But the concrete authenticity needs to be verified.

Viewpoint 1:

When Marx was a middle school student, he loved reading. When he was at the University of Berlin, he went crazy. He can stay indoors all day and study in the dormitory from morning till night.

No matter Paris, Manchester, London ... Marx always goes to the library. In the reading room of the British Museum in London, there is also a "special seat" for Marx to read books every day. There are two obvious footprints on the carpet of the special seat. It turns out that when Marx lived in London, he went to the library reading room to read books and study a lot of documents and precious materials on time from 9 am to 7 pm every day, just like going to work. Because he always sits in a fixed seat every time he goes to read a book, for a long time, the library staff regarded this seat as Marx's exclusive seat. If this seat is vacant one day, it means that Marx must be ill or something unexpected has happened. After a long time, two long footprints were wiped out on the carpet under his reading seat, which became the historical testimony of Marx's hard work here.

Viewpoint 2:

"Marx's footprint" raises questions

The Footprints of Marx is a story that many people are familiar with. It is said that when Marx was studying in the dome reading room of the British Museum, he actually made a footprint on the ground because of his habit of sitting in a fixed seat all the year round and rubbing his feet on the ground. This story touched many young pupils and provided a vivid detail for many middle school teachers to tell the history related to Marx. The Footprints of Marx has educated many people and made them feel the diligence of great men. I don't want to arouse students' suspicion when I mentioned this past event in the new high school curriculum "The Birth of Marxism".

Teacher, when Marx was studying in the reading room, he rubbed his foot on the ground. How can he have such a reading habit? " Won't the sound of rubbing your feet when reading cause others' disgust? The reading room is so quiet, won't the librarian stop him? "

Student B: "I don't believe it either. Why is there always a fixed seat for Marx in that dome reading room? He is not a member of the library. What if someone else takes his seat? "

Student C: "Teacher, even if all this is true, I don't believe it. Think about it, how long you study in your seat in our classroom, it is impossible to grind a footprint on the ground. "

After three students asked questions, the classroom became restless. Obviously, the thinking of three students triggered everyone's thinking, and they doubted the truth of the story. The classroom is a little messy. Many students looked at me, waiting for my answer.

Students' questions show that they have their own thoughts, which is a very rare phenomenon in the classroom now. It is reasonable for students to analyze historical problems with their own experience and knowledge, but it seems to be not perfect. This is the best time to cultivate their historical thinking ability. I've decided to leave this issue to everyone for discussion. So I said, "It seems that some students have questioned the truth of the story told by the teacher, which is good, indicating that everyone will think and will not blindly follow. What is more commendable is that all three students put forward their own reasons, which in itself embodies a spirit of scientific inquiry. As for whether this story is true or not, there can only be one truth, depending on whether we can find the historical truth. The three students who questioned all put forward their own reasons. Do you think their reasons can deny the truth of this incident? "

"Marx's feet may not be able to rub out the sound, so it does not necessarily affect the silence of the reading room? I think this thing may still be true. Of course, reading habits are not good. " (The classmate laughed, and someone chimed in and said, "Nothing, don't you have some actions when you are happy when you are studying?" After one classmate finished speaking, other classmates nodded frequently. I asked the students who just questioned. Do you agree? He also nodded. It seems that this question has been basically solved.

Will Marx have a fixed seat in the library? Will someone else take Marx's seat?

"Will you get a fixed seat in the reading room? Not necessarily, but some people may, such as Marx. "

"Why?"

"Marx is a celebrity. Maybe the administrator knows him. Leave him a seat. "

Obviously, students' analytical thinking has fallen into a misunderstanding. I gave a negative answer to this question and made my own explanation: first, under the circumstances at that time, it should not be mentioned. The glory of Marx is more "the glory behind". At that time, he was neither a revolutionary mentor nor a leader of the British proletariat. These were gradually added after his death, especially in socialist countries. Up to now, the western countries' views on Marx are more of a philosopher's view. Whether Marx was a celebrity in the eyes of ordinary British people when he was in Britain is actually worth discussing. Secondly, even if a celebrity is a celebrity, will there be a librarian to reserve a fixed position for him in Britain? This is also the psychology of some celebrities in China who worship celebrities and give them special treatment, which is a manifestation of privileged thought. In Britain, which advocates freedom and equality, such positions probably won't appear in libraries.

"Then you don't admit that there is something wrong with the story of this footprint?" Some students asked.

