zhengkai007
commented
7 years ago By Susan Engel, senior lecturer in psychology and the director of the teaching program at Williams College, New Marlborough, Mass. (February 1, 2010, New York Times)
THE Obama administration is planning some big changes to how we measure the success or failure of schools and how we apportion federal money based on those assessments. [Bob’s note: See http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/] It’s great that the administration is trying to undertake reforms, but if we want to make sure all children learn, we will need to overhaul the curriculum itself. Our current educational approach — and the testing that is driving it — is completely at odds with what scientists understand about how children develop during the elementary school years and has led to a curriculum that is strangling children and teachers alike.
In order to design a curriculum that teaches what truly matters, educators should remember a basic precept of modern developmental science: developmental precursors don’t always resemble the skill to which they are leading. For example, saying the alphabet does not particularly help children learn to read. But having extended and complex conversations during toddlerhood does. Simply put, what children need to do in elementary school is not to cram for high school or college, but to develop ways of thinking and behaving that will lead to valuable knowledge and skills later on.
So what should children be able to do by age 12, or the time they leave elementary school? They should be able to read a chapter book [[Bob’s note: a children's book with story, intended for intermediate readers, generally age 7-10. Unlike picture books for younger readers, a chapter book tells the story primarily through prose, rather than pictures. Unlike books for older readers, a chapter book contains plentiful illustrations. The name refers to the fact that the stories are usually divided into short chapters, which provide children with opportunities to stop and resume reading if their attention span is not long enough to finish the book in one sitting.]], write a story and a compelling essay; know how to add, subtract, divide and multiply numbers; detect patterns in complex phenomena; use evidence to support an opinion; be part of a group of people who are not their family; and engage in an exchange of ideas in conversation. If all elementary school students mastered these abilities, they would be prepared to learn almost anything in high school and college.
Imagine, for instance, a third-grade classroom that was free of the laundry list of goals currently harnessing our teachers and students, and that was devoted instead to just a few narrowly defined and deeply focused goals.
In this classroom, children would spend two hours each day hearing stories read aloud, reading aloud themselves, telling stories to one another and reading on their own. After all, the first step to literacy is simply being immersed, through conversation and storytelling, in a reading environment; the second is to read a lot and often. A school day where every child is given ample opportunities to read and discuss books would give teachers more time to help those students who need more instruction in order to become good readers.
Children would also spend an hour a day writing things that have actual meaning to them — stories, newspaper articles, captions for cartoons, letters to one another. People write best when they use writing to think and to communicate, rather than to get a good grade.
In our theoretical classroom, children would also spend a short period of time each day practicing computation — adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. Once children are proficient in those basics they would be free to turn to other activities that are equally essential for math and science: devising original experiments, observing the natural world and counting things, whether they be words, events or people. These are all activities children naturally love, if given a chance to do them in a genuine way.
What they shouldn’t do is spend tedious hours learning isolated mathematical formulas or memorizing sheets of science facts that are unlikely to matter much in the long run. Scientists know that children learn best by putting experiences together in new ways. They construct knowledge; they don’t swallow it. Along the way, teachers should spend time each day having sustained conversations with small groups of children. Such conversations give children a chance to support their views with evidence, change their minds and use questions as a way to learn more.
During the school day, there should be extended time for play. Research has shown unequivocally that children learn best when they are interested in the material or activity they are learning. Play — from building contraptions to enacting stories to inventing games — can allow children to satisfy their curiosity about the things that interest them in their own way. It can also help them acquire higher-order thinking skills, like generating testable hypotheses, imagining situations from someone else’s perspective and thinking of alternate solutions.
A classroom like this would provide lots of time for children to learn to collaborate with one another, a skill easily as important as math or reading. It takes time and guidance to learn how to get along, to listen to one another and to cooperate. These skills cannot be picked up casually at the corners of the day.
The reforms suggested by the administration on Monday have the potential to help liberate our schools. But they can only do so much. Our success depends on embracing a curriculum focused on essential skills like reading, writing, computation, pattern detection, conversation and collaboration — a curriculum designed to raise children, rather than test scores.
