寄托天下 寄托天下
查看: 5454|回复: 19

[资料分享] ☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debate阅读写作分析----Technology in education [复制链接]

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-4 13:24:57 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-27 00:48 编辑



http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/121
前言
============
============
结构:
1#
2#
3#
4#
5#
6#
============
============

☆☆Economist Debate阅读写作分析☆☆----Technology in education精华整理版
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=957629&page=1&extra=

=============
=============
Tips:
紫色是比较好的语言或用法
橙色是比较好的结构用法
绿色是我的观点
蓝色是我比较喜欢的观点^^
附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号?立即注册
新世界!
回应

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-4 13:34:57 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-4 15:12 编辑

About this debate
Over the last several decades, large investments have been made to equip primary and secondary schools with computers and teacher training. Now it is time to examine whether there has been a sufficient return on this investment. Does technology really offer substantive advantages to students? Does technology accelerate or impede real progress in education? Similarly, does technology serve as a teaching crutch or does it offer the ability to promote sustainable change in the world’s classrooms? And if so, is the technology deployed today being used to best possible advantage? What conditions need to exist in schools for technology to have an impact?
==================
==================
Representing the sides

Defending the motion
Sir John Daniel President and Chief Executive Officer of The Commonwealth of Learning


Technology and the media have transformed all aspects of human life - except education!


Against the motion

Dr Robert Kozma Emeritus Director and Principal Scientist at SRI International

New technologies and new media do make a significant contribution to the quality of education



Moderator
Mr Robert Cottrell Deputy Editor of Economist.com



附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号?立即注册
新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-4 13:44:52 |显示全部楼层
Background Reading
1.Tech.view: One clunky laptop per child
Jan 4th 2008
From Economist.com

IT WOULD be a stunt, but one perhaps worth performing, to write this column on the tiny, green and white, $200 XO computer from One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) that sits idle before your columnist. Alas, he cannot.


This is not because the keys are too small for his adult hands (though they are), or because the processor’s slow speed makes the machine frustrating to use(though it does). Nor is it because the track pad sometimes goes screwy and the keys lack the normal pressed-key response that allows smooth typing. It isn’t even because moving the column from the word-processing application to the web-mail system is prohibitively difficult.

新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-4 13:49:04 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-4 14:40 编辑

Background Reading
2.Higher education: The brains business



Sep 8th 2005
From The Economist print edition


Mass higher education is forcing universities to become more diverse, more global and much more competitive, says Adrian Wooldridge


    FOR those of a certain age and educational background, it is hard to think of higher education without thinking of ancient institutions. Some universities are of a venerable age—the University of Bologna was founded in 1088, the University of Oxford in 1096—and many of them have a strong sense of tradition. The truly old ones make the most of their pedigrees, and those of a more recent vintage work hard to create an aura of antiquity.


    And yet these tradition-loving (or -creating) institutions are currently enduring a thunderstorm of changes so fundamental that some say the very idea of the university is being challenged. Universities are experimenting with new ways of funding (most notably through student fees), forging partnerships with private companies and engaging in mergers and acquisitions. Such changes are tugging at the ivy's roots.


    This is happening for four reasons. The first is the democratisation of higher education—“massification”, in the language of the educational profession. In the rich world, massification has been going on for some time. The proportion of adults with higher educational qualifications in the OECD countries almost doubled between 1975 and 2000, from 22% to 41%. But most of the rich countries are still struggling to digest this huge growth in numbers. And now massification is spreading to the developing world. China doubled its student population in the late 1990s, and India is trying to follow suit.


    The second reason is the rise of the knowledge economy. The world is in the grips of a “soft revolution” in which knowledge is replacing physical resources as the main driver of economic growth. The OECD calculates that between 1985 and 1997 the contribution of knowledge-based industries to total value added increased from 51% to 59% in Germany and from 45% to 51% in Britain. The best companies are now devoting at least a third of their investment to knowledge-intensive intangibles such as R&D, licensing and marketing. Universities are among the most important engines of the knowledge economy. Not only do they produce the brain workers who man it, they also provide much of its backbone, from laboratories to libraries to computer networks.


    The third factor is globalisation. The death of distance is transforming academia just as radically as it is transforming business. The number of people from OECD countries studying abroad has doubled over the past 20 years, to 1.9m; universities are opening campuses all around the world; and a growing number of countries are trying to turn higher education into an export industry.


    The fourth is competition. Traditional universities are being forced to compete for students and research grants, and private companies are trying to break into a sector which they regard as “the new health care”. The World Bank calculates that global spending on higher education amounts to $300 billion a year, or 1% of global economic output. There are more than 80m students worldwide, and 3.5m people are employed to teach them or look after them.


Enemies of promise


    All this sounds as though a golden age for universities has arrived. But inside academia, particularly in Europe, it does not feel like it. Academics complain about “the decline of the donnish dominion” (the title of a book by A.H. Halsey, a sociologist), and administrators are locked in bad-tempered exchanges with the politicians who fund them. What has gone wrong?


    The biggest problem is the role of the state. If more and more governments are embracing massification, few of them are willing to draw the appropriate conclusion from their enthusiasm: that they should either provide the requisite funds (as the Scandinavian countries do) or allow universities to charge realistic fees. Many governments have tried to square the circle through tighter management, but management cannot make up for lack of resources.


    So in all too much of the academic world, the writer Kingsley Amis's famous dictum that more means worse is coming to pass. Academic salaries are declining when measured against similar jobs elsewhere, and buildings and libraries are deteriorating. In mega-institutions such as the University of Rome (180,000 students), the National University of Mexico (200,000-plus), and Turkey's Anadolu University (530,000), individual attention to students is bound to take a back seat.


