問題Ⅴ　つぎの　[51]から　[55]の　ことばの　つかいかたで　いちばん　いい　ものを 　　　　１２３４から　一つ　えらびな さい。 いけん

つもりだ　　

ときが　ある

とこ ろだ　

　ことが　ある

Questions 41 to 45 are based on the following passage:

A popularly-held view has it that “opportunity to’ learn" is the key to educational success, i.e., the more time children spend on a subject, the better they do at it. According to the recent study there seems little correlation between time spent on a subject and performance of pupils in tests. Young Austrians spend exceptionally long hours on math and science lessons; for them it pays off in higher test scores. But so do New Zealand’s teenagers and they do not do any better than, say Norwegians, who spend an unusually short time on lessons in both subjects. Next and of particular interest to cash-strapped governments there appears to be little evidence to support the argument, often heard from teachers’ unions, that the main cause of educational underachievement is underfunding. Low-spending countries such as South Korea and the Czech Republic are at the top. High-spenders such as America and Denmark do much worse. Obviously there are dozens of reasons other than spending why one country does well, another badly, but the success of the low –spending Czechs and Koreans does show that spending more on schools is not a prerequisite （前提） for improving standards.

Another article of faith among the teaching profession that children are bound to do better in small classes is also being undermined by educational research. The study found that France, America and Britain, where children are usually taught in classes of twenty-odd, do significant1y worse than East Asian countries where almost twice as many pupils are crammed into each class. Again, there may be social reason why some countries can cope better with large classes than others. All the same, the comparison refutes the argument that larger is necessarily worse, Further, the study even cast some doubt over the cultural explanation for the greater success of East Asia: that there is some hard-to-define Asian culture, connected with parental authority and a strong social value on education, which makes children more eager to learn and easier to teach. Those who make this argument say it would of course be impossible to replicate such oriental magic in the West.

Yet the results of the study suggest that this is, to put it mildly, exaggerated. If "culture" makes English children so poor at math, then why have they done so well at science (not far behind the Japanese and South Koreans) Any why do English pupils do well at science and badly at math, while in France it is the other way around A less mystical, more mundane explanation suggests itself English school: teach science well and math badly; French schools teach math better than science; East Asia schools teach both subjects well.

　わたしは　その　人に　「それは　よかったですね。」と　言いました。

わたしは　その　人に　 「どうぞ　おすわり　ください。」と　言いました。

わたしは　その　人に　「おはようございます。」と　言いました。

　わたしは　その　人に　「もう　いっぱい　いかがですか。」と　言いました

高くて

高いで　

　高くなくて

高くないで

　借りた

　変りた

　貸りた

買りた

に　

と　

を　

で

え えと、ありました

あのう、よく　食べました

　ええ、そう　します　

さあ、わかりません

つもりだ　　

ときが　ある

とこ ろだ　

　ことが　ある

Questions 41 to 45 are based on the following passage:

A popularly-held view has it that “opportunity to’ learn" is the key to educational success, i.e., the more time children spend on a subject, the better they do at it. According to the recent study there seems little correlation between time spent on a subject and performance of pupils in tests. Young Austrians spend exceptionally long hours on math and science lessons; for them it pays off in higher test scores. But so do New Zealand’s teenagers and they do not do any better than, say Norwegians, who spend an unusually short time on lessons in both subjects. Next and of particular interest to cash-strapped governments there appears to be little evidence to support the argument, often heard from teachers’ unions, that the main cause of educational underachievement is underfunding. Low-spending countries such as South Korea and the Czech Republic are at the top. High-spenders such as America and Denmark do much worse. Obviously there are dozens of reasons other than spending why one country does well, another badly, but the success of the low –spending Czechs and Koreans does show that spending more on schools is not a prerequisite （前提） for improving standards.

Another article of faith among the teaching profession that children are bound to do better in small classes is also being undermined by educational research. The study found that France, America and Britain, where children are usually taught in classes of twenty-odd, do significant1y worse than East Asian countries where almost twice as many pupils are crammed into each class. Again, there may be social reason why some countries can cope better with large classes than others. All the same, the comparison refutes the argument that larger is necessarily worse, Further, the study even cast some doubt over the cultural explanation for the greater success of East Asia: that there is some hard-to-define Asian culture, connected with parental authority and a strong social value on education, which makes children more eager to learn and easier to teach. Those who make this argument say it would of course be impossible to replicate such oriental magic in the West.

Yet the results of the study suggest that this is, to put it mildly, exaggerated. If "culture" makes English children so poor at math, then why have they done so well at science (not far behind the Japanese and South Koreans) Any why do English pupils do well at science and badly at math, while in France it is the other way around A less mystical, more mundane explanation suggests itself English school: teach science well and math badly; French schools teach math better than science; East Asia schools teach both subjects well.

　わたしは　その　人に　「それは　よかったですね。」と　言いました。

わたしは　その　人に　 「どうぞ　おすわり　ください。」と　言いました。

わたしは　その　人に　「おはようございます。」と　言いました。

　わたしは　その　人に　「もう　いっぱい　いかがですか。」と　言いました

高くて

高いで　

　高くなくて

高くないで

　借りた

　変りた

　貸りた

買りた

に　

と　

を　

で

え えと、ありました

あのう、よく　食べました

　ええ、そう　します　

さあ、わかりません