With computers, the story has been different. Many governments have packed them into schools, convinced that their presence would improve the pace and efficiency of learning. Large numbers of studies, some more academically respectable than others, have purported5 to show that computers help children to learn. Now, however, a study that compares classes with computers against similar classes without them casts doubt on that view.
In the current Economic Journal, Joshua Angrist of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Victor Lavy of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem look at a scheme which put computers into many of Israel's primary and middle schools in the mid-1990s. Dr Angrist and Dr Lavy compare the test scores for maths and Hebrew achieved by children in the fourth and eighth grades in schools with and without computers. They also asked the classes' teachers how they used various teaching materials, such as Xeroxed worksheets and, of course, computer programs. The researchers found that the Israeli scheme had much less effect on teaching methods in middle schools than in elementary schools. It also found no evidence that the use of computers improved children's test scores. In fact, it found the reverse. In the case of the maths scores of fourth-graders, there was a consistently negative relationship between computer use and test scores.
The authors offer three possible explanations of why this might be. First, the introduction of computers into classrooms might have gobbled up cash that would otherwise have paid for other aspects of education. But that is unlikely in this case since the money for the programme came from the national lottery8, and the study found no significant change in teaching resources, methods or training in schools that acquired computers through the scheme.
A second possibility is that the transition to using computers in instruction takes time to have an effect. Maybe, say the authors, but the schools surveyed had been using the scheme's computers for a full school year. That was enough for the new computers to have had a large influence on fourth-grade maths scores. The third explanation is the simplest: that the use of computers in teaching is no better than other teaching methods.
The bottom line, says Dr Angrist, is that the cosplayts are clear-cut and the benefits are murky11. The burden of proof now lies with the promoters of classroom computers. And the only reliable way to make their case is, surely, to conduct a proper study, with children randomly12 allocated13 to teachers who use computers and teachers who use other methods, including the cheapest of all: chalk and talk.
Economist15; 10/26/2002, Vol. 365 Issue 8296, p74, 2p, 1c
注：本文选自Economist；10/26/2002, p74;
注：本文习题命题模仿对象是1999年真题text4和text1第4题;
1.We can learn from the first paragraph that __________________.
[A] motion picture has revolutionized education system
[B] Edisons prediction has been proved wrong
[C] Edison encouraged schools to install cinema screens
[D] schools are cautious about Edisons idea
2.Dr. Angrist and Dr. Lavy have done the following except _______________.
[A] comparing the test scores of students in different age groups
[B] interviewing teachers about their teaching methods
[C] launching the computer program in many Israeli schools
[D] explaining students school performance
3.According to Dr. Angrist and Dr. Lavy, in the Israeli scheme, students didnt make
improvement in their test scores because______________.
[A] other aspects of education were affected16 due to cash shortage
[B] it was not long enough for the program to take effect
[C] there was a negative relationship between computer use and test scores
[D] the use of computer was no better than other teaching methods
4.It can be inferred from the last paragraph that ________________.
[A] there hasnt been a proper study on this issue yet
[B] school authorities should provide proof to support the computer program
[C] installing computers in schools cosplayts too much, but has little or no effect
[D] chalk and talk work better than computer in teaching
5.The authors attitude towards governments packing computers in schools seems to be
___________________.
[A] biased17
[B] indifferent
[C] disapproving18
[D] puzzling
答案：BCDAC
篇章分析：
本文为说明文，使用新闻报道体，在第一段以爱迪生所作的错误预测开始，将它与第二段中学校期望通过将电脑引入课堂来改进教学的想法进行对照，引入话题，指出学校的上述想法未必正确。第三段叙述了两位研究职员对以色列在1990年代中期将电脑引入中小学课堂所带来的教学成效的研究，以此说明电脑未必如大家所期望的那样促进课堂学习。第四段，第五段，第六段分别引述了研究职员的讲解，并逐一进行剖析，最后得出结论：要证明电脑能够帮助教学，需要进行正确的研究。
词语注解：
supplant[sE5plB:nt] v. 取代，代替
squander[5skwRndE] v. 挥霍或浪费；放浪地花掉
purport[pE5pC:t] v. 声称
Hebrew [5hi:bru:]n. 以色列语；希伯来人
Xerox7 v. 复印
reverse [rI5v\:s]n. 相反，颠倒：相反的事物或相反的方面
gobble [5^Rbl]v. 吞并；贪婪地攫取
transition [trAn5sIFn, trB:-]n. 转变, 转换
malign [mE5laIn] adj. 有害的：具不好的影响的；有害的
the bottom line 要素或重要之处；结果，结局：最后结果或声明
randomly adv. 任意地, 随意地,
allocate14 [5AlEkeIt]v. 分派, 分配
难句突破
1.First, the introduction of computers into classrooms might have gobbled up cash that would otherwise have paid for other aspects of education.
