在机不离手的年代，咱们好像每天都在阅览，可是你真的了解你所读到的东西吗？人人都会阅览，能够了解才算得上是好的读者。有人以为手机助长了阅览恶习，每时每刻的碎片化阅览导致人们在阅览“严厉”文章时不能透彻了解其间包括的信息。当然，词汇量是阅览了解的基礎，除此之外，本文作者以为，最要害的是要具有广泛的常识，而这一点却常常被人们忽视。手机并不是问题的本源，过错的教育习气才是形成阅览了解能力差的元凶巨恶。
Americans are not good readers. Many blame the ubiquity1 of digital media. We’re too busy on Snapchat to read， or perhaps internet skimming has made us incapable of reading serious prose.2 But Americans’ trouble with reading predates3 digital technologies. The problem is not bad reading habits engendered by smartphones， but bad education habits engendered by a misunderstanding of how the mind reads.4
Just how bad is our reading problem？ The last National Assessment of Adult Literacy from 2003 is a bit dated， but it offers a picture of Americans’ ability to read in everyday situations： using an almanac to find a particular fact， for example， or explaining the meaning of a metaphor used in a story.5 Of those who finished high school but did not continue their education，13 percent could not perform simple tasks like these. When things got more complex—in comparing two newspaper editorials with different interpretations of scientific evidence or examining a table to evaluate credit card offers—95 percent failed.6
Many of these poor readers can sound out words from print， so in that sense， they can read. Yet they are functionally illiterate7—they comprehend very little of what they can sound out. So what does comprehension require？ Broad vocabulary， obviously. Equally important， but more subtle， is the role played by factual knowledge.
All prose has factual gaps that must be filled by the reader. Consider“I promised not to play with it， but Mom still wouldn’t let me bring my Rubik’s Cube8 to the library.” The author has omitted9 three facts vital to comprehension： you must be quiet in a library； Rubik’s Cubes make noise； kids don’t resist tempting toys very well. If you don’t know these facts， you might understand the literal meaning of the sentence， but you’ll miss why Mom forbade the toy in the library.
Knowledge also provides context. For example， the literal meaning of last year’s celebrated fake-news headline， “Pope Francis Shocks World， Endorses Donald Trump for President，” is unambiguous—no gap-filling is needed.10 But the sentence carries a different implication if you know anything about the public （and private） positions of the men involved， or you’re aware that no pope has ever endorsed a presidential candidate. You might think， then， that authors should include all the information needed to understand what they write. Just tell us that libraries are quiet. But those details would make prose long and tedious11 for readers who already know the information. “Write for your audience” means， in part， gambling on what they know.
These examples help us understand why readers might decode12 well but score poorly on a test； they lack the knowledge the writer assumed in the audience. But if a text concerned a familiar topic， habitually poor readers ought to read like good readers.
In one experiment， third graders—some identified by a reading test as good readers， some as poor—were asked to read a passage about soccer. The poor readers who knew a lot about soccer were three times as likely to make accurate inferences about the passage as the good readers who didn’t know much about the game.13
That implies that students who score well on reading tests are those with broad knowledge； they usually know at least a little about the topics of the passages on the test. One experiment tested 11th graders’general knowledge with questions from science （“pneumonia affects which part of the body？”）， history （“which American president resigned because of the Watergate scandal？”）， as well as the arts， civics，14 geography， athletics and literature. Scores on this general knowledge test were highly associated with reading test scores.
Current education practices show that reading comprehension is misunderstood. It’s treated like a general skill that can be applied with equal success to all texts.15 Rather， comprehension is intimately intertwined with16 knowledge. That suggests three significant changes in schooling.
First， it points to decreasing the time spent on literacy instruction in early grades. Third-graders spend 56 percent of their time on literacy activities but 6 percent each on science and social studies. This disproportionate emphasis on literacy backfires in later grades， when children’s lack of subject matter knowledge impedes comprehension.17 Another positive step would be to use highinformation texts in early elementary grades. Historically， they have been light in content.