The innate conservatism of the academic profession does not help. The modern university was born in a very different world from the current one, a world where only a tiny minority of the population went into higher education, yet many academics have been reluctant to make any allowances for massification. Italian universities, for instance, still insist that all students undergo a viva voce examination by a full professor, lasting an average of about five minutes.


    What, if anything, can be done? Techno-utopians believe that higher education is ripe for revolution. The university, they say, is a hopelessly antiquated institution, wedded to outdated practices such as tenure and lectures, and incapable of serving a new world of mass audiences and just-in-time information. “Thirty years from now the big university campuses will be relics,” says Peter Drucker, a veteran management guru. “I consider the American research university of the past 40 years to be a failure.” Fortunately, in his view, help is on the way in the form of internet tuition and for-profit universities.


    Cultural conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the best way forward is backward. The two ruling principles of modern higher-education policy—democracy and utility—are “degradations of the academic dogma”, to borrow a phrase from the late Robert Nisbet, another sociologist. They think it is foolish to waste higher education on people who would rather study “Seinfeld” than Socrates,and disingenuous to confuse the pursuit of truth with the pursuit of profit.


The conservative argument falls at the first hurdle: practicality. Higher education is rapidly going the way of secondary education: it is becoming a universal aspiration. The techno-utopian position is superficially more attractive. The internet will surely influence teaching, and for-profit companies are bound to shake up a moribundmarketplace. But there are limits.


    A few years ago a report by Coopers & Lybrand crowed that online education could eliminate the two biggest costs from higher education: “The first is the need for bricks and mortar; traditional campuses are not necessary. The second is full-time faculty. [Online] learning involves only a small number of professors, but has the potential to reach a huge market of students.” That is nonsense. The human touch is much more vital to higher education than is high technology. Education is not just about transmitting a body of facts, which the internet does pretty well. It is about learning to argue and reason, which is best done in a community of scholars.


    This survey will argue that the most significant development in higher education is the emergence of a super-league of global universities. This is revolutionary in the sense that these institutions regard the whole world as their stage, but also evolutionary in that they are still wedded to the ideal of a community of scholars who combine teaching with research.


    The problem for policymakers is how to create a system of higher education that balances the twin demands of excellence and mass access, that makes room for global elite universities while also catering for large numbers of average students, that exploits the opportunities provided by new technology while also recognising that education requires a human touch.


    As it happens, we already possess a successful model of how to organise higher education: America's. That country has almost a monopoly on the world's best universities (see table 1), but also provides access to higher education for the bulk of those who deserve it. The success of American higher education is not just a result of money (though that helps); it is the result of organisation. American universities are much less dependent on the state than are their competitors abroad. They derive their income from a wide variety of sources, from fee-paying students to nostalgic alumni, from hard-headed businessmen to generous philanthropists. And they come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, from Princeton and Yale to Kalamazoo community college.


    This survey will offer two pieces of advice for countries that are trying to create successful higher-education systems, be they newcomers such as India and China or failed old hands such as Germany and Italy. First: diversify your sources of income. The bargain with the state has turned out to be a pact with the devil. Second: let a thousand academic flowers bloom. Universities, including for-profit ones, should have to compete for customers. A sophisticated economy needs a wide variety of universities pursuing a wide variety of missions. These two principles reinforce each other: the more that the state's role contracts, the more educational variety will flourish.

新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-4 13:54:27 |显示全部楼层
Background Reading
3.Technology and education: Mandarin 2.0

Teaching Chinese via Skype

Jun 7th 2007
From The Economist print edition

IT IS early evening in Berkeley, California, and Chrissy Schwinn, a sinophile environmentalist, walks ten feet from her kitchen to her home office for her Chinese lesson. She has already listened to that day's dialogue, which arrived as a free podcast, on her iPod. She has also printed out the day's Chinese characters, which arrived along with the podcast. Now her computer's Skype software—which makes possible free phone calls via the internet—rings and “Vera”, sitting in Shanghai where it is late morning, says Ni hao to begin the lesson.

One might call it “language-learning 2.0,” says Ken Carroll, an Irishman who in 2005 co-founded Praxis, the company that provides Ms Schwinn's service, after hearing about these “Web 2.0” technologies from his slightly geekier co-founders, Hank Horkoff, a Canadian, and Steve Williams, a Briton. The penny dropped at once.


新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-4 13:56:03 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-4 14:38 编辑

Background Reading
4.Intelligence: Dimming

Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition


Disturbing evidence of a decline in youngsters’ brainpower


    EVERY year Britain’s school-children provide gratifying evidence of their increasing smartness. More leave primary school having done well in tests of reading, writing and arithmetic; more get top grades in national exams at ages 16 and 18. Nay-sayers, though, think this progress overstated, even illusory. They attribute rising marks to dumbed-down curricula, downward-drifting grade boundaries and teaching to the test. But even the gloomiest assessment, it appears, may not go far enough. In important ways, the country’s children appear to be becoming dumber.


Michael Shayer of King’s College London has been testing children’s thinking skills since 1976, when he and colleagues started studying the development of reasoning abilities in young people. In 2006 and 2007 he got 14-year-olds to take some of the same tests as 30 years earlier. The findings, to be published early next year, are sobering. More than a fifth of youngsters got high scores then, suggesting they were developing the ability to formulate and test hypotheses. Now only a tenth do.


    The tests did not change, so the decline was not caused by different content or marking. And since they explored the ability to think deeply rather than to regurgitate information or whizz through tasks(教育的目的), the results matter deeply. In the purest test of reasoning, pupils were shown a pendulum and asked how to find out what affects the rate at which it swings. “Their answers indicated whether they had progressed from the descriptive thinking that gets us through most of our days, to the interpretative thinking needed to analyse complex information and formulate and test hypotheses,” Professor Shayer explains.


