A very interactive, experiential approach that took advantage of children’s natural inclination to master enjoyable tasks and build upon sequential skills. And at the end of seven months, (Question 19) all the kids in the school took standardized tests, and we looked not only at how these teachers rated the kids on attitude and so forth, but also how the kids scored on their tests.
And here’s what the researchers found. First of all, those kids who’d entered the first grade toward the bottom of the class in reading and then received the special arts program for the year had now caught up to the average in reading. （Question 20）

And that in itself is wonderful. But in addition, they were now statistically ahead in learning math. Dramatically ahead in math, compared to the kids who had received the special arts classes throughout the year. The researchers found also that the kids who continued their special arts classes for a second year continued to improve in math. (Question 20)

Question 16: What can music and arts education do according to a recent study?

Question 17: What was the purpose of the special arts program in Rhode Island?

Question 18: How often did the standard curriculum give the students music class?

Question 19: How long did the special music arts program last?

Question 20: What did the researchers check at the end of the test period?
文章大意：这篇讲座主要关注音乐和艺术类课程如何对学生的其他科目包括阅读，数学产生积极影响。美国罗德岛一个音乐学校的老师为该区小学一、二年级的学生设计了一个与“标准音乐课程”不同的“特别音乐课”项目。他们在7个月后对参加两种课程的学生进行测试，最终发现互动性强的艺术课程的确在教学中有积极的应用。

This is the end of SECTION 1, listening test.

SECTION 4: LISTENING TEST
Part A: Note-taking And Gap-filling
Directions: In this part of the test you will hear a short talk. You will hear the talk ONLY ONCE. While listening to the talk, you may take notes on the important points so that you can have enough information to complete a gap-filling task on a separate ANSWER BOOKLET. You will not get your ANSWER BOOKLET until after you have listened to the talk.
Now listen to the talk carefully.

Well, my topic today is the doctor-patient relationship. If you come in, and the doctor doesn’t shake your hand, the doctor doesn’t meet your eye, the doctor is looking at the clock, the telephone is ringing, and the secretary is coming in, this is not a doctor you can have a healing relationship with. Can you say to him, “Doctor, put that phone down; you’re looking at me”?  It’s not likely that you’ll choose such doctors.

All of us may have to see the doctor sometimes. We know the symptoms and what calls itself “the best medical system in the world”. The receptionist is more interested in our insurance than in our pain. We can often feel that our examination, such as it is, is being conducted by that blinking machinery. What we’re missing is the educated touch. The cocked head of a real doctor listening to your heartbeat, listening for your spirit. Without that human recognition, as one patient said, I am nothing but my illness. I am talking about one of the critical relationships in life—a relationship which many people would say is beyond saving. This doctor-patient relationship… Can this thing be saved? Is this the last requiem for a dying breed? Or should we call young doctors to a new standard? Can it be done?

The answer is categorically yes, because it must. Because otherwise, we can’t get medicine. Because medicine is not merely science. Medicine is not only curing, but it’s also healing. And healing requires the type of medicine that we’re espousing. And if that is lost, medicine becomes a technology, and is de-professionalized. And that is what we’re aiming to halt. In part, the crisis in medicine began with doctors distancing themselves from patients.

The more critical work of a doctor happens not from lab tests, not from anything that you can measure with a needle or a number, but in the taking of the human history, which is, of course, one of the patient’s biggest…I mean, we’re all longing for somebody to take our history and see it whole—mind, body, spirit—well or ill.

Listening is the most important and most difficult single transaction. Most difficult, because it takes time. There is no substitute. And the moment you start by not giving time, you cannot listen. And listening is not merely with the ears: Listening is with your total being. And the fact of the matter is, the studies carried out in Britain and other places, show that 75% of all the valuable information that leads to correct diagnosis comes from the history. Another 10% comes from the physical examination. 10% comes from simple laboratory tests, and 5% comes from all the complex technology that you’re launched against, and sometimes for, the patient. So listening is vital, because listening is not merely listening, but to establish a relationship.

But some doctors think listening is inefficient, because if you get all the information in this least costly way, immediately you don’t have to report to numerous specialists, and you don’t have to engage in complex and costly technologies. You don’t launch drugs that create adverse reactions and require hospitalization, and a whole array of consequentialities ensue.

So the doctors seize the patient for 10 minutes. The doctor focuses on only one thing—the chief complaint. And the chief complaint may have to nothing do with what brings the patient to the doctor. This type of doctoring is essential, because 80% of all the problems that come to doctors are trivial. The problem is the doctor isn’t there, because the doctor doesn’t want to listen. He’s afraid to listen. He doesn’t know how to listen. He hasn’t been trained how to listen. There is no premium on listening. There’s no reward for listening. Even so, the doctor-patient relationship is not beyond saving. I am an incorrigible optimist, because time and time again, the American people, if they begin to understand what good health is all about, what is good health? And good health begins first and foremost with caring. If you don’t care for a patient, be somebody else, but don’t be a doctor.

[1] [2] [3] 下一页