托福 新托福 31 - Early Childhood Education
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.The word “whereas” in the passage is closest in meaning to
  • A.Although
  • B.Because
  • C.Moreover
  • D.Already
  • 正确答案:

    登录 后才可以查看答案解析,还没有账号?

    还没有账号?马上 注册 >>

    阅读原文 中文译文

    Preschools – educational programs for children under the age of five – differ significantly from one country to another according to the views that different societies hold regarding the purpose of early childhood education. For instance, in a cross-country comparison of preschools in China, Japan, and the United States, researchers found that parents in the three countries view the purpose of preschools very differently. Whereas parents in China tend to see preschools primarily as a way of giving children a good start academically, Japanese parents view them primarily as a way of giving children the opportunity to be members of a group. In the United States, in comparison, parents regard the primary purpose of preschools as making children more independent and self-reliant, although obtaining a good academic start and having group experience are also important.

    While many programs designed for preschoolers focus primarily on social and emotional factors, some are geared mainly toward promoting cognitive gains and preparing preschoolers for the formal instruction they will experience when they start kindergarten. In the United States, the best-known program designed to promote future academic success is Head Start. Established in the 1960s when the United States declared the War on Poverty, the program has served over 13 million children and their families. The program, which stresses parental involvement, was designed to serve the “whole child”, including children’s physical health, self-confidence, social responsibility, and social and emotional development.

    Whether Head Start is seen as successful or not depends on the lens through which one is looking. If, for instance, the program is expected to provide long-term increases in IQ (intelligence quotient) scores, it is a disappointment. Although graduates of Head Start programs tend to show immediate IQ gains, these increases do not last. On the other hand, it is clear that Head Start is meeting its goal of getting preschoolers ready for school. Preschoolers who participate in Head Start are better prepared for future schooling than those who do not. Furthermore, graduates of Head Start programs have better future school grade. Finally, some research suggests that ultimately Head Start graduates show higher academic performance at the end of high school, although the gains are modest.

    In addition, results from other types of preschool readiness programs indicate that those who participate and graduate are less likely to repeat grades, and they are more likely to complete school than readiness program, for every dollar spent on the program, taxpayers saved seven dollars by the time the graduates reached the age of 27.

    The most recent comprehensive evaluation of early intervention programs suggests that, taken as a group, preschool programs can provide significant benefits, and that government funds invested early in life may ultimately lead to a reduction in future costs. For instance, compared with children who did not participate in early intervention programs, participants in various programs showed gains in emotional or cognitive development, better educational outcomes, increased economic self-sufficiency, reduced levels of criminal activity, and improved health-related behaviors. Of course, not every program produced all these benefits, and not every child benefited to the same extent. Furthermore, some researchers argue that less-expensive programs are just as good as relatively expensive ones, such as Head Start. Still, the results of the evaluation were promising, suggesting that the potential benefits of early intervention can be substantial.

    Not everyone agrees that programs that seek to enhance academic skills during the preschool years are a good thing. In fact, according to developmental psychologist David Elkind, United States society tends to push children so rapidly that they begin to feel stress and pressure at a young age. Elkind argues that academic success is largely dependent upon factors out of parents’ control, such as inherited abilities and a child’s rate of maturation. Consequently, children of a particular age cannot be expected to master educational material without taking into account their current level of cognitive development. In short, children require development appropriate educational practice, which is education that is based on both typical development and the unique characteristics of a given child.

    根据不同社会对学前教育所持观点不同,不同国家的学前教育—针对5岁前小孩子的教育课程—差别很大。例如,一份关于中国、日本和美国学前教育的横向对比表面这些国家的家长对儿童学前教育的目的持截然不同的看法。中国家长认为学前教育主要可以为儿童提供一个学术启蒙的机会,而日本家长认为学前教育主要可以提供作为群体中的一员的机会。相比较而言,美国家长则认为学前教育的首要目的是有助于儿童更加独立,尽管他们进行学术启蒙和群体经验也很重要。 尽管很多教育课程的设计首先关注社交和感情的因素,其它一些课程则主要为了促进认知能力,并为他们即将进行的幼儿园正规教育作准备。在美国,最著名的以促进未来学术能力的教育课程是Head Start。自二十世纪六十年代当美国决定向贫穷宣战时设立以来,该项目已经服务了1300万儿童及其家人。该项目注重家长的参与,并致力于培养“全才儿童”,即包括儿童的身体健康,自信心,社会责任和社交和情商发展。 Head Start是否成功取决于人们看待的角度。例如,如果这个课程是为了提高孩子长期的IQ(智商),那么它并不怎么样。尽管Head Start的毕业生往往表现出短期的IQ提高,但长期并非如此。另外,Head Start达到了帮助儿童为学校教育做好准备的目标。参加了Head Start课程的儿童比没有参加的儿童更能适应未来的学校教育。而且,Head Start毕业生在未来的学校中分数更高。最终一些研究表明Head Start毕业生在高中结束的时候的成绩稍微高一点,尽管只是一点点。 另外,其它学前准备课程的研究表明参加学前准备课程并毕业的儿童在读书期间更少留级,也更可能完成学校教育。纳税人每向学前课程花费1美元,则在孩子27岁前他们要节约7美元。 最近关于早期介入课程的综合研究表明,整体上看,学前课程意义重大,并且投资给早期教育的政府资金可以最终减少未来的成本。例如,相对于没有参加早期介入课程的儿童,那些参加课程的儿童表现出情感和认知上的进步,教育结果也更好,经济自足水平高,但不是每个孩子的受益程度都相同。而且,一些研究者认为较便宜的课程和较昂贵的课程,如Head Start,起到的效果相同。较便宜的课程的评价结果依然很好,早期介入有很重要的好处。 不是每个人都认为追求提高学术能力的学前课程是一件好事。事实上,根据发展心理学家David Elkind的观点,美国社会让孩子的发展速度太快以至于他们在很小的年纪就感觉到了压力。Elkind认为学术成功很大程度上取决于父母不能控制的因素,如遗传的能力和孩子成熟速度。因此,特定年龄段的孩子就很难掌握不考虑他们目前认知水平的发展而制定的教育材料。简而言之,孩子需要发展合适的教育实践,即根据一般孩子的发展水平和每个孩子的个性而制定的教育。