    In 1976 more boys than girls did well, a fact the researchers put down to boys roaming further out of doors and playing more with tools and mechanical toys. Both sexes now do worse than before, but boys’ scores have fallen more, suggesting that a decline in outdoor and hands-on play has slowed cognitive development in both sexes. Britain’s unusually early start to formal education may make things worse, as infants are diverted from useful activities such as making sand-castles and playing with water into unhelpful ones, such as holding a pen and forming letters.


British children’s schooling may be hampered, too, by the tests that show standards rising. These mean teachers’ careers depend on coaching the weakest, rather than on stretching all children, including the most able. This interpretation is supported by another, more positive, finding from the research: that fewer children do very badly now than did 30 years ago.


    When asked to speculate further on why fewer British teenagers now display mature reasoning, Professor Shayer eschews local explanations and puts the blame squarely on television and computers. They take children away from the physical experiences on which later inferential skills are based, he thinks, and teach them to value speed over depth, and passive entertainment over active. That chimes with other researchers’ findings of cognitive gains on tasks that require speed rather than close reasoning—useful, perhaps, as the pace of life accelerates, but hardly a substitute for original thought.


    So what of children elsewhere? Britain’s are not the only ones kept inside for fear of traffic or paedophiles, or slumped in front of a screen for much of the day. “There is no similar evidence from elsewhere,” says Professor Shayer. “No one has looked for it.” Perhaps they should.


新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-4 14:02:06 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-4 14:04 编辑

The moderator's opening remarks


Oct 15th 2007 | Mr Robert Cottrell



    Welcome. Thank you. We have the opening arguments. Now is the time to argue back. I invite comments and questions from the floor.


    Proposition: This house believes that the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education.


    The opening statements for and against the motion give some ground for agreement, and much ground for argument.


Both of our speakers, I deduce, are persuadable that technology could in principle be a vital source of advancement in learning-if only it was to be implemented with enough brilliance and resources. But is even this true? I would be pleased to hear from commenters who believe that education is primarily a matter of character building, and, as such, an activity best conducted among human beings, with the least possible mediation. Will any of our grandchildren look back on his or her schooldays, and credit his or her success in life to "a really good computer"?


Is there an argument for keeping new technology out of the classroom, precisely because it is so ubiquitous everywhere else already? Can a child who is chatting online or video-gaming for six hours every day really benefit from spending even more time staring at a screen in the classroom?


    How do we even measure-and how broadly should we measure-the educational impact of new technologies? No doubt, by putting iPods in the classroom, we can improve iPod skills. No doubt a newer generation of microprocessors can help the maths class calculate pi to even more decimal places. But what about social skills? Kindness? Common sense? Happiness? Physical fitness? Latin and Greek? Do those go into the metrics?


    All of this, moreover, assumes that resources are plentiful. But what about school districts with very limited budgets, or education ministries in poorer countries? Should they see technology as a way to cut the cost of delivering education? Or as an expensive add-on to basic teaching methods? We are in danger of encouraging them to take the first approach, only to discover that new technologies are all too often disastrously complicated and expensive to implement-as we find often enough in other areas of government and industry.


    Finally, for now, let us remember that we are talking here about new technologies. Their application is, by definition, a matter of experiment. Do we want to experiment with our children's education? Do you want someone experimenting on your children? Perhaps you do, and perhaps you should, since only by experimenting can we ever make progress. But if you prefer educational methods tried and tested over centuries, please say so. Likewise, if you feel it would be barmy to exclude from education technologies that are commonplace elsewhere in life, please say so too. These are both defensible-and assailable-positions.



Robert Cottrell Deputy Editor, Economist.com, The Economist Newspaper


新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-4 14:09:35 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-4 14:19 编辑

The proposer's opening remarks


Oct 15th 2007 | Sir John Daniel



    Technology has transformed everyday life in much of the world. Goods that were once the preserve of the rich are now household items. Food is abundant and varied. Travel has been transformed. News and entertainment come to us instantly from around the world. Technology and the media have transformed all aspects of human life - except education! 让步论证,运用排比挺有感觉~


    Politicians still campaign for 'education, education, education', lamenting the poor performance of their schools. America, the earliest country to be infatuated with computers in the classroom, gets mediocre outputs from its school system by international standards. Most poor countries struggle to reach the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education. For themuniversal secondary access is a distant dream. Meanwhile rich countries worry about boys dropping-out of school.


    Technology is replacing scarcity by abundance in other aspects of life: why not in education?


    It is not for lack of prophets. Ever since the invention of the blackboard each new communications medium has been hailed as an educational revolution. Rosy forecasts about the impact of radio, film, television, programmed learning, computers and the Internet succeeded each other through the 20th century although, revealingly, each prophet compared the revolutionary potential of the newest medium to the printing press,not to the previous technological white hope(米看懂Orz)!


    Why hasn't it worked? Why has the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media added little to the quality of most education? What can we learn from those few applications of communications media that are acknowledged successes?


    Technology is the application of scientific and other organized knowledge to practical tasks by organizations consisting of people and machines. In "The Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith described how applying knowledge to the practical task of making pins led to a factory that produced them with consistent quality in higher volume and at lower cost than artisans making each pin by hand. The technological bases of Adam Smith's pin factory were the principles of specialisation, division of labour and economies of scale.


    Most applications of technology in education disappoint because they ignore these principles and so fail to use technology's intrinsic strengths to tackle real problems. What are the practical tasks that challenge education?


In my work at UNESCO and the Commonwealth of Learning I spend many hours with ministers of education; sometimes individually, sometimes in groups at international meetings. The practical task facing ministers of education is to expand access to quality education as economically as possible. They want the same outcomes as Adam Smith's pin factory: higher volume, consistent quality, lower cost.


