2. 职称英语
  3. Do genes determine how well children will do at school? If so, are teachers

Do genes determine how well children will do at school? If so, are teachers

游客2023-12-05  20
问题     Do genes determine how well children will do at school? If so, are teachers and policy-makers wasting their time trying to raise academic standards amongst children who are bom "not very bright"?
    These controversial, indeed uncomfortable, questions are raised by comments from the former Chief Inspector of Schools in England, Chris Woodhead. Now a Professor at Buckingham University, Mr. Woodhead has never been one to tiptoe around fundamental issues, however explosive they may be. In a newspaper interview, Mr. Woodhead said a child’s family background largely dictated educational success. He argued, less bright children should not be forced down the academic route but should be given practical and vocational training. The anecdotal evidence seems to be all around us. The children of parents who have done well in the academic education system seem, mostly, to do well themselves.
    But is it really true that our chances of being born bright or not so bright depend entirely on the academic success of our parents? This nature versus nurture question might seem insoluble. But thanks to a remarkable research project there is growing long-term evidence to suggest some insights.
    The 1970 Birth Cohort Survey has followed over 17,000 babies who were born in the U.K. during a particular week in April 1970. It has measured their medical, educational and social development at intervals since then. Leon Feinstein, from the Institute of Education at the University of London, has interrogated the educational results of the survey and produced some fascinating findings about how children’s ability levels vary relative to their peers over time.
    The children were tested for their educational development at 22 months, 42 months, and at age 5 and 10. Later they were assessed at age 26 to see what educational success they had achieved in public examinations. The striking picture that emerges is one where ability levels at the earliest age are a strong indicator of later educational success. Even when measured at just 22 months, children who started out in the lowest 25% of the ability range mostly remained stuck amongst the lowest achievers as adults. The pattern of future success is even more completely determined at 42 months, or just three and half years old, still well before the start of formal schooling. Over 25% of those who were in the bottom quartile of ability at this age failed to achieve any educational qualifications by the age of 26. By contrast, only 6% of the highest scoring 42-month olds failed to get qualifications by the time they were adults. So ability levels soon after birth are a very strong predictor of future educational success. So the deterministic view about genes appears to be borne out by the evidence so far. Educational achievement would appear to be set in stone well before children even start school.
    But wait, there is more. The evidence also shows that within this overall picture, there is a fair degree of movement. Children who start out in the least able group can, and do, progress all the way up to the most able group. For example, 10% of those children who were in the bottom 25% at 42 months had reached the top 25% by the age of 10. In other words, if they had been written off as starting out in life without the genetic advantages of high ability, their longer-term academic potential would have been wasted.
    Leon Feinstein’s research gets even more interesting for policy-makers when he starts to look at the impact of social class on all of this. His findings suggest that it is the combination of starting out in the lowest ability group, whilst also being in the lowest socio-economic group at birth, which more or less condemns a child to educational failure later in life. So, if you do badly in the developmental tests at 22 months, and your parents are in low-paid manual jobs, you are likely to remain on the bottom rungs of the educational ladder. However, children in the lowest ability groups at 22 months who are born into affluent and white-collar families do not remain stuck on the bottom levels of educational success. Indeed—and this is perhaps the most striking finding—the children from affluent families who started out in the bottom ability group overtake those from the poorest backgrounds who started out in the top ability group.
    In other words, it is true to say that the mental abilities you are born with do tend to shape your future academic success. However, it is also true to say that innate ability is not determined simply by your genetic inheritance, in terms of the socio-economic background of your parents. Whatever the starting point, subsequent educational success is more likely to go to those with affluent, middle-class parents. So Chris Woodhead may well be right if he is talking about children who have already reached secondary school. Yet early intervention, in the pre-school and early primary years could make a real difference by militating against social class factors which have held back bright children from poorer homes. [br] Which of the following is the best title for the passage?
选项 A、Academic Route Does Not Suit All
B、Nature, Nurture and Exam Results
C、Early Intervention Makes Big Difference in Education
D、Money Can Change a Lot, Even in Academic Field
答案 B
解析 主旨题。文章第一段提出问题：基因对人们学术成就是否具有决定性的作用?第二段提到了伍德黑德先生的观点；第三段通过此观点引出一个长期研究的项目；第四段通过调查结果说明，早期测试表现差的孩子中大多数在成年后学业方面的成就也较差；第六段进行转折，说明除了基因方面的影响外，社会阶层也对孩子的学业发展产生影响，因此，文章主要涉及了三个方面的内容，即先天因素、后天因素及考试结果，故[B]为最佳答案。文章在第二段的确提到了伍德黑德先生的观点，说不是所有的孩子都应该走学术路线，但从第三段一直到文章结尾都是在围绕影响孩子们学业发展的因素展开，而不是着重说明有些人不适合走学术路线，故排除[A]；文章仅是通过调查结果展现对一个人成年后学术成就的影响因素，并没有谈到早期的干预手段、效果等内容，故排除[C]；文章虽然在第六至八段提到即使早期的测试结果不太理想，但如果是出生在富足的中产阶级家庭，仍有改变未来的可能，但文章的重点还是说明影响教育效果的因素，而不是突出金钱的重要性，故排除[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3245568.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)