    留言区中有很多我们对问题的解答喔, 登录后可以查看

    还没有账号?马上 注册 >>

    • wx_6697
      觉得B C 意思一样,不知道选哪个
    • wx_5576
    • wx_5576
    • wx_6697
      TPO30 passage 2 Q5我选的 D,不明白为啥不对?
    • wx_6697
      鑫哥,TPO6passage3Q5 答案是给错了吗?好多人都选A
    • wx_6697
    • wx_6697
    • 芊儿
      为什么这道题不选c??a中的variety不是应该对应文中的differentiating 吗??求解!
    • wx_1000
    • 王金阁
    • 芊儿
      这道题的D选项不是和文中的better able to reproduce in open settings相对应么??
    • 风荨火
    • 以沫
      请问这个D 在哪里提现?为什么D错?
    • 芊儿
      第六题 的C选择为什么不对,感觉A是明显驳斥啊...
    • wx_6697
    • wx_6697
      这题选的A,根据是Joly’s calculations clearly supported those geologists who insisted on an age for Earth far in excess of a few million years.想问鑫哥为啥不选A
    • wx_6697
      这题我选的是C依据是into a new habitat outside of its natural range, it may adapt to the new environment and leave its enemies behind.C为啥错了呢?鑫哥
    • wx_8861
      F选项的weather-related destruction在哪里体现了呢?原文最后一段的开头Among the costs里的costs是不是打错了?应该是coast?
    • wx_6697
      求问这道题B为啥不选,原文依据:viable seeds of pioneer species can be found in large numbers on some forest floors.
    • 与托福的斗争史
      与托福的斗争史 去解答 去解答
    • 小雨淅沥哗啦的下
      小雨淅沥哗啦的下 去解答 去解答
    • 小雨淅沥哗啦的下
      小雨淅沥哗啦的下 去解答 去解答
    • 李浩然
    • wx_100
    • wx xxxxx
      请问鑫哥,这段开头有写As one pesticide replaces another为什么不是对应a new pesticide is developed?
    • wx_7695
      鑫哥,从哪里看出来这个masks 不是use呀,原文说了wear呀
    • haiyuqiao
      @鑫哥,这题the damage will continue 不应该对应前面的 the target species evolves resistance to it,然后As one pesticide replaces another,不应该是结束了time cycle 吗
    • wx_2065
    • wx_7695
      鑫哥,B选项 cannot extended to earlier geological periods. 原文说的意思是后来的进化无法估计吧
    • wx_2163
    • wx_7780
    • 100
      看到第一句话,以为是中心句就选了A... 为什么不能选A呢
    • 100
    • gu33
      请问下 这里选D的原因是 因为 evolutionary approach 对应着 原文的 Rates of evolution 嘛? 这里我选了C。。不是很懂 插入句和 D的关系 求解答
    • 我是啦啦啦
      我是啦啦啦 去解答 去解答
    • haiyuqiao
    • wx_7060
      为什么选a 呢。我觉得a是细节。F哪错了?
    • wx_1105
    • wx_8122
    • wx_1655
    • chaulaw
    • chaulaw
    • wx_6697
      鑫哥,这道题答案是不是错了,好多人选D 我也选的D求解答
    • wx_6697
    • wx_6697
    • wx_6697
    • wx_6697
    • wx_4185
      it is difficult to say how far they were intended to be portraits rather than generalized images 这句话怎么理解呢
    • 此楠楠
    • 此楠楠
      求鑫哥讲解下A选项。。。 Even though in error, Joly’s calculations clearly supported those geologists who insisted on an age for Earth far in excess of a few million years.