Чтение и письмо: академический текст и эссе (номинализация, безличность)
Слова урока · 4
- abstract /ˈæbstrækt/аннотация (статьи)
- findings /ˈfaɪndɪŋz/результаты (исследования)
- implication /ˌɪmplɪˈkeɪʃn/следствие, вывод для практики
- limitation /ˌlɪmɪˈteɪʃn/ограничение (исследования)
Фразы урока · 2
- Read the abstract, then the discussion; the findings are summarised in Table 2.Прочитайте аннотацию, затем обсуждение; результаты сведены в таблице 2.
- The implication for schools is clear, but the authors list three limitations.Вывод для школ ясен, но авторы перечисляют три ограничения.
Текст: «Доступный академический текст: телефоны в классе и внимание»
Abstract. This review examines whether the presence of mobile phones in classrooms reduces pupils' attention and attainment. Drawing on three recent studies, it argues that the evidence supports a modest negative effect of phone presence on attention, a smaller and less consistent effect on attainment, and no reliable evidence that outright bans improve results more than in-lesson rules do.
1. Definitions and scope. For the purposes of this review, «presence» refers to a phone being on the pupil's person or desk, whether or not it is used; «ban» refers to a whole-school rule requiring phones to be stored away. The scope is limited to secondary schools; universities, where the literature is larger, are beyond the scope of the present discussion.
2. Attention. The clearest evidence concerns attention. Ward et al. (2017) found that the mere presence of a participant's own phone on the desk reduced performance on working-memory tasks, even when the phone was face down and silent; the effect size was moderate (d ≈ 0.4). Thornton (2014), in a smaller study, reported a similar pattern for attention tasks. Taken together, these findings suggest that a visible phone draws cognitive resources whether or not it is touched. It should be noted, however, that both studies used undergraduates in laboratory conditions; whether the effect is as large among younger pupils in real classrooms remains, to some extent, an open question.
3. Attainment. Evidence on grades is weaker. Beland and Murphy (2016) compared schools in England before and after phone bans and found an improvement in test scores of about 6 % of a standard deviation — statistically significant, but small, and concentrated among lower-achieving pupils. It is worth noting that the study could not distinguish the effect of the ban itself from that of the enforcement culture that accompanied it. The data are therefore consistent with the attention findings but do not establish that bans, as opposed to other rules, are the effective ingredient.
4. Implications and limitations. The implication for schools is that reducing phone visibility during lessons is justified by the attention evidence, whereas whole-school bans rest on weaker ground. Three limitations qualify this conclusion: the laboratory setting of the attention studies, the correlational design of the attainment study, and the absence of any study comparing bans directly with in-lesson rules. Further research addressing the last of these would be of most practical value.
Задание
Напишите аргументированное академическое эссе (250–290 слов) на вопрос «To what extent should schools restrict mobile phones during lessons?»: введение с вопросом, рамками и тезисом (this essay argues that; the scope is limited to; beyond the scope); рабочее определение ключевого термина (for the purposes of this essay, X refers to; as distinct from); два абзаца «утверждение → данные с источником → анализ → связка» с опорой на обзор (Ward et al., 2017; Beland and Murphy, 2016; effect size; statistically significant but small; this suggests; it follows that; this raises the question); честное ограничение (it should be noted; the evidence is at best; to some extent an open question); безличный стиль без сокращений; вывод, соразмерный данным (in the light of; taken together; the implication is).
Образец ответа
To what extent should schools restrict mobile phones during lessons?
The question of whether schools should restrict phones is often answered by intuition rather than evidence. This essay argues that restriction during lessons is justified by the evidence on attention, whereas whole-school bans are not yet supported by evidence that they outperform simpler rules. The scope is limited to secondary schools; primary schools and universities are beyond the scope of the discussion. For the purposes of this essay, «restriction» refers to any rule requiring phones to be out of sight during lessons, as distinct from a ban on bringing them to school.
The strongest evidence concerns attention. Ward et al. (2017) found that the mere presence of a pupil's own phone on the desk reduced performance on working-memory tasks, even when it was face down, with a moderate effect size (d ≈ 0.4). This suggests that a visible phone consumes cognitive resources whether or not it is used; it follows that rules requiring phones to be out of sight address the mechanism directly. It should be noted, however, that the study used undergraduates in laboratory conditions, so the size of the effect in real classrooms remains, to some extent, an open question. This raises the question of whether stronger measures produce stronger results.
The evidence on bans suggests not. Beland and Murphy (2016) reported a gain of about 6 % of a standard deviation after bans in English schools — statistically significant, but small, and concentrated among lower-achieving pupils. Crucially, the study could not separate the effect of the ban from that of the enforcement culture accompanying it; the data are therefore consistent with the attention findings but do not establish that bans, as opposed to in-lesson rules, are the effective ingredient.
Taken together, the studies support a modest conclusion. In the light of the attention evidence, schools should require phones to be out of sight during lessons; in the absence of evidence comparing bans with such rules, the implication is that bans should be treated as an option to be tested rather than a policy to be assumed.
lightbulbАкадемическое эссе: вопрос → scope → thesis (this essay argues that) → working definition → абзацы «claim → evidence (author-date, цифры) → analysis (this suggests, it follows that) → link (this raises the question)» → ограничения (it should be noted, to some extent open) → вывод соразмерно (taken together, the implication is).
Закрепите урок: упражнения со словами, фразами и грамматикой с проверкой и повторением.