第一篇：趙玉環單一的評價機制扼殺了多少學生的自信心

單一的評價機制扼殺了多少學生的自信心

教書20多年了，當班主任也將近20年了。大家知道，班主任不光負責自己所教學科的教學，還額外負責學生的所有事情，與學生接觸最為親密。班主任是學生最可依靠的人，但同時也是學生最畏懼的人。原因是班主任一定程度上決定著學生的情緒、做人的素質，甚至其人生發展。

社會給學校要成績，學校給老師要成績，最后，很大程度上把壓力轉嫁到了班主任身上。班主任怎么辦？只能把壓力轉嫁到學生身上。所以，導致教育者人人都把目光盯在了學習成績上。學習好就是好學生，就招人待見。學習不好就是差生，就招人反感。品格再好的差生也會因此發生著變化：先是臉上無光，進而可能還會想努力學習，可是如果總是靠在最后呢？他們就會慢慢失去信心和興趣，失去熱情和拼搏的精神，于是逐漸地自卑起來有的甚至不敢大聲說話，連笑也不敢了，認為自己沒有資格了。目睹著這些孩子的變化，我時常有一種負罪感：他們學不好文化課久沒有資格抬頭挺胸了嗎？就必須付出自信和熱情嗎？就必須整日痛苦或者麻木嗎？可是，這些卻是他們走上社會自我發展的必備素質啊！當然，班中總會有一些學生成績不錯的，姑且稱之為人才，但是，這是以多少差生的做人素質的丟失甚至被動輟學為代價的。這一切源于對學生、對學校的評價方式過于單一。這一點不改，再好的評價機制也是擺設。

目前，國家大力推行素質教育，推行與之相匹配的“中學生綜合素質測評“，這讓我們看到了曙光，也是廣大學生的福祉。可是，問題不在于這個“中學生綜合素質測評“指定地有多好，而在于如何執行，如何讓選拔人才的學校不得不重視。我認為國家還應該把這種綜合素質評價延伸到大學和社會。說起來不太好操作，這需要大家出主意，想對策，但至少有一點容易操作，比如從某個學校走出的學生嚴重違法就應該與他的就讀學校的考核掛鉤。這雖說不太公平，但至少是一種約束。

當然，以上情況的改變應首推國家教育部門的大政方針，那么，作為基層的教育者在評價 教師和學校政績不變而導致良好的“中學生綜合素質測評“落實不了的情況下應如何做呢？

1、首先要培養學生的熱情 一個沒有熱情的民族是注定不會發展的，而這個責任就落在一代又一代學生身上。如何讓高度的熱情成為學生發展的不竭動力是一個值得研究的課題。,由于教育方法的不當、教學方式的呆板單調、課業負擔的繁重、成績不前等原因,造成許多學生學習態度冷淡,厭學情緒嚴重。調動學習學習積極性,培養學生的學習熱情,成了教師的重要工作之一。使學生想學、樂學、會學,煥發他們身上蘊藏著的學習熱情,具體要做到以下幾個方面: 第一、樹立遠大志向,加強學習目的性教育學習并不一定都是引人入勝的,有些學習內容枯燥艱深,這就需要學生用堅強的意志克服困難。教師則平時注意對學生進行學習目的性教育,使其樹立遠大志向。學習目的性教育切忌空洞的理論說教。可以采用樹立榜樣的方法,向同學們講述偉人少年立志、刻苦學習的故事(如周恩來總理中學立志“為中華之崛起而讀書”):請身邊通過學習改變命運的成功人士現身說法,更有感染力和說服力;還可以召開主題班會,以“我長大后要干什么”“學習的意義”等為主題請每位同學談一談自己的理想和對學習的看法。這樣既可以使每位同學都有機會思考這類問題,又可以使教師及時掌握每名學生的思想動態,有針對性地進行教育。第二、制定合理的、具體的學習目標。除了遠大的學習志向,每個學生還應有切合實際的具體學習目標。第三、多設置一些活動，這樣就能給不同能力的學生提供不同的展示機會。比如各種內容的手抄報展評、各種內容的演講比賽、手工制作、繪畫作品等，只要注重培養學生的熱情辦法就會層出不窮。

