http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/option/article_print.asp?ctg=12&total_id=7610131

[중앙일보] 입력 2012.03.14 04:00 / 수정 2012.03.14 04:00

 

 

[3월 모의평가, 6월 본시험 앞둔 NEAT 대비] 영역별 출제 경향

읽기 두 가지 지문 내용 통합 이해
말하기 억양보다 정확한 발음 중요
쓰기 한두 문장으로 내용 구성을

NEAT 문제는 어떤 유형이고 어떤 문제들이 출제되는 것일까? 지난해 교육과학기술부가 주최한 ‘영어교육 국가영어능력평가와 영어교육 정책’에 관한 공청회에서 발표한 NEAT 평가 출제 경향 자료를 토대로 영역별 출제 경향을 분석해 봤다.

김소엽 기자

읽기 영역

읽기 영역은 기존의 수능 외국어영역과 비교해 지문의 난이도엔 큰 변화가 없다. 하지만 몇 가지 생소한 차이점이 있어 주의해야 한다. 우선 수능보다 지문의 분량이 길어지고 한 지문에 2~3개의 문제를 풀어야 하는 점이 특징이다. 이에 대비하려면 평소에 300자 정도의 긴 지문을 읽고 해결하는 능력을 길러야 한다.

읽기에서 문법 문항이 출제되지 않는 점도 새로운 변화다. 수험생 입장에선 고득점을 위해 어려운 문법까지 공부해야 했던 부담감이 줄었다. 또 다른 변화는 시험이 iBT(인터넷 기반 시험) 방식으로 치러진다는 점이다. 위치·도표의 정보를 찾거나 그림을 고르는 문제는 해당 정보를 직접 찾아보며 풀 수 있다. 마지막 특징은 단편적인 독해를 묻는 문항 외에 두 가지 지문의 내용을 통합적으로 이해하는 문항이 출제된다는 것이다.

위 문항의 내용은 ‘Bonima’라는 약의 일반적인 설명과 복용법에 대한 두 가지의 정보가 담긴 지문이다. 문제는 복용법을 지키지 않은 예를 고르는 것이다. 이런 문제를 풀기 위해서는 일상생활에서 만날 수 있는 다양한 형태의 읽기 자료에 관심을 갖는 공부가 필요하다.

예를 들어, 가전제품·장난감·의약품·화장품 등에 포함돼 있는 사용법을 살펴보는 것이다. 필요하다면 자료를 위키피디아 같은 인터넷 백과사전에서 검색하는 등 평소에 필요한 정보를 영어로 찾아보는 습관을 가져야 한다.

듣기 영역

듣기는 50분 동안 32문항을 풀어야 해 지문의 길이도 수능보다 길어진다. 평소에 들은 내용을 요약해 노트 필기를 꾸준히 하는 연습을 하면 긴 듣기 지문도 쉽게 이해할 수 있다. 내용은 이해했지만 문제를 풀 때 해결 능력이 부족하다면 노트 필기가 부족하다는 증거이므로, 열심히 듣고 내용을 요약하며 이해하는 훈련을 반복해본다.

위 듣기 영역의 NEAT 2급 예시 문항은 위치정보를 묻고 있다. 수능에선 볼 수 없었던 새로운 형태의 문제다. 크게 어려운 문제는 아니지만 동서남북·좌우·상하·앞뒤·모퉁이와 관련된 표현을 활용해 정확한 위치를 파악할 수 있어야 한다. 빠른 시간에 전개되는 방향 전환의 경우, 자칫 한 번 방향 감각을 잃으면 곧바로 오답이 되는 만큼, 위치정보 관련 문항은 자주 들어보는 것이 왕도다.

말하기 영역

학생과 학부모가 고민하는 말하기 ‘발음’의 경우, 평가항목에서 차지하는 비율이 가장 적다. 이 때문에 주어진 문제를 해결해 답변하는 능력만 있다면 원어민처럼 유창한 발음을 구사하지 못해도 된다. 하지만 이를 ‘발음에 신경을 쓰지 않아도 된다’로 오해하면 안 된다. 최소한 알아들을 수 있는 수준의 정확한 발음이 중요하다.

