Teachers' teaching, whether they like it or not, takes students as the object of knowledge input, which is the simplest, safest and most stupid. As a result, it is often difficult for teachers to understand these situations: teachers will be complacent about the knowledge and problems involved-students will definitely score; To find out the problem of losing points in the analysis of test papers, at first glance, I found that the teacher himself spoke the knowledge points very carefully and the students were wrong again! I can't help flying into a rage, complaining to my colleagues, complaining that students don't study hard, and so on. Anyone who has been a teacher will encounter such problems to varying degrees, at least my colleagues around me have encountered them.
In fact, after careful reflection, it is not difficult to find out part of the reasons for the problem.
Starting with the results, students can't learn real knowledge, not because teachers emphasize it, but because students don't use their brains. Then, why not leave out the teacher's reinforcement and let the students master the knowledge directly and actively?
? List the examples I have practiced.
The teaching of "Back to Xi Words" summarizes several words that students were prone to make mistakes in the past. When teaching, give them a chance to discuss and communicate. Why did Tao Yuanming use this word instead of that one? For example, the word "Fu" in the sentence "When the scenery is exhausted, you will enter, but you will not linger" is often misspelled as "Fu". I asked this question: Why did the author use the word "stroke"? After students' thinking, some students think that "caressing" means touching and touching, and touching isolation is the external action expression of "lingering" psychology. Some students think that Fu Gu Song is the externalization of the author's contradictory psychology of resignation and retirement. I then asked: Why didn't the author use the word "help"? In fact, this question is just a copy of the last question, which is boring, but it will also attract students' attention. My purpose is to present the results of "help" directly to students. The students continued to think, and some students replied: the word "help" means holding and supporting, and can't express the author's "lingering" psychology. Some students answered: Why did the author "help" Gu Song? He is not too old to walk. The students laughed. This is also an understanding.
Students discuss and communicate under the premise of thinking. I won't express my opinion without thinking. Socrates once said, "I can't teach others anything, I can only make them think." Teachers make students think, which is the real meaning of teaching. Knowledge can be taught by oneself, but learning to think depends on training. Teachers have the responsibility to train students to think actively. The process of students thinking is a process of association and discussion. If the rhythm slows down, they will get deeper ideas.
Later, in the exam, the error rate of students' intentional comparison of the word "fu" was indeed reduced a lot.
? Teachers, in the process of student communication, should be properly guided and not directly involved; To say that the teacher's role is the most important, that is to ask questions-"Why do you want to caress instead of help", which I put forward after summing up my previous teaching experience. Would it be better if students could ask their own questions? Teacher Dong Yu clearly pointed out in the book that asking good questions is the core value of critical thinking.
It is undeniable that this practice of teachers can only reduce the number of students who mistake "fu" for "help"; As it turns out, I found the students' papers, but unfortunately, I found that several students still made mistakes. What's the problem? Did the students not participate in the discussion, or did they not feel that they were distracted at that time?
I once read a mother's article in the WeChat circle, to the effect that her child was in the second grade of primary school and did not learn math well. She had to find out why, starting with the children's classes at school. One day, the mother went to class to observe what the child was listening to, and sure enough, she found part of the reason for the problem. Children in grade two can concentrate for 20 minutes in a 40-minute class, which is in line with the law of this age. When the teacher talked about the key points, he found that the child had dropped the eraser, so he went under the table to find the eraser. When the child finds the eraser and listens to the teacher, he misses the key part of the math problem and the key part of the lecture. Children probably can't do this kind of problem.
If the students in my class are as distracted as the children described by this mother, will they miss the best opportunity to solve the problem?
On the fifth page of the book, Teacher Dong Yu wrote: "Critical thinking ... should be used to reflect on the shortcomings and deficiencies of one's own thinking." I'm a little confused about this: if a person doesn't understand the shortcomings and deficiencies of his own thinking at all, does it mean that reflection is useless? Do idiots reflect on their behavior? (We'll discuss it tomorrow)