2、其次要培養學生的自信心

自信心是一個人對自身價值和能力的充分認識和評價。對自己充滿信心的人，容易形成積極樂觀的情緒和百折不撓的意志，敢于面對新的問題和挑戰，不輕易言敗；而缺乏自信心的人，容易沮喪、灰心，在困難面前猶豫不決，畏縮不前，甚至逃避。如何培養小學生的自信心呢？

第一、賞識激勵。賞識是樹立學生信心最重要和最有效的方法，教師只有表達自己對學生的賞識才能使學生信心倍增。而學生對于老師的一言一行都很在意，他們很渴望經常得到老師的賞識。如何表現、何時表現效果最佳呢？下面幾點需把握好。

（1）、賞識要真誠，使學生確信是真的。教師要細心地觀察和了解，準確、具體地說出孩子的表現與成就，然后再熱情地夸獎學生。這樣學生不僅會確信教師的賞識是真的，從而對自己充滿自信，而且會對教師心存一種感激，從而更加努力，充滿、自信和活力。

（2）、表達賞識應形式多樣。表達賞識的主要方法有口頭表揚、贊許的眼光或微笑、懇切的鼓勵、物質的獎勵，手勢（如豎大拇指）等。根據不同的情況，施以不同的方法。

（3）、賞識表揚要及時。如果表揚或鼓勵是在第一時間提供的就會得到最令人滿意的結果。因為孩子的注意力轉向是很快的，因此，教師要時刻關注學生的每一點細微的進步，每一個小小的閃光點，并及時給予夸獎和鼓勵，讓孩子產生成就感和自豪感，促使其不斷進步，從而增強自信。

（4）、賞識表揚不能過度。賞識教育主張對孩子多肯定，多鼓勵，少批評，但不等于孩子犯了錯誤就不去批評，依然不斷地賞識。再者，過度賞識，會導致孩子自滿自傲、任性，不能客觀正確地評價自我，若稍遇坎坷便一蹶不振。我們要適當把握賞識力度，不同孩子賞識的程度不同。如膽小呆板的孩子多肯定鼓勵，少批評指責。對調皮、好動、表現差的孩子要善于捕捉其閃光點，及時肯定鼓勵，揚長避短。

第二、善待學生的過失和失敗，尤其是第一次，這是重樹學生自信心的有效方法。

“人非圣賢，熟能無過”。當學生犯錯時，教師要以包容的胸懷，善待學生的過失，誠懇地指出其不對之處，讓他們明白如何做人做事，不應隨意地責罵和諷刺，否則可能會一棍子打死學生，使其變得膽小或自暴自棄。這樣，原本是一件壞事，處理得好就會轉化為一個教育的良機，學生會因此明白了什么是對，什么是錯，知道了應該怎么做才是好，對學生自信心的重建是一個很好的方法。

“勝敗乃兵家常事”，老師一定要讓學生明白這個道理，當然也不要讓學生以此當做自己失敗的借口，這個分寸要把握好。一次又一次的考試，總有學生考試失利，老師要善于觀察成績發布時學生的表現，要留心那些垂頭喪氣的學生，應及時采取措施給予疏導，千萬不可任其發展，因為這種情緒一旦產生而學生自己又無力排解時就會形成一個巨大的陰影，嚴重挫敗學生的自信心。

總之，小學老師要充分認識到小學階段對學生自信心建立的重要性，要積極探索實踐各種好方法，努力培養起小學生強有力的自信心，為培養更多優秀人才打下良好基礎，為素質教育的健康發展做出我們應有的貢獻。

