组卷网 > 高中英语综合库 > 主题 > 人与社会 > 科普与现代技术 > 科普知识
题型:阅读理解-阅读单选 难度:0.65 引用次数:91 题号:16593328

When dealing with children, we find that the carrot is much more powerful than the stick. Children focus on tasks up to 30% more when teachers praise them for good behavior rather than punish them for being troublemaking. If they want to improve students’ behavior in classrooms, the teachers should praise more and punish less.

Unfortunately, previous research has shown that teachers tend to punish students for problem behavior more than they praise them for appropriate behavior, which can have an opposite effect and worsen students' behavior.

Researchers attended 151 classes in 19 elementary schools across Missouri, Tennessee and Utah. During a three-year period they observed 2,536 students from kindergarten to sixth grade.

The idea that praise can result in greater focus than punishment is not surprising.

When kids receive praise, it activates certain feel-good chemicals in the brain. These chemicals can improve the functioning in the parts of the brain that are responsible for things like focus, attention, planning and problem-solving.

Punishment has the opposite effect. When severe criticism or punishment is used, it can activate the part of the brain responsible for fear. When fear responses are activated, the chemicals can actually cloud the parts of the brain that are needed for focus.

Researchers in the past have given a specific ratio of praise to criticism that leads to the greatest focus in classrooms, but what we found out was that there is no particular ratio. The higher the praise is, the better the results are.

This study suggests that praise is an important tool for teachers and can help motivate students to work harder, especially children who are troublemaking in class or struggle academically. Using praise over criticism or punishment would have benefits outside of the classroom as well.

Instead of punishment, constructive criticism can be used, but it should be balanced with praise in order to create a safe environment where kids are motivated to focus, learn and grow.

1. What does the underlined word “stick” mean in Paragraph 1?
A.A long thin branch from a tree.B.A piece of wood used for walking.
C.The wrong idea or misunderstanding.D.Physical punishment or severe criticism.
2. Whom did the researchers mainly choose to carry out their experiments according to the text?
A.Elementary students.B.Kindergarten students.
C.Middle school students.D.College students.
3. What is inferred from the passage?
A.Punishment can benefit the troublemaking students.
B.Praise can result in better focus and attention greatly.
C.Praise may contribute to the students' impractical pride.
D.Punishment can force the students to concentrate better.
4. What is the writer’s attitude towards criticism?
A.Criticism is completely harmful to the children.
B.It is impossible to know whether criticism is good.
C.Used correctly, proper criticism is recommended.
D.Criticism can be only used outside the classrooms.
21-22高一下·河南信阳·期末 查看更多[2]
【知识点】 科普知识 教育 说明文

相似题推荐

阅读理解-阅读单选(约350词) | 适中 (0.65)
名校
文章大意:本文是新闻报道。这篇文章报道了一项关于使用AI技术帮助老年人更安全驾驶的研究,介绍了一种名为“Drive Smart”的计算机训练程序,并详细描述了研究人员如何进行实验和实验结果。

【推荐1】As AI technology is improving by leaps and bounds, a low-cost computer training program can help older persons drive less dangerously, according to a recent research.

“It is Drive Smart, a training program, that is developed by us, which could be used by anyone who has a computer,” says Jing Feng, co-author of the study and a professor of psychology at Stanford University. “Drive Smart is a cognitive (认知的) training program that can help older persons notice traffic risks more effectively. Our goal of recent study was to see to what degree Drive Smart changes trainees’ driving behaviors when they get behind the wheel.”

The researchers sought out 24 persons aged 65 and up to test Drive Smart. In a driving simulator (模拟器), all of the study participants experienced a basic driving exam. The “active training” group was made up of eight of the study participants. Every two weeks, the active training group had two Drive Smart trainings. A group of eight additional study participants was asked to take “passive training” where this group watched videos of others receiving the Drive Smart instruction. This happened twice, with each lasting about a week. The control group, which was made up of the remaining eight study participants, received no training. After that, all 24 study participants performed a second driving exam in the simulator.

