当前位置：首页 → 职业资格 → 教师资格 → 小学教育教学知识与能力->请认真阅读下列材料．并按要求作答。动作方法：两腿弯曲，上体前
请认真阅读下列材料．并按要求作答。
动作方法：两腿弯曲，上体前倾，重心落在两脚之间，五指自然分开手心空出，用手指和指根以上部位控球，肘关节自然弯曲，以肘关节为轴上下摆动，手腕下压将球控制在身体的左右侧。
请根据上述材料完成下列任务：
(1)简要说明“篮球原地运球”的教学重点、难点。
(2)如果指导水平二的学生练习，试拟定教学目标。
(3)依据拟定的教学目标，设计不少于三种“篮球原地运球”的练习方法并说明理由。
(1)教学重难点 教学重点：掌握篮球运球的基本技术动作。
教学难点：掌握以肘为轴的拍球动作，掌心空出，眼看前方。
(2)教学目标
知识与技能目标：熟悉篮球的球性，初步掌握篮球运球的技术要领，并能运用到游戏当中。
过程与方法目标：通过情境设置、小组探究，激发对体育活动的兴趣，发展灵敏性、协调性、力量等身体素质。
情感态度与价值观目标：培养遵守规则的意识、团结协作的能力，增强集体荣誉感和对篮球的兴趣。
(3)练习方法一：学生原地顺时针分剐练习从上到下的绕球动作：头部绕球、腰部绕球、膝部绕球等动作，熟
练后逆时针进行；随后进行从底线到中线的往返行进同胯下八字绕球练习。
【设计意图】锻炼学生的基本球性，使学生体验对球的控制感，激发学习兴趣。
练习方法二：学生面对面分列两排，教师示范讲解技术动作，两列学生跟随教师动作分别进行模仿练习，一列学生练习时另一列学生按教师所授的动作要求纠正另一列学生的动作，教师在一旁指导。最后进行技术总结。
【设计意图】塑造、巩固学生正确的运球动作，使学生能够发现错误并能及时改正。
练习方法三：加大难度，进行半蹲拍球、圈蹲拍球、单脚跪地拍球、坐拍球等动作的训练，熟练后换非利手进行进一步训练。
【设计意图】多样化地进行拍球训练，在进一步训练学生球性、运球能力的同时，提升学生对篮球课学习的兴趣。
练习方法四：学生原地进行拍球训练，教师用手比出相应数字，学生回答，看谁在球不掉到地上的前提下报得又快又准。
【设计意图】训练学生对球运行轨迹的感觉，即在两眼平视前方的情况下准确地原地运球，拍球时动作准确到住。并且起到检验学生学习情况的作用。
When the right person is holding the right job at the right moment,that person’s influence is greatly expanded.That is the position in which Janet Yellen,who is expected to be confirmed as the next chair of the Federal Reserve Bank(FeD.in
January,now finds herself.If you believe,as many do,that unemployment is the major economic and social concern of our
day,then it is no stretch to think Yellen is the most powerful person in the world right now.Throughout the 2008 financial
crisis and the recession and recovery that followed,central banks have taken on the role of stimulators of last resort,holding
up the global economy with vast amounts of money in the form of asset buying.Yellen,previously a Fed vice chair,was one of the principal architects of the Fed's$3.8 trillion money dump.A star economist known for her groundbreaking work on labor
markets,Yellen was a kind of prophetess early on in the crisis for her warnings about the subprime(次级债)meltdown.Now it will be her job to get the Fed and the markets out of the biggest and most unconventional monetary program in history without derailing the fragile recovery.The good news is that Yellen,67,is particularly well suited to meet these challenges.She has a keen understanding of financial markets,an appreciation for their imperfections and a strong belief that human suffering was more related to unemployment than anything else.
Some experts worry that Yellen will be inclined to chase unemployment to the neglect of inflation.
But with wages still relatively flat and the economy increasingly divided between the well-off and the long-term
unemployed,more people worry about the opposite,deflation(通货紧缩)that would aggravate the economy’s problems.
Either way,the incoming Fed chief will have to walk a fine line in slowly ending the stimulus.It must be steady enough to
deflate bubbles and bring markets back down to earth but not so quick that it creates another credit crisis.
Unlike many past Fed leaders,Yellen is not one to buy into the finance industry's argument that it should be left alone to
regulate itself.She knows all along the Fed has been too slack on regulation of finance.Yellen is likely to address the issue
right after she pushes unemployment below 6%,stabilizes markets and makes sure that the recovery is more inclusive anD.robust.As Princeton Professor Alan Blinder says,“She’s smart as a whip,deeply logical,willing to argue but also a good
listener.She can persuade without creating hostility.”All those traits will be useful as the global economy’s new power player
takes on its most annoying problems.