單一的評價機制扼殺了多少學生的自信心

單位：石家莊市第三十八中學

作者：趙玉環

第二篇：學校扼殺了學生的創造力？Ken Robinson Ted英語演講視頻中英字幕,英語文本（共）

演講稿英語文本：

Good morning.How are you? It's been great, hasn't it? I've been blown away by the whole thing.In fact, I'm leaving.There have been three themes, haven't there, running through the conference, which are relevant to what I want to talk about.One is the extraordinary evidence of human creativity in all of the presentations that we've had and in all of the people here.Just the variety of it and the range of it.The second is, that it's put us in a place where we have no idea what's going to happen, in terms of the future, no idea how this may play out.I have an interest in education--actually, what I find is, everybody has an interest in education;don't you? I find this very interesting.If you're at a dinner party, and you say you work in education--actually, you're not often at dinner parties, frankly, if you work in education, you're not asked.And you'll never ask back, curiously.That's strange to me.But if you are, and you say to somebody, you know, they say, “What do you do,” and you say you work in education, you can see the blood run from their face.They're like, “Oh my god,” you know, “why me? My one night out all week.” But if you ask people about their education, they pin you to the wall.Because it's one of those things that goes deep with people, am I right?, like religion, and money, and other things.I have a big interest in education, and I think we all do, we have a huge vested interest in it, partly because it's education that's meant to take us into this future that we can't grasp.If you think of it, children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065.Nobody has a clue, despite all the expertise that's been on parade for the past four days, what the world will look like in five years' time.And yet we're meant to be educating them for it.So the unpredictability, I think, is extraordinary.And the third part of this is that we've all agreed nonetheless on the really extraordinary capacity that children have, their capacities for innovation.I mean, Sirena last night was a marvel, wasn't she, just seeing what she could do.And she's exceptional, but I think she's not, so to speak, exceptional in the whole of childhood.What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent.And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents and we squander them, pretty ruthlessly.So I want to talk about education and I want to talk about creativity.My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status.[applause] Thank you.That was it, by the way, thank you very much.Soooo, 15 minutes left.Well, I was born.I heard a great story recently, I love telling it, of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson, she was 6 and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this little girl hardly paid attention, and in this drawing lesson she did.The teacher was fascinated and she went over to her and she said, “What are you drawing?” and the girl said, “I'm drawing a picture of God.” And the teacher said, “But nobody knows what God looks like.” And the girl said, “They will in a minute.”

When my son was 4 in England--actually he was 4 everywhere, to be honest;if we're being strict about it, wherever he went, he was 4 that year--he was in the nativity play.Do you remember the story? No, it was big, it was a big story.Mel Gibson did the sequel, you may have seen it, “Nativity II.” But James got the part of Joseph, which we were thrilled about.We considered this to be one of the lead parts.We had the place crammed full of agents in T-shirts: “James Robinson IS Joseph!” He didn't have to speak, but you know the bit where the three kings come in.They come in bearing gifts, and they bring gold, frankincense and myrrh.This really happened--we were sitting there and we think they just went out of sequence, we talked to the little boy afterward and we said, “You OK with that” and he said “Yeah, why, was that wrong?”--they just switched, I think that was it.Anyway, the three boys came in, little 4-year-olds with tea towels on their heads, and they put these boxes down, and the first boy said, “I bring you gold.” The second boy said, “I bring you myrhh.” And the third boy said, “Frank sent this.”

What these things have in common is that kids will take a chance.If they don't know, they'll have a go.Am I right? They're not frightened of being wrong.Now, I don't mean to say that being wrong is the same thing as being creative.What we do know is, if you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original.If you're not prepared to be wrong.And by the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity.They have become frightened of being wrong.And we run our companies like this, by the way, we stigmatize mistakes.And we're now running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make.And the result is, we are educating people out of their creative capacities.Picasso once said this, he said that all children are born artists.The problem is to remain an artist as we grow up.I believe this passionately, that we don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it.Or rather we get educated out of it.So why is this?

I lived in Stratford-on-Avon until about five years ago, in fact we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, so you can imagine what a seamless transition this was.Actually we lived in a place called Snitterfield, just outside Stratford, which is where Shakespeare's father was born.Were you struck by a new thought? I was.You don't think of Shakespeare having a father, do you? Do you? Because you don't think of Shakespeare being a child, do you? Shakespeare being 7? I never thought of it.I mean, he was 7 at some point;he was in somebody's English class, wasn't he? How annoying would that be? “Must try harder.” Being sent to bed by his dad, you know, to Shakespeare, “Go to bed, now,” to William Shakespeare, “and put the pencil down.And stop speaking like that.It's confusing everybody.”

