I don't know when, I found that our students stopped taking notes. At first I thought it was a few underachievers who didn't take notes (some students didn't even do anything), but after careful observation, almost no students took notes. Students who learn better only draw sketches in textbooks. It is incredible for our generation that students don't take notes. As long as I can remember, since middle school, students have regarded notes as treasures. Later, I went through secondary schools, junior colleges (night universities), undergraduate courses (correspondence courses) and graduate courses. And notes are essential. At that time, notes were the essence and focus of teachers' teaching, and also an important helper for exams. With complete class notes in hand, you will have a clear mind when you are dealing with the exam. Students who study hard should sort out their class notes in their spare time. Sometimes after being absent from class for some reason, the most important thing is to make up your notes quickly. If you want to make up your notes, you must borrow them from your classmates first. You should hesitate to borrow notes every time. Whose notes are they, whether they can speak, whether the other party will refuse them in different ways and so on. , are after repeated consideration. Once I borrowed notes, I really thanked each other from my heart. I copied it all night, but I am grateful when I return it, because it is the fruit of others' labor, so I can't treat it lightly! Why don't students take notes now? Is it the result of the curriculum reform? Is it the requirement of learning revolution? I don't think so. "Being is rationality" is Hegel's classical philosophical theory. Since it is an objective fact that students don't take notes, it must be "reasonable". According to my observation and analysis, students' failure to take notes may be related to the following factors: 1 Notes have nothing to do with the content of the exam. Anyone who is familiar with vocational education knows that the difficulty of assessing students in vocational schools has dropped again and again, and there are almost no standards. The source and quality of vocational education in the 1980s have become history and gone forever. Teachers in vocational schools have also gradually transitioned from hitting a wall, not understanding and complaining to the current state of no standards. In the past, it was against discipline for a teacher to reveal the contents of an exam before it. Later, teachers and administrators gradually found that even if the contents of the exam were revealed, it would not be of much help to students' exams, because a large number of students did not read books or review before the exam. Some teachers admit that they have done such a thing: tell students the contents of the test paper before the exam, and make it clear that the exam is these contents. Even so, it still can't attract students' attention. Scores are the lifeblood of students. Since everything can save lives, who will take notes? 2. When the teacher reads the text from the book, the class notes become redundant. In vocational schools, the phenomenon that teachers only prepare textbooks for classes is increasing. I have listened to some classes, and the contents of some teachers' lectures, the exercises used in the class and even the examples given are the same as those in the textbook. I often hear teachers say to students, "This definition is on the first page of the textbook. Let's mark it down." Whether listening to many of my teachers or teaching courses for many years, when it comes to basic concepts and definitions, a common phenomenon is that I will never easily adopt words in textbooks. This is not mystifying and pretending to be profound, but the teacher has read and studied many books and textbooks in the same field in the process of preparing lessons, and put different views on the same issue together for repeated comparison and pondering, and naturally he will have a lot of experience. A concept has been debated for decades and hundreds of years, which shows that people's understanding has not been unified, indicating that both sides and parties in the debate hold their own words and no one can convince anyone. The person who compiles the textbook can only choose one of the viewpoints as the "conclusion" to tell the students. As a teacher, it is an obligation to let students know what other representative viewpoints are besides those in the textbook, so as to broaden their horizons. If the teacher only talks about the content of the textbook, students naturally don't need to take notes. 3. All kinds of misunderstandings and misunderstandings about vocational education are reflected in the classroom. After entering the new century, vocational education has received unprecedented attention from the state and achieved unprecedented development, which is of course the welfare of vocational education. However, a side effect of governments at all levels attaching importance to vocational education is that leaders at all levels should "say their own views" on vocational education. It is a good thing if we express our opinions, let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend. But unfortunately, in our country, it is impossible to hear "different opinions" among leaders at all levels. Leaders at all levels say their own views, but the basic views, directions and tone are all based on what the leaders with the highest positions say, and they will never go out of shape. A senior leader said that "vocational education is employment education", and other leaders at all levels immediately expressed their opinions, thinking that this sentence expressed "the essential characteristics of vocational education" and grasped "the key of vocational education" and so on. Under the guidance of "vocational education is employment education", vocational schools have become "processing factories" that provide skilled talents for local economic development, and become non-academic education institutions that are nominally schools but actually social training. Within the school, all subjects that are not directly related to employment have been questioned to varying degrees, and some have been directly cut off. In order to prevent vocational education from becoming short-term social training, people of insight in some local education departments forcibly retained the necessary cultural basic courses by administrative order. However, the basic course of culture, which keeps its seat, has not kept its dignity, because of the requirements of superiors, the opinions of experts and the regulations of the school, students cannot fail in the examinations of linguistics, mathematics, foreign politics and other subjects on a large scale. If this happens, it shows that teachers' ideas have not changed. Some leaders said at a meeting of hundreds of people: "This student is not interested in foreign languages. After our education, he has learned 26 letters and can recognize simple words. This is progress! " Excuse me, under such circumstances, is it necessary for teachers to expand extracurricular activities? Will students still be eager to pay attention to and record every word of the teacher? When it comes to curriculum reform, some people like to criticize past vocational education with examples. The most typical saying is "blackboard opening machine tool". Is this a common practice in vocational education in the past? I think this is problematic. Take the School of Finance and Economics where I work as an example. Even back to twenty or thirty years ago, there was no extreme case of learning accounting on the blackboard. In the early 1980s, I was the deputy section chief of the Academic Affairs Office. In the process of studying accounting, students majoring in accounting have to visit enterprises many times and practice for two months last semester. In order to implement student internship enterprises, I and the academic staff rode bicycles to various large and medium-sized enterprises in Xuzhou, and visited the heads of the financial departments of the enterprises one by one to implement specific matters such as the number of internship students and accommodation. Although the conditions were difficult at that time, students' professional study was always closely linked with practice. At present, vocational schools have invested a lot of money to build training bases, and the state has also allocated huge sums of money to support the construction of training bases in vocational schools. I always feel that this practice is debatable. The result I see is that the training base is more modern, but the distance between students and practice is getting farther and farther. Of course, I dare not say that it is wrong for the state to invest in the construction of training base, but I am convinced of the following issues: First, training base is definitely not the only way to strengthen students' practical ability; Second, not every major needs to build a large-scale training base on campus; Third, no matter how advanced the training base is, it cannot completely replace the close contact between students and enterprises. There were many problems in taking notes in class before and before the exam. But I think the problem of students not taking notes is bigger and more serious now. The direct consequence is that few students review carefully after class because they don't take notes in class, so it is not surprising that students who study by themselves at night have nothing to do. General education has made students tired of learning, and the problem is very serious. Vocational education makes students stop learning, and the problem is more serious! I think so too. 20 1 1/8/2