    This is the great opportunity for technology in education. Tinkering with traditional classroom teaching cannot achieve these three outcomes because improving any one outcome makes the others worse. Increasing volume with larger classes lowers quality. Enhancing quality with more learning materials raises costs, and so on.


    Successful ways of introducing technology and media to education tackle this challenge head on: cutting costs, increasing volume and assuring quality all at the same time.


    The best examples are the open universities. The UK Open University has created a multi-media learning system that enrols 200,000 students annually, operates at a lower cost than other UK universities, and ranks 5th, just above Oxford University, on aggregate ratings of teaching quality. In a quite different context India's Indira Gandhi National Open University enrols 1.5 million students and places 17th in the latest web ranking of universities on the sub-continent.


The secret of the open universities' success is twofold. First, they tackle real problems, in this case scaling up educational provision and taking it to people who cannot access conventional teaching. Second they combine people and technology, using the principles of specialisation, division of labour, and economies of scale, to create new learning systems that are scaleable at low cost with consistent quality.又是一个让步,下一段反驳


    The tragedy, and why you must vote for the motion, is that these successes are rare. Most attempts to introduce media into education do not take advantage of technology's strengths. Instead, they continue in the tradition of education as(继续运用亚当斯密的观点) a cottage industry, hoping to make it more effective by providing the individual artisan, the classroom teacher, with fancier tools.


    This approach is doomed to failure.It increases costs because the technology is simply an add-on. The number of learners remains essentially unchanged.(从应用到教学中的科技本身来说)
Quality goes down because few teachers know how to use the new tools effectively(从教师来说)
and thestudents(从学生来说), who often do know how to use them, would rather apply them to other tasks.和这种科技的应用相关的就是老师、学生以及教学过程。这一段分别批驳,有力度且有说服力。我们是不是可以这样想,一种新科技的运用在出现阶段总会带来巨大的不适应感,而正是这种不适应感使得我们争论是不是应该运用它。它的不好,也许只是因为新。


    Having devoted much of my life to promoting the effective use of technology in education it saddens me that I have to support this motion because there are still so few examples of its effective deployment. I only hope that your passing the motion will be a wake-up call to educators and make them reflect seriously on why their use of technology has been such a disappointment. I suggest three reasons.


    First, we assume too often that technology is the answer without asking what the question was. Successful applications begin with a clear and difficult problem to solve instead of a vague assumption that technology will enhance teaching.科技应当有目的的被使用,以确保它有效可行。它应当被作为一个工具去实践人们的思想,而不是在一切不确定的情况下引导人们的思想。


    Second, we usually focus on improving existing teaching systems whereas technology is better used to create new learning systems. Enjoining all teachers to become artisans of eLearning is not going to improve educational outcomes.


Third, there is the quest for the magic medium, the ultimate technology that will revolutionise education. Yesterday it was the Internet; today it is Open Educational Resources. But there is no magic medium and never will be. Each technology has its strengths. The task is to use them to create a world where education of quality is abundantly available.


    We are still a long way from that goal. To pretend otherwise is to sell technology far too short. So far, and I say it with regret,the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media has added little to the quality of most education.结尾呼应首段

大家有没有发现,Eco里面很多都是转折。上一段让步,下一段就反驳。我们写作文也可以借鉴一下吧应该^^


新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-4 14:23:26 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-4 14:33 编辑

The opposition's opening remarks


Oct 15th 2007 | Dr Robert Kozma



    In this debate I would like to take the contrary position and claim that new technologies and new media do make a significant contribution to the quality of education, at least under certain circumstances. More specifically, before the end of the debate, I will demonstrate that technology can make a particularly significant contribution when coordinated with the training of teachers to integrate technology into their teaching, with applications that draw on the unique capabilities of technology, and with supportive curricular, assessment, and school contexts that advance complex problem solving, creative thinking, and life-long learning—skills that are needed to support an information society and knowledge economy.


    Certainly, one can not defend the position that all applications of technology make significant contributions to the quality of education in all situations. There have been numerous studies from around the world which have appeared in the popular press that show no relationship between computer availability or use and student test scores, such as the study by Banks, Cresswell, and Ainley in Australia (2003) and the study by Dynarski, et al., in the U.S. (2007). There have even been studies that show a negative relationship between computer use and learning, such as the Fuchs and Woessmann OECD study (2004) and the Wenglinsky study in the U.S. (1998).实证派


    But(上段反,下段必正) there have also been studies that show a positive relationship between computer use and learning, such a U.S. study published by the National Center for Educational Statistics (2001) and studies in England published by BECTA (Cox 2003; Harrison, et al., 2003).


    How do we make sense out of these mixed results?(摆出两种事实,然后提出自己的看法)


    Often single studies—even those that are well-designed—are constrained by the particular context or situation in which they were conducted and this limits the generalizability of their conclusions. Let us take as an example a study conducted in Israeli schools by Angrist and Lavy (2001), which was featured in The Economist several years ago. This study examined the relationship between the use of "computer-assisted instruction" (or CAI, i.e. tutorial software) and test scores in 4th and 8th grade mathematics and Hebrew classes in a random sample of schools that successfully applied to participate in a national program to increase the use of computers in Israeli schools. Scores of students in these schools were compared to those in schools that elected not to participate in the program or were not chosen to do so. Typically, self selection is a fatal design flaw in research studiesArgument but the researchers went to great lengths to statistically equate the two types of schools by including a variety of school, student, and teacher variables in their analyses. They found no evidence that the increased use of tutorials raised pupil test scores; indeed, they found a negative and marginally significant relationship between program participation and 4th grade math scores. However, as in many similar studies, there are important features of this study that limit the results. First, this study is limited to a particular use of computers (tutorials), withinspecificgrades (4th and 8th) and subject areas (math and Hebrew) and within a particular timeframe (after one year of implementation) and a particularcountry (Israel) with a particularnational curriculum.(调查的大忌:particular Furthermore, in an analysis of teacher surveys, the researchers found no evidence of differences between participating and non-participating classrooms in inputs, instructional methods, or teacher training. More significant is that fact that even the most active participants (4th grade math teachers) indicated that they used computers somewhere between "never" and "sometimes". Consequently, the study is particularly limited by the marginal nature of the intervention. All of these factors constrain the generalizability of the findings and certainly do not allow the authors to make the general claim(针对researchArgument, as they do, that "CAI is no better and may be even be less effective than other teaching methods."


