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->下面是一位教师执教《草船借箭》时的一个片段，阅读并回答问题。
下面是一位教师执教《草船借箭》时的一个片段，阅读并回答问题。
师：同学们看过电视剧《三国演义》，刚才又自由读了课文。请同学们说一说，课文主要讲了一件什么事？
生：课文主要讲了诸葛亮运用计谋，利用草船向曹操借箭的事。
生：周瑜想用三天造十万支箭的办法来陷害诸葛亮，诸葛亮草船借箭，击破了周瑜的阴谋。
师：读了课文后，大家最感兴趣的问题是什么？
生：周瑜为什么要陷害诸葛亮？这对他们联合抗曹有好处吗？
生：诸葛亮明明知道周瑜要陷害他，为什么还要去借箭呢？
生：鲁肃为什么会听诸葛亮的安排？
生：诸葛亮为什么要向曹操去借箭？还那么有把握？
（学生一共提了不下20个问题）
师：同学们的问题都很有思考价值。老师觉得这些问题归纳起来主要是怎样认识文中的这些人物，把握了人物的特点，问题自然也就解决了。大家有兴趣来研究这些人物吗？
生：有！
师：文中共出现了四个人物。请你们选择自己最感兴趣的一个人物来研究，注意抓出他的
特点。
问题：试评述以上教学片段。（20分）
探究性学习是一种学生学习方式的根本改变，学生由过去主要听从教师讲授，从学科的概念、规律开始学习的方式变为学生通过各种事实来发现概念和规律的方式。小学语文的探究性学习主要体现在探究性阅读上，探究性阅读是学生在阅读中生疑，在探索研究和探寻追究中解疑的读书实践过程。语文的探究学习不同于科学探究，但在操作上也要讲究科学性，随意探究只会浪费时间。
在这个教学片段中，教师明确了学生读书质疑的重要意义，并且能对学生的读书质疑进行梳理，但没有根据文本所要体现的内.涵价值来恰当归纳、提升学生的问题，而是将学生引导到教师事先设定的探究人物的特点上来。
《草船借箭》是一个历史故事，人物的特点也是在具体的情节中体现的，如果教师有意识地对学生的问题引导调整，以“诸葛亮草船借箭成功的原因有哪些”这个问题统领全文，贯穿整个读书探究活动，学习的目标将更加明确，文本价值也会有效体现。另外，学生各自探究的问题过于分散，在组织学生交流汇报探究成果时，必然导致各自为政的局面。
因此，在探究性阅读中_教.师作为教学活动的参与者、组织者和引导者，要适时抓住学生的阅读发现，积极创设适于研讨的氛围，引导学生探究有价值的问题。##jinkaodian
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 __________.
