雅思阅读低分原因分析
雅思阅读低分原因分析, 3大结论让人信服，小编给大家带来了雅思阅读低分原因分析 ，希望能够帮助到大家，下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。
雅思阅读低分原因分析 3大结论让人信服
雅思阅读低分原因之一、不了解学术阅读，阅读方法不科学
剑桥官方很明确地在雅思网站上说明：雅思阅读考的是学术场景下的阅读，而这种阅读方式是中国英语教学没有强调和专门训练过的。
所以，这些同学不知道什么叫做Skimming for gist(快速浏览把握文章主旨)和Scan for details(快速扫描特定细节)的阅读方式;不明白怎样去区分事实信息和主观论点;更不知道怎样去对文章去进行结构扫描，了解文章线索和脉络(Frame work of the Text, Contextual Clues, Coherence and Cohesion)。
这些阅读技能和策略(Reading Strategies)的缺乏导致他们阅读的时候不分主次，不会灵活调整阅读速度，只看见个别细节而不能把握它们之间的逻辑关系。所以他们在阅读里只能解出那些针对个别细节的小题目，对阅读技能要求比较高的题型，比博彩通如List of Headings(段标题，考察文章线索结构和把握段落章主题的能力)和True / False /NotGiven题(考察观点与事实、主观与客观的区别以及作者态度等)，就明显力不从心。
根据我当时的统计，他们在这些题目上的正确率不足50%。在最近的雅思阅读里，这两种题型加起来超过了总题量的一半，这样的正确率当然没法得到好分数。
雅思阅读低分原因之二、偏重解题技巧，忽视阅读实力
因为着急尽快出国留学，所以这些同学往往是在已经拿到Conditionaloffer的情况准备应考，并必须在Deadline之前提交合格的雅思成绩。这样的学习计划使他们往往只在考试前去“抱佛脚”，听说有什么“阅读秘笈”、“9分方案”就趋之若骛。
这些技巧一学就会，一开始在他们还不熟悉雅思的情况下也显得非常有效——做第一张卷子得4分，了解技巧后再做马上就升到5分。实际上并不是这些阅读技巧有多少神奇之处，只是由陌生到熟悉以后自然的提高，然而同学们还是对此深信不疑。
但是雅思阅读毕竟是现在所有出国英语考试中阅读单项最难的一个，文章最长、题型最多、难度最大，对于阅读技能的考察非常全面深入。
迷信解题技巧而忽视实力的后果就像Castle in the air，吹得越神的技巧最后也让人摔得越惨。我在阅读单项上考过9——绝不是全凭技巧。所以我在课上从不鼓吹说9分靠万能技巧;相反，我还经常提醒同学：技巧有局限，9分靠实力。
雅思阅读低分原因之三、以考试代替学习，没有积累
Deadline的压力导致这些同学仓促考试、匆忙准备，结果就是第一次考试大都没过关。第一次失利后，Deadline的压力又迫使他们马上去报三个月后的考试。
因此，学习计划完全是考试型的，而没有真正积累型的学习。把上次已经证明失败的做法简单重复一遍而没有总结经验教训，也没有提高和改进，这又有什么意义呢?
阅读是最需要积累的一项语言能力，词汇、句法乃至常见文章写法、思路，没有一段时间循序渐进的积累和能力的提升，阅读的能力——Competence就不会有实质的提高。
只凭技巧(Skills)没有实力(Competence)是不可能有长久的效果的。事实也证明：在技巧发挥到了极致，他们的分数上升也就到了头：长期徘徊在6分以下，就是因为他们的阅读实力还没有达到相应水准的缘故。
雅思阅读素材积累：The magic of diasporas
Immigrant networks are a rare bright spark in the world economy. Rich countries should welcome them
THIS is not a good time to be foreign. Anti-immigrant parties are gaining ground in Europe. Britain has been fretting this week over lapses in its border controls. In America Barack Obama has failed to deliver the immigration reform he promised , and Republican presidential candidates would rather electrify the border fence with Mexico than educate the children of illegal aliens. America educates foreign scientists in its universities and then expels them, a policy the mayor of New York calls "national suicide".
This illiberal turn in attitudes to migration is no surprise. It is the result of cyclical economic gloom combined with a secular rise in pressure on rich countries' borders. But governments now weighing up whether or not to try to slam the door should consider another factor: the growing economic importance of diasporas, and the contribution they can make to a country's economic growth.
