雅思閱讀摘要填空Summary題型解題技巧

雅思閱讀摘要填空Summary題型解題技巧這篇文章如題目所示，針對雅思閱讀中的摘要填空這一題型進(jìn)行題目要求和特征，做題步驟和做題技巧的講解。下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。

雅思閱讀摘要填空Summary題型解題技巧

Summary(摘要填空)

1. 題型要求：該類題目是一小段文字，是原文或原文中的幾個段落主要內(nèi)容的縮寫或改寫，我們稱之為摘要。摘要中有幾個空白部分要求填空。

摘要可分為兩種：全文摘要和部分段落摘要。全文摘要信息來自全文，題目空格的數(shù)目較多。部分段落摘要信息來自原文某幾個連續(xù)的段落，題目空格的數(shù)目較少。

考試中出現(xiàn)的大部分是部分段落摘要，信息來自原文連續(xù)的兩到三段，題目空格的數(shù)量在5題左右。

對于部分段落摘要，有的在題目要求中會指出它來自原文的哪些段落，但大部分的部分段落摘要只是在題目要求中說它是原文的一個摘要或部分段落摘要，并不指出它來自原文的哪些段落。

按照填空內(nèi)容，摘要也可分為三種：

1. 原文原詞

2. 從多個選項中選詞

3. 自己寫詞。

原文原詞的題目要求中常有from the Reading Passage 的字樣。從多個選項中選詞，選項的數(shù)目常常超過題目空格的數(shù)目。最近考試中，絕大部分是原文原詞或從多個選項中選詞，很少有自己寫詞的。

這類題在A類和G類考試中出現(xiàn)的頻率一般都是每兩次考一次，每次考一組，共五題左右。

雅思閱讀摘要填空題出題特點

1. 考查內(nèi)容均為細(xì)節(jié)

每一道填空題的題目基本上都是對原文的一句話或者幾句話進(jìn)行的同義改寫，不會出現(xiàn)對多句話或者是整段的主旨進(jìn)行的概括回納。

2. 所填答案基本唯一

固然這種考試需要考生自己書寫答案，但是所有答案均來自于原文，不需要進(jìn)行考生用自己的語言對原詞進(jìn)行改寫。極個別情況下會出現(xiàn)詞序顛倒，但是基本上不需要考生進(jìn)行詞性、時態(tài)、單復(fù)數(shù)等屈折形式的轉(zhuǎn)換。這是由雅思閱讀的目的所決定的，雅思閱讀只考查考生的閱讀能力，而無意檢驗考生的寫作能力。

3. 所有題目均有字?jǐn)?shù)限制

所有這類題目的指令里面都包括字?jǐn)?shù)限制的要求，一般都是不超過 3 個字，這同樣是由閱讀考試客觀性、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)性的性質(zhì)所決定的。假如對答案不設(shè)字?jǐn)?shù)限制，那么往往會導(dǎo)致出現(xiàn)多個標(biāo)準(zhǔn)答案的現(xiàn)象，這也是不符合考試的原則的。由于閱卷的時候標(biāo)準(zhǔn)答案越少，試卷的批閱的過程就越客觀、越公正。

4. 題目都是原文的同義改寫

雅思閱讀考試的本質(zhì)是考查英語使用者的書面英語能力，在很大程度上就是看考生在一定的英語語言基礎(chǔ)上的閱讀技能。尋找原文的過程是對考生閱讀技能的檢驗，而題目本身則是考查考生的語言功底，即詞匯和語法基礎(chǔ)。所以每道填空題目都會用另外一種方式對原文中的句子進(jìn)行同義改寫，這種同義轉(zhuǎn)換包括詞匯的轉(zhuǎn)換和句型的轉(zhuǎn)換兩種方式。

5. 基本都講順序原則

除了帶選項的段落摘要題比較不穩(wěn)定之外，其它所有的填空題都比較嚴(yán)格地遵循順序原則，即題號的順序與原文的順序一致。把握這條原則，考生將有效地縮短尋找答案的時間。

雅思閱讀摘要填空題解題步驟

(1) 仔細(xì)讀摘要的第一句話，找出它在原文中的出處，通常是和原文某段話的第一句相對應(yīng)。如果題目要求中已經(jīng)指出了摘要的出處，則此步可以略去不做。

