The question of what children learn, and how they should learn it, is continually being debated and redebated． Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the parrot-fashion （way of learning by repeating what others say） of learning lessons, the grammar-with-a-whip（鞭子） system, which was good enough for our grandparents． The theories of modern psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the needs of our children． Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as such．

Well, you may say, this is as it should be, and a good idea． But think further． What happens? “Education” becomes the responsibility not of teachers, But of psychologists． What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications（暗示） of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves． If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child’s． So teachers worry whether history is “relevant” to modern young children． And do they dare to recount stories about violent battles?　Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Oral expression is better． Sums? Arithmetic? No: real-life mathematical situations are more understandable．

You see, you can go too far, Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teaching-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs． They make complicated（復雜） preparations and try out their “modern methods” on the long-suffering children． Since one “modern method” rapidly replaces another, the poor kids will have well been fed up by the time they leave school． Frequently the modern methods are so complicated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so necessary for the “informal” feeling the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything．

68．Under the old system, children were           ．

A．made to learn passively                         B．spoiled by their parents

C．treated as adults                                   D．were forced to become parrots

69．Modern psychologists hold the view that           ．

A．children must be understood and respected

B．children are small adults and they know what they need

C．children are better off without learning lessons

D．education of children is the responsibility of psychologists

70．What happens when teachers pay too much attention to the psychological implications during a lesson?

A．They find that children dislike the lessons．

B．They tend to blame students for their failure in teaching．

C．They don’t pay enough attention to students’ actual lessons．

D．They no longer want to teach children history．

71．How do you understand the underlined sentence at the end of the passage?

A．Children will learn well in a relaxed classroom atmosphere．

B．Few children will actually learn when there is no discipline．

C．Relaxed discipline is necessary for children to develop．

D．No children will learn anything without strict discipline．

72．What is the author’s attitude toward the theories of modern psychology?

A．Uninterested．                                    B．Tolerant．

C．Satisfied．                                          D．Critical．

E

       The question of what children learn, and how they should learn it, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the parrot-fashion (way of learning by repeating what others say) of learning lessons, the grammar-with-a-whip (鞭子) system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modern psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the needs of our children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as such.

       Well, you may say, this is as it should be, and a good idea. But think further. What happens? “Education” becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists. What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications(暗示) of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child's. So teachers worry whether history is “relevant'' to modem young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violent battles? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred7 Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Oral expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No: real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.

       You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teaching-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make complicated preparations and try out their “modern methods” on the long-suffering children. Since one “modern method” rapidly replaces another, the poor kids will have well been fed up by the time they leave school. Frequently the modern methods are so complicated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline which is so necessary for the “informal” class prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.

75. Under the old system, children were _______.

    A. made to learn passively.                            B. spoiled by their parents.

    C. treated equally as adults.                      D. were forced to become parrots.

76. Modern psychologists hold the view that _______.

    A. children are better off without learning lessons.

    B. children must be understood and respected.

    C. children are small adults and they know what they need.

    D. education of children is the responsibility of psychologists.

77. What happens when teachers give lessons with the theories of modern psychology?

    A. They find that more and more children like their lessons.

    B. They don't pay enough attention to students' actual lessons.

    C. They must make full preparations and try out modern methods.

    D. They find that the relaxed discipline is so necessary for children.

78. What is the author's attitude toward the theories of modern psychology?

A. Uninterested.     B. Acceptable.           C. Satisfied.            D. Critical.

The question of what children learn, and how they should learn, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the learning of lessons parrot-fashion, the grammar-with-a-whip system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modem psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the need of children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as much.

Well, you may say, this is as it should be, a good idea. But think further. What happens? "Education" becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists (心里學家). What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications (暗示) of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child’s. So teachers worry whether history is "relevant" to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violence? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Verbal expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No: Real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.

You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than to write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teacher-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make elaborate, sophisticated (精致的，復雜的) preparations and try out their "modem methods" on the long-suffering children. Since one "modem method" rapidly replaces another the poor kids will have had a good bellyful by the time they leave school. Frequently the modem methods are so sophisticated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so essential for the " informal" feelings the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.

8. People do not dare defend the old system mainly because under the old system________.

A. too much grammar was taught to children     B. children were spoiled (寵壞)

C. children were treated as grown-ups          D. children were made to learn passively(被動的)

9. What view do the modem psychologists hold?

A. Children must be understood and respected.

B. Children are small adults and know what they need.

C. Children are better off without learning lessons.

D. Education of children is the responsibility of psychologists.

10. What happens when teachers pay too much attention to the psychology of their lessons?

A. They find that the children dislike the lessons.

B. They tend to blame students for their failure.

C. They do not pay enough attention to the actual lessons.

D. They no longer want to teach children history.

11. Grammatical sentences are regarded as unimportant because ________.

A. it is better to use verbs only

B. words are said out of natural feelings only

C. talking freely and naturally without sentences is a better form of expression

D. it is felt that formal grammar rules might cause unnatural expressions

12. According to the passage, the modern methods are understood by ________.

A. neither teachers nor pupils      B. only a handful of teachers and pupils

C. the more sophisticated teachers  D. everyone who enjoys the relaxed discipline of the informal classes

The question of what children learn, and how they should learn, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the learning of lessons parrot-fashion, the grammar-with-a-whip system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modem psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the need of children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as much.

