《2019年雅思阅读模拟题：NewWaysofTeachingHistory》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《2019年雅思阅读模拟题：NewWaysofTeachingHistory（10页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、2019 年雅思阅读模拟题： New Ways of TeachingHistoryIn a technology and media-driven world, its becoming increasinglydifficult to get our students attentions and keep themabsorbed in classroomdiscussions. This generation, in particular, has brought a unique set ofchallenges to the educational table. Whereas y
2、outh are easily enraptured byhigh-definition television, computers, iPods, video games and cell phones, theyare less than enthralled by what to them are obsolete textbooks and boringclassroom lectures. The question of how to teach history in a digital age isoften contentious. On the one side, the ol
3、d guard thinks the professionalstandards history is in mortal danger from flash-in-the-pan challenges by thedistal that are all show and no substance. On the other Side, the self-styled“disruptors ” offer over -blown rhetoric about how digital technology has changedeverything while the moribund prof
4、ession obstructs all progress in the name ofoutdated ideals. At least, thats a parody (maybe not much of one) of how thedebate proceeds. Both supporters and opponents of the digital share moredisciplinary common ground than either admits.When provided with merely a textbook as a supplemental learnin
5、g tool, testresults have revealed that most students fail to pinpoint the significance ofhistorical events and individuals. Fewer still are able to cite and substantiateprimary historical sources. What does this say about the way our educators arepresenting information? The quotation comes from a re
6、port of a 1917 test of 668Texas students. Less than 10 percent of school-age children attended high schoolin 1917; today, enrollments are nearly universal. The whole world has turned onits head during the last century but one thing has stayed the same： Young peopleremain woefully ignorant about hist
7、ory reflected from their history tests. Guesswhat? Historians are ignorant too, especially when we equate historicalknowledge with the Jeopardy Daily Double. In a test, those specializing inAmerican history did just fine. But those with specialties in medieval, Europeanand African history failed mis
8、erably when confronted by items about FortTiconderoga, the Olive Branch Petition, or the Quebec Act all taken from atypical textbook. According to the testers, the results from the recent NationalAssessment in History, like scores from earlier tests, show that young peopleare abysmally ignorant of t
9、heir own history. Invoking the tragedy of lastSeptember, historian Diane Ravitch hitched her worries about our future to theidea that our nations strength is endangered by youth who do poorly on suchtests. But if she were correct, we could have gone down the tubes in 1917!There is a huge difference
10、between saying Kids dontknow the history wewant then to know and saying Kids dont know history at all. Historicalknowledge burrows itself into our cultural pores even if young people cantmarshal it when faced by a multiple choice test. If we werent such hypocrites(or maybe if we were better historia
11、ns) wed have to admit that todays studentsfollow in our own footsteps. For too long weve fantasized that by rewritingtextbooks we could change how history is learned. The problem, however, is notthe content of textbooks but the very idea of them. No human mind could retainthe information crammed int
12、o these books in 1917, and it can do no better now.If we have learned anything from history that can be applied to every timeperiod, it is that the only constant is change. The teaching of history, or anysubject for that matter, is no exception. The question is no longer whether tobring new technolo
13、gies into everyday education; now, the question is which Thereis a huge difference between saying Kids dont know thehistory we want then toknow and saying Kids dont know history at all. Historical knowledge burrowsitself into our cultural pores even if young people cant marshal it when facedby a mul
14、tiple choice test. If we werent such hypocrites (ormaybe if we werebetter historians) wed have to admit that todays students follow in our ownfootsteps. For too long weve fantasized that by rewriting textbooks we couldchange how history is learned. The problem, however, is not the content oftextbook
15、s but the very idea of them. No human mind could retain the informationcrammed into these books in 1917, and it can do no better now. If we havelearned anything from history that can be applied to every time period, it isthat the only constant is change. The teaching of history, or any subject forth
16、at matter, is no exception. The question is no longer whether to bring newtechnologies into everyday education; now, the question is which technologiesare most suitable for the range of topics covered in junior high and high schoolhistory classrooms. Fortunately, technology has provided us with opportunitiesto present our Civi