"No, this question has nothing to do with whether you can leave a footprint. As long as Marx is used to reading in his seat all the year round and has the habit of wiping his feet, I think it is possible to leave footprints. You know, Marx moved to London from 1849 to 1883 and lived in London for 34 years. "

"Teacher, I still don't understand. The floor is so strong, how can it be imprinted? " The third classmate who questioned at first said unconvinced.

"Do you think about it, the concrete floor of the dome reading room of the British Museum is as hard as the floor of our classroom? If 100 years ago, the concrete floor of the reading room of the British Museum was not strong enough, you can leave such footprints. " I still defend the truth of this story.

Although I am defending the truth of this story, I am also shaking the truth of this story. I had to say, "Of course, the teacher hasn't been to London, so it's hard to see if there are footprints."

The discussion that took up more than half of the class turned out to be Marx's footprint, and the problem had no result. I really regret telling this story, and I am thankless. It seems that the details of history are vivid and touching, but if the authenticity causes doubt, the effect is just the opposite. It seems that truth is the life of history on the two issues of moving and truth, and the moving of history must be based on truth. Maybe the story of Marx's footprint itself is true, because my story has become untrue. Perhaps the story of Marx's footprint itself is not true. At this point, I can only admit that the story of Marx's footprint needs to be re-studied, and then to find information.

However, I am not reconciled to this result. I am not reconciled. After a long discussion, the students only got a half-truth story to be confirmed. From students' discussion, I found that students' thinking quality is valuable and flawed: what is valuable is that students' thinking conclusions are based on the thinking quality of independent thinking, not blindly following, having their own opinions, having evidence, and not arbitrarily commenting. Although there is not a little evidence from history, the engagement theory is made. This is exactly what should be adhered to and praised; The defect is that students' thinking is limited by knowledge, and they are used to verifying ancient facts with current experience, and will not put historical figures in the historical environment, which is exactly what we need to carry forward in re-education. In fact, as the basic requirement of historical thinking, doing these two things well does not necessarily mean that you can have a view of right and wrong and distinguish between true and false. It is still necessary to comprehensively analyze the materials from multiple angles. Isn't the embarrassment of Marx's footprint caused by his own lack of materials? It is my own shortcomings that lead to the depression in the classroom and make teaching in trouble. I have to come clean about my ideas and get everyone's understanding before other teaching contents can continue.

Although the later class was successfully finished, I felt very uncomfortable. The problem of Marx's footprint haunts my mind like a shadow. Even sadder, not long after I finished my class, a student told me that she had been to London and visited this reading room. She said that she didn't know whether Marx's footprints were really preserved, because when she visited, Marx's reading room did exist, but it was separated from tourists by a warning line. There is a carpet on the ground, I don't know when it was laid, and I don't know if there are Marx's footprints under the thick carpet. She's sorry too. I also looked up some articles on the Internet, and the results were even more disappointing. Many articles on the internet said that they went to London for pilgrimage because of their academic qualifications, but they all returned disappointed. Is it made up by literati out of reverence for Marx to show greatness, or is it true? I really don't know.

In fact, if the story of Marx's footprint is told by a novelist or a Chinese teacher, it may be "heard by my aunt." However, in history class, telling stories with such details that arouse students' doubts deviates from the original track. Although some remedies have been made in teaching, the history class has not been abandoned. However, if this detail does not arouse students' doubts, other teaching designs in the classroom will go smoothly and deeply.

The person who tells this story actually doesn't care about the content of this story, but uses this detail to illustrate Marx's diligence. Objectively speaking, there must be Marx's footprints in the dome reading room of the British Museum. In addition to Marx's footprints, there are also Lenin and Sun Yat-sen's footprints. There are more celebrities studying in the British Museum. It is not necessary for the British to leave Marx's footprints to educate future generations to study hard. During Marx's study in the British Museum, diligence should be self-evident. Otherwise, it will not achieve the magnificent masterpiece Das Kapital. In fact, this has reflected Marx's diligence, but the details of this footprint dilute the purpose of teaching because students doubt the authenticity.

From this perspective, the details of history are important, and the truth of historical details is more important. In our history, it is so specious and lifelike that it is difficult to determine whether it is true or not. There are many historical details. If the teacher can't grasp its authenticity in teaching, I think it's better to avoid it so as not to cause misunderstanding among students. In order to recognize the truth, give students a true and reliable history, avoid the spread of fallacies and mislead children, teachers have the obligation to read more books and study more.

From:/xspd/200903/10842.html.