南京理工大学 2024-2025秋季学期陈政武英语B班影子训练2

在本次影子训练中，陈政武老师为南京理工大学英语B班的同学们设置了一系列课后准备活动，旨在提升他们的英语听说能力。学生将在课堂上接受测试，以检验他们的学习成果。

本视频为学生提供了课后准备的指导，主要涵盖以下几个方面：

1. 语言技巧提升：陈老师通过具体示范，帮助学生掌握日常交流中的关键语言技巧，包括如何有效表达观点和理解他人的言辞。

2. 场景模拟训练：视频中包含多个模拟对话场景，如旅游、购物和社交，这些练习旨在增强学生的实际应用能力，提升应对各种交流场合的自信心。

3. 课后准备建议：老师明确指出，学生需要利用视频中提供的语音和字幕文本进行复习，以便在课堂测试中更好地展示他们的能力。

课堂测试

在课堂上，陈老师将针对学生的课后准备进行测试，确保每位同学都能有效掌握所学内容，并能自信地进行交流。

通过本次影子训练，学生们不仅能够提高英语水平，还能增强课堂互动和交流能力，为他们的未来学习和发展打下坚实基础。

视频内容概述

该文档是一篇关于如何在研究中提出合适问题的讲座稿，内容主要围绕记忆扭曲和问题设计展开。讲座从科学方法的角度，讨论了记忆并不像常规认知中那样是稳定且不变的存储容器，而是容易受到影响，甚至可以被人为植入虚假记忆。文中引用了认知心理学家伊丽莎白·洛夫图斯的研究，她证明了虚假记忆的存在，并指出有些人因虚假记忆而被错误定罪。

接着，讲座深入探讨了不同类型的问题，包括推送性民调、引导性问题和暗示性问题，说明了这些问题如何在不知不觉中影响受访者的回答，从而扭曲研究结果。文中强调了在设计问卷和访谈问题时，必须避免这些不公平、不道德的提问方式，尤其是在市场营销、法律和学术研究领域。

讲座还举例说明了错误提问的实际后果，如法院中的引导性问题可能导致陪审团做出错误判决，并指出，像法律机构一样，学术研究也需要遵循严格的规则，以确保研究的公正和准确性。最后，讲座呼吁学生们在进行研究时，要关注问题的设计，避免在问题中引入偏见，确保研究的科学性和有效性。

相关资料

学生可以在以下链接下载视频相关的语音及字幕文本，以辅助课后复习和准备：下载链接。

以下是文档中的英文逐句翻译为中文：

1. Good afternoon. Settle down. Thanks. I’m sure that most of you will be starting your research this trimester and that she’ll be doing qualitative research so I thought it timely to have a lecture on how those questions should be framed.

   • 下午好，请大家安静。谢谢。我相信你们大多数人将在本学期开始研究，而且她会做定性研究，所以我觉得现在是时候讲一讲这些问题应该如何构建了。

2. As students at this college you’re all aware of the expectation that research is aimed at finding out information not proving your own case. In other words you should be prepared for some unwelcome results. That is actually a good sign. As we shall see. It indicates that the research followed the scientific method a method we all believe to be the only valid method.

   • 作为本学院的学生，你们都清楚，研究的目标是获取信息，而不是证明你们自己的观点。换句话说，你们应该准备好接受一些不受欢迎的结果。事实上，这是一种好的迹象，正如我们将看到的那样。这表明研究遵循了科学方法，我们都相信这是一种唯一有效的方法。

3. The actual topics I’m going to talk about today are memory distortion or memory hacking. You’ve certainly read about that in your assignment and preparing interviews and questionnaires. Now these are not completely separate subjects so I’ll treat them as interconnected. Ethics are at the heart of both topics.

   • 今天我要讨论的实际主题是记忆扭曲或记忆黑客。你们肯定在作业中读过这些内容，并且在准备访谈和问卷时也有所涉及。现在，这些主题并不是完全独立的，所以我会把它们当作相互关联的来讨论。伦理学是这两个主题的核心。

4. So starting with memory the majority of people automatically think that memory is like a bucket. You put a memory in the bucket and later you get it out unchanged. This is a common sense view of memory reinforced by analogies to computer storage which are actually false analogies. Our brains are very different from electronic computers.

