首页
登录
职称英语
Do music lessons really make chi
Do music lessons really make chi
游客
2024-03-07
16
管理
问题
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
A) A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
B) In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled "Music Lessons Enhance IQ." The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg, had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
C) Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
D) The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
E) Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
F) For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like "enhance," "promote," "facilitate," and "strengthen." The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance, or if the study appeared in a journal that had "brain," "neuroscience," or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
G) After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do "real" science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
H) To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ’b’ and ’g’.
I) But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. "Plasticity has become an industry of its own," he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
J) Neuropsychologist Lutz Jancke agrees. "Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences," he said. For over two decades, Jancke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
K) Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or "an instrument for every child," which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
L) To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
M)That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? "As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today," Schellenberg said. "The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith."
N) Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, "the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing." He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. "I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general," he said.
O) But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. "You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist." [br] Glenn Schellenberg’s latest research suggests many psychologists and neuroscientists wrongly believe in the causal relationship between music and IQ.
选项
答案
E
解析
注意抓住题干中的关键信息latest research和many psychologists and neuroscientists wrongly believe in。原文中提到格伦.舍伦贝格的最新研究,以及许多心理学家和神经学家得出错误结论是在E段。该段第二句说,最近,他决定正式研究一下,在他的心理学和神经科学领域的同仁中,有多少人得出了音乐和智力之间存在因果关系这一结论——在他看来这种结论是错误的,或者至少是不成熟的。紧接着第三句揭晓了他的调查结果:他的许多同行得出了这样的结论。题干是对E段第二、三句内容的概括,题干中的many psychologists and neuroscientists对应原文中的many of his peers和his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience:wrongly believe in是make what he believes are erroneous…causal connections的同义转述。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3514687.html
相关试题推荐
“我确实感到是我辜负了他们,”他说,“如果我是个更优秀的老师,也许我就能打动他们了。” "IreallyfeellikeIfailedthem
[originaltext]M:It’sreallyamazinghowmanycolorsthereareintheseThaisi
[originaltext]M:It’sreallyamazinghowmanycolorsthereareintheseThaisi
[originaltext]M:It’sreallyamazinghowmanycolorsthereareintheseThaisi
[originaltext]W:Hi,Tim.I’mreallysorrytohearaboutyourdad.Mysincerest
[originaltext]W:Hi,Tim.I’mreallysorrytohearaboutyourdad.Mysincerest
[originaltext]W:Hi,Tim.I’mreallysorrytohearaboutyourdad.Mysincerest
[originaltext]W:Hi,Tim.I’mreallysorrytohearaboutyourdad.Mysincerest
[originaltext]Canyoureallymakenewfriendsasanadult?Imean,there’sp
[originaltext]Canyoureallymakenewfriendsasanadult?Imean,there’sp
随机试题
关于配变电所设计要求中,下列哪一项是错误的?( )A.低压配电装置室的耐火等级
将新鲜的牛奶加入适量得蔗糖煮沸后,倒入消毒后的大口玻璃瓶内,再将适量的酸奶倒入其
下列各项资产减值中,不在《企业会计准则第8号-资产减值》中规范的是()。
关于高处作业下列表述不当的是( )。 A、高度在30m以上时,称为特级高处作
2020年我国农产品贸易额2468.3亿美元,同比增8.0%。其中,出口额同比减
根据衍生交易部分标的资产的不同,结构性理财产品可以分为( )。A.与股票挂钩的
患者全身多处虹膜样皮损,伴发热头痛等全身症状,口腔黏膜可见充血性红斑,继而形成水
下列做法中能降低盈亏平衡产量的方案是()。 A.增加销售量B.提高单位产品
甲状腺功能亢进症核素131I治疗前的准备是 A.替萘洛尔(心得安) B.复
tRNA反密码子第1位碱基可与mRNA A连续性B特异性C通用性D摆动性
最新回复
(
0
)