Anyway, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, and I just want to say a word about the transition, actually.My son didn't want to come.I've got two kids, he's 21 now, my daughter's 16;he didn't want to come to Los Angeles.He loved it, but he had a girlfriend in England.This was the love of his life, Sarah.He'd known her for a month.Mind you, they'd had their fourth anniversary, because it's a long time when you're 16.Anyway, he was really upset on the plane, and he said, “I'll never find another girl like Sarah.” And we were rather pleased about that, frankly, because she was the main reason we were leaving the country.But something strikes you when you move to America and when you travel around the world: every education system on earth has the same hierarchy of subjects.Every one, doesn't matter where you go, you'd think it would be otherwise but it isn't.At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and the bottom are the arts.Everywhere on earth.And in pretty much every system too, there's a hierarchy within the arts.Art and music are nomally given a higher status in schools than drama and dance.There isn't an education system on the planet that teaches dance every day to children the way we teach them mathematics.Why? Why not? I think this is rather important.I think maths is very important but so is dance.Children dance all the time if they're allowed to, we all do.We all have bodies, don't we? Did I miss a meeting?

Truthfully what happens is, as children grow up we start to educate them progressively from the waist up.And then we focus on their heads.And slightly to one side.If you were to visit education as an alien and say what's it for, public education, I think you'd have to conclude, if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this, who does everything they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winners。I think you'd have to conclude the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors.Isn't it.They're the people who come out the top.And I used to be one, so there.And I like university professors, but you know, we shouldn't hold them up as the high-water mark of all human achievement.They're just a form of life, another form of life.but they're rather curious and I say this out of affection for them, there's something curious about them, not all of them but typically, they live in their heads, they live up there, and slightly to one side.They're disembodied.They look upon their bodies as a form of transport for their heads, don't they? It's a way of getting their head to meetings.If you want real evidence of out-of-body experiences, by the way, get yourself along to a residential conference of senior academics, and pop into the discotheque on the final night, and there you will see it, grown men and women writhing uncontrollably, off the beat, waiting until it ends so they can go home and write a paper about it.Now our education system is predicated on the idea of academic ability.And there's a reason.The whole system was invented round the world there were no public systems of education really before the 19th century.They all came into being to meet the needs of industrialism.So the hierarchy is rooted on two ideas:

Number one, that the most useful subjects for work are at the top.So you were probably steered benignly away from things at school when you were a kid, things you liked, on the grounds that you would never get a job doing that.Is that right? Don't do music, you're not going to be a musician;don't do art, you're not going to be an artist.Benign advice--now, profoundly mistaken.The whole world is engulfed in a revolution.And the second is, academic ability, which has really come to dominate our view of intelligence because the universities designed the system in their image.If you think of it, the whole system of public education around the world is a protracted process of university entrance.And the consequence is that many highly talented, brilliant, creative people think they're not, because the thing they were good at at school wasn't valued, or was actually stigmatized.And I think we can't afford to go on that way.In the next 30 years.according to UNESCO, more people worldwide will be graduating through education than since the beginning of history.More people, and it's the combination of all the things we've talked about--technology and its transformation effect on work, and demography and the huge explosion in population.Suddenly degrees aren't worth anything.Isn't that true?

When I was a student, if you had a degree, you had a job.If you didn't have a job it's because you didn't want one.And I didn't want one, frankly.But now kids with degrees are often heading home to carry on playing video games, because you need an MA where the previous job required a BA, and now you need a PhD for the other.It's a process of academic inflation.And it indicates the whole structure of education is shifting beneath our feet.We need to radically rethink our view of intelligence.We know three things about intelligence:

