Difference and similarities teachers and actors

Exercise 2.Give Russian equivalents to the following:
A wide variety of work, a model of competence, to study closely, to temper methods to children’s abilities, to form an attitude, the nature of personal relationships, his command are likely to be respected and obeyed, a primary condition, to create an environment, at a higher level, to foster honesty, to shape a child’s character, familiarity breeds contempt, continuous demands on class, he must be free from vice, neither grudging, nor over-generous, above all, to adopt an attitude, to discourage industry.
To be a good teacher, you need some of the gifts of the good actor; you must be able to hold the attention and interest of your audience; you must be a clear speaker, with a good, strong, pleasing voice which is fully under your control; and you must be able to act what you are teaching, in order to make its meaning clear.
Watch a good teacher, and you will see that he doesn't sit motionless before his class: he stands the whole time he is teaching; he walks about, using his arms, hands and fingers to help him in his explanations, and his face to express feelings.
Listen to him, and you will hear the loudness, the quality and the musical note of his voice always changing according to what he is talking about.
The fact that a good teacher has some of the qualities of a good actor doesn't mean that he will indeed be able to act well on the stage; for there are very important differences between the teacher's work and that of the actor’s. The actor has to speak words which he has learnt by heart; he has to repeat exactly the same words each time he plays a certain part; even his movements and the ways in which he uses his voice are usually fixed before. What he has to do is to make all these carefully learnt words and actions seem natural on the stage.
A good teacher works in quite a different way. His audience takes an active part in his play: they ask and answer questions. The teacher, therefore, has to understand the needs of his audience which is his class. He cannot learn his part by heart, he must invent it as he goes along. I have known many teachers who were fine actors in class but were unable to take part in a stage-play.....
As all of us look back over own experiences with teachers, we recall that some teachers were much more effective than others. Some were stimulating - they made us think; they motivated us to productive work. Others were dull - in their classes we achieved only enough to get by and forgot most of that before the next school year began. It seems obvious that a trait, essential to teaching is the capacity to arouse students - to involve and excite them, to get thinking going and keep it going. Is this particular trait one which some people are born with, or can it be acquired? There is no easy answer to this question. Some persons while still children begin showing traits that suggest they can become exciting teachers. Their thinking shows an unorthodox, creative streak, and they exhibit unusual intellectual curiosity; they want to learn about all kinds of things and are probing and trying constantly. Such children also tend to be critical in the sense that they take nothing for granted; they always have to know why. How do we explain such persons? In one view heredity is the explanation; in another, early environment. There is no way of settling this controversy since everyone's personality is a product of his interacting with an environment, and no one can say trait A is inherited and trait B is learned. Heredity may contribute importantly to qualities of personality but, if so, this has not so far been conclusively demonstrated by scientific means.