主体句式：the introduction might have gobbled up cash
结构剖析：本句是一个主从复合句，主句中的might have gobbled up表示对过去事实的猜测，that引导一个定语从句，限定修饰cash，其中从句中的otherwise常常用来引出虚拟语气，表示要不然；在另一种状况下。比如：Otherwise I might have helped you. 要不然我就助你了。
句子译文：第一，将电脑引入课堂或许会占用本应用于其它教育方面的资金。
2.And the only reliable way to make their case is, surely, to conduct a proper study, with children randomly allocated to teachers who use computers and teachers who use other methods, including the cheapest of all: chalk and talk.
主体句式：the way is to conduct a study
结构剖析：本句是一个复杂长句，不但涉及主从句，还涉及不定式，分词和介词短语。第一个不定式to make their case作定语修饰way，第二个不定式作表语；with引导的介词短语总是可以是介词+复合宾语的形式，其中复合宾语可以由目前分词或者过去分词来充当，由它和介词宾语之间的逻辑关系决定，比如：with her hair flying in the wind；with the paper tucked under his arm等；who引导的定语从句修饰教师，分词including 引导的短语限定修饰methods。
句子译文：而他们所能使用的唯一靠谱办法当然就是进行适合的研究，学生应该是随机分配给用电脑教学的教师和用其他办法教学的教师，包含最便宜的办法：粉笔和谈话。
题目剖析：
1.答案是B，属事实细节题。文中第一段提到we all make mistakes，说明爱迪生的预言
是不对的。
2.答案是C，属事实细节题。文中第三段和第四段分别提到两位研究职员compare test
scores；ask the classes teachers和offer explanations，但launch the computer program则是由以色列政府所为。
3.答案是D，属事实细节题。从文中第四段，第五段里两位研究职员所给出的讲解与
相应的剖析可以看出，学生成绩没提升主如果由于在教学中用电脑并不比使用其他办法教学更好。
4.答案是A，属推理判断题。作者在本文第二段中指出，很多学术文章都宣称用电脑
能够帮助课堂教学，但新的研究对这一说法提出了怀疑。在最后一段中，作者说要证明用电脑能够帮助教学，就需要进行正确的研究。可见，作者对以前的研究办法提出了质疑。
5.答案是C，属推理判断题。对政府在学校安装电脑一事，作者虽然没明确提出反对，
但字里行间都透出不赞成的态度。在第一段，作者以爱迪生的预言为例，说爱迪生至少没浪费公共资金，言下之意就是目前发生的状况算得上是浪费公共资金的举动。在最后一段，作者引用研究职员的看法说明在学校安装电脑是本钱了解但效果模糊的事。并提出让支持用电脑的人使用正确的办法对学校是否应该在教室安装电脑进行论证。可见作者对这些问题持否定的态度。
参考译文：
1922年的时候，托马斯爱迪生过去预测说电影势必改革大家的教育规范，要不了几年，它就能取代大多数教科书。当然，人都会有出错的时候。不过至少在给全国各地的学校安装电影屏幕这件事上，爱迪生并没浪费大笔公共资金。
有了电脑，状况又不同了。很多政府已经把电脑装进了学校，并深信电脑会提升学习的速度和效率。很多的研究，其中还包含一些学术性更强的研究，都试图说明电脑能够帮助儿童的学习。不过，目前有一项对用电脑教学和不需要电脑教学的课堂的比较研究对这一看法提出了怀疑。
在本期经济专刊中，来自麻省理工学院的乔舒亚安格里斯特和耶路撒冷希伯莱大学的维克多拉维对九十年代中期开始在很多以色列中小学安装电脑的计划进行了研究。安格里斯特博士和拉维博士比较了有电脑和没电脑的小学四年级和初二的儿童在数学和希伯莱语两个科目的考试成绩。他们还访问了课堂教师，询问他们是怎么用各种教学材料，比如复印纸，电脑设施等。两位研究者发现，这个以色列计划在改进中学教学办法方面的成效比小学的成效逊色得多。研究还发现，没证据证明用电脑可以提升儿童的考试成绩。事实上，状况正好相反。从小学四年级学生的数学成绩来看，用电脑和考试成绩的关系一直成反比。
两位作者对这样的情况提出了三种可能的讲解。第一，将电脑引入课堂或许会占用本应用于其它教育方面的资金。但在这个例子当中，这样的情况不太可能发生，由于该计划的资金来自国家彩票。研究发现，在根据该计划添置电脑的学校中，教学资源，教学办法或者培训并没显著变化。
第二种可能性就是用电脑讲课的这种变化要一段时间才能见效。两位作者说的只不过一种可能性，但被调查的学校用计划中的电脑已经有整整一学年了。新电脑在这期间里足以对小学四年级的数学成绩产生较大的影响。第三种讲解也最简单：在教学中用电脑并不比其他教学办法更好。
最后，安格里斯特博士说：本钱非常了解，但效果却非常模糊。求证成效的担子目前就落在那些倡导在课堂用电脑的人身上了。而他们所能使用的唯一靠谱办法当然就是进行适合的研究，学生应该是随机分配给用电脑教学的教师和用其他办法教学的教师，包含最便宜的办法：粉笔和谈话。
