Part A: Reading Comprehension
Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)
Text 1
The grammar school boy from Stratford-upon-Avon has landed a scholarly punch after groundbreaking research showed that Shakespeare does benefit children’s literacy and emotional development. But only if you act him out.
A study found that a “rehearsal room” approach to teaching Shakespeare broadened children’s vocabulary and the complexity of their writing as well as their emotional literacy. “The research shows that the way actors work makes a big difference to the way children use language and also how they think about themselves,” Jacqui O’Hanlon of the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), which commissioned the study, said.
The randomised control trial involved hundreds of year 5 pupils-aged nine and ten-at 45 state primary schools that had not been “previously exposed to RSC pedagogy.” They were split into target and control groups and asked to write, for example, a message in a bottle as Ferdinand following the shipwreck in The Tempest. The target group were given a 30-minute drama-based activity to accompany the passage.
The peer-reviewed results showed that the target group of pupils drew on a wider vocabulary, used words “classed as more sophisticated or rarer”, and wrote at greater length. They also “appear to be more comfortable writing in role... while [control] pupils imagine how they themselves would react to being shipwrecked, [target] children put themselves in the shoes of a literary character and express that character’s emotion”. The Time to Act study, which is published by the RSC this week, also found that while control pupils relied on “desert island clichés” such as palm trees, target pupils were “more expansive [giving] a broader picture of the sky, the sea and the atmospheric conditions”.
O’Hanlon said she had been most surprised by the “emotional literacy that was evident in the [target] children’s writing” and that they were “more resilient in their writing, more hopeful”. She added “The emotional understanding was very evident and it is probably related to the [rehearsal room process] where you are used to trying to imagine your way through. They were comfortable in describing different emotional states and part of what you do in drama is put yourself in different shoes.” The study showed the importance of embedding arts in education, she said.
But could the results be replicated with any old dramatist? O’Hanlon said more research would be needed but suggested that Shakespeare’s use of 20,000 words, compared with the everyday 2,000 words, gave a “massive expansion of language into children’s lives”, which was combined with children “using their whole bodies to bring words to life.”
21. The “rehearsal room” approach requires pupils to
22. The study divided the pupils into two groups to find whether
23. Control pupils’ reliance on “desert island clichés” shows their
24. What can promote children’s emotional literacy according to O’Hanlon?
25. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that
答案与解析 (Answers)
21. [C] play the roles in Shakespeare.
解析：第一段末尾提到“But only if you act him out（但前提是你得把他演出来）”，第二段提到了“rehearsal room（排练场）”的方法，第三段说明实验组被给予了“drama-based activity（基于戏剧的活动）”。这些都指向“扮演角色”，故选C。
22. [A] the change in instruction enhances learning outcomes.
解析：第三段提到这是一项“randomised control trial（随机对照试验）”，将学生分为实验组（接受戏剧教学）和对照组（不接受）。第四、五段对比了两组的结果，实验组在词汇量、写作复杂度和情感素养上都有提升。这说明划分两组是为了验证教学方式（instruction）的改变是否能提升学习效果（learning outcomes），选A。
23. [A] weakness in description.
解析：第四段末尾对比了两组学生的描写能力：对照组依赖于“荒岛套话（clichés）”，如棕榈树；而实验组则能“提供关于天空、大海和大气环境的更广阔画面”。这种对比说明对照组在“描写”方面存在弱点，选A。
24. [B] Identifying with literary characters.
解析：第五段中，O’Hanlon 指出情感理解与排练过程有关，在戏剧中学生需要“put yourself in different shoes（设身处地，即换位思考）”。第四段也提到实验组孩子能“代入文学角色的身份并表达角色的情感（put themselves in the shoes of a literary character）”。这对应选项B的“认同文学角色”。
25. [A] the new teaching method may work best with Shakespeare.
解析：最后一段针对“其他剧作家是否也能复制这一效果”提出了疑问。O’Hanlon 虽然说需要更多研究，但强调莎士比亚庞大的词汇量（2万词 vs 日常2千词）为孩子的生活带来了“巨大的语言扩张”，并结合了肢体表演。这暗示这种方法在莎士比亚作品上效果最显著，故选A。
核心长难句精解 (Highlighted Sentences)
1. 复杂的定语从句与名词短语：
"The grammar school boy from Stratford-upon-Avon has landed a scholarly punch after groundbreaking research showed that Shakespeare does benefit children’s literacy and emotional development."
【解析】landed a scholarly punch（给了学术界有力一击）是一个生动的隐喻。after 引导时间状语从句。that 引导宾语从句。这句话巧妙地用“文法学校男孩”代指莎士比亚，引出了研究结论。
【翻译】来自埃文河畔斯特拉特福的那位文法学校男孩在突破性研究显示莎士比亚确实有益于儿童读写能力和情感发展后，给学术界带来了有力一击。
"The grammar school boy from Stratford-upon-Avon has landed a scholarly punch after groundbreaking research showed that Shakespeare does benefit children’s literacy and emotional development."
【解析】landed a scholarly punch（给了学术界有力一击）是一个生动的隐喻。after 引导时间状语从句。that 引导宾语从句。这句话巧妙地用“文法学校男孩”代指莎士比亚，引出了研究结论。
【翻译】来自埃文河畔斯特拉特福的那位文法学校男孩在突破性研究显示莎士比亚确实有益于儿童读写能力和情感发展后，给学术界带来了有力一击。
2. 对照实验的描述与过去分词作定语：
"The randomised control trial involved hundreds of year 5 pupils... at 45 state primary schools that had not been “previously exposed to RSC pedagogy.”"
【解析】that 引导定语从句修饰 schools。be exposed to 意为“接触/暴露于...”。这句话交代了实验背景，确保参与者在此前没有接受过剧团的特定教学法。
【翻译】这项随机对照试验涉及了45所州立小学中数百名九至十岁的五年级学生，这些学校此前从未接触过皇家莎士比亚剧团的教学法。
"The randomised control trial involved hundreds of year 5 pupils... at 45 state primary schools that had not been “previously exposed to RSC pedagogy.”"
【解析】that 引导定语从句修饰 schools。be exposed to 意为“接触/暴露于...”。这句话交代了实验背景，确保参与者在此前没有接受过剧团的特定教学法。
【翻译】这项随机对照试验涉及了45所州立小学中数百名九至十岁的五年级学生，这些学校此前从未接触过皇家莎士比亚剧团的教学法。
3. 比较级与分词短语的复合运用：
"Shakespeare’s use of 20,000 words, compared with the everyday 2,000 words, gave a “massive expansion of language into children’s lives”, which was combined with children “using their whole bodies to bring words to life.”"
【解析】compared with... 是过去分词短语作状语表对比。which 引导非限制性定语从句，指代前面的“语言扩张”。在从句中，using their whole bodies... 是现在分词短语作伴随状语。
【翻译】与日常使用的2000个词汇相比，莎士比亚对20000个词汇的使用为孩子们的生活带来了“巨大的语言扩张”，这与孩子们“动用全身让文字焕发生机”相结合。
"Shakespeare’s use of 20,000 words, compared with the everyday 2,000 words, gave a “massive expansion of language into children’s lives”, which was combined with children “using their whole bodies to bring words to life.”"
【解析】compared with... 是过去分词短语作状语表对比。which 引导非限制性定语从句，指代前面的“语言扩张”。在从句中，using their whole bodies... 是现在分词短语作伴随状语。
【翻译】与日常使用的2000个词汇相比，莎士比亚对20000个词汇的使用为孩子们的生活带来了“巨大的语言扩张”，这与孩子们“动用全身让文字焕发生机”相结合。