一、单项选择题在每小题列出四个备选项中选择一个最佳答案。
The first time I questioned the conventional wisdom on the nature of a healthy diet, I was in my salad days, almost 40 years ago, and the subject was salt. Researchers were claiming that salt supplementation was unnecessary after strenuous exercise, and this advice was being passed on by health reporters. All I knew was that I had played high school football in suburban Maryland, sweating profusely through double sessions in the swamp-like 90-degree days of August. Without salt pills, I couldn't make it through a two-hour practice; I couldn't walk across the parking lot afterward without cramping.
While sports nutritionists have since come around to recommend that we should indeed replenish salt when we sweat it out in physical activity, the message that we should avoid salt at all other times remains strong. Salt consumption is said to raise blood pressure, cause hypertension and increase the risk of premature death. This is why the Department of Agriculture's dietary guidelines still consider salt Public Enemy No. 1, coming before fats, sugars and alcohol. It's why the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has suggested that reducing salt consumption is as critical to long-term health as quitting cigarettes.
And yet, this eat-less-salt argument has been surprisingly controversial—and difficult to defend. Not because the food industry opposes it, but because the actual evidence to support it has always been so weak.
When I spent the better part of a year researching the state of the salt science back in 1998—already a quarter century into the eat-less-salt recommendations—journal editors and public health administrators were still remarkably candid in their assessment of how flimsy the evidence was implicating salt as the cause of hypertension.
While, back then, the evidence merely failed to demonstrate that salt was harmful, the evidence from studies publishes over the past two years actually suggests that restricting how much salt we eat can increase our likelihood of dying prematurely. Put simply, the possibility has been raised that if we were to eat as little salt as the U. S. D. A. and the C. D. C. recommend, we'd be harming rather than helping ourselves.
Why have we been told that salt is so deadly? Well, the advice has always sounded reasonable. It has what nutritionists like to call "biological plausibility. "Eat more salt and your body retains water to maintain a stable concentration of sodium in your blood. This is why eating salty food tends to make us thirsty:we drink more; we retain water. The result can be a temporary increase in blood pressure, which will persist until our kidneys eliminate both salt and water.
The scientific question is whether this temporary phenomenon translates to chronic problems:if we eat too much salt for years, does it raise our blood pressure, cause hypertension, then strokes, and then kill us prematurely? It makes sense,but it's only a hypothesis. The reason scientists do experiments is to find out if hypotheses are true.
The N. I. H. has spent enormous sums of money on studies to test the hypothesis, and those studies have singularly failed to make the evidence any more conclusive.
With nearly everyone focused on the supposed benefits of salt restriction, little research was done to look at the potential dangers. But four years ago, Italian researchers began publishing the results from a series of clinical trials, all of which reported that, among patients with heart failure, reducing salt consumption increased the risk of death. For many people, there is a very well-established stereotype that the first-class American universities are simply the best. However, I am not quite convinced of that. When I look back at my academic formation in the USA and compare it to the academic formation some of my friends had at Brazil, I don't feel like I am more prepared than my peers. Thus, I am currently facing a dilemma of whether to pursue my graduate studies in Brazil or in the USA.
The difference in our academic backgrounds, however, is the more liberal nature of American education. From my experience at Georgetown, and from what I know of American higher education, there are very few strict requirements imposed on students. Generally speaking, you are relatively free to take whichever classes you want, provided that they are under the scope of your major field of study.
To illustrate, I compared the master's degrees in economics from Duke and Getulio Vargas (FGV), a Brazilian university. I chose to present a master's degree comparison here because the short two-year study period makes it simpler than comparing a four-year program. Duke's program works like this: you pick a field of study and then have a required number of courses that you have to take in certain areas. Most of the requirements are not course-specific, but area-specific. With some fields of study, you can skip certain areas altogether. If you choose to get a master's degree in applied economic, for instance, you don't have to take any mathematics course. In FGV, all economics students need to take the same core structure: Microeconomics 1 through 4, Macroeconomics 1 through 3, Econometrics, Statistics 1 and 2, and Math for Economics 1 and 2. From then on, you can specialize in certain fields,and the elective structure seems to be the same as inDuke: you pick five electives from your main area of interest.
