首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Do music lessons really make children smarter? A) A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationsh
Do music lessons really make children smarter? A) A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationsh
admin
2022-03-24
96
问题
Do music lessons really make children smarter?
A) A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.
B) In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled "Music Lessons Enhance IQ." The author, composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg, had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.
C) Schellenberg had long been skeptical of the science supporting claims that music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language skills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.
D) The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.
E) Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field. Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence. His results, published in May, suggest that many of his peers do just that.
F) For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like "enhance," "promote," "facilitate," and "strengthen." The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance, or if the study appeared in a journal that had "brain," "neuroscience," or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.
G) After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do "real" science for some time—in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs (脑电图), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.
H) To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity—the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (辅音) ’b’ and ’g’.
I) But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. "Plasticity has become an industry of its own," he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.
J) Neuropsychologist Lutz Jancke agrees. "Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences," he said. For over two decades, Jancke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.
K) Some researchers are starting to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem Kind ein Instrument, or "an instrument for every child," which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.
L) To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, is conducting a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after-school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.
M)That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? "As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today," Schellenberg said. "The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith."
N) Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, "the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing." He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to university. "I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general," he said.
O) But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. "You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist."
Glenn Schellenberg admits that practice can change certain areas of the brain but doubts that the change can affect other areas.
选项
答案
I
解析
注意抓住题干中的关键信息practice can change certain areas和affect 0ther areas。原文中关于舍伦贝格的观点的集中阐述是在I段。该段最后一句说,他承认,练习确实会使大脑发生改变,但值得怀疑的是这些变化会影响大脑其他区域的断言,比如会影响那些负责空间推理或数学问题的区域。题干是对原文此处的同义转述,题干中的practice can change certain areas of the brain对应原文中的Practice does change the brain;admits对应allows;doubts对应what is questionable is;the change can affect other areas对应these changes affect other brain regions。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/wyx7777K
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
Itmaycomeasasurprisetomanyanexhaustedmotherorfather—butthinkingaboutyourchildrencouldimproveyourmemory,ast
A、Thegiftcard’svaliditytimeisshort.B、Thegiftcardhasafewchancestouse.C、Shoppershavetopaygiftcardfees.D、The
HowPovertyChangestheBrainA)Yousawthepicturesinscienceclass—aprofileviewofthehumanbrain,sectionedbyf
Forthispart,youareallowed30minutestowriteashortessaytoexpressyourviewsonthephenomenonofexcessivespendinga
A、Byfindingsufficientsupportforimplementation.B、Bytakingintoaccounttheirownabilitytochange.C、Byconstantlykeepin
Forthispart,youareallowed30minutestowriteashortessayentitledSeizeEveryChancebycommentingontheremark"Oppo
Forthispart,youareallowed30minutestowriteashortessaybasedonthepicturebelow.Youshouldfocusonthenegative
Forthispart,youareallowed30minutestowriteashortessayonstressmanagement.Youressayshouldincludetheimportanc
A、Waterpollution.B、Plasticproblems.C、Savingseaanimals.D、Recyclingplasticbags.B
Nowadays,manyuniversitiesoffermentalhealthclassestotheirstudents.WriteacompositionentitledTheNecessityofMental
随机试题
A.浆细胞B.单核细胞C.嗜碱性粒细胞D.嗜酸性粒细胞E.中性粒细胞具有抗过敏作用的是
A.以病人作为受试对象的试验B.以人作为受试对象的试验C.人体实验时必须要做到真正的知情同意D.选择受试者的时候需遵循的E.保障受试者身心安全人体实验的核心宗旨是
经济全球化本质上是资源配置的全球化,其内容大体可以分为()
关于临界点,下列说法错误的是( )。
证券公司在证券承销过程中没有自营买卖。()
模糊性比较高的工作任务,()。
下列情形中,税务机关有权核定纳税人应纳税额的有()。
处在黄河下游的是()文化。
2008年以来,次贷危机引发的金融危机愈演愈烈,迅速从局部发展到全球,从发达国家传导到新兴市场国家和发展中国家,从金融领域扩散到实体经济领域,酿成了一场历史罕见、冲击力极强、波及范围很广的国际金融危机。根据形势发展变化,中央果断采取一系列进一步扩大内需、促
下列表单的哪个属性设置为真时,表单运行时将自动居中( )。
最新回复
(
0
)