106年 - 106 國立台灣師大附中教師甄選初試：英文科（重複）#62955

申論題 (4)

1. 隨著時代與環境的改變，該台灣學校有許多困境待突破。例如，因為進修不易、誘因不高，導致教師流動率高。

2. 過勞死是一種職業性的突然死亡，其主要病理原因為由壓力引起的心臟病發作，或是長期疲倦所導致的中風。 IV Make up a cloze test with 5 questions under the topic “Learning English in the digital era” Each question should have four choices, (A), (B), (C), and (D), with one of them being the best answer. Remember to provide the answer key. (20 %)

V. In this section, make a reading test. First, condense the material provided into a passage of 300-350 words. Then, based on the rewritten passage, make up 4 reading comprehension questions. Each question should have four choices, (A), (B), (C), and (D), with one of them being the best answer. Remember to provide the answer key. (20%) Can twenty flunking students of varying intelligence raise their math and English a full year’s level in only thirty working days? Dr. Lloyd Homme, chief of a special educational “fix-it” laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said yes and put teams of behavioral scientist together with the flunking students to work on the problem. Any available technology could be used—teaching machines, programmed instruction, computer-assisted methods—to cram a year’s knowledge into the boys. Were the experiments a success? The scientists said yes but the students said no. When grades were measured using standardized tests under strict laboratory conditions, marks went up more than one year on the average. Meanwhile, back at the school, the students were still barely passing, at best. “The experiment was fine for the scientists. They proved their theory on paper and made a name for themselves, but most of us were still flunking in class,” remarked one seventeen-year-old. The only clue to the mystery was this common remark: “The teachers ignore us—they’ve got it in for us.” At first the scientists on the team thought the complaint was just sour grapes and told the boys to work harder. When grades still failed to rise, the scientists felt there might be some truth in what the young team members were saying. Not that teachers were to blame, necessarily, but there still might be some negative bias. “You should see what goes on in class!” said the boys. “The only thing to do was to take them up on it, go into the classroom with them and see what was holding back their grades,” said Dr. Homme. Hence, bearded behavioral scientists ended up in the back row of math and English classes and made observations about the behavior of students and teachers. Homme was surprised to discover that two simple actions made the difference. “With few exceptions, our students acted like dummies,” said Dr. Homme, “even though we knew they were ahead of the rest in knowledge. They were so used to playing the class idiot that they didn’t know how to show what they knew. Their eyes wandered, they appeared absent-minded or even belligerent. One or two read magazines hidden under their desks, thinking, most likely, that they already knew the classwork. They rarely volunteered and often had to have questions repeated because they weren’t listening. Teachers, on the other hand, did not trust our laboratory results. Nobody was going to tell them that ‘miracles’ could work on Sammy and Jose. In the eyes of teachers, students seemed to fall into three groups. We’ll call them: bright-eyes, scaredy-cats and dummies. Bright-eyes had perfected the trick of: 1. “eyeballing” the instructor at all times, even from the minute he entered the room. 2. never ducking their eyes away when the instructor glanced at them. 3. getting the instructor to call on them when they wanted without raising their hands. 4. even making the instructor go out of his way to call on someone else to “give others a chance” (especially useful when bright-eyes themselves are uncertain of the answer). 5. readily admitting ignorance so as not to bluff—but in such a way that it sounds as though ignorance is rare. 6. asking many questions. Scaredy-cats [the middle group]: 1. looked toward the instructor but were afraid to let him “catch their eyes.” 2. asked few questions and gave the impression of being “underachievers.” 3. appeared uninvolved and had to be “drawn out,” so they were likely to be criticized for “inadequate participation.” Dummies (no matter how much they really knew): 1. never looked at the instructor. 2. never asked questions. 3. were stubborn about volunteering information in class. To make matters worse, the tests in school were not standardized and not given nearly as frequently as those given in the laboratory. School test-scores were open to teacher bias. Classroom behavior of students counted a lot toward their class grades. There was no doubt that teachers were biased against the dummies. The scientists concluded that no matter how much knowledge a dummy gained on his own, his grades in school were unlikely to improve unless he could somehow change his image into a bright-eyes. This would mean . . . 1. Look the teacher in the eye. 2. Ask questions and volunteer answers (even if uncertain). “Teachers get teacher-training in how to play their roles. Why shouldn’t students get student-training in how to play bright-eyes?” asked Homme. Special training sessions were held at the laboratory. Dummies were drilled in eyeballing and hand-raising, which, simple as they sound, weren’t easy to do. “I felt so square I could hardly stand it,” complained one of the dummies. “That was at first. Later, when I saw others eyeballing and hand-raising and really learning more, I even moved my seat to the front. It flipped the teacher out of her skull. She couldn’t get over it.” Those who found eyeballing especially difficult were taught to look at the instructor’s mouth or the bridge of his nose. “Less threatening to the student,” explained Homme. “It seems less aggressive to them.” Unfortunately, not all of the dummies were able to pick up new habits during the limited training period. Some learned in the laboratory but couldn’t do it in the classroom. These became scaredy-cats—at least a step up. But for the majority, grades improved steadily once they got the hang of their new techniques. The students encouraged and helped each other to hand-raise and eyeball. Teachers’ comments reflected the improvement. “There is no doubt that student involvement was increased by the program and as a result grades went up.” By way of advice to others wishing to improve their own eyeballing and hand-raising, student Jose Martinez suggests: “Don’t try to do it all at once. You’ll shock the teacher and make it tough for yourself. Begin slowly. Work with a friend and help each other. Do it like a game. Like exercising with weights—it takes practice but it’s worth it.” Homme agrees. “In fact, results are guaranteed for life,” he says.

VI In this section, you will evaluate and grade a student’s composition on a given topic. You are expected to give the writing a holistic score (20~0) PLUS scores on four traits: Content (5~0), Organization & Transition (5~0), Grammar/Sentence Structure (5~0), and Word Usage/Spelling (5~0). In addition, please mark the student’s mistakes. At the end of the work, give the student your comments or feedback in a sentence or two. (20%)

106年 - 106 國立台灣師大附中教師甄選初試：英文科（重複）#62955

試卷資訊

選擇題 (15)

申論題 (4)