    In order to make a general statement about the impact of technology on education, a large number of studies that cover a variety of situations must be included in the analysis.(上段先批驳对方的research不全面,然后本段再提出自己全面的researchFor this, I turn to a meta-analysis (or an analysis of analyses) done in 2003 by James Kulik of the University of Michigan. Kulik included in his statistical analysis the results of 75 carefully-designed studies collected from a broad search of the research literature. As a group, these studies looked at several types of educational technology applications (such as tutorials, simulations, and word processors), in a variety of subjects (such as mathematics, natural science, social science, reading and writing), and a range of grade levels (from vary young to high school). His findings across studies can be summarized as follows:


    Students who used computer tutorials in mathematics, natural science, or social science scored significantly higher in these subjects compared to traditional approaches, equivalent to an increase from 50th to 72nd percentile in test scores. Students who used simulation software in science also scored higher, equivalent to a jump from 50th to 66th percentile.


    Very young students who used computers to write their own stories scored significantly higher on measures of reading skill, equivalent to a boost from 50th to 80th percentile for kindergarteners and from 50th to 66th percentile for first graders. However, the use of tutorials in reading did not make a difference.


    Students who used word processors or otherwise used the computer for writing scored higher on measures of writing skill, equivalent to a rise from 50th to 62nd percentile.


    By including a large and diverse set of studies in the analysis, it is clear that technology can make contributions to the quality of education that are both statistically significant and educationally meaningful. Nonetheless, the classrooms included in this meta-analysis were, by and large, conducted within the traditional educational paradigm and the uses of technology were fairly ordinary. What if advanced technologies were used to ignite a major transformation of the educational system? How much more of a contribution could it make under these circumstances? These are questions to which I will return later in the debate.

新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 3Rank: 3

声望
27
寄托币
1154
注册时间
2009-4-3
精华
0
帖子
1

GRE梦想之帆

发表于 2009-5-4 15:19:16 |显示全部楼层
加油加油 管他什么1/n呢 加油就是了^^

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-4 16:16:40 |显示全部楼层

Featured guest
Professor Linda Darling-Hammond

    It seems to me that both Houses are right. And it appears that, in many ways, both Houses actually agree.
Sir John Daniel says that "Most applications of technology in education … fail to use technology's intrinsic strengths to tackle real problems."
    Dr Robert Kozma notes that new technologies can make a significant contribution to the quality of education "when coordinated with the training of teachers to integrate technology into their teaching, with applications that draw on the unique capabilities of technology, and with supportive curricular, assessment, and school contexts that advance complex problem solving, creative thinking, and life-long learning—skills that are needed to support an information society and knowledge economy."
    A key here is using technology in ways that draw on its inherent strengths as a tool for human activity— in particular to support the goals that humans have in producing things and learning in ways that empower them to achieve their goals. Daniels' examples of the Open University suggest the power of technology when adults have the opportunity to use it for their own learning goals. Kozma's examples of successful technology uses include several that have the same quality: children using computers to write their own stories, students engaging in computer-supported simulations in science.
    It is not surprising to me that some of the failures of technology have occurred when schools have tried to substitute it for teaching — rather than using it as a tool for what students want to do. Angrist and Lavy's (2001) study of "computer-assisted instruction"— which produced no gains and some negative effects — is one of a line of studies finding no positive effect of prescriptive approaches to teaching basic skills that essentially turn computers into electronic workbooks. Indeed Kozma notes studies finding that, on the one hand, young students"reading scores jumped substantially from using computers to write, and on the other hand, they got no benefit from the use of computer-based tutorials to teach them reading.
    These findings replicate those of studies of teaching more generally. For example, a study of the correlates of reading achievement drawn from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in the United States found that students scores on the NAEP were higher when their teachers used integrated approaches to teaching reading and writing, drawing on real books and other outside-of-school reading materials, and when they evaluated reading using extended writing assignments. Scores were lower when students were taught with reading kits and scripted materials, and when their reading skills were measured more frequently by multiple choice tests. If computers are used in the same way as these curricula focused on drill-and-practice with decontextualized skills, we should not expect they will get much different results.
    As we move into the 21st century, the nature of learning has to change to promote critical thinking and problem solving and to encourage applications of knowledge to new situations. Scientists at the University of California at Berkeley have estimated that in the four years from 1999 to 2002, the amount of new information produced approximately equaled the amount produced in the entire history of the world up to that time (Varian & Lyman, 2003).(可以当例子) Technology supports for learning must enable human beings to learn and use information and tools in more powerful ways, so that they can manage the demands of changing information, knowledge bases, technologies, and social conditions. The effects of technology on education will depend on the extent to which they focus on these important individual and social imperatives.
整篇文章归纳了一下两个人的观点,最后又说到information上去了……这点让我比较困惑。有些句子和观点挺不错的,值得借鉴。^^
附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号?立即注册
新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-19 09:07:48 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-19 09:09 编辑

The moderator's rebuttal remarks


Oct 18th 2007 | Mr Robert Cottrell


    For anyone considering joining the debate now, please be similarly emboldened.There is plenty still to resolve. Many basic points have yet to be fully addressed.