비상교육 영어본부 최승경 총괄책임자는 “NEAT는 마이크로 녹음된 답안을 채점하는 iBT 방식”이라고 소개했다. “마이크나 컴퓨터 장치의 특성에 따라 녹음된 내용이 기대한 것과 차이를 나타낼 수도 있기 때문에 평소 자신의 목소리를 녹음해서 들어보며 발음을 교정해 나가는 연습이 필요하다”고 조언했다.

말하기 첫 번째 문항인 ‘연계질문에 답하기’다. 경희라는 여자에 대한 설명으로 그녀에 관련된 4번의 짧은 답변을 요구하는 문제다. 간단한 형태의 말하기 능력을 측정하며 평상시 교과서의 ‘말하기 기능 예시문’에 대한 꾸준한 연습을 해 뒀다면 연계형 질문도 무리 없이 답할 수 있다.

주어진 6개의 그림을 보고 내용을 설명하는 문제다. 복잡한 표현을 사용해 설명하기보다 한 문장으로 간단하게 설명하는 것이 좋다. 사진을 묘사하는 경우, 가장 중요한 움직임에 대한 형용사와 동사, 생활 주변에서 마주칠 수 있는 종류의 명사 등을 활용해 말하기 연습을 한다면 어렵지 않게 그림을 묘사할 수 있다.

쓰기 영역

쓰기에선 토플(TOEFL)과 같은 장황하고 복잡한 에세이를 쓰는 문제는 출제되지 않는다. 분량은 최소 70단어에서 최대 200단어 정도다. 쓰기에 담아내야 할 상황과 표현이 구체적으로 제시되기 때문에 한두 문장 단위로 짧게 내용 정리 하는 것이 쓰기 영역의 비법이다.

위는 NEAT 2급의 조건제시형 쓰기 문항에 대한 예시다. 주어진 상황에 맞게 어떤 내용을 써야 할지 지시사항도 나타나 있다. 예시 답안에서 알 수 있듯, 문장당 10~15단어의 짧은 답변을 주어진 조건에 맞게 한 두 문장씩 구성하면 된다.

Adam Savage Presents Problem Solving: How I Do It from Maker Faire on FORA.tv

프로그램 전체를 보시려면 우측하단의 "Watch FULL program"을 클릭하세요^^

Watch Monday, October 8, 2012 on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

The bickering over islands is a serious threat to the region’s peace and prosperity

THE countries of Asia do not exactly see the world in a grain of sand, but they have identified grave threats to the national interest in the tiny outcrops and shoals scattered off their coasts. The summer has seen a succession of maritime disputes involving China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines. This week there were more anti-Japanese riots in cities across China because of a dispute over a group of uninhabited islands known to the Japanese as the Senkakus and to the Chinese as the Diaoyus. Toyota and Honda closed down their factories. Amid heated rhetoric on both sides, one Chinese newspaper has helpfully suggested skipping the pointless diplomacy and moving straight to the main course by serving up Japan with an atom bomb.

That, thank goodness, is grotesque hyperbole: the government in Beijing is belatedly trying to play down the dispute, aware of the economic interests in keeping the peace. Which all sounds very rational, until you consider history—especially the parallel between China’s rise and that of imperial Germany over a century ago. Back then nobody in Europe had an economic interest in conflict; but Germany felt that the world was too slow to accommodate its growing power, and crude, irrational passions like nationalism took hold. China is re-emerging after what it sees as 150 years of humiliation, surrounded by anxious neighbours, many of them allied to America. In that context, disputes about clumps of rock could become as significant as the assassination of an archduke.

One mountain, two tigers

Optimists point out that the latest scuffle is mainly a piece of political theatre—the product of elections in Japan and a leadership transition in China. The Senkakus row has boiled over now because the Japanese government is buying some of the islands from a private Japanese owner. The aim was to keep them out of the mischievous hands of Tokyo’s China-bashing governor, who wanted to buy them himself. China, though, was affronted. It strengthened its own claim and repeatedly sent patrol boats to encroach on Japanese waters. That bolstered the leadership’s image, just before Xi Jinping takes over.