This seems to be the same kind of difference that I noticed comparing what I studied in Georgetown as an undergraduate to what some of my friends studied in their undergraduate careers in Brazil. Now, is this more liberal education good or bad? There are factors pulling it each way, and the ideal solution,in my view, is a reasonable middle ground. What I see happening in American universities, however, is a little too much liberalization. Too much liberty tends to encourage students to take the more "interesting" courses, and ignore those that are considered most "boring". The problem is that many of these" boring" courses are usually foundational courses, which give students the analytical tools they need in order to be truly competent in their fields of study.
In the end, I feel like American universities sometimes delegate too much responsibility to students in terms of choosing their academic careers. For me, this is troubling. Students in their twenties usually have very little experience in the field they are studying, and many times they don't really know the tools they need to succeed in their area of interest. It is certainly the case in my situation. Fortunately, I research and discuss a lot before picking myclasses, and was able to take advantage of my liberal American education to build both a strong foundation and take classes that interest me. But is this always the case? From my experience, I think not. What I see happening at Georgetown is that many students just pick the classes they find most interesting, without any real consideration of how it is going to support their overall academic formation. This result is a deficit in fundamentals. 二、简答题(本大题共20分)
根据题目要求完成下列任务,用中文作答。
1. 课堂教学反馈的常见方法有哪些?应该遵循哪些基本原则?
(1)课堂教学反馈常见方法:
①口头反馈,指教师根据学生的口头活动、书面表达或者测试提供的信息进行的反馈。可以是教师直接改错、启发学生自己改错或启发学生互相改错。
②非语言反馈,指教师通过表情、目光、肢体动作及距离等非语言因素给学生提供的反馈。
③书面反馈,一般用于课后对学生作业或测试提供的书面评价符号或评语。
(2)教学反馈要遵循的基本原则有:
①反馈要准确。教师的评价要准确,对不同的意见,尤其是模棱两可的意见,要给予准确的评价。
②反馈信息要丰富。反馈要提供更多的信息,指出为什么某个答案是正确的,从而对学生的回答进行详细的说明。
③反馈要及时。教师要注意及时评价,这样既能满足学生自我肯定的需要,又能起到拾遗补缺的作用。
④反馈要积极。积极反馈在改变学生的语言行为方面比消极反馈有效得多,教师常用的反馈策略应该是转述、详述、点评、重复等。
三、教学情境分析题(本大题共30分)
根据题目要求完成下列任务,用中文作答。
1. 以下是某高中英语教师设计的课堂导入,阅读并回答以下问题:
(1)请评价该教师所设计的导入环节。
(2)教师还可以采用哪些方法导入教学内容?(不少于五种)
(3)请自己设计一个课堂导入。
Lead-in
Show the students some pictures (Tangshan, Wenehuan, San Francisco) about earthquakes and ask them:
(1) Have you experienced earthquakes? Look at the pictures. Do you know where these earthquakes happened?
(2) Could you describe how terrible an earthquake is?
(1)新课的导入是整个课堂教学活动中的热身活动,目的是让学生在最短的时间内进入课堂学习的最佳状态。该教师通过图片展示、提出问题的方式导入课堂内容,既扩大了学生的知识面,又激发了他们的学习兴趣,并引发了他们的求知欲,调动了他们回答问题的积极性。
(2)课堂导入方法有:电影或歌曲导入法;探讨话题导入法;头脑风暴法;时事导入法;实物导入法;背景知识导入法;演讲和表演导入法;故事导入法;游戏导入法;情境导入法等。
(3)Lead-in
Teacher quotes some poems, proverbs, expressing people's opinions on hope, then plays a song Be Together, Alive or Not. Time permitting, teacher could teach students to sing it. Thus, it will arouse students' interest and emotional identification.