    Proposition: This house believes that the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education.


    I am delighted to see that both Sir John Daniel and Dr Robert B. Kozma have returned confidently to the argument, with rebuttals even a touch tougher than their opening statements. For anyone considering joining the debate now, please be similarly emboldened. There is plenty still to resolve. Many basic points have yet to be fully addressed. How do we measure the quality of education, for example? Can we talk of 5-year-olds and 18-year-olds in the same breath?


I was a little worried when the debate began that our speakers were in danger of agreeing. So, too, were some commenters. As JNOV put it:


    "Both Sir [John] and Dr Kozma were making the same statement, i.e. technology CAN make a difference in education. Sir John stated that he wished technology was used in a manner more enhancing to education but from his viewpoint it CURRENTLY is not being used in such a manner across the general field of "education." Dr. Kozma said technology COULD make a difference and he then listed a number of requirements that were necessary for it to do so but at no time did he say that it CURRENTLY WAS making that difference broadly. And I must say I concur with each of them."


    I will venture to correct that last statement; Dr Kozma did claim robust evidence of some measurable improvements. But still, there is much in JNOV's point, to which I will return.


    I am delighted, then, that our speakers have held their ground, even dug themselves in a bit. I am delighted, too, that our debate has not got bogged down in questions of definition. Almost inevitably, as an argument gathers speed, some will object that the terms of it have not been adequately defined. Here, once or twice, we did hear, "It depends what you mean by education", "It depends what you mean by technology". But just enough to be useful, not so much as to be deadening.


    For "education", the general presumption has been of school or university. Home-schooling of children, and continuing education for adults, has received little mention, although these are areas in which new technologies might have a particularly large impact.


    Which brings me, in passing, to a related point: it seems to me that Sir John, and many of our commenters, are treating quantity and quality as more or less the same thing. For example, the Open University brought higher education to thousands of people who might otherwise not have received it. That was a quantitative improvement. But was the education of a better quality than they might have received in a traditional setting? Of that I am less sure.


We might say that increasing the quantity of education is itself a qualitative gain—an argument that DOWNUNDER makes, when he argues that new technology is going to be vital to the provision of good universal education in China and India. But still, the blurring of quality and quantity troubles me.


    As to defining "technology", we seem to be reasonably happy with a focus on information and communications technologies, and the occasional appeal to printing and blackboards. Should we also be arguing about school buses and solar heating? Perhaps, but I am not yet worried by the opportunity cost. School buses might increase the availability of education, solar heating might reduce the cost of it, but here we stray from a strict notion of quality.


    As I write, the voting is going Dr Kozma's way. I judge that it could yet go Sir John's way, depending on how closely we choose to construe the motion. Nobody (I think) in this debate disputes that technology could transform education, if intelligently applied—and, probably, used a supplement to traditional teaching methods, rather than as a substitute for them. The question—to return to I's point—is whether new technologies are delivering measurable improvements, now, and not just "little" ones. Sir John is openly sceptical; Dr Kozma affects confidence, but his language is, to my ear, tentative. He says in his rebuttal (the italics are mine) that "We will see the kinds of impact we were all promised only when applications draw on the unique capabilities of technology, when teachers are trained to integrate technology into their teaching, and when they use technology to engage students in complex problem solving, creative thinking, and life-long learning. There are some indications that this is happening."


    Some indications? Is that enough to overturn the motion? You are the judge.



Robert Cottrell Deputy Editor, Economist.com, The Economist Newspaper

新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-19 09:11:21 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-19 09:13 编辑

The proposer's rebuttal remarks


Oct 18th 2007 | Sir John Daniel


    By a nice coincidence The Economist has published an article on technology in teaching in its current issue. I did not think it appropriate to cite the academic literature in my opening statement because it should not be necessary to crawl around learned journals with a hand lens to answer a simple question. But I do draw your attention to the Economist article, 'Top Marks', in the 'Britain' section of the newspaper. Under the subtitle: 'Spending on computers is finally paying off — with young children', the piece reports studies of the use of interactive white boards in classrooms.


    It notes that an evaluation of the use of interactive white boards in secondary schools found no clear benefits, observing in passing that 'teachers hated taking classes where every child faced the wall and stared at a screen'. The writer goes on to note that experience with the use of these white boards in primary schools is more positive, especially for children whose native language is not that of the school. The teacher profiled in the account ensures that her pupils do not lose out on 'tactile experiences with real-world objects', leading the article to conclude with the words, 'welcome to the classroom of the future: mud-pies and fancy computer kit, with no chalk or blackboards in sight'.


    This Economist piece is typical of the nuanced style of serious reporting on technology in education. Indeed, Robert Kozma's opening statement against the motion adopts such a nuanced approach that it actually makes the case for the motion rather than against it — although he concludes with the aspiration that the use of new technology will become more effective than it is today.


    I stress, as has the Moderator, that we are talking here of new technology. One of the contributors has asked if that includes the printing press. No; we are focusing on modern information and communication technologies (ICTs), although I also include 20th century audio-visual technologies.


    I noted in my opening statement that the promoters of each new educational medium compare its revolutionary potential to that of the printing press. Why is this? What was so revolutionary about the printing?


    Printing made written words widely available and the book remains the most universal and useful educational medium. That is because much of education is about manipulating of abstract symbols. That explains the continuing emphasis on the '3 R's' of reading, writing and arithmetic. Printing revolutionised access to these symbols. Although later technologies have embroidered additional features onto the achievements of print, the book retains its central place in education.Ask any African school what it most needs and the answer will be books, not laptops.比起笔记本电脑,人们更需要的仍然是书。可是这是不是还是因为不适应呢?