Well, you may say, this is as it should be, a good idea. But think further. What happens? "Education" becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists (心里學家). What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications (暗示) of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child’s. So teachers worry whether history is "relevant" to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violence? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Verbal expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No: Real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.

You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than to write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teacher-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make elaborate, sophisticated (精致的，復雜的) preparations and try out their "modem methods" on the long-suffering children. Since one "modem method" rapidly replaces another the poor kids will have had a good bellyful by the time they leave school. Frequently the modem methods are so sophisticated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so essential for the " informal" feelings the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.

People do not dare defend the old system mainly because under the old system________.

A. too much grammar was taught to children

B. children were spoiled (寵壞)

C. children were treated as grown-ups

D. children were made to learn passively(被動的)

What view do the modem psychologists hold?

A. Children must be understood and respected.

B. Children are small adults and know what they need.

C. Children are better off without learning lessons.

D. Education of children is the responsibility of psychologists.

What happens when teachers pay too much attention to the psychology of their lessons?

A. They find that the children dislike the lessons.

B. They tend to blame students for their failure.

C. They do not pay enough attention to the actual lessons.

D. They no longer want to teach children history.

Grammatical sentences are regarded as unimportant because ________.

A. it is better to use verbs only

B. words are said out of natural feelings only

C. talking freely and naturally without sentences is a better form of expression

D. it is felt that formal grammar rules might cause unnatural expressions

according to the passage, the modern methods are understood by ________.

A. neither teachers nor pupils

B. only a handful of teachers and pupils

C. the more sophisticated teachers

D. everyone who enjoys the relaxed discipline of the informal classes

The question of what children learn, and how they should learn, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the learning of lessons parrot-fashion, the grammar-with-a-whip system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modern psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the need of children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as much.

Well, you may say, this is as it should be a good idea. But think further. What happens? "Education" becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists. What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child’s. So teachers worry whether history is "relevant" to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violence? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Verbal expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No: Real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.

You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than to write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teacher-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make elaborate, sophisticated (精致的，復雜的) preparations and try out their "modern methods" on the long-suffering children. Since one "modern method" rapidly replaces another, the poor kids will have had a good bellyful by the time they leave school. Frequently the modern methods are so sophisticated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so essential for the " informal" feelings the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.

1. People do not dare defend the old system mainly because under the old system________.

A. too much grammar was taught to children  B. children were spoiled

C. children were treated as grown-ups        D. children were made to learn passively

2. What view do the modern psychologists hold?

A. Children must be understood and respected.

B. Children are small adults and know what they need.

C. Children are better off without learning lessons.

D. Education of children is the responsibility of psychologists.

3. What happens when teachers pay too much attention to the psychology of their lessons?

A. They find that the children dislike the lessons.

B. They tend to blame students for their failure.

C. They do not pay enough attention to the actual lessons.

D. They no longer want to teach children history.

4. Grammatical sentences are regarded as unimportant because ________.

A. it is better to use verbs only

B. words are said out of natural feelings only

C. talking freely and naturally without sentences is a better form of expression

D. it is felt that formal grammar rules might cause unnatural expressions

5. According to the passage, the modern methods are understood by ________.

A. neither teachers nor pupils    

B. only a handful of teachers and pupils

C. the more sophisticated teachers

D. everyone who enjoys the relaxed discipline of the informal classes

The question of what children learn, and how they should learn, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the learning of lessons parrot-fashion, the grammar-with-a-whip system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modem psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the need of children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as much.
Well, you may say, this is as it should be, a good idea. But think further. What happens? "Education" becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists (心里學家). What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications (暗示) of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child’s. So teachers worry whether history is "relevant" to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violence? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Verbal expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No: Real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.
You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than to write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teacher-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make elaborate, sophisticated (精致的，復雜的) preparations and try out their "modem methods" on the long-suffering children. Since one "modem method" rapidly replaces another the poor kids will have had a good bellyful by the time they leave school. Frequently the modem methods are so sophisticated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so essential for the " informal" feelings the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.

1. 1.

   People do not dare defend the old system mainly because under the old system________.

   1. A.
      too much grammar was taught to children
   2. B.
      children were spoiled (寵壞)
   3. C.
      children were treated as grown-ups
   4. D.
      children were made to learn passively(被動的)
2. 2.

   What view do the modem psychologists hold?

   1. A.
      Children must be understood and respected.
   2. B.
      Children are small adults and know what they need.
   3. C.
      Children are better off without learning lessons.
   4. D.
      Education of children is the responsibility of psychologists.
3. 3.

   What happens when teachers pay too much attention to the psychology of their lessons?

   1. A.
      They find that the children dislike the lessons.
   2. B.
      They tend to blame students for their failure.
   3. C.
      They do not pay enough attention to the actual lessons.
   4. D.
      They no longer want to teach children history.
4. 4.

   Grammatical sentences are regarded as unimportant because ________.

   1. A.
      it is better to use verbs only
   2. B.
      words are said out of natural feelings only
   3. C.
      talking freely and naturally without sentences is a better form of expression
   4. D.
      it is felt that formal grammar rules might cause unnatural expressions
5. 5.

   according to the passage, the modern methods are understood by ________.

   1. A.
      neither teachers nor pupils
   2. B.
      only a handful of teachers and pupils
   3. C.
      the more sophisticated teachers
   4. D.
      everyone who enjoys the relaxed discipline of the informal classes