Second， understanding the importance of knowledge to reading ought to make us think differently about year-end standardized tests. If a child has studied New Zealand， she ought to be good at reading and thinking about passages on New Zealand. Why test her reading with a passage about spiders， or the Titanic？ If topics are random， the test weights knowledge learned outside the classroom—knowledge that wealthy children have greater opportunity to pick up.18
Third， the systematic building of knowledge must be a priority in curriculum design. The Common Core Standards for reading specify nearly nothing by way of content that children are supposed to know—the document valorizes reading skills.19 State officials should go beyond the Common Core Standards by writing content-rich grade-level standards and supporting district personnel20 in writing curriculums to help students meet the standards.
Don’t blame the internet， or smartphones， or fake news for Americans’ poor reading. Blame ignorance. Turning the tide21 will require profound changes in how reading is taught， in standardized testing and in school curriculums. Underlying all these changes must be a better understanding of how the mind comprehends what it reads.22
1. ubiquity： 无处不在，遍及性。
2. Snapchat： 由斯坦福大学两位学生开发的一款“阅后即焚”相片共享使用；prose：散文，文章。
3. predate： 发生于……之前，先于……呈现。
4. 这个问题不是由智能手机引起的不良阅览习气，而是因为对大脑阅览方法的过错了解而形成的不良教育习气。engender：形成，导致。
5. literacy： 读写能力；almanac：年鉴，历书；metaphor： 隐喻，暗喻。
6. 当遇到更杂乱的状况——比较对科学依据有着不同解析的两篇报纸社论，或是检查表格来评价信用卡报价——95%的人都做不到。
7. illiterate： 不会读写的，文盲的。
8. Rubik’s Cube： 魔方。
9. omit： 省掉，疏忽。
10. Pope Francis： 指教宗方济各（1936— ），他是天主教第266任教宗，本名豪尔赫·马里奥·贝尔格里奥（Jorge Mario Bergoglio），是第一位耶稣会教宗，也是第一位拉丁美洲教宗；endorse： 附和，支撑；unambiguous： 清楚的，清晰的。
11. tedious： 枯燥乏味的，冗长的。
12. decode： 解读。
13. 特别了解足球但阅览能力差的测验者，能够依据文章做出精确判别的可能性是不太了解足球的优异阅览者的三倍。
14. pneumonia： 肺炎；resign： 辞去职务；Watergate scandal：水门事件，是20世纪70年代发生在美国的一场震动国际的政治丑闻。1972年民主党全国委员会坐落华盛顿特区的水门归纳大厦发现被人侵入，时任总统理查德·尼克松及内阁企图掩盖事件真相。直至偷听诡计被发现，尼克松依然阻遏国会查询，终究导致宪政危机。尼克松于1974年宣告辞去总统职务；civics： 公民学，市政学。
15. 阅览了解能力被视为一种遍及技术，能够成功應用于一切文本中。
16. be intertwined with： 环绕，与……严密相连。
17. disproportionate： 不成比例的，不相称的；backfire： 发生适得其反的成果；impede： 阻止，阻碍。
18. 假如标题是随机的，那么这个测验垂青的则是学生在课外学到的常识——家庭殷实的孩子有更多时机学到这些常识。
19. 阅览的一起中心规范底子没说到孩子应该从阅览内容中了解哪些常识，而是愈加垂青阅览技术。Common Core Standards，即Common Core State Standards，“一起中心州立规范”，它是美国的一套教育规范，具体界说了K-12（幼儿园到高中）的各年级在
语言艺术、数学课程中的学习内容；valorize： 赋予……（更高）价值。
20. personnel： 人事部门。
21. turn the tide： 改动局势。
22. 而改动这些的底子在于有必要要了解大脑是怎么了解它所读到的内容的。underlie： 作为……的根底。
The Californian's tale爱情与信任英文阅览：绿鸡蛋和火腿Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel英文阅览：A color of his own
英文阅览碎片化阅览
http://www.021lunwen.com/syy/dxyy/201805/56844.html