    Information and communication technologies speed up and facilitate, in a wonderful way, the creation, manipulation, publication and exchange of abstract symbols. This is why academics have welcomed and adopted ICTs with much more enthusiasm than they showed for previous audio-visual technologies.


    But this debate is not about whether ICTs are generally useful in academic life; it is about whether they have made a significant contribution to the quality of education. I see no evidence that they have and Robert Kozma, in his own opening statement, explains their failure when he observes that most uses of new technologies have been conducted within the traditional educational paradigm.


    He also, very fairly, refers to the hundreds of studies showing that the introduction of a whole range of technologies within the traditional educational paradigm produced 'no significant difference'. This is only to be expected since in most cases the new technology (a computer animation here, some PowerPoint slides there) was only a tiny proportion of the students' learning task. This is not the way to use technology.


    At the end of his statement Dr Kozma asks: 'What if advanced technologies were used to ignite a major transformation of the educational system?' Now we're talking!


    This was the thrust of my own opening statement: technology will only make a significant difference if it can play to its strengths and create its own educational paradigm. I cited the world's open universities as highly successful applications of technology. They are successful precisely because technologies — not necessarily all that advanced — were used to create a new educational system.


    Such systems do not, and here I come to our Moderator's wise remarks, eliminate human contact. He suggests that education is 'an activity best conducted among human beings, with the least possible mediation'. Indeed! Good use of technology in education enhances and enriches the interaction between human beings.科技并不应该使得人和人越来越冷漠。


    A fundamental principle of technology is to identify the distinct elements in a process and focus on making each element as good as possible through specialisation. Applied to educational processes this produces successful learning systems that enhance the interaction between teacher and student.


    I was privileged to work for a period at the UK's Open University and met thousands of its graduates. At that time the University had 150,000 students working with it online in a teaching system that was a rich multi-media environment. Nevertheless, when you asked students what were the most valuable components of the system for them, two features predominated. One was the printed course texts, which were prepared with great care using a direct and personal style of communication and professional instructional design. The other was the tutors; the 10,000 part-time academics who are trained to comment helpfully on the students' work and are available for personal and group interaction.


    This is as it should be. We are not trying to create situations where, in the words of the Economist article I cited earlier: every child faces the wall and looks at a screen. Our aim must be to expand access to education by using technology to create more effective interactions between human beings.


    But this is still mostly an aspiration. We are not there yet. Today the motion is true: the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education.


这一篇中作者主要讨论了科技应该带给人们的是更加亲近的关系和更加有效的学习,而不是每个人盯着一台电脑的冷漠。我想在这应该算是从quality切入的吧?怎么去定义这个quality呢?确实是一个问题。


Skip to...

新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-19 09:15:07 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-19 09:17 编辑

The opposition's rebuttal remarks


Oct 18th 2007 | Dr Robert Kozma


    Perhaps Pedro H-R and his Chinese sage(中国圣人) are right and it is too early to assess the impact of technology on education. The research results are clear—in comparative studies using technology, increased student learning is both statistically significant and educationally meaningful. But there is no doubt, the relationship between teacher and student is paramount, as some commentators point out. We will see the kinds of impact we were all promised only when applications draw on the unique capabilities of technology, when teachers are trained to integrate technology into their teaching, and when they use technology to engage students in complex problem solving, creative thinking, and life-long learning.


    There are some indications that this is happening. Let me describe two of many projects that illustratewhat can be done when advanced technologies are used to transform classrooms. The first is SimCalc MathWorlds (http://math.sri.com), developed by researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth and SRI International. Traditionally, math is taught in a procedural manner. That is, students learn how to operate on a mathematical equation in a step-by-step way to solve problems in textbook form. MathWorlds takes a very different approach by using the capabilities of the technology to represent math visually, interactively and with meaningful connections to simulated and real world situations. MathWorlds engages students in an exploratory environment where they use important and difficult concepts, such as proportionality and rates of change, to solve complex challenges. In a beginning challenge, students may interactively modify a graph of position as a function of time in order to control the motion of an animated character in a simulated world. As challenges progress, students use additional representations, which appear as added windows in the software, including tables and algebraic functions. Students may change one representation and see how it corresponds to changes in another representation. For example, a steeper slope in a graph corresponds to a higher multiplicative coefficient in an algebraic function and a larger increase in values in a table. As students progress, they can model real-world situations, like the tradeoff between a cell phone plan that charges a flat per-minute rate and one which charges an initial fee but a lower per-minute rate. Or they may explore when two football players are running at the same speed: is it when their graph lines intersect or when the graph lines have a parallel slope? As a result, students get a much deeper understanding of these concepts and are able to apply school learning in complex real world situations.数学模拟器举例。虽然有些专业术语看不懂,不过应该是个例子。汗~^^


    This is demonstrated in a study led by SRI and included professors from University of Massachusetts, The University of Texas, and Virginia Polytechnic University (Roschelle, et al., 2007). A group of Texas 7th grade teachers volunteered for the study and were randomly assigned to receive training, a paper replacement curriculum unit, and the MathWorlds software or to continue with their existing curriculum. Of the 95 teachers who completed the study, 48 used MathWorlds and 47 used their existing textbook. The MathWorlds students scored significantly higher overall, and the gains were particular strong on problems that require complex problem solving.