Old networks, new communications
Diaspora networks—of Huguenots, Scots, Jews and many others—have always been a potent economic force, but the cheapness and ease of modern travel has made them larger and more numerous than ever before. There are now 215m first-generation migrants around the world: that's 3% of the world's population. If they were a nation, it would be a little larger than Brazil. There are more Chinese people living outside China than there are French people in France. Some 22m Indians are scattered all over the globe. Small concentrations of ethnic and linguistic groups have always been found in surprising places—Lebanese in west Africa, Japanese in Brazil and Welsh in Patagonia, for instance—but they have been joined by newer ones, such as west Africans in southern China.
These networks of kinship and language make it easier to do business across borders. They speed the flow of information: a Chinese trader in Indonesia who spots a gap in the market for cheap umbrellas will alert his cousin in Shenzhen who knows someone who runs an umbrella factory. Kinship ties foster trust, so they can seal the deal and get the umbrellas to Jakarta before the rainy season ends. Trust matters, especially in emerging markets where the rule of law is weak. So does a knowledge of the local culture. That is why so much foreign direct investment in China still passes through the Chinese diaspora. And modern communications make these networks an even more powerful tool of business.
Diasporas also help spread ideas. Many of the emerging world's brightest minds are educated at Western universities. An increasing number go home, taking with them both knowledge and contacts. Indian computer scientists in Bangalore bounce ideas constantly off their Indian friends in Silicon Valley. China's technology industry is dominated by "sea turtles" (Chinese who have lived abroad and returned).
Diasporas spread money, too. Migrants into rich countries not only send cash to their families; they also help companies in their host country operate in their home country. A Harvard Business School study shows that American companies that employ lots of ethnic Chinese people find it much easier to set up in China without a joint venture with a local firm.
Such arguments are unlikely to make much headway against hostility towards immigrants in rich countries. Fury against foreigners is usually based on two (mutually incompatible) notions: that because so many migrants claim welfare they are a drain on the public purse; and that because they are prepared to work harder for less pay they will depress the wages of those at the bottom of the pile.
The first is usually not true (in Britain, for instance, immigrants claim benefits less than indigenous people do), and the second is hard to establish either way. Some studies do indeed suggest that competition from unskilled immigrants depresses the wages of unskilled locals. But others find this effect to be small or non-existent.
Nor is it possible to establish the impact of migration on overall growth. The sums are simply too difficult. Yet there are good reasons for believing that it is likely to be positive. Migrants tend to be hard-working and innovative. That spurs productivity and company formation. A recent study carried out by Duke University showed that, while immigrants make up an eighth of America's population, they founded a quarter of the country's technology and engineering firms. And, by linking the West with emerging markets, diasporas help rich countries to plug into fast-growing economies.
Rich countries are thus likely to benefit from looser immigration policy; and fears that poor countries will suffer as a result of a "brain drain" are overblown. The prospect of working abroad spurs more people to acquire valuable skills, and not all subsequently emigrate. Skilled migrants send money home, and they often return to set up new businesses. One study found that unless they lose more than 20% of their university graduates, the brain drain makes poor countries richer.
Indian takeaways
Government as well as business gains from the spread of ideas through diasporas. Foreign-educated Indians, including the prime minister, Manmohan Singh (Oxford and Cambridge) and his sidekick Montek Ahluwalia (Oxford), played a big role in bringing economic reform to India in the early 1990s. Some 500,000 Chinese people have studied abroad and returned, mostly in the past decade; they dominate the think-tanks that advise the government, and are moving up the ranks of the Communist Party. Cheng Li of the Brookings Institution, an American think-tank, predicts that they will be 15-17% of its Central Committee next year, up from 6% in 2002. Few sea turtles call openly for democracy. But they have seen how it works in practice, and they know that many countries that practise it are richer, cleaner and more stable than China.
As for the old world, its desire to close its borders is understandable but dangerous. Migration brings youth to ageing countries, and allows ideas to circulate in millions of mobile minds. That is good both for those who arrive with suitcases and dreams and for those who should welcome them.
雅思阅读低分原因分析 相关文章：
★ 雅思阅读必备技巧
雅思阅读低分原因分析
