考試日期：

2012年12月1日

Reading Passage 1

Title:

Children Education

Question types:

段落大意 Heading

Matching人名理論配對

文章內(nèi)容回顧

關(guān)于兒童教育的（劃分了childhood和adulthood, 有了新的政策，很多學(xué)者的理論以及發(fā)展，幼兒園的發(fā)展。從18世紀(jì)開始，到19世紀(jì)一直到20世紀(jì)對children和兒童教育觀點的變化，以及為何18世紀(jì)一直到1850s家長都不會對自己的孩子傾注太多的感情和關(guān)愛（因為兒童死亡率太高）；人是可以通過后天教育改變的并不是出身就注定的；20世紀(jì)幼兒園的建立和蓬勃發(fā)展。舊文V090905的P1

英文原文閱讀

We examine the prediction of individuals’ educational and occupational success at age 48 from contextual and personal variables assessed during their middle childhood and late adolescence. We focus particularly on the predictive role of the parents’ educational level during middle childhood, controlling for other indices of socioeconomic status and children’s IQ, and the mediating roles of negative family interactions, childhood behavior, and late adolescent aspirations. Data come from the Columbia County Longitudinal Study, which began in 1960 when all 856 third graders in a semi-rural county in New York State were interviewed along with their parents; participants were reinterviewed at ages 19, 30, and 48 (Eron et al, 1971; Huesmann et al., 2002). Parents’ educational level when the child was 8 years old significantly predicted educational and occupational success for the child 40 years later. Structural models showed that parental educational level had no direct effects on child educational level or occupational prestige at age 48 but had significant indirect effects that were independent of the other predictor variables’ effects. These indirect effects were mediated through age 19 educational aspirations and age 19 educational level. These results provide strong support for the unique predictive role of parental education on adult outcomes 40 years later and underscore the developmental importance of mediators of parent education effects such as late adolescent achievement and achievement-related aspirations.

Parental educational level is an important predictor of children’s educational and behavioral outcomes (Davis-Kean, 2005; Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor, 2002; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Haveman & Wolfe, 1995; Nagin & Tremblay, 2001; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997). The majority of research on the ways in which parental education shapes child outcomes has been conducted through cross-sectional correlational analyses or short-term longitudinal designs in which parents and children are tracked through the child’s adolescent years. Our main goals in the current study were to examine long-term effects on children’s educational and occupational success of their parents’ educational level while controlling for other indices of family socioeconomic status and the children’s own intelligence, and to examine possible mediators of the effects of parents’ education on children’s educational and occupational outcomes. Following theory and research on family process models (e.g., Conger et al., 2002; McLoyd, 1989), we expected that indices of family socioeconomic status, including parent education, would predict the quality of family interactions and child behavior. Next, based on social-cognitive-ecological models (e.g., Guerra & Huesmann, 2004; Huesmann, 1998; Huesmann, Eron, & Yarmel, 1987), we expected parental education, the quality of family interactions, and child behavior would shape, by late adolescence, educational achievement and aspirations for future educational and occupational success. Finally, following Eccles’ expectancy-value model (Eccles, 1993; Frome & Eccles, 1998), we predicted that late adolescent aspirations for future success would affect actual educational and occupational success in adulthood. We use data from the Columbia County Longitudinal Study, a 40-year developmental study initiated in 1960 with data collected most recently in 2000 (Eron, Walder, & Lefkowitz, 1971; Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, & Huesmann, 1977; Huesmann, Dubow, Eron, Boxer, Slegers, & Miller, 2002; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984).

Go to:

Family Contextual Influences during Middle Childhood

In terms of socioeconomic status (SES) factors, the positive link between SES and children’s achievement is well-established (Sirin, 2005; White, 1982). McLoyd’s (1989; 1998) seminal literature reviews also have documented well the relation of poverty and low socioeconomic status to a range of negative child outcomes, including low IQ, educational attainment and achievement, and social-emotional problems. Parental education is an important index of socioeconomic status, and as noted, it predicts children’s educational and behavioral outcomes. However, McLoyd has pointed out the value of distinguishing among various indices of family socioeconomic status, including parental education, persistent versus transitory poverty, income, and parental occupational status, because studies have found that income level and poverty might be stronger predictors of children’s cognitive outcomes compared to other SES indices (e.g., Duncan et al., 1994; Stipek, 1998). Thus, in the present study, we control for other indices of socioeconomic status when considering the effects of parental education.

In fact, research suggests that parental education is indeed an important and significant unique predictor of child achievement. For example, in an analysis of data from several large-scale developmental studies, Duncan and Brooks-Gunn (1997) concluded that maternal education was linked significantly to children’s intellectual outcomes even after controlling for a variety of other SES indicators such as household income. Davis-Kean (2005) found direct effects of parental education, but not income, on European American children’s standardized achievement scores; both parental education and income exerted indirect effects on parents’ achievement-fostering behaviors, and subsequently children’s achievement, through their effects on parents’ educational expectations.

Thus far, we have focused on the literature on family SES correlates of children’s academic and behavioral adjustment. However, along with those contemporaneous links between SES and children’s outcomes, longitudinal research dating back to groundbreaking status attainment models (e.g, Blau & Duncan, 1967; Duncan, Featherman, & Duncan, 1972) indicates clearly that family of origin SES accounts meaningfully for educational and occupational attainment during late adolescence and into adulthood (e.g., Caspi, Wright, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998; Johnson et al., 1983; Sobolewski & Amato, 2005; for a review, see Whitson & Keller, 2004). For example, Caspi et al. reported that lower parental occupational status of children ages 3–5 and 7–9 predicted a higher risk of the child having periods of unemployment when making the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Johnson et al. (1983) found that mothers’ and fathers’ educational level and fathers’ occupational status were related positively to their children’s adulthood occupational status. Few studies, however, are prospective in nature spanning such a long period of time (i.e., a 40-year period from childhood to middle adulthood). Also, few studies include a wide range of contextual and personal predictor variables from childhood and potential mediators of the effects of those variables from adolescence.

