Do Literate Women Make Better Mothers?
Children in developing countries are healthier and more likely to survive past the age of five when their mothers can read and write. Experts in public health accepted this idea decades ago, but until now no one has been able to show that a woman's ability to read in itself improves her children's chances of survival.
Most literate women learnt to read in primary school, and the fact that a woman has had an education may simply indicate her family's wealth or that it values its children more highly. Now a long-term study carried out in Nicaragua has eliminated these factors by showing that teaching reading to poor adult women, who would otherwise have remained illiterate, has a direct effect on their children's health and survival. In 1979, the government of Nicaragua established a number of social programmes, including A National Literacy Crusade. By 1985, about 300,000 illiterate adults from all over the Country, many of whom had never attended primary school, had learnt how to read, write and use numbers.
During this period, researchers from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, the Central American Institute of Health in Nicaragua, the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua and the Costa Rican Institute of Health interviewed nearly 3,000 women: some of whom had learn to read as children, some during the literacy crusade and some who had never learnt at all. The women were asked how many children they had given birth to and how many of them had died in infancy. The research teams also examined the surviving children to find out how well-nourished they were.
The investigators' findings were striking. In the late 1970s, the infant mortality rate for the children of illiterate mothers was around 110 deaths per thousand live births. At this point in their lives, those mothers who later went on to learn to read had a similar level of child mortality (105/1000). For women educated in primary school, however, the infant mortality rate was significantly lower, at 80 per thousand.
In 1985, after the National Literacy Crusade had ended, the infant mortality figures for those who remained illiterate and for those educated in primary school remained more or less unchanged. For those women who learnt to read through the campaign, the infant mortality rate was 84 per thousand, an impressive 21 points lower than for those women who were still illiterate. The children of the newly-literate mothers were also better nourished than those of women who could not read.
Why are the children of literate mothers better off? According to Peter Sandiford of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, no one knows for certain. Child health was not on the curriculum during the women's lessons, so he and his colleagues are looking at other factors. They are working with the same group of 3,000 women, to try to find out whether reading mothers make better use of hospitals and clinics, opt for smaller families, exert more control at home, learn modern childcare techniques more quickly, or whether they merely have more respect for themselves and their children.
The Nicaraguan study may have important implications for governments and aid agencies that need to know where to direct their resources. Sandiford says that there is increasing evidence that female education, at any age, is 'an important health intervention in its own right'. The results of the study lend support to the World Bank's recommendation that education budgets in developing countries should be increased, not just to help their economies, but also to improve child health. 'We've known for a long time that maternal education is important,' says John Cleland of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 'But we thought that even if we started educating girls today, we'd have to wait a generation for the pay-off. The Nicaraguan study suggests we may be able to bypass that.'
Cleland warns that the Nicaraguan crusade was special in many ways, and similar campaigns elsewhere might not work as well.It is notoriously difficult to teach adults skills that do not have an immediate impact on their everyday lives, and many literacy campaigns in other countries have been much less successful. 'The crusade was part of a larger effort to bring a better life to the people,' says Cleland. Replicating these conditions in other countries will be a major challenge for development workers.
Complete the summary using the list of words, A-J, below.
Write the correct letter, A-J, in boxes 14-18 on your answer sheet.
NB You may use any letter more than once.
题目定位词:The Nicaraguan National Literacy Crusade, large numbers of illiterate
答案位置:C 段第 2 句
题解:根据上文的说法,我们尽快回到文章前面寻找答案。第一次出现尼加拉瓜的“国民识字改革运动”是在 C 段,原文说这项运动旨在教育文盲 adults( 成年人 ),所以答案应该选 B。
题目定位词:Public heatlh experts, connection between child health and
答案位置:15 A 段第 1 句
题解:该题的答案出处出乎一些考生的意料。第一次出现 Public health experts 的地方是 A 段。首句告诉我们,儿童健康直接依赖于母亲是否能读能写,后者需要我们去归纳,答案中只有 F 项“母亲识字”符合题意。
题目定位词:16 investigated, in Nicaragua
答案位置:D 段第 1 句
题解:该题出处与上题相隔很远。题中的那个问题到底是谁在调查呢?D 段的首句告诉我们,来自不同国家的不同院校、研究所共同派出研究人员调查这一问题,所以应该是一个国际化的团队,答案选 C。
题目定位词: factors, eliminated
答案位置:B 段第 2 句
题解:这个 Summary 的题目出处位置没有按照原文的逻辑,也给考生带来很大挑战,要求考生完全领会文中逻辑顺序。 所幸,这道题里面有个我们在文中见过的动词 eliminated, 这提醒我们要牢牢把握住文中的关键词,包括动词。该动词出处为 B 段,排除的因素包括对孩子高度重视,这正是题目中的 attitude,那么第二个因素不就是 family wealth 吗?所以答案选 J。
题目定位词:improve infant health and survival
答案位置:A 段最后一句
题解:该题属于对全文的一个总结,这篇文章旨在论证一个观点 : 母亲受教育能够提高儿童健康水平。其实这个问题在首段最后一句就已经提出了,只不过那时作者只是提出这一个假设命题,等待下文论证。题目的答案依然是F,与15 题答案一样, 很多考生以为题中答案只能选择一次,其实不然。