    The second innovation is Knowledge Forum (http://www.knowledgeforum.com), which was developed by two Canadian researchers, Scardamalia and Bereiter at the University of Toronto. Knowledge Forum (KF) was designed around a pedagogical model that puts student investigation and discourse at the center of the learning process. With this approach, student learning is guided by significant motivating questions, often posed by the students themselves, such as: What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? Or, what are the causes of pollution? The goal of the approach is to engage students in collaboratively building on each others' ideas as they pose theories and present evidence. The software allows a student to enter notes on any networked computer in the form of a question, assertion, or warrant, in text or media-rich form. All students see these notes and any student can attach a subsequent note, asking a follow-up question, providing further evidence, or refuting an assertion. The direction of class discourse often moves deeper into a discussion, as students build on each others' ideas. But as students begin to see connections across what were separate discussions they can also integrate them under broader topics, questions, or theories, and they make connections between pollution and species extinction, for example. The teacher can take a more active role by initiating questions and guiding the discussions around key curricular concepts. Or they can encourage students to pose their own questions and monitor their own discussions, the intent being to create a community in which students assume the ongoing responsibility of their own learning. Not all student work is done within the software environment; students do readings, conduct experiments, search the web, go on field trips, and engage in class discussions. But KF is where the learning is formalized, stored, and shared.


    KF is being used in hundreds of classes, including history, social studies, science, literature, geography, and math, at all educational levels. Teachers also use KF, across schools and countries, to develop and share their own body of professional knowledge in a continuous process of professional development and educational improvement.


    In an early study of the environment's impact on student learning, researchers (Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Lamon, 1994) found that, compared to similar students in more traditional classrooms, students in KF classrooms scored significantly higher on the Canadian Test of Basic Skills, they performed better on problem solving tasks that required them to apply concepts to new problem situations, and they were more reflective about their own and others' learning as evidenced in portfolios of their work.


    In other words, the well-trained teachers and their students in these studies who used the unique aspects of technology environments within restructured classrooms not only did better on traditional standardized tests but on measures of skills important to an information society and knowledge economy. I examine next the broader social and economic issues that policy makers face as they consider the use of technology to improve education.指出科技不仅提高了教学的效率和方法,而且也有助于人们进一步提高其思想水平,激发人们的潜能。


    作者依然延续了其实证派风格,基本上使用两个例子贯穿全文,而例子举的都恰到好处,从两个侧面说明了科技带来的好处。虽然论证不多,但是很有说服力
新世界!

使用道具 举报

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

声望
430
寄托币
4498
注册时间
2008-1-16
精华
5
帖子
71

荣誉版主 AW小组活动奖 IBT Smart Scorpio天蝎座 GRE守护之星

发表于 2009-5-21 18:03:22 |显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 cjlu 于 2009-5-21 18:09 编辑

Featured guest


Mr Kevin Bushweller


    Technology is not a silver bullet. A school with poorly trained, poorly educated teachers can be given all the latest educational technology tools, and it will still be an educational failure.


    That is the mistake that technology zealots have made over the years: They oversold the potential benefits of technology in education, setting themselves up for disappointment and failure, and jeopardizing other promising educational technology projects. We witnessed this in the United States in the 1990s when reams of new educational software products were hitting the market claiming they would transform struggling writers into the next Ernest      Hemingway or math phobics into the next Albert Einstein.


    Still, I would argue that technology is a powerful tool if it is used intelligently.That is why, in this debate, I would like to make the case that the introduction of new technologies and new media in schools can make a significant contribution to the quality of education. But such efforts must be done thoughtfully, strategically, and critically, with a focus on two important questions: How are new technologies enhancing student learning and motivation? And how will the use of them prepare students to compete for jobs in a technology-driven global economy?


The climate for a more thoughtful approach to the use of educational technology is beginning to take shape.


    In the late 1990s and early 2000s, educational technology experts in America were largely focused on innovation. Fueled by investments by the U.S. government and private groups, educational technology experts were exploring and developing the use of a wide array of products for use in schools. It was an exciting time for many people in the field. But the problem—as noted in "Technology Counts 2007: A Digital Decade", Education Week's annual report on ed. tech.—was that not enough attention was being paid to documenting what impact those innovations were having on student learning.


    Eventually, educators and others began to question the large investments schools were making in educational technology programs. But those who believed in the power of technology to improve learning had little evidence to address those questions.


    "Not measuring the gains was an absolute error on our part, and we need to go deeper and deeper with good research," Donald G. Knezek, the chief executive officer of the Washington-based International Society for Technology in Education, told Technology Counts.


    But the climate has shifted over the past few years, and American policymakers are putting more pressure on developers to prove that their products improve academic achievement. This represents an important swing of the pendulum from innovation to accountability.


    That is a good step. But it would be counterproductive(事与愿违的) if the climate shifted too far in this direction. If technology were to be measured primarily by whether it raises standardized test scores, opportunities would be lost to show its effect on factors such as student engagement and motivation, complex understanding of abstract concepts, changes in teaching approaches, and the link between technological skills and 21st Century jobs.


Moreover, most of the world's most powerful economies were built on innovation. To discourage innovation in educational technology in any country would clearly be a mistake.


    A few years ago, when I was project editor of Technology Counts, we examined the use of technology around the globe, including North America, Asia, Europe, South America, Africa, and the Australia/Pacific region. Some countries were struggling with basic infrastructure needs, others were in the innovation stage, and the United States was just beginning to head into the accountability era.


    The lesson for the United States and other countries—from that report and more recent developments—is to eventually find a balance between innovation and accountability. That should be everyone's destination, because that is the point at which educational technology is likely to have its greatest impact.


    这篇文章逻辑严密并且看起来相当舒服。作者总体上是支持科技发展改变教育的。他认为科技发展无疑是会带来进步的,而它目前最重要任务是平衡好改革和责任的关系,不要操之过急。文中有好多话都可以用在作文中,词句并不难,但是很有感觉。其中作为例证的两段话也相当不错,可以套在作文中^^

新世界!

使用道具 举报

RE: ☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debate阅读写作分析----Technology in education [修改]
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

问答
Offer
投票
面经
最新
精华
转发
转发该帖子
☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debate阅读写作分析----Technology in education
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-949081-1-1.html
复制链接
发送
报offer 祈福 爆照
回顶部