(2) 注意空格前后的詞，到原文中去找這些詞的對應(yīng)詞。

對應(yīng)詞的特點如下：

A. 原詞

B. 詞性變化;如空格前的詞為threatening, 是形容詞，原文中的詞為threat, 是名詞。

C. 語態(tài)變化;一個是主動語態(tài)，一個是被動語態(tài)。

D. 同義詞;如空格前的詞為throw away，原文中的詞為discard(丟棄，拋棄，遺棄)，它們是同義詞。

(3) 仔細(xì)閱讀對應(yīng)所在的句子，確定正確答案。

(4) 注意語法，所填答案必須符合語法規(guī)定。

(5) 注意順序性，即題目的順序和原文的順序基本一致。

NOTICE

1. 注意題目要求中是否有字?jǐn)?shù)限制。

若要求從原文選詞或自己寫詞，會有字?jǐn)?shù)要求，如Use ONE OR TWO WORDS等，答案必須滿足這個要求。

2. 若從原文選詞，只能選原文中連續(xù)的幾個詞，不能改變它們的順序。

如原文為virgin fibre, 發(fā)生答案不可能是fibre virgin。原文為 advances in the technology，答案不可能是technology advances。

3. 若要求從原文選詞，越是生詞，越可能是答案。

下列比較生僻的詞如sustainable(可持續(xù)的)、biodegradable(可生物降解的)、contaminants(廢物，雜物)、nostrils(鼻孔)都是一些題目的答案。

4. 從選項中選詞，要注意看題目要求是寫答案本身，還是寫選項前的代表字母。

選項前有代表字母的，肯定是要求答代表字母。最近的考試中，選項前大部分都有代表字母。

5. 從選項中選詞，答案與原文的六大對應(yīng)關(guān)系。

(1) 原文原詞：與原文完全相同的詞或短語。

(2) 詞性變化：原文為necessary，是形容詞，選項為necessity，是名詞。

(3) 語態(tài)變化：原文為Governments have encouraged waste paper collection and sorting schemes，是主動語態(tài)。摘要中的句子為people have also been encouraged by government to collect their waste on a regular basis，是被動語態(tài)。

(4) 圖表：如果原文中有圖表，一般會有一題答案來自圖表。

(5) 同義詞：原文為tight，選項為restricted，是同義詞。

(6) 歸納：有時文中沒有直接提及，須從幾句話中歸納出答案。一般比較難，目前考試中，至少有一個空格是歸納出來的。

6.從選項中選詞，如果時間不夠，可以直接從選項中選擇，不看原文。

這時，要特別注意語法。這樣做的準(zhǔn)確性50%左右(視題目的難易及考生的水平而定)。所以除非時間不夠，否則不建議大家這樣做。

7. 如果要求自己寫詞，答案絕大部分是原文原詞，少部分是對原文原詞做的形式上的修改。

要求自己寫詞的機(jī)率很小，遇到過一次。在這一次的5個題目中有4個答案是原文原詞，剩下一個，原文原詞是de-inked，答案根據(jù)語法的需要改為de-ink。

雅思閱讀考前必看文章之教育心理類

雅思閱讀：Coarse work

BRITISH universities, it appears, are considering abandoning a 200-year old system of degree classification in favour of the American GPA model. At present, students are bunched into grade clusters. The top 10-20% receive a "1st", the majority receive a "2.1" or "two-one" and the stragglers receive either a "two-two" or a "3rd". The latter group can be very small (5%) at the elite universities but is larger nationally.

The main reasoning for this is that it is hard for employers to distinguish between graduates if everyone has a 2.1 grade. But it is possible for employers to ask for a full transcript of individual grades, though this is not nearly as common in Britain as you might expect. The stronger point (which you might have already picked up on) is that the existing system can be difficult to interpret internationally. Adopting the GPA system would be helpful to undergraduates wishing to study or work abroad.

I think this might be missing a trick. My experience of the 1st/2.1/2.2 system is that it has a very strong effect on students' work effort. For weaker students, either those of lower natural ability or the more workshy, fear of the notorious "Desmond" (cockney rhyming slang after the eponymous archbishop) is the ultimate motivator. Many attractive careers simply advertise the minimum requirement of a 2.1, and therefore getting the lower grade can be quite a handicap in the job market.

For stronger students, the aspiration of a first, the only true distinguisher in the system, is also a strong incentive. The risk is that working quite hard could leave you with only a high 2.1, largely indistinguishable from all other 2.1's. The crudeness of the grading system drags everyone up.

An interesting paper by Pradeep Dubey and John Geanakoplos of the Cowles foundation at Yale Univeristy makes the same point. They write:

Suppose that the professor judges each student's performance exactly, though the performance itself may depend on random factors, in addition to ability and effort. Suppose also that the professor is motivated solely by a desire to induce his students to work hard. Third and most importantly, suppose that the students care about their relative rank in the class, that is, about their status. We show that, in this scenario, coarse grading often motivates the student to work harder.

One might think that finer hierarchies generate more incentives. But this is often not the case. Coarse hierarchies can paradoxically create more competition for status, and thus better incentives for work.

