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 (心里学家). 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，复杂的) 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 (宠坏)

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

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 (心里学家). 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，复杂的) 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 (宠坏)

C. children were treated as grown-ups

D. children were made to learn passively(被动的)

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，复杂的) 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 (心里学家). 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，复杂的) 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 (宠坏)
   3. C.
      children were treated as grown-ups
   4. D.
      children were made to learn passively(被动的)
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

Anne and Joseph are talking about an interesting question. Why do some people change their names? There can be many reasons. Hanna changed her name to Anne because she thought it would be easier for people to remember. On the other hand, Joseph is thinking about changing his name to an unusual name because he wants to be different.
People have a lot of reasons for changing their names. Film stars, singers, sportsmen and some other famous people often change their names because they want names that are not ordinary, or that have special sound. They chose the “new name” for themselves instead of the name their parents gave them when they were born.
Some people have another reason for changing their names. They have moved to a new country and want to use a name that is usual there. For example, Li Kaiming changed his name to Ken Lee when he moved to the United States. He uses the name Ken at his job and at school. But with his family and Chinese friends, he uses Li Kaiming. For some people, using different names makes life easier in their new country.
In many countries, a woman changes her family name to her husband’s after she gets married. But today, many women are keeping their own family name and not using their husband’s. Sometimes, women use their own name in some situations（情况）and their husband’s in other situations. And some use both their own name and their husband’s.
【小题1】Hanna changes her name to Anne because “Anne” is           for people to remember.