作者：Susan Engel
美国麻省新马尔布罗市威廉斯学院心理学高级讲师、教育计划主任（2010-02-01 纽约时报）
奥巴马政府正在计划一些重大的变革，以改变我们如何衡量学校教育之成败，以及如何基于上述的评定来分配联邦的教育经费。[Bob注记:参见http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/] 政府试图改革教育的努力是值得称谓的，然而，如果要确保所有的孩子们有效地学习，我们需要彻底改革课程本身。我们当前的教育方法，以及推动这种教育方法的考试制度，完全是和科学家们所理解的孩童在小学期间的心智成长进程背道而驰，并且这种教育方法造成的一个结果便是扼杀孩童和教师才能的课程。
为了设计一种向学生教授真正重要的知识的课程，教育者们应当牢记现代发育成长科学的一个基本原则：发育成长的征兆和表象并不总是和它们所指向的技能类似。举个例子：学习朗读字母表并不能特别地帮助孩童学习阅读。但是，在孩子蹒跚学步时期和他们进行扩展和复杂的对话却是有帮助的。简单地说，孩童在小学阶段需要做的不是为了升入高中或者大学而接受填鸭式的教育，而是要开发出一些思维以及行为的方法，
这些方法能够日后帮助他们获得有价值的知识和技能。 那么，在孩子12岁时，或者在他们离开小学的时候，应当具备怎样的能力呢？他们应该能阅读章节式的故事书 [Bob注记：一种儿童的故事书，面向中级读者，一般是7-10岁。与面向幼童的图画书所不同的是，章节式的故事书以短文的形式讲述故事，而不是用图画来讲故事。区别于面向更加年长孩童的书籍，章节式的故事书里面包含了丰富的插图。之所以称之为章节式的故事书，是因为它里面的故事通常是被分成较短的章节，以便于孩童在不能集中精力一次阅读完整个故事时，可以停下来，以后再接着读]，他们应该能写故事和有说服力的短文；他们应该能做加法、减法、除法和乘法；能够发现复杂现象中的模式和规律；能够运用证据来支持一种观点；能够成为他们家庭以外的团体的一员；能够通过交谈和他人进行思想的交流。如果小学的学生们能够拥有以上的这些能力，他们就为在进入高中和大学后学习任何知识做好了准备。
设想一下，一个三年级的班级，被从目前禁锢我们的教师和学生的一长列目标当中解放出来，进而完全把教学精力投入到几项更为明确和专注的目标当中去，那会怎样？
在这样的一个教室中，孩子们每天会用两个小时听别人朗读故事，自己朗读，互相讲故事，并且自己独立阅读。毕竟，迈向读写能力的第一步只是通过交谈和讲故事的方式，沉浸到一个阅读的环境当中。第二步是增加阅读量和经常地阅读。在学校的一天，如果每个孩子都有充分的机会阅读书籍和进行讨论，那么教师将有更多的时间去帮助那些需要教师讲解的学生，使得这些学生可以顺利地阅读。
孩子们每天还会花一个小时去写那些对于他们真正有意义的东西¬－故事，报纸上面的文章，卡通的标题，互相之间的信函。人们是在利用写作来思考和交流时能写出最好的文章，而不是在希望拿到好分数的情况之下。
在我们假想的课堂上，孩子每天还会花短短的一段时间来练习运算－加法，减法，乘法和除法。一旦孩子们掌握了这些基本功，他们就有能力转而进行其他的、对于数学和科学同样至关重要的活动：设计有创意的实验，观察自然世界，计数，无论是单词，事件还是人们的数目。这些都是孩子们自然地就会喜爱的活动，只要给他们机会用一种自然的方式去做这些活动就可以。
孩子们不应当做的是：用去冗长沉闷的时间，去学习那些抽象孤立的数学公式，或者默记那些长远来说对于他们并无多少用处的一页又一页的科学记录和数据。科学家们了解到：孩子们在用新的方式建立和进行实验时学习效果最好。他们是在构造知识，而不是囫囵吞枣地把知识吞下去。
接下来，教师们应当每天花时间和一小群一小群的孩子们进行持续的对话。通过这种对话，孩子们可以有机会用证据支持他们的观点，改变他们的想法，并通过提问题学习更多的知识。
在这么一天的学习当中，还应该有充足的玩耍的时间。研究结果明确地显示：孩子在对于所学习的材料和活动有兴趣时学得最好。玩耍 －从建立装置，到表演故事，到发明游戏－ 所有这些都让孩子们用自己的方式来满足对于他们感兴趣的事物的好奇心。它同时还可以帮助孩子们获取更高级别的思维技能，例如：建立可以被实验验证的假设，从其他人的角度，设身处地地想像他人的处境，考虑轮替方案。
这样的一个课堂可以为孩子们提供很多时间去学习和其他人合作，显然，这种能力是同数学和阅读一样重要。学习如何于他人相处，倾听他人的声音，和他人合作，是需要时间和引导的。这些技能不是能在一天的闲暇时刻轻松地获取的。
奥巴马政府所提议的改革有可能帮助解放我们的学校。但也是仅此而已。我们的成功有赖于采纳一种新型的课程，专注于发展重要的技能，如：阅读，写作，运算，模式识别，交流和合作－这种课程旨在培育孩子们，而不是用来测试考试分数。