More generally, argue the optimists, Asia is too busy making money to have time for making war. China is now Japan’s biggest trading partner. Chinese tourists flock to Tokyo to snap up bags and designer dresses on display in the shop windows on Omotesando. China is not interested in territorial expansion. Anyway, the Chinese government has enough problems at home: why would it look for trouble abroad?

Asia does indeed have reasons to keep relations good, and this latest squabble will probably die down, just as others have in the past. But each time an island row flares up, attitudes harden and trust erodes. Two years ago, when Japan arrested the skipper of a Chinese fishing boat for ramming a vessel just off the islands, it detected retaliation when China blocked the sale of rare earths essential to Japanese industry.

Growing nationalism in Asia, especially China, aggravates the threat (see article). Whatever the legality of Japan’s claim to the islands, its roots lie in brutal empire-building. The media of all countries play on prejudice that has often been inculcated in schools. Having helped create nationalism and exploited it when it suited them, China’s leaders now face vitriolic criticism if they do not fight their country’s corner. A recent poll suggested that just over half of China’s citizens thought the next few years would see a “military dispute” with Japan.

The islands matter, therefore, less because of fishing, oil or gas than as counters in the high-stakes game for Asia’s future. Every incident, however small, risks setting a precedent. Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines fear that if they make concessions, China will sense weakness and prepare the next demand. China fears that if it fails to press its case, America and others will conclude that they are free to scheme against it.

Co-operation and deterrence

Asia’s inability to deal with the islands raises doubts about how it would cope with a genuine crisis, on the Korean peninsula, say, or across the Strait of Taiwan. China’s growing taste for throwing its weight around feeds deep-seated insecurities about the way it will behave as a dominant power. And the tendency for the slightest tiff to escalate into a full-blown row presents problems for America, which both aims to reassure China that it welcomes its rise, and also uses the threat of military force to guarantee that the Pacific is worthy of the name.

Some of the solutions will take a generation. Asian politicians have to start defanging the nationalist serpents they have nursed; honest textbooks would help a lot. For decades to come, China’s rise will be the main focus of American foreign policy. Barack Obama’s “pivot” towards Asia is a useful start in showing America’s commitment to its allies. But China needs reassuring that, rather than seeking to contain it as Britain did 19th-century Germany, America wants a responsible China to realise its potential as a world power. A crudely political WTO complaint will add to Chinese worries (see article).

Given the tensions over the islands (and Asia’s irreconcilable versions of history), three immediate safeguards are needed. One is to limit the scope for mishaps to escalate into crises. A collision at sea would be less awkward if a code of conduct set out how vessels should behave and what to do after an accident. Governments would find it easier to work together in emergencies if they routinely worked together in regional bodies. Yet, Asia’s many talking shops lack clout because no country has been ready to cede authority to them.

A second safeguard is to rediscover ways to shelve disputes over sovereignty, without prejudice. The incoming President Xi should look at the success of his predecessor, Hu Jintao, who put the “Taiwan issue” to one side. With the Senkakus (which Taiwan also claims), both Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping were happy to leave sovereignty to a later generation to decide. That makes even more sense if the islands’ resources are worth something: even state-owned companies would hesitate to put their oil platforms at risk of a military strike. Once sovereignty claims have been shelved, countries can start to share out the resources—or better still, declare the islands and their waters a marine nature reserve.

But not everything can be solved by co-operation, and so the third safeguard is to bolster deterrence. With the Senkakus, America has been unambiguous: although it takes no position on sovereignty, they are administered by Japan and hence fall under its protection. This has enhanced stability, because America will use its diplomatic prestige to stop the dispute escalating and China knows it cannot invade. Mr Obama’s commitment to other Asian islands, however, is unclear.

The role of China is even more central. Its leaders insist that its growing power represents no threat to its neighbours. They also claim to understand history. A century ago in Europe, years of peace and globalisation tempted leaders into thinking that they could afford to play with nationalist fires without the risk of conflagration. After this summer, Mr Xi and his neighbours need to grasp how much damage the islands are in fact causing. Asia needs to escape from a descent into corrosive mistrust. What better way for China to show that it is sincere about its peaceful rise than to take the lead?