   • 所以从记忆开始，大多数人会自动认为记忆就像一个桶。你把一段记忆放进桶里，后来取出来时是没有变化的。这是对记忆的常识性看法，并且通过与计算机存储的类比被进一步强化，实际上这些类比是错误的。我们的脑袋与电子计算机非常不同。

5. Of course you may forget or it may become hard to recall but people assume that if they can recall it it will be the same as when it went in. But research disproves this as we shall see.

   • 当然，你可能会忘记，或者变得难以回忆，但人们通常认为，如果你能回忆起来，它会和当初进入脑海时是一样的。然而，研究否定了这种看法，正如我们将会看到的那样。

6. Now moving on to questions most people assume that a questionnaire or interview is a fair way of finding out people’s opinions. After all you’re not bound to say anything you don’t want to are you? But again our understanding of the science of questioning in particular for marketing purposes shows how wrong this viewpoint is.

   • 现在转到问题，大多数人认为问卷或访谈是一种公平获取人们观点的方式。毕竟，你不必说出你不想说的内容，对吧？但通过我们对问题科学的理解，尤其是针对市场营销目的的理解，表明这种观点是多么错误。

7. As we understand more about our irrational responses our biases we can see that there are ways to trigger these biases which are fairly easy for people to use. And in fact it is actually quite hard to avoid this triggering through careless questioning.

   • 随着我们对非理性反应和偏见的深入了解，我们可以看到，有一些方法可以触发这些偏见，而这些方法很容易被人们使用。事实上，通过不小心的问题避免触发这些偏见是相当困难的。

8. But you must avoid this bias triggering if e.g. you want to do valid research.

   • 但是，如果你想进行有效的研究，就必须避免这种偏见的触发。

9. Excuse me Can you tell us how these biases can be avoided in questionnaires?

   • 不好意思，你能告诉我们如何在问卷中避免这些偏见吗？

10. Of course but 1st let’s compare these two and look at why I make these claims. That is A why it’s wrong to equate the mind with a computer and B why bad questioning can actually influence what people think.

    • 当然可以，但首先让我们比较这两点，并看看我为什么做出这些主张。即：A、为什么将大脑等同于计算机是错误的；B、为什么糟糕的问题实际上会影响人们的想法。

11. I can see by your expressions that some of you are skeptical on hearing this comparison. That’s OK you’re scientists and you should doubt any claim without evidence.

    • 我能从你们的表情中看出，有些人在听到这种比较时感到怀疑。没关系，你们是科学家，没有证据就应该质疑任何主张。

12. So again starting with memory. If it isn’t a bucket what is it? Well an important clue came from the work initially of Elizabeth Loftus a cognitive psychologist working at the end of the 20th century who showed that it is possible to plant a memory in other words to make people believe truly believe that they remember something that actually never happened.

    • 所以再次从记忆开始。如果记忆不是一个桶，那它是什么呢？一个重要的线索来自于20世纪末的认知心理学家伊丽莎白·洛夫图斯的工作，她展示了可以植入记忆，换句话说，可以让人们相信——真正相信他们记得一些实际上从未发生过的事情。

13. I’ll say that again you can make people remember an experience that they haven’t had or details of an experience that are completely untrue.

    • 我再说一遍，你可以让人们记住他们从未经历过的体验，或者完全虚假的体验细节。

14. She was working to show that many people have been convicted of crimes which they hadn’t committed on the basis of false memories.

    • 她的工作是为了证明，许多人因为虚假的记忆而被定罪，尽管他们没有犯下那些罪行。

15. Her work has since been corroborated by many studies including a recent one by Julius Shaw of the University of Bedfordshire and Stephen Porter of the University of British Columbia in the journal Psychological Science they described how they implanted false memories so successfully that 70% of the subjects believed them more than double what they had expected.

