educated readers in the past. The same could be said for most readers in the【M10】 20th century—or today, when education has become more democratized and the study of the classics has been relegated to a small number of enthusiasts.
【M1】

Language is fantastically complex. Its built-in means of combining and recombining(nesting)of its various levels have【M1】 suggested to many leading linguists that language is theoretically infinite though not practical so in everyday usage.【M2】 It almost sounds too complex to be able to detect any significant leveling out of language any more than one could detect by observation that the sun is burning itself out. As far as I am conscious no linguist seriously purports that【M3】 the restructuring process of language overrides the streamlining process resulted in a qualitative positive development of【M4】 language. If we decide that language did originally develop, possibly evolving animal communication, we can only do【M5】 so by assuming evolution to be a universally valid principle This type【M6】 of a priori reasoning was the basic fallacy of pre-Nineteenth Century "speculative grammar" which was pre-scientific in modern【M7】 sense of the word. However, the observable data neither indicate that such a【M8】 period of pre-historic development even existed, nor they【M9】 suggest a cause of the subsequent state of equilibrium or process of simplification that would have to have come into operation at some time after such a pre-historic development. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prominent linguists of the twentieth century, has indicated that human language and animal communication are not even comparative entities, they are so【M10】 different.
【M1】