What did Yellen help the Fed do to tackle the 2008 financial crisis 《》（）
When the right person is holding the right job at the right moment,that person’s influence is greatly expanded.That is the position in which Janet Yellen,who is expected to be confirmed as the next chair of the Federal Reserve Bank(FeD.in
January,now finds herself.If you believe,as many do,that unemployment is the major economic and social concern of our
day,then it is no stretch to think Yellen is the most powerful person in the world right now.Throughout the 2008 financial
crisis and the recession and recovery that followed,central banks have taken on the role of stimulators of last resort,holding
up the global economy with vast amounts of money in the form of asset buying.Yellen,previously a Fed vice chair,was one of the principal architects of the Fed's$3.8 trillion money dump.A star economist known for her groundbreaking work on labor
markets,Yellen was a kind of prophetess early on in the crisis for her warnings about the subprime(次级债)meltdown.Now it will be her job to get the Fed and the markets out of the biggest and most unconventional monetary program in history without derailing the fragile recovery.The good news is that Yellen,67,is particularly well suited to meet these challenges.She has a keen understanding of financial markets,an appreciation for their imperfections and a strong belief that human suffering was more related to unemployment than anything else.
Some experts worry that Yellen will be inclined to chase unemployment to the neglect of inflation.
But with wages still relatively flat and the economy increasingly divided between the well-off and the long-term
unemployed,more people worry about the opposite,deflation(通货紧缩)that would aggravate the economy’s problems.
Either way,the incoming Fed chief will have to walk a fine line in slowly ending the stimulus.It must be steady enough to
deflate bubbles and bring markets back down to earth but not so quick that it creates another credit crisis.
Unlike many past Fed leaders,Yellen is not one to buy into the finance industry's argument that it should be left alone to
regulate itself.She knows all along the Fed has been too slack on regulation of finance.Yellen is likely to address the issue
right after she pushes unemployment below 6%,stabilizes markets and makes sure that the recovery is more inclusive anD.robust.As Princeton Professor Alan Blinder says,“She’s smart as a whip,deeply logical,willing to argue but also a good
listener.She can persuade without creating hostility.”All those traits will be useful as the global economy’s new power player
takes on its most annoying problems.
What do many people think is the biggest problem facing Janet Yellen 《》（）
What can be done about mass unemployment All the wise heads agree:there’re no quick or any answers.There’s work to be done,but workers aren’t ready to do it.They’re in the wrong places,or they have the wrong skills.Our problem are
“structural,”and will take many years to solve.
But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view.There isn’t any.On the contrary,all the facts suggest
that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand.Saying that there’re no easy answers sounds wise,
but it’s actually foolish:our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will
to act.In other words,structural unemployment is a fake problem,which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real
solutions.The fact is job openings have plunged in every major sector,while the number of workers forced into part-time
employment in almost all industries has soared.Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category.Only three
states,with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn,have unemployment rates below 5%.So the
evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment.Why,then,has this claim become so popular
Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment-in part because experts and analysts believe that declaring the problem the problem deeply rooted,with no easy answers,makes them sound serious.I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression;it was almost
identical to what Very Serious People are saying now.Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly,declared one 1935
analysis,because the workforce is“unadaptable and untrained”.I cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may
offer.A few years later,a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs anD.suddenly industry was eager to employ those“unadaptable and untrained”workers.But now,as then,powerful forces are
ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy.And that,
fundamentally,is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been multiplying:they offer a reason to do nothing
about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.
So what you need to know is that there's no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.We aren't suffering from a
shortage of needed skills;we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve.As I said,structural unemployment isn’t real problem,
it's an excuse-a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.
What is the author’s purpose in writing the passage 《》（）
What can be done about mass unemployment All the wise heads agree:there’re no quick or any answers.There’s work to be done,but workers aren’t ready to do it.They’re in the wrong places,or they have the wrong skills.Our problem are
“structural,”and will take many years to solve.
But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view.There isn’t any.On the contrary,all the facts suggest
that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand.Saying that there’re no easy answers sounds wise,
but it’s actually foolish:our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will
to act.In other words,structural unemployment is a fake problem,which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real
solutions.The fact is job openings have plunged in every major sector,while the number of workers forced into part-time
employment in almost all industries has soared.Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category.Only three
states,with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn,have unemployment rates below 5%.So the
evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment.Why,then,has this claim become so popular
Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment-in part because experts and analysts believe that declaring the problem the problem deeply rooted,with no easy answers,makes them sound serious.I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression;it was almost
identical to what Very Serious People are saying now.Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly,declared one 1935
analysis,because the workforce is“unadaptable and untrained”.I cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may
offer.A few years later,a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs anD.suddenly industry was eager to employ those“unadaptable and untrained”workers.But now,as then,powerful forces are
ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy.And that,
fundamentally,is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been multiplying:they offer a reason to do nothing
about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.