They give a simple example. Suppose there are two students, Brainy and Dumbo, with disparate abilities. Brainy achieves a uniformly higher score even when he shirks and Dumbo works. Suppose, for example, that Dumbo scores between 40 and 50 if he shirks, and between 50 and 60 if he works, while Brainy scores between 70 and 80 if he shirks and 80 and 90 if he works. With perfectly fine grading, Brainy will come ahead of Dumbo regardless of their effort levels. But since they only care about rank, both will shirk.

But, by assigning a grade A to scores above 85, B to scores between 50 and 85, and C to below 50, the professor can inspire Dumbo to work, for then Dumbo stands a chance to acquire the same status B as Brainy, even when Brainy is working. This in turn generates the competition which in fact spurs Brainy to work, so that with luck he can distinguish himself from Dumbo. He doesn't want to be mislabelled. With finer grading everyone gets their own label so this effect disappears.

The corollary to this in my example is that if the brainy student knows that even when slacking off he will still do measurably better than most students he may decide that he can still get a very good job with 70 to 80. There may be students who score 80 to 90 with superior credentials but academic performance is only part of the hiring criteria. If he can signal himself as a brainy student he might think this is enough.

However, critical to all this is that all exams are taken together, as they are at Oxford or Cambridge universities, usually at the end of the degree in a consecutive-day marathon. The trend in other British universities has been to examine various courses throughout the degree. The result is that those in the middle of the ability range can work very hard at the beginning, bank a 2.1 and then slack off in the remaining years. It is partly for this reason that those universities pushing hardest for the changes have exams split across years. Oxford and Cambridge are less keen.

雅思閱讀考前必看文章之教育心理類

雅思閱讀：Game lessons

It sounds like a cop-out, but the future of schooling may lie with video games

SINCE the beginning of mass education, schools have relied on what is known in educational circles as "chalk and talk". Chalk and blackboard may sometimes be replaced by felt-tip pens and a whiteboard, and electronics in the form of computers may sometimes be bolted on, but the idea of a pedagogue leading his pupils more or less willingly through a day based on periods of study of recognisable academic disciplines, such as mathematics, physics, history, geography and whatever the local language happens to be, has rarely been abandoned.

Abandoning it, though, is what Katie Salen hopes to do. Ms Salen is a games designer and a professor of design and technology at Parsons The New School for Design, in New York. She is also the moving spirit behind Quest to Learn, a new, taxpayer-funded school in that city which is about to open its doors to pupils who will never suffer the indignity of snoring through double French but will, rather, spend their entire days playing games.

Quest to Learn draws on many roots. One is the research of James Gee of the University of Wisconsin. In 2003 Dr Gee published a book called "What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy", in which he argued that playing such games helps people develop a sense of identity, grasp meaning, learn to follow commands and even pick role models. Another is the MacArthur Foundation's digital media and learning initiative, which began in 2006 and which has acted as a test-bed for some of Ms Salen's ideas about educational-games design. A third is the success of the Bank Street School for Children, an independent primary school in New York that practises what its parent, the nearby Bank Street College of Education, preaches in the way of interdisciplinary teaching methods and the encouragement of pupil collaboration.

Ms Salen is, in effect, seeking to mechanise Bank Street's methods by transferring much of the pedagogic effort from the teachers themselves (who will now act in an advisory role) to a set of video games that she and her colleagues have devised. Instead of chalk and talk, children learn by doing—and do so in a way that tears up the usual subject-based curriculum altogether.

Periods of maths, science, history and so on are no more. Quest to Learn's school day will, rather, be divided into four 90-minute blocks devoted to the study of "domains". Such domains include Codeworlds (a combination of mathematics and English), Being, Space and Place (English and social studies), The Way Things Work (maths and science) and Sports for the Mind (game design and digital literacy). Each domain concludes with a two-week examination called a "Boss Level"—a common phrase in video-game parlance.

Freeing the helots

In one of the units of Being, Space and Place, for example, pupils take on the role of an ancient Spartan who has to assess Athenian strengths and recommend a course of action. In doing so, they learn bits of history, geography and public policy. In a unit of The Way Things Work, they try to inhabit the minds of scientists devising a pathway for a beam of light to reach a target. This lesson touches on maths, optics—and, the organisers hope, creative thinking and teamwork. Another Way-Things-Work unit asks pupils to imagine they are pyramid-builders in ancient Egypt. This means learning about maths and engineering, and something about the country's religion and geography.

Whether things will work the way Ms Salen hopes will, itself, take a few years to find out. The school plans to admit pupils at the age of 12 and keep them until they are 18, so the first batch will not leave until 2016. If it fails, traditionalists will no doubt scoff at the idea that teaching through playing games was ever seriously entertained. If it succeeds, though, it will provide a model that could make chalk and talk redundant. And it will have shown that in education, as in other fields of activity, it is not enough just to apply new technologies to existing processes—for maximum effect you have to apply them in new and imaginative ways.