剑桥雅思18Test3Passage3阅读原文翻译 The case for mixed-ability cl […]

剑桥雅思18Test3Passage3阅读原文翻译 The case for mixed-ability classes 混合能力的班级

剑桥雅思18阅读第三套题目第三篇文章的主题为混合能力班级。作者首先介绍了分班这一做法理论上的好处与来源，然后指出事实并不像理论那样美好，而且这种做法还忽略了同伴学习的作用，最后挑明混合能力班级的优势所在。整篇文章有些抽象，不太好懂。下面是具体每一段的翻译。

剑桥雅思18Test3Passage3阅读答案解析 The case for mixed-ability classes 混合能力班级

老烤鸭原创翻译，请勿抄袭转载

第1段

Picture this scene. It’s an English literature lesson in a UK school, and the teacher has just read an extract from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet with a class of 15-year-olds. He’s given some of the students copies of No Fear Shakespeare, a kid-friendly translation of the original. For three students, even these literacy demands are beyond them. Another girl simply can’t focus and he gives her pens and paper to draw with. The teacher can ask the No Fear group to identify the key characters and maybe provide a tentative plot summary. He can ask most of the class about character development, and five of them might be able to support their statements with textual evidence. Now two curious students are wondering whether Shakespeare advocates living a life of moderation or one of passionate engagement.

想象一下这个场景。在英国的一所学校里，正在进行一堂英语文学课，老师刚刚给一群15岁的学生朗读了莎士比亚的《罗密欧与朱丽叶》的片段。他给其中一些学生提供了《无畏莎士比亚》的副本，这是一本儿童版的原著翻译。然而，对于其中三名学生来说，即便是这样的阅读要求也超出了他们的能力。另一个女孩根本无法集中注意力，于是他给了她一些纸和笔来画画。老师可以要求那些阅读《无畏莎士比亚》的学生识别关键人物，并提供一个初步的情节概要。他可以询问大多数学生关于角色发展的问题，其中五个人可能能够用文本证据支持他们的陈述。现在有两个好奇的学生想知道莎士比亚是主张过着克制的生活还是热情奔放的生活。

第2段

As a teacher myself, I’d think my lesson would be going rather well if the discussion went as described above. But wouldn’t this kind of class work better if there weren’t such a huge gap between the top and the bottom? If we put all the kids who needed literacy support into one class, and all the students who want to discuss the virtue of moderation into another?

作为一名教师，我认为如果讨论按照上面所说的进行，那么我的课堂应该会很顺利。但是，如果顶尖学生和垫底学生之间的差距不那么大，这种课堂不是更有效吗？如果我们把所有需要读写帮助的孩子放在一个班级，把所有想要讨论中庸之美的学生放在另一个班级，那会不会更好呢？

第3段

The practice of ‘streaming’, or ‘tracking’, involves separating students into classes depending on their diagnosed levels of attainment. At a macro level, it requires the establishment of academically selective schools for the brightest students, and comprehensive schools for the rest. Within schools, it means selecting students into a ‘stream’ of general ability, or ‘sets’ of subject-specific ability. The practice is intuitively appealing to almost every stakeholder.

“分班”或“分轨”这种做法，意味着根据学生被诊断出的学业水平将他们分到不同的班级中。在宏观层面上，这要求为最优秀学生的建立精品学校，以及为其他学生设立综合性学校。在学校内部，它意味着将学生分到普通班或者各种特长班。这种做法乍看起来对所有利益相关者都有好处。

第4段

I have heard the mixed-ability model attacked by way of analogy: a group hike. The fittest in the group take the lead and set a brisk pace, only to have to stop and wait every 20 minutes. This is frustrating, and their enthusiasm wanes. Meanwhile, the slowest ones are not only embarrassed but physically struggling to keep up. What’s worse, they never get a long enough break. They honestly just want to quit. Hiking, they feel, is not for them.

我听过用一群人一起远足这样的类比来攻击混合能力模式的说法。最健壮的人领头，并保持着快速的步伐，但每隔20分钟就不得不停下等待其他人。这很令人沮丧，他们的热情逐渐消退。与此同时，速度最慢的人不仅感到尴尬，而且身体上也很难跟上步伐。更糟糕的是，他们从未得到足够的休息。他们真心很想放弃，觉得远足不适合他们。

第5段

Mixed-ability classes bore students, frustrate parents and burn out teachers. The brightest ones will never summit Mount Qomolangma, and the stragglers won’t enjoy the lovely stroll in the park they are perhaps more suited to. Individuals suffer at the demands of the collective, mediocrity prevails. So: is learning like hiking?

混合能力的班级令学生感到无聊，让家长感到沮丧，也会让教师感到精疲力竭。最聪明的学生永远无法登顶珠穆朗玛峰，而落后的学生也无法享受更适合他们的悠闲的公园漫步。个体在集体的要求下受苦，平庸盛行。那么，学习是否像远足一样呢？

第6段

The current pedagogical paradigm is arguably that of constructivism, which emerged out of the work of psychologist Lev Vygotsky. In the 1930s, Vygotsky emphasised the importance of targeting a student’s specific ‘zone of proximal development'(ZPD). This is the gap between what they can achieve only with support – teachers, textbooks, worked examples, parents and so on – and what they can achieve independently. The purpose of teaching is to provide and then gradually remove this ‘scaffolding’ until they are autonomous. If we accept this model, it follows that streaming students with similar ZPDs would be an efficient and effective solution. And that forcing everyone on the same hike – regardless of aptitude – would be madness.

当前的教育范式可以说是建构主义。这一理论源于心理学家列夫·维果茨基。在20世纪30年代，维果茨基强调以学生特定的“近期发展区域”（ZPD）为目标的重要性。这指的是学生在依靠支持（教师、教科书、示范例子、家长等）时能够达到的水平与他们独立学习时能够达到的水平的差距。教学的目的是提供、然后逐渐去除这种“脚手架”，直到他们能够自主学习。如果我们接受这个模型，那么按照ZPD对相似的学生进行分班将是一种高效的解决方案。而迫使所有人，无论他们能力如何，参加相同的徒步旅行，将是疯狂的做法。

第7段

Despite all this, there is limited empirical evidence to suggest that streaming results in better outcomes for students. Professor John Hattie, director of the Melbourne Education Research Institute, notes that ‘tracking has minimal effects on learning outcomes’. This article is from laokaya website. What is more, streaming appears to significantly – and negatively – affect those students assigned to the lowest sets. These students tend to have much higher representation of low socioeconomic class. Less significant is the small benefit for those lucky clever students in the higher sets. The overall result is that the smart stay smart and the dumb get dumber, further entrenching the social divide.

尽管如此，目前只有十分有限的实证证据表明分班对学生的学习成绩更好。墨尔本教育研究所的约翰·哈蒂教授指出，“分班对学习成绩的影响很小”。此外，分班似乎对被分配到最低班级的学生产生了明显且负面的影响。这些学生文章来自老烤鸭雅思