雅思阅读精读提升阅读成绩的不二法门Word文件下载.docx

1、每道题涉及解题的同义替换;长难句的不回读训练;段落中心句位置+*构架的积累训练与开悟体验雅思阅读精读1.生词+学科核心生词学生公认精读来扫清阅读单词死角是再合适不过的了，尤其精读了几篇生物类*，再答生物类全都认识了。比如C7蚂蚁智能里面的forage/scout/bearing/odour等词，精读过少量生物类*，再去做OG上的swarm之类的*就非常easy了，通篇可以快速读懂，准确定位，正确率超高。再如精读过C9的金星凌日，天文类词汇基底你就get到了，什么日食月食轨道运行太阳黑子与光斑，只要考试出了天文类，百分之75以上的基底词汇你都是认识的，答题就自如多了。雅思阅读精读2.每道题涉及解

2、题的同义替换刚好写了个回答关于：雅思阅读每次大概定位准确了，但是精准的定位总是偏差一点，怎么破?!?粗定位一个定位词，全文没准儿30多处，俗话说：两点定一线，你的关键词/定位词，至少要画两个以上还要全都找到。我一般建议学生“抓三点”“抓四点”“抓五点”，题配句，词换词，细定位就是要找至少两三个换的词。说到底，同义替换词这个事情，还是要多多积累的，比积累词汇量在雅思阅读中，还要重要。所以单词量达到瓶颈以后，要做的是背“同义替换词表”雅思阅读精读3.长难句的不回读训练忘了是哪个老师跟我说过：三行以上必出题。N个学生的反馈都是：长难句读到后半句，前面就忘了度过了什么。OR 单词都认识，就是读*速度太

3、慢。当年考GMAT看过一本GMAT长难句练习，里面提到了”打死我也不回读”这个方法，一直分享给学生，效果反馈很棒。里面说：只要每天练习五个长难句不回读训练，看到大长句子，习惯性切割主谓宾，一周就会看到效果。本来想着不就是主谓宾嘛，结果练了十多天，读题速度有了飞跃性的提升。长难句再也不是问题，看到就自动读主谓宾，这就可以轻松记住意思，读下面句子的时候，逻辑就形成了非常舒服的衔接。如果有题在句子中，再去精读也不迟。雅思阅读精读4.段落中心句位置+*构架的积累训练与开悟体验LOH（List of Headings）和 段落信息配对，怎么做，主要靠精读的这个步骤。LOH做多了，自然有了feel，首句中

4、心句?末句中心句?转折中心句?这就不细说了，做多了就知道。段落信息配对题，俗称断子绝孙题，因为无序且恶心，同义替换幅度较大，有时候需要通读全文。我却始终坚信“预测乃解决断子绝孙题的直通车”。只要精读了，你就会发现，原来*各个部位都有暗示你过，那么下次如果你没读原文直接做MATCHING你要怎么“蒙题”，精读多了你就懂了BTW，精读之前，务必掐着时间做题，剑桥*有限珍贵，不能上来直接精读，不要浪费掐时间的机会!雅思阅读素材积累：Now you know雅思阅读：When should you teach children, and when should you let them explore

5、?IT IS one of the oldest debates in education. Should teachers tell pupilsthe way things are or encourage them to find out for themselves? Tellingchildren truths about the world helps them learn those facts more quickly. Yetthe efficient learning of specific facts may lead to the assumption that whe

6、nthe adult has finished teaching, there is nothing further to learnbecause ifthere were, the adult would have said so. A study just published in Cognition byElizabeth Bonawitz of the University of California, Berkeley, and Patrick Shaftoof the University of Louisville, in Kentucky, suggests that is

7、true.Dr Bonawitz and Dr Shafto arranged for 85 four- and five-year-olds to bepresented, during a visit to a museum, with a novel toy that looked like atangle of coloured pipes and was capable of doing many different things. Theywanted to know whether the way the children played with the toy depended

8、 on howthey were instructed by the adult who gave it to them.One group of children had a strictly pedagogical introduction. Theexperimenter said Look at my toy! This is my toy. Im going to show you how mytoy works. She then pulled a yellow tube out of a purple tube, creating asqueaking sound. Follow

9、ing this, she said, Wow, see that? This is how my toyworks! and then demonstrated the effect again.With a second group of children, the experimenter acted differently. Sheinterrupted herself after demonstrating the squeak by saying she had to go andwrite something down, thus suggesting that she migh

10、t not have finished thedemonstration. With a third group, she activated the squeak as if by accident.To a fourth, the toy was simply presented with the comment, Wow, see this toy?Look at this!After these varied introductions, the children were left with the toy andallowed to play. They might discove

11、r that, as well as the squeaker, the toy hada button inside one tube which activated a light, a keypad that played musicalnotes, and an inverting mirror inside one of the tubes. All the children weretold to let the experimenter know when they had finished playing and were askedby the instructor if t

12、hey were done if they stopped playing for more than fiveconsecutive seconds. The entire interaction was recorded on video.Footage of each child playing was passed to a research assistant who wasignorant of the purpose of the study. The assistant was asked to record thetotal playing time, the number

13、of different actions the child performed, thetime spent playing with the squeak, and the number of other functions the childdiscovered.The upshot was that children in the first group spent less time playing（119 seconds） than those in the second （180 seconds）, the third （133 seconds） orthe fourth （20

14、6 seconds）. Those in the first group also tried out four differentactions, on average. The others tried 5.3, 5.9 and 6.2, respectively. A similarpattern （0.7, 1.3, 1.2 and 1.2） pertained to the number of functions other thanthe squeak that the children found.The researchers conclusion was that, in the context of strange toys ofunknown function, prior explanation does, indeed, inhibit exploration anddiscovery. Generalising from that would be ambitious. But it suggests thatfurther research might be quite a good ideaWhose lost decade?Japans eco