四、教学设计题(本大题共40分)
根据提供的信息和语言素材设计教学方案,用英文作答。
1. 设计任务:根据提供的信息和语言素材设计一节阅读课的教学方案。教案没有固定格式,但必须包含下列要点:
●teaching objectives
●key and difficult points
●major steps and time allocation
●activities and justification
教学时间:45分钟
学生概况:某城镇普通中学高中一年级第一学期学生,班级人数40人。多数学生已经达到《普通高中英语课程标准(实验)》五级水平。学生课堂参与积极性一般。
语言素材:
Teaching objectives:
(1)Knowledge objective
①Students can know about the transitional sentences and their function in the passage.
②Students can master the words in bold to depict the psychological changes of the characters.
(2)Ability objective
Students can get the main idea of the passage through understanding the transitional sentences and detailed information.
(3)Emotion objective
After the class, students will know about the endangered wildlife and realize the importance of wildlife protection.
Teaching key and difficult points:
(1)To master the words in bold, to depict the main characters' psychological changes, and know the causes for the changes.
(2)To use the transitional sentences to summarize the gist of each paragraph, then predict what is to come next.
Teaching procedures:
Step 1 Warming-up (5 minutes)
Watching and talking.
Watch a video clip of wildlife protection and answer the following questions.
Q1: What kinds of animals are endangered?
Q2: Why are they endangered?
Q3: What can we do to protect them?
(Justification: The show of the video provides the students with basic knowledge about wildlife protection and leads in to the main idea of the text.)
Step 2 Pre-reading(2 minutes)
Predict the content of the reading material based on the title.
From the title, what can you guess? How do you understand the word "how"?
(Justification: Predicting with the help of the title creates task, and the "how" question prepares students for understanding the structure of the passage.)
Step 3 While-reading(30 minutes)
Para.1 (Comprehending)
(1)Scanning
Scan the paragraph and answer the following questions.
Q1: What animal did Daisy meet?
Q2: Why were they hunted?
Q3: What was Daisy's feeling? Find out words to show Daisy's sad feeling.
(2)Summarizing
Q: Why did Daisy want to protect wildlife after seeing the antelope?
Daisy wanted to ______. (know how to protect wildlife)
(3)Appreciation
Read the last two sentences and appreciate the function of them.
Q1: Why did Daisy wonder? (Your answer has something to do with Paragraph 1.)
Q2: What did Daisy want to do next? Guess what will be about in the second paragraph? (Your answer has something to do with Paragraph 2. We call the last sentence transitional sentence.)
Para.2 (Comprehending)
(1)Summarize the main idea.
(2)Answer the following questions.
Q1: What animal is talked about?
Q2: How to understand the following sentence? (In relief Daisy burst into laughter.)
Q3: Why did she burst into laughter?
Para.3~4 (Comprehending)
(1)Explaining
Q1: What does "that/it" refer to in the following sentences?
That is good news. It shows the importance of wildlife protection, but I'd like to help as the WWF suggests.
Q2: What is the function of the second sentence?
(Hints: It summarizes the second paragraph and appears in the third paragraph.)
(Answer: A transitional sentence.)
(2)Predicting and checking
Guess what help Daisy can give.
(3)Summarizing
Q1: Why should we produce this new drug?
Q2: Why did Daisy ask the monkey to come and help?
Q3: What is the main idea of Paragraph 3~4?
(4)Appreciation
(No rainforest, no animals, no drugs.) What did the monkey want to say?
What was Daisy's feeling?
(Justification: Students' reading skills such as skimming, predicting, grasping the transitional sentences, and summarizing will be practiced and improved.)
Step 4 Post-reading(7 minutes)
(1)Group work
What had Daisy learned?
(2)Talking
Continue the story. What will be talked about after the sentence "There was always WWF..."
(Justification: Talking the omitted part in the last sentence in groups helps check to what extent that the students have understood the passage.)
Step 5 Homework(1 minute)
Write your story down within 100 words about what will be talked about after the sentence "There was always WWF..."
(Justification: The written assignment will effectively help check the students' understanding of the passage, which provides reference for the next class.)