So what you need to know is that there's no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.We aren't suffering from a
shortage of needed skills;we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve.As I said,structural unemployment isn’t real problem,
it's an excuse-a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.
What has caused claims of huge structural problems to multiply 《》（）
What can be done about mass unemployment All the wise heads agree:there’re no quick or any answers.There’s work to be done,but workers aren’t ready to do it.They’re in the wrong places,or they have the wrong skills.Our problem are
“structural,”and will take many years to solve.
But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view.There isn’t any.On the contrary,all the facts suggest
that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand.Saying that there’re no easy answers sounds wise,
but it’s actually foolish:our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will
to act.In other words,structural unemployment is a fake problem,which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real
solutions.The fact is job openings have plunged in every major sector,while the number of workers forced into part-time
employment in almost all industries has soared.Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category.Only three
states,with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn,have unemployment rates below 5%.So the
evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment.Why,then,has this claim become so popular
Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment-in part because experts and analysts believe that declaring the problem the problem deeply rooted,with no easy answers,makes them sound serious.I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression;it was almost
identical to what Very Serious People are saying now.Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly,declared one 1935
analysis,because the workforce is“unadaptable and untrained”.I cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may
offer.A few years later,a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs anD.suddenly industry was eager to employ those“unadaptable and untrained”workers.But now,as then,powerful forces are
ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy.And that,
fundamentally,is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been multiplying:they offer a reason to do nothing
about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.
So what you need to know is that there's no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.We aren't suffering from a
shortage of needed skills;we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve.As I said,structural unemployment isn’t real problem,
it's an excuse-a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.
What does the author say helped bring unemployment during the Great Depression 《》（）
What can be done about mass unemployment All the wise heads agree:there’re no quick or any answers.There’s work to be done,but workers aren’t ready to do it.They’re in the wrong places,or they have the wrong skills.Our problem are
“structural,”and will take many years to solve.
But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view.There isn’t any.On the contrary,all the facts suggest
that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand.Saying that there’re no easy answers sounds wise,
but it’s actually foolish:our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will
to act.In other words,structural unemployment is a fake problem,which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real
solutions.The fact is job openings have plunged in every major sector,while the number of workers forced into part-time
employment in almost all industries has soared.Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category.Only three
states,with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn,have unemployment rates below 5%.So the
evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment.Why,then,has this claim become so popular
Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment-in part because experts and analysts believe that declaring the problem the problem deeply rooted,with no easy answers,makes them sound serious.I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression;it was almost
identical to what Very Serious People are saying now.Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly,declared one 1935
analysis,because the workforce is“unadaptable and untrained”.I cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may
offer.A few years later,a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs anD.suddenly industry was eager to employ those“unadaptable and untrained”workers.But now,as then,powerful forces are
ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy.And that,
fundamentally,is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been multiplying:they offer a reason to do nothing
about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.
So what you need to know is that there's no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.We aren't suffering from a
shortage of needed skills;we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve.As I said,structural unemployment isn’t real problem,
it's an excuse-a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.
What does the author think of the expert’s claim concerning unemployment 《》（）
What can be done about mass unemployment All the wise heads agree:there’re no quick or any answers.There’s work to be done,but workers aren’t ready to do it.They’re in the wrong places,or they have the wrong skills.Our problem are
“structural,”and will take many years to solve.
But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view.There isn’t any.On the contrary,all the facts suggest
that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand.Saying that there’re no easy answers sounds wise,
but it’s actually foolish:our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will
to act.In other words,structural unemployment is a fake problem,which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real
solutions.The fact is job openings have plunged in every major sector,while the number of workers forced into part-time
employment in almost all industries has soared.Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category.Only three
states,with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn,have unemployment rates below 5%.So the
evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment.Why,then,has this claim become so popular
Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment-in part because experts and analysts believe that declaring the problem the problem deeply rooted,with no easy answers,makes them sound serious.I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression;it was almost
identical to what Very Serious People are saying now.Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly,declared one 1935
analysis,because the workforce is“unadaptable and untrained”.I cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may
offer.A few years later,a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs anD.suddenly industry was eager to employ those“unadaptable and untrained”workers.But now,as then,powerful forces are
ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy.And that,
fundamentally,is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been multiplying:they offer a reason to do nothing
about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.
