The question of what children learn, and how they should learn, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the learning of lessons parrot-fashion, the grammar-with-a-whip system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modem psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the need of children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as much.
Well, you may say, this is as it should be, a good idea. But think further. What happens? Education bees the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists (心里学家). What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications (暗示) of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child’s. So teachers worry whether history is relevant to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violence? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Verbal expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No: Real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.
You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than to write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teacher-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make elaborate, sophisticated (精致的，复杂的) preparations and try out their modem methods on the long-suffering children. Since one modem method rapidly replaces another the poor kids will have had a good bellyful by the time they leave school. Frequently the modem methods are so sophisticated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so essential for the informal feelings the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.
8. People do not dare defend the old system mainly because under the old system .
A. too much grammar was taught to children B. children were spoiled (宠坏)
C. children were treated as grown-ups D. children were made to learn passively(被动的)
9. What view do the modem psychologists hold?
A. Children must be understood and respected.
B. Children are small adults and know what they need.
C. Children are better off without learning lessons.
D. Education of children is the responsibility of psychologists.
10. What happens when teachers pay too much attention to the psychology of their lessons?
A. They find that the children dislike the lessons.
B. They tend to blame students for their failure.
C. They do not pay enough attention to the actual lessons.
D. They no longer want to teach children history.
11. Grammatical sentences are regarded as unimportant because .
A. it is better to use verbs only
B. words are said out of natural feelings only
C. talking freely and naturally without sentences is a better form of expression
D. it is felt that formal grammar rules might cause unnatural expressions
12. According to the passage, the modern methods are understood by .
A. neither teachers nor pupils B. only a handful of teachers and pupils
C. the more sophisticated teachers D. everyone who enjoys the relaxed discipline of the informal classes8-12 DACBA
网友回答
(答案→)8-12 DACBA
解析：8. 推断题。由第一段第二句“鹦鹉学舌般地课文学习、附带鞭子的语法教学”可知，这种学习孩子非常被动。
9. 细节题。由第一段最后一句可知：我们必须懂得孩子们的需要，还要尊重孩子们。
10. 细节题。由第二段中“教师过多担心功课的心理暗示，忽略了功课本身”可知。
11. 推断题。由第二段中Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Verbal expression is better可推断出。
12. 细节题。由最后一段中Frequently the modem methods…fail to be understood by the teachers，let alone the children可知。