Compared with the other two groups, the study participants in the active training group experienced 23% fewer “unsafe incidents” following the training, according to the researchers. There was no obvious change in the number of dangerous incidents among study participants in the passive training and control groups.

“This testing was conducted with a fairly limited number of study participants,” Feng says in the interview. “If we can succeed in getting sufficient fund, we’d like to further our testing with more people to clearly prove how effective this training is at reducing accidents among older drivers.”

1. Where might the text most probably be taken from?
A.A website.B.A newspaper.
C.A science fiction.D.A test report.
2. What is paragraph 3 of the text mainly about?
A.The specific pattern of the test.
B.The underlying meaning of the test.
C.The driving behavior of three training groups.
D.The theoretical basis for the training program.
3. Jing Feng found that the “Passive training” group rarely changed their driving behavior though ________.
A.they had reduced dangerous incidents apparently
B.they had experienced insecure incidents previously
C.they had been shown instructive videos about two weeks
D.they had received Drive Smart trainings every other week
4. What is Feng’s attitude towards the testing result?
A.Disapproving.B.Frustrated.C.Critical.D.Optimistic.
2024-05-14更新 | 122次组卷
阅读理解-阅读单选(约770词) | 适中 (0.65)
名校
文章大意:本文是一篇说明文。文章主要讲的是用棕色卷尾猴所进行的关于人类为什么容易犯错误,且一次又一次地犯同样的错误的研究。

【推荐2】Humans are uniquely smart among all the other species on the planet. We are capable of outstanding feats of technology and engineering. Then why are we so prone to making mistakes? And why do we tend to make the same ones time and time again? When Primate Psychologist Laurie Santos from the Comparative Cognition Lab at Yale University posed this question to her team, they were thinking in particular of the errors judgement which led to the recent collapse of the financial markets. Santos came to two possible answers to this question. Either humans have designed environments which are too complex for us to fully understand, or we are biologically prone to making bad decisions.

In order to test these theories, the team selected a group of Brown Capuchin monkeys. Monkeys were selected for the test because, as distant relatives of humans, they are intelligent and have the capacity to learn. However, they are not influenced by any of the technological or cultural environments which affect human decision-making. The team wanted to test whether the capuchin monkeys, when put into similar situations as humans, would make the same mistakes.

[A] Of particular interest to the scientists was whether monkeys would make the same mistakes when making financial decisions. [B] In order to find out, they had to introduce the monkeys to money. [C] The monkeys soon cottoned on, and as well as learning simple exchange techniques, were soon able to distinguish “bargains” — If one team-member offered two grapes in exchange for a metal disc and another team-member offered one grape, the monkeys chose the two-grape option. [D] Interestingly, when the data about the monkey’s purchasing strategies was compared with economist’s data on human behavior, there was a perfect match.

So, after establishing that the monkey market was operating effectively, the team decided to introduce some problems which humans generally get wrong. One of these issues is risk-taking. Imagine that someone gave you $1000. In addition to this $1000, you can receive either A) an additional $500 or B) someone tosses a coin and if it lands “heads”, you receive an additional $1000, but if it lands “tails”, you receive no more money. Of these options, most people tend to choose option A. They prefer guaranteed earnings, rather than running the risk of receiving nothing. Now imagine a second situation in which you are given $2000. Now, you can choose to either A) lose $500, leaving you with a total of $1500, or B) toss a coin; if it lands “heads” you lose nothing, but if it lands “tails” you lose $1000, leaving you with only $1000. Interestingly, when we stand to lose money, we tend to choose the more risky choice, option B. And as we know from the experience of financial investors and gamblers, it is unwise to take risks when we are on a losing streak.