So what you need to know is that there's no evidence whatsoever to back these claims.We aren't suffering from a
shortage of needed skills;we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve.As I said,structural unemployment isn’t real problem,
it's an excuse-a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.
What does the author think is the root cause of mass unemployment in America 《》（）
It would be all too easy to say that Facebook’s market meltdown is coming to an end.After all,Mark Zuckerberg’s social
network burned as much as$50 billion of shareholders’wealth in just a couple months.To put that in context,since its debut(初次登台)on NASDAQ in May,Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo,AOL,Zynga,Yelp,Pandora,Open Table,
Group on,LinkedIn,and Angie's List combined,plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world,it’s no surprise to
anyone who read the initial public offering(IPO)prospectus(首次公开募股说明书).Worse still,all the crises that emerged
when the company debuted-overpriced shares,poor corporate governance,huge challenges to the core business,and a
damaged brand-remain today.Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is,one that
can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation.To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO,say$28 a share,Facebook’s future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier.That would have required
increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That’s not happening.In the first half of 2012,Facebook reported revenue of$2.24 billion,up 38 percent from the same
period in 2011.At the same time,the company’s costs surged to$2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles’heel of Facebook’s business model,which the company clearly stated in a
list of risk factors associated with its IPO:it hasn’t yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices,The number
of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by 67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter,or more than
half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem.The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook’s future in other ways.Indeed,the more Facebook’s disappointment in the market is catalogued,the worse Facebook’s
image becomes.Not only does that threaten to rub off on users,it’s bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers,who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg’s creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super-voting stock he
holds.This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering.It’s a pity so few investors apparently bothered to
do their homework.
What does the author imply in the last paragraph 《》（）
It would be all too easy to say that Facebook’s market meltdown is coming to an end.After all,Mark Zuckerberg’s social
network burned as much as$50 billion of shareholders’wealth in just a couple months.To put that in context,since its debut(初次登台)on NASDAQ in May,Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo,AOL,Zynga,Yelp,Pandora,Open Table,
Group on,LinkedIn,and Angie's List combined,plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world,it’s no surprise to
anyone who read the initial public offering(IPO)prospectus(首次公开募股说明书).Worse still,all the crises that emerged
when the company debuted-overpriced shares,poor corporate governance,huge challenges to the core business,and a
damaged brand-remain today.Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is,one that
can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation.To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO,say$28 a share,Facebook’s future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier.That would have required
increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That’s not happening.In the first half of 2012,Facebook reported revenue of$2.24 billion,up 38 percent from the same
period in 2011.At the same time,the company’s costs surged to$2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles’heel of Facebook’s business model,which the company clearly stated in a
list of risk factors associated with its IPO:it hasn’t yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices,The number
of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by 67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter,or more than
half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem.The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook’s future in other ways.Indeed,the more Facebook’s disappointment in the market is catalogued,the worse Facebook’s
image becomes.Not only does that threaten to rub off on users,it’s bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers,who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg’s creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super-voting stock he
holds.This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering.It’s a pity so few investors apparently bothered to
do their homework.
What is the most probable reason for some rich people to use a device to record their patterns 《》（）
It would be all too easy to say that Facebook’s market meltdown is coming to an end.After all,Mark Zuckerberg’s social
network burned as much as$50 billion of shareholders’wealth in just a couple months.To put that in context,since its debut(初次登台)on NASDAQ in May,Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo,AOL,Zynga,Yelp,Pandora,Open Table,
Group on,LinkedIn,and Angie's List combined,plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world,it’s no surprise to
anyone who read the initial public offering(IPO)prospectus(首次公开募股说明书).Worse still,all the crises that emerged
when the company debuted-overpriced shares,poor corporate governance,huge challenges to the core business,and a
damaged brand-remain today.Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is,one that
can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation.To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO,say$28 a share,Facebook’s future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier.That would have required
increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That’s not happening.In the first half of 2012,Facebook reported revenue of$2.24 billion,up 38 percent from the same
period in 2011.At the same time,the company’s costs surged to$2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles’heel of Facebook’s business model,which the company clearly stated in a
list of risk factors associated with its IPO:it hasn’t yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices,The number
of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by 67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter,or more than
half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem.The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook’s future in other ways.Indeed,the more Facebook’s disappointment in the market is catalogued,the worse Facebook’s
image becomes.Not only does that threaten to rub off on users,it’s bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers,who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg’s creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super-voting stock he
holds.This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering.It’s a pity so few investors apparently bothered to
do their homework.
What is the major cause for Europeans’loss of sleep 《》（）