Go to:

Potential Mediators of the Effects of Family Contextual Influences during Childhood on Adolescent and Adult Outcomes

Family process models (e.g., Conger et al., 2002; McLoyd, 1989; Mistry, Vanderwater, Huston, & McLoyd, 2002) have proposed that the effects of socioeconomic stress (e.g., financial strain, unstable employment) on child outcomes are mediated through parenting stress and family interaction patterns (e.g., parental depressed mood; lower levels of warmth, nurturance, and monitoring of children). That is, family structural variables such as parental education and income affect the level of actual interactions within the family, and concomitantly, the child’s behavior. It is well established within broader social learning models (e.g., Huesmann, 1998) that parents exert substantial influence on their children’s behavior. For example, children exposed to more rejecting and aggressive parenting contexts, as well as interparental conflict, display greater aggression (Cummings & Davies, 1994; Eron et al., 1971; Huesmann et al., 1984; Lefkowitz et al., 1977) and the effects between negative parenting and child aggression are bi-directional (Patterson, 1982). Presumably, children learn aggressive problem-solving styles as a result of repeated exposure to such models, and in turn parents use more power assertive techniques to manage the child’s behavior.

Researchers also have shown that behavioral problems such as early aggression impair children’s academic and intellectual development over time (e.g., Hinshaw, 1992; Huesmann, Eron, & Yarmel, 1987). Stipek (1998) has argued that behavioral problems affect young children’s opportunities to learn because these youth often are punished for their behavior and might develop conflictual relationships with teachers, thus leading to negative attitudes about school and lowered academic success. Thus, it is possible that low socioeconomic status (including low parental educational levels) could affect negative family interaction patterns, which can influence child behavior problems (measured in our study by aggression), and in turn affect lowered academic and achievement-oriented attitudes over time.

Parent education and family interaction patterns during childhood also might be linked more directly to the child’s developing academic success and achievement-oriented attitudes. In the general social learning and social-cognitive framework (Bandura, 1986), behavior is shaped in part through observational and direct learning experiences. Those experiences lead to the formation of internalized cognitive scripts, values, and beliefs that guide and maintain behavior over time (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003; Huesmann, 1998). According to Eccles (e.g., Eccles, 1993; Eccles, Vida, & Barber, 2004; Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998), this cognitive process accounts for the emergence and persistence of achievement-related behaviors and ultimately to successful achievement. Eccles’ framework emphasizes in particular the importance of children’s expectations for success, with parents assuming the role of “expectancy socializers” (Frome & Eccles, 1998, p. 437).

Thus, for example, a child exposed to parents who model achievement-oriented behavior (e.g., obtaining advanced degrees; reading frequently; encouraging a strong work ethic) and provide achievement-oriented opportunities (e.g., library and museum trips; after-school enrichment programs; educational books and videos) should develop the guiding belief that achievement is to be valued, pursued, and anticipated. This belief should then in turn promote successful outcomes across development, including high school graduation, the pursuit of higher learning, and the acquisition of high-prestige occupations. Not surprisingly, there are positive relations between parents’ levels of education and parents’ expectations for their children’s success (Davis-Kean, 2005), suggesting that more highly educated parents actively encourage their children to develop high expectations of their own. Importantly, on the other hand, McLoyd’s (1989) review found that parents who experience difficult economic times have children who are more pessimistic about their educational and vocational futures.

In the current study, we assume a broad social-cognitive-ecological (Guerra & Huesmann, 2004; Metropolitan Area Child Study Research Group, 2002; also “developmental-ecological,” Dodge & Pettit, 2003) perspective on behavior development. This view proposes that it is the cumulative influence both of childhood environmental-contextual factors (e.g., parental education, family interactions, school climate, neighborhood efficacy) and individual-personal factors (e.g., IQ and aggression) that shapes enduring cognitive styles (e.g., achievement orientation, hostile worldview) in adolescence. Once formed, those styles allow for the prediction of functioning into adulthood above and beyond the effects of the earlier influences. In this view, then, cognitive factors such as beliefs and expectations present during adolescence serve as internal links between early contextual and personal factors and later outcomes.

題型難度分析

此文不難，是舊文。Heading題考察skim能力，難度不大，但得分率不高。人名理論配對有一定難度。

題型技巧分析

標(biāo)題配對題（List of headings）是雅思閱讀中的一種重要題型，要求給段落找小標(biāo)題。它一般位于文章之前，由兩部分組成：一部分是選項，另一部分是段落編號，要求給各個段落找到與它對應(yīng)的選項，即表達了該段中心思想的選項，有時還會舉一個例子。當(dāng)然，例子中的選項是不會作為答案的。

解題思路：

1. 將例子所對應(yīng)的選項及段落標(biāo)號劃去

2. 劃出選項中的關(guān)鍵詞及概念性名詞

3. 瀏覽文章，抓住各段的主題句和核心詞（尤其是反復(fù)出現(xiàn)的核心詞），重點關(guān)注段落首句、第二句與末句

4. 與段落主題句同義或包含段落核心詞的選項為正確答案

劍橋雅思推薦原文練習(xí)

劍5 Early Childhood Education