So would the monkeys make the same basic error of judgement? The team put them to the test by giving them similar options. In the first test, monkeys had the option of exchanging their disc for one grape and receiving one bonus grape, or exchanging the disc for one grape and sometimes receiving two bonus grapes and sometimes receiving no bonus. It turned out that monkeys, like humans, chose the less risky option in times of plenty. Then the experiment was reversed. Monkeys were offered three grapes, but in option A were only actually given two grapes. In option B, they had a fifty-fifty chance of receiving all three grapes or one grape only. The results were that monkeys, like humans, take more risks in times of loss.

The implications of this experiment are that because monkeys make the same irrational judgements that humans do, maybe human error is not a result of the complexity of our financial institutions, but is imbedded in our evolutionary history. If this is the case, our errors of judgement will be very difficult to overcome. On a more optimistic note however humans are fully capable of overcoming limitations once we have identified them. By recognizing them, we can design technologies which will help us to make better choices in future.

1. What was the aim of the experiment outlined above?
A.To investigate where human mistakes come from.
B.To study whether monkeys could learn to use money
C.To find out whether it is better to take risks in times of loss.
D.To determine whether monkeys make more mistakes than humans
2. Where in Paragraph 3 could the sentence below be best placed?
The team distributed metal discs to the monkeys, and taught them that the discs could be exchanged with team-members for food.
A.[A]B.[B]C.[C]D.[D]
3. The underlined words “cottoned on” are closest in meaning to __________ .
A.learntB.knewC.completedD.concluded
4. Which of the following statements is the best paraphrase of the underlined sentence?
On a more optimistic note however, humans are fully capable of overcoming limitations once we have identified them.
A.Hopefully, humans will soon be able to solve these problems.
B.Fortunately, humans can solve problems that we know about.
C.Luckily, humans do not have many limitations which have been identified.
D.We are happy to note that we can solve the problem which we’ve identified.
5. What can we learn from the passage?
A.Monkeys were chosen for the test as they adapted to new surroundings quickly
B.The purchasing strategies of humans and those of the monkeys vary greatly.
C.The complexity of financial institutions causes humans to make mistakes.
D.Humans opt for the less risky alternative when resources are abundant.
2023-05-08更新 | 180次组卷
阅读理解-七选五(约260词) | 适中 (0.65)
名校
文章大意:这是一篇说明文。文章介绍了越南武广国家公园及其里面新物种的相关情况。

【推荐3】New animals

In northern Vietnam, in thick forests in the North Annamite Mountains, there is a wildlife park called Vu Quang. In 1986, the area was made an official forest reserve. In 2002, 550 square kilometers of the area were declared a National Park.     1    . It is in an area that is hard to get to, for one thing. And it’s an area that’s difficult to walk through because the rocks are covered with algae and are very slippery.

    2    . In the last twenty years, several new species of animals that have never been seen anywhere in the world before have been discovered there. Some of them are so new that scientists haven’t given them official names yet!

The new animals discovered at the park include the Vu Quang ox or Saola, a “slow” deer, a giant muntjac (the world’s largest, in fact), a black deer and a “holy” goat.     3    , as well as two species of amphibians and 15 species of reptiles.

The Saola was the first new species of large mammal to be discovered in more than fifty years, so it caused a lot of excitement in the scientific world. It is a strange goat-like creature that looks as if it is somehow related to cattle. It has horns that can be between one and two feet long, and that seem to come out of the animal’s head at slightly different angles.     4    .

The creature had hidden safely for generations in the Vu Quang area. But once it was discovered, it was in danger.     5    . Sadly, the Saola is now being hunted and may well end up as another endangered species.

A.That’s why it attracts hunters
B.Vu Quang is no ordinary park, though
C.Hunters have no respect for new species
D.But that’s not all that is unusual about Vu Quang
E.Five new species of fish have also been found there
F.This was the first time so many new species had been found in this area
G.That’s why it is called “Saola”, meaning “spinning wheel posts” in Vietnamese
2023-11-18更新 | 169次组卷
共计 平均难度:一般