One, it's diverse, we think about the world in all the ways we experience it.We think visually, we think in sound, we think kinesthetically.We think in abstract terms, we think in movement.Secondly, intelligence is dynamic.If you look at the interactions of a human brain, as we heard yesterday from a number of presentations, intelligence is wonderfully interactive.The brain isn't divided into compartments.In fact, creativity, which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value, more often than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things.The brain is intentionally--by the way, there's a shaft of nerves that joins the two halves of the brain called the corpus collosum, and it's thicker in women.Following on from Helen yesterday, I think this is probably why women are better at multitasking, because you are, aren't you, there's a raft of research, but I know it from my personal life.If my wife is cooking a meal at home, which is not often, thankfully, but you know, she's doing(oh, she's good at some things)but if she's cooking, you know, she's dealing with people on the phone, she's talking to the kids, she's painting the ceiling, she's doing open-heart surgery over here;if I'm cooking, the door is shut, the kids are out, the phone's on the hook, if she comes in I get annoyed, I say “Terry, please, I'm trying to fry an egg in here, give me a break.”(You know that old philosophical thing, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it happen, remember that old chestnut, I saw a great T-shirt recently that said, “If a man speaks his mind in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?”)

And the third thing about intelligence is, it's distinct.I'm doing a new book at the moment called Epiphany which is based on a series of interviews with people about how they discovered their talent.I'm fascinated by how people got to be there.It's really prompted by a conversation I had with a wonderful woman who maybe most people have never heard of, she's called Gillian Lynne, have you heard of her? Some have.She's a choreographer and everybody knows her work.She did Cats, and Phantom of the Opera, she's wonderful.I used to be on the board of the Royal Ballet, in England, as you can see, and Gillian and I had lunch one day and I said Gillian, how'd you get to be a dancer? And she said it was interesting, when she was at school, she was really hopeless.And the school, in the 30s, wrote her parents and said, “We think Gillian has a learning disorder.” She couldn't concentrate, she was fidgeting.I think now they'd say she had ADHD.Wouldn't you? But this was the 1930s and ADHD hadn't been invented at this point.It wasn't an available condition.People weren't aware they could have that.Anyway she went to see this specialist, in this oak-paneled room, and she was there with her mother and she was led and sat on a chair at the end, and she sat on her hands for 20 minutes while this doctor talked to her mother about all the problems Gillian was having at school.And at the end of it--because she was disturbing people, her homework was always late, and so on, little kid of 8--in the end, the doctor went and sat next to Gillian and said, “Gillian I've listened to all these things that your mother's told me, and I need to speak to her privately.” He said, “Wait here, we'll be back, we won't be very long,” and they went and left her.But as they went out the room, he turned on the radio that was sitting on his desk, and when they got out the room, he said to her mother, “Just stand and watch her.” And the minute they left the room, she said, she was on her feet, moving to the music.And they watched for a few minutes and he turned to her mother and said, “Mrs.Lynne, Gillian isn't sick;she's a dancer.Take her to a dance school.”

I said, “What happened?”

She said, “She did.I can't tell you how wonderful it was.We walked in this room and it was full of people like me, people who couldn't sit still.People who had to move to think.” Who had to move to think.They did ballet, they did tap, they did jazz, they did modern, they did contemporary.She was eventually auditioned for the Royal Ballet School, she became a soloist, she had a wonderful career at the Royal Ballet, she eventually graduated from the Royal Ballet School and founded her own company, the Gillian Lynne Dance Company, and met Andrew Lloyd Weber.She's been responsible for some of the most successful musical theater productions in history, she's given pleasure to millions, and she's a multimillionaire.Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down.Now, I think--[applause] What I think it comes to is this: Al Gore spoke the other night about ecology and the revolution that was triggered by Rachel Carson.I believe our only hope for the future is to adopt a new conception of human ecology, one in which we start to reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity.Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we strip-mine the earth, for a particular commodity, and for the future, it won't serve us.We have to rethink the fundamental principles on which we're educating our children.There was a wonderful quote by Jonas Salk, who said, “If all the insects were to disappear from the earth, within 50 years all life on earth would end.If all human beings disappeared from the earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish.” And he's right.What TED celebrates is the gift of the human imagination.We have to be careful now that we use this gift wisely, and that we avert some of the scenarios that we've talked about.And the only way we'll do it is by seeing our creative capacities for the richness they are, and seeing our children for the hope that they are.And our task is to educate their whole being, so they can face this future--by the way, we may not see this future, but they will.And our job is to help them make something of it.Thank you very much.