    • 她的研究后来得到了许多研究的证实，包括贝德福德郡大学的朱利叶斯·肖和不列颠哥伦比亚大学的斯蒂芬·波特最近在《心理科学》杂志上的一项研究，他们描述了如何成功地植入虚假记忆，70%的受试者相信了这些记忆，超过了他们预期的两倍。

16. Which comes back to my earlier point. Good research can surprise us and this was good research and powerful evidence.

    • 这回到了我之前的观点。好的研究可以给我们带来惊喜，而这是一个好的研究和有力的证据。

17. Let’s turn to questions. I’ll look at three kinds of questions that don’t really aim at extracting a straight answer. If you use these in your research you are in effect distorting the research to suit your point of view.

    • 让我们转到问题部分。我会讨论三种并不真正旨在提取直接答案的问题。如果你在研究中使用这些问题，你实际上是在歪曲研究以适应你的观点。

18. The 1st are called push poll questions. These work by introducing an idea or emotion that you wouldn’t have already had that deliberately suggests a course of action and this may affect future action or choices.

    • 第一种称为推送性民调问题。这类问题通过引入一个你原本不会想到的观点或情感，故意建议某种行动方向，这可能会影响未来的行为或选择。

19. Another type of question is commonly banned in law courts. It’s the leading question where you give the answer in the question such as on the night of the murder were you in New York? Rather than a non leading legitimate question where were you on the night of the murder?

    • 另一种类型的问题在法庭上通常是被禁止的。它就是引导性问题，即你在问题中给出了答案，例如“在谋杀案发生的那天晚上，你是不是在纽约？” 而不是一个非引导性的合法问题，“那天晚上你在哪儿？”

20. Questions like these if they were to be allowed could possibly be used by the prosecution to convince a jury that they should convict an innocent man.

    • 如果允许这些问题，检方可能会利用它们说服陪审团，认为他们应该定罪一个无辜的人。

21. And the 3rd type of unfair unethical question for the purposes of research is the suggestive question. This can either add in a detail that makes someone think they should remember it even though they might not or it can make you think that you should answer in a certain way.

    • 第三种对研究来说不公平且不道德的问题是暗示性问题。这种问题可能会加入一个细节，使某人认为自己应该记得它，尽管实际上并不记得，或者让你认为自己应该以某种特定方式回答。

22. “Don’t you think that was wrong?” Rather than “Do you think that was wrong?” Implies that you should indeed think that this was wrong.

    • “你不觉得那是错的吗？” 而不是“你觉得那是错的吗？” 这种表述暗示你确实应该认为那是错的。

23. This type of question is used a lot by parents to their teenagers. Incidentally I know I’m sometimes guilty of it and I certainly know what I’m doing. It’s not through ignorance of the science.

    • 这种问题常常被父母用来对付他们的青少年。顺便说一句，我知道有时我也会这样做，而且我非常清楚自己在做什么。这并不是因为我不了解相关的科学。

24. Anyway. So what I have suggested up to now is basically that there is a clear strong link between the belief and the fairness of questions the unquestionable benefit of questionnaires and the idea that the brain is a simple computer that cannot lie to itself.

    • 总之，到目前为止，我所建议的基本上是，信念与问题的公平性之间有明确而强烈的联系，问卷的无可争议的益处以及大脑是一个无法对自己撒谎的简单计算机的观念之间有联系。

25. These two assumptions are not equivalent but they are similar in that they can both lead unintentionally or not to unethical and powerful forms of manipulation.

    • 这两个假设并不等同，但它们相似的是，它们都可能有意无意地导致不道德且强有力的操控形式。

26. The evidence is both academic as in the examples I gave you about our ability to control people’s memories and practical. As we can see by the way public institutions such as law courts have to have rules to prevent questions that distort the truth. And so do we as a respected university doing respectable research.

    • 证据既是学术性的，正如我给出的关于我们控制人们记忆能力的例子，也具有实用性。正如我们可以看到的那样，公共机构如法庭必须有规则来防止扭曲事实的问题。作为一所受尊敬的大学，我们在做受尊敬的研究时，也必须如此。

到此为止，文档的翻译已完成。