Mark Greenblatt discusses the cover-up of inappropriate high school relationships.

Smile or Die: The Tyranny of Positive Thinking from The RSA on FORA.tv

전체 프로그램을 보시려면 우측하단의 "Watch FULL program"을 클릭하세요^^

AFP/Getty Images

 

John B. Gurdon (left) and Shinya Yamanaka will share the prize, worth about $1.2 million.

The two scientists who won this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine discovered that cells in our body have the remarkable ability to reinvent themselves. They found that every cell in the human body, from our skin and bones to our heart and brain, can be coaxed into forming any other cell.

The process is called reprogramming, and its potential for new drugs and therapies is vast. If neurons or heart cells are damaged by disease or aging, then cells from the skin or blood potentially could be induced to reprogram themselves and repair the damaged tissue.

The winners — John Gurdon of the Gurdon Institute in Cambridge, England, and Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan and the Gladstone Institute in San Francisco — made their discoveries more than 40 years apart.

In 1962, Gurdon proved that a cell from a frog's stomach contained the entire blueprint to make a whole frog. When he took the cell's nucleus and popped it into a frog egg, the egg developed into a normal frog.

This method eventually was used to clone all sorts of animals, including cats, dogs, horses and, most famously, Dolly the sheep — the first mammal cloned from an adult cell. Gurdon, 79, continues to study reprogramming and was working in his lab when he received the call from the Nobel committee.

But a major obstacle stood in the way of further development of these stem cells: Getting the frog's stomach cell to strip away its specialization and turn into one of the 200 or so cell types known to exist in animals always required the use of an egg.

A question hung over the field for decades: Could a specialized cell reprogram itself all on its own?

Mattias Karlen/Courtesy of The Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine

Shinya Yamanaka discovered a simple recipe for converting skin from a patient into many different cell types, including nerve and heart cells.

In 2006, Yamanaka and graduate student Kazutoshi Takahashi found the answer, and it sent shockwaves through biology and medicine. They demonstrated that any cell could be reset and induced to develop into another cell type. And, even more remarkably, that it took little to get the job done.

Yamanaka and Takahashi took some cells from the skin of a mouse and then switched on four specific genes. After a few weeks, the cells stopped looking like skin cells and starting looking more like embryonic stem cells. That meant the cells could then be manipulated to develop into just about any cell Yamanaka wanted. He could even get the cells to form heart muscle that beat inside a Petri dish.

Yamanaka, 50, had essentially unlocked a cellular genie in the bottle. The discovery meant that a cell wasn't necessarily trapped in its fate to be, say, a skin, liver or heart cell. Rather, with the right instructions, a cell had the ability to strip away its specialization and become whatever cell the scientists chose. They called these new cells "induced pluripotent stem cells."

The landmark finding triggered thousands of studies. Researchers quickly wanted to learn how these new stem cells could be used to treat a vast array of diseases, such as Alzheimer's, muscular dystrophy and diabetes.

Although stem cell treatments for these diseases are still quite far away, the induced pluriopotent stem cells are turning out to be invaluable tools for studying hundreds of diseases. They can serve as a platform for screening drugs or for even simply testing how a patient will respond to a particular medicine.

The discoveries by Gurdon and Yamanaka have opened up a new era in personalized medicine, where each person's own cells may one day serve not only as a reservoir for fixing damaged tissue, but also as research tools for deciphering how diseases work inside each person's unique body.

Induced pluripotent stem cells also offer a possible alternative to human embryonic stem cells, which are controversial because they are obtained from embryos.

Hitchens on Compelling Arguments for the Existence of God from 92nd Street Y on FORA.tv

전체를 다 보시려면, 우측하단의 "Watch FULL program"을 클릭하세요^^

Mitch Daniels: Does Gov. Regulation Help or Hurt Economy? from The Aspen Institute and The Atlantic on FORA.tv

Watch Thursday, October 4, 2012 on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.