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->阅读下面材料，回答问题。师：同学们，课前我们分成了几个小组，
阅读下面材料，回答问题。
师：同学们，课前我们分成了几个小组，今天我们就要在这里进行一次计算比赛，然后评比计算最优秀的小组。大家说，以什么作为评价标准呢？
生：看哪一小组做对的题多！
师：现在这里就有一些同样的题，每人一份，在规定时间内，大家同时做同时停。
师：我们这样做公平吗？
生：公平！
（一段时间后，得出结论）师：现在我宣布XXX是“最优秀小组”！
生：这样不公平！
师：为什么不公平？
生：因为人数多的组做对的题就多，人数少的组做对的题就少，所以不公平！师：怎样评才算公平呢？
生：把小组人数统一就行。
师：也就是把人数多的小组的人数，分一些给人数少的小组，将人数均衡一下，这种方法就是“移多补少”，也就是我们常说的平均。大家想一想我们班57人怎么分呢？
生：算一算，每一小组平均每个人做对多少道题。这样比较才算公平！
师：好，这节课我们就来研究关于平均数的知识。（板书课题）
问题：试评述以上教学片段。（20分）
该教学片段中，教师在引入“平均数”时，环环相扣，体现了以下两个特点：
(1)源于生活，自然得法。教师把“平均数”这一概念通过学生进行计算比赛来呈现，体现了教师善于捕捉生活现象，采撷生活实例，为课堂教学服务的教学理念。教学内容的呈现源于学生的学习活动，巧妙的是教师将“平均数”这一知识融于学生的比赛中，融于比赛的统计中，这一点就体现了教师教学设计的“新”。
(2)设疑解疑，探究释理。教师在知识内容的关键处设疑，开拓了学生的思路，使之深入理解“比赛”这一现象背后的本质特征。这种导入看似随意，却是教师抓住了“平均数”这个统计概念的本质精心设计的。他在不断地给学生创设认知上的不协调，从而大大地调动学生的积极性。学生们在统计比较中深入思考，感受了“平均数”，找到了求平均数的方法，揭示出了平均数问题的卖质，学生思维的深刻性也因此得到了训练。
Passage 2
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren′t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we′re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases--or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in"thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn′ t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
The author′ s attitude toward reversing the high-speed trend is__________.
Passage 2
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren′t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we′re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases--or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in"thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn′ t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
John Gottman says that reliable snap reactions are based on__________.
Passage 2
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren′t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we′re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases--or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in"thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn′ t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
To reverse the negative influences of snap decisions, we should__________.
Passage 2
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren′t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we′re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases--or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in"thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn′ t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
Our reaction to a fast-food logo shows that snap decisions__________.
Passage 2
Scientists have found that although we are prone to snap overreactions, if we take a moment and think about how we are likely to react, we can reduce or even eliminate the negative effects of our quick, hard-wired responses.
Snap decisions can be important defense mechanisms; if we are judging whether someone is dangerous, our brains and bodies are hard-wired to react very quickly, within milliseconds. But we need more time to assess other factors. To accurately tell whether someone is sociable, studies show, we need at least a minute, preferably five. It takes a while to judge complex aspects of personality, like neuroticism or open-mindedness.
But snap decisions in reaction to rapid stimuli aren′t exclusive to the interpersonal realm. Psychologists at the University of Toronto found that viewing a fast-food logo for just a few milliseconds primes us to read 20 percent faster, even though reading has little to do with eating. We unconsciously associate fast food with speed and impatience and carry those impulses into whatever else we′re doing. Subjects exposed to fast-food flashes also tend to think a musical piece lasts too long.
Yet we can reverse such influences. If we know we will overreact to consumer products or housing options when we see a happy face (one reason good sales representatives and real estate agents are always smiling), we can take a moment before buying. If we know female job screeners are more likely to reject attractive female applicants, we can help screeners understand their biases--or hire outside screeners.
John Gottman, the marriage expert, explains that we quickly "thin slice" information reliably only after we ground such snap reactions in"thick sliced" long-term study. When Dr. Gottman really wants to assess whether a couple will stay together, he invites them to his island retreat for a much longer evaluation: two days, not two seconds.
Our ability to mute our hard-wired reactions by pausing is what differentiates us from animals:dogs can think about the future only intermittently or for a few minutes. But historically we have spent about 12 percent of our days contemplating the longer term. Although technology might change the way we react, it hasn′ t changed our nature. We still have the imaginative capacity to rise above temptation and reverse the high-speed trend.
The time needed in making decisions may__________.
Passage 2
Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge (大杂烩) of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report′s more outrageous (令人无法容忍的) findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain′s National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International．It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy,"said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain．Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States．It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent (洗涤剂 ) insect sprays and by some garden products．It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158．Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73．The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
T he ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified．"What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
It can be inferred from the passage that the lobby group Consumer International wants to __________.
Passage 2
Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge (大杂烩) of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report′s more outrageous (令人无法容忍的) findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain′s National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International．It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy,"said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain．Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States．It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent (洗涤剂 ) insect sprays and by some garden products．It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158．Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73．The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
T he ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified．"What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
What is one of the consequences caused by the many claims of household products?
Passage 2
Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge (大杂烩) of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report′s more outrageous (令人无法容忍的) findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain′s National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International．It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy,"said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain．Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States．It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent (洗涤剂 ) insect sprays and by some garden products．It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158．Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73．The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
T he ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified．"What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
A study was carried out by Britain′ s NCC to __________.
Passage 2
Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge (大杂烩) of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report′s more outrageous (令人无法容忍的) findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain′s National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International．It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy,"said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain．Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States．It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent (洗涤剂 ) insect sprays and by some garden products．It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158．Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73．The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
T he ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified．"What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
As indicated in this passage, with so many good claims, the consumers __________.
Passage 2
Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge (大杂烩) of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report′s more outrageous (令人无法容忍的) findings, a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain′s National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International．It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy,"said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The 10-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain．Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States．It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent (洗涤剂 ) insect sprays and by some garden products．It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing," said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158．Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73．The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
T he ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" cannot be verified．"What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
According to the passage, the NCC found it outrageous that __________.
