An invisible border divides those arguing for computers in the classroom on the behalf of students’ career prospects and those a

admin2022-06-29  55

问题     An invisible border divides those arguing for computers in the classroom on the behalf of students’ career prospects and those arguing for computers in the classroom for broader reasons of radical educational reform. Very few writers on the subject have explored this distinction—indeed, contradiction—which goes to the heart of what is wrong with the campaign to put computers in the classroom.
    An education that aims at getting a student a certain kind of job is a technical education, justified for reasons radically different from why education is universally required by law. It is not simply to raise everyone’s job prospects that all children are legally required to attend school into their teens. Rather, we have a certain conception of the American citizen, a character who is incomplete if he cannot competently assess how his livelihood and happiness are affected by things outside of himself. But this was not always the case; before it was legally required for all children to attend school until a certain age, it was widely accepted that some were just not equipped by nature to pursue this kind of education. With optimism characteristic of all industrialized countries, we came to accept that everyone is fit to be educated. Computer-education advocates forsake this optimistic notion for a pessimism that betrays their otherwise cheery outlook. Banking on the confusion between educational and vocational reasons for bringing computers into schools, computered advocates often emphasize the job prospects of graduates over their educational achievement.
    There are some good arguments for a technical education given the right kind of student. Many European schools introduce the concept of professional training early on in order to make sure children are properly equipped for the professions they want to join. It is, however, presumptuous to insist that there will only be so many jobs for so many scientists, so many businessmen, so many accountants. Besides, this is unlikely to produce the needed number of every kind of professional in a country as large as ours and where the economy is spread over so many states and involves so many international corporations.
    But, for a small group of students, professional training might be the way to go since well-developed skills, all other factors being equal, can be the difference between having a job and not. Of course, the basics of using any computer these days are very simple. It does not take a lifelong acquaintance to pick up various software programs. If one wanted to become a computer engineer, that is, of course, an entirely different story. Basic computer skills take—at the very longest—a couple of months to learn. In any case, basic computer skills are only complementary to the host of real skills that are necessary to becoming any kind of professional. It should be observed, of course, that no school, vocational or not, is helped by a confusion over its purpose.
According to the author, basic computer skills should be________.

选项 A、included as an auxiliary course in school
B、highlighted in acquisition of professional qualifications
C、mastered through a life-long course
D、equally emphasized by any school, vocational or otherwise

答案A

解析 本题关键词是basic computer skills,问题是作者认为计算机基础技能应该怎样。可以定位到第四段。根据第四段第六句,基本的计算机技能只是补充(complementary),要想成为任何一种专业技术人员还必须要有很多真正的技能,选项A与该句是相同含义,其中,auxiliary(辅助的,补充的)与原文中的complementary(补充的)是同义替换,是正确选项。同理,选项B是正反混淆,因为作者认为基本的计算机技能只是起补充作用,而不应该被强调(highlighted)。选项C出自第四段第三句,计算机的基本操作非常简单,不需要花毕生的时间去熟悉(It does not take a lifelong acquaintance)各种不同软件程序的使用,而该选项却说要花毕生的时间(through a life-long course)去掌握,因此,选项C也是正反混淆。选项D出自第四段第七句,不管是职业学校还是普通学校 (vocational or not)都应该明确计算机教学的目的(purpose),而该选项将其偷换为无论是职业学校还是其他学校(vocational or otherwise)都应该强调基本的计算机技能(basic computer skills),因此,选项D偷换概念。第四段:计算机职业培训存在局限性,计算机技能只是专业知识的补充。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/fDi4777K
0

最新回复(0)