Adults should be "lazy" so that children can teach themselves recently. I take children aged 4 to 6 to read and write. I think this is the closest I get to childless Lu Junyi. I recommend it here, so I won't repeat the contents of Lu Junyi's book. I want to talk about the part of my own class that may echo Junyi's experience. From 20 18 to 10, I began to teach a writing class for a self-study group. Ten weeks have passed since the first class and I wrote this manuscript. I found that after ten weeks, what I cared about in my mind and heart was completely different from the first week. In the first week, I thought: What should I teach? How to teach? Now that ten weeks have passed, I find that "what to teach" and "how to teach" are not my biggest concerns when I really regard children as the main body of learning. In the process of trying to let go, children will discover and learn by themselves, then "what to learn" and "how to learn" will be solved. Sounds a little unrealistic? Let me give you an example. When I say "try to put it down", I actually have to put it down. Because when I decided to use the power of adults carefully, naturally there was no so-called course developing in the direction I expected. Of course, I also take pains to prepare lessons and expect the course to develop as scheduled, but the problem is that the children's reaction to the teaching content may not fully meet my expectations. For example, once in class, I prepared a word game called "Word Family". After playing for a while, a child said, "I'm going to write now." "I want to play the last animal card." I thought it over and said, "If you want to write, just tell me what words you want to learn." The child who wants to write said, "I already have a lot of words in my word box, so I want to write them myself first ..." I said, "Well, you practice slowly, and I will play word games with the other two children." So, two children who want to practice writing write, and two children who want to play word games play word games ... but after a while, two children who were originally writing suddenly went to eat pudding, and I began to hesitate. Should I call them back? The class is not over yet. Just when I was thinking, the child came back. I observed two children, who seemed to want to write, but under the influence of pudding, their thoughts seemed a little floating; Two other children who were playing word games saw the pudding and ran to eat it. I think, should I finish class now? Or do you want to talk to them about classroom conventions (conventions made by children themselves, but conventions are another thing to talk about)? While I was thinking this way, I saw the pudding in the hand of child A and asked him, "Do you know how to write pudding?" "Pudding? Cloth ... is it not' no'? " "No, it's another word." "Is that the' cloth' of scissors and stone cloth?" "Yes, it is the" cloth "of scissors and stone cloth, and then" D "is the" D "of A, B, C and D. I wrote the word" pudding "on the blackboard. As soon as I finished writing "Ding", A said, "Is it Ding from Dingding Pharmacy?" Haha, it's really Lenovo. Yes, I'm Ding from Dingding Pharmacy. When I heard A say Tintin Drugstore, I found that children usually read signs! They are usually learning to read, not just in word class. It suddenly occurred to me that maybe I could play solitaire, which was not in my original plan. I started the game and other children joined in. "What can the bureau, bureau and bureau of Tintin Pharmacy take?" "orange." "Well, oranges. That color, what color? " "color." "Well, color, what color is that?" "Rainbow pony!" "Well, rainbow pony, what can a horse catch?" "Ma Kai Hospital!" In addition to child A, children B, C, D and E also joined the word solitaire game. I found that most of the words they picked up came from their own lives, such as Tintin Drugstore, the cartoon Rainbow Pony they usually watch, and MacKay Hospital where my father works. I want to illustrate through this example that for children, learning is not divided into classroom and daily life, but more often in daily life. Some people may question that learning lies in daily life, so can adults really not arrange courses for their children? This is another complicated problem. But the first thing I want to say is that as an adult who has close contact with children, whether parents or teachers, even if they constantly remind themselves to relax, they still seem to worry: Can children really learn anything like this? I'm not a parent, I'm just a teacher, and I can feel a lot of expectations for my children, not to mention the expectations of adults as parents. Because of expectations, adults always want to do more for their children (I always hope that children can learn more), but is it really good for children because of expectations? Or to avoid worrying about yourself? What Junyi said in the book is, don't rush to teach children anything. "If we expect our children to be independent and responsible for themselves when they grow up, how can we not let them practice making decisions and bear the consequences?" Put what Junyi said in his class. What I am experiencing and learning is "Don't rush to teach children anything". Can I really let go of the pressure of "teaching them things"? Can I really believe that children have the desire and ability to learn? Can I really be their study partner? This matter is actually not easy. Elegance said "will be lazy", in fact, is to give the children the initiative to learn. "Adults should be lazy so that children can learn by themselves." At the same time, I wonder: Is it possible for me to be their classmate instead of a teacher? This question is really too difficult! But I really want to go in this direction.
Comrades, be lazy! I have been wallowing in the field of children's education for ten years. In the past ten years, all kinds of ethos have prevailed in the field of education. The wind of "anti-corporal punishment" has been blowing; "turning" the wind blows; The wind of "critical thinking" blows. All kinds of values, trying to set off some ripples on this calm water. Junyi and I are old colleagues and friends. Remember once I asked him on the night train what our practice would leave? In all kinds of educational trends, our cry is as faint as a whisper, and our slogan is: cooperative education. Looking at Junyi's manuscript, an idea flashed through my mind: we are finally going to leave something behind. But it is wrong to say "stay", because this educational model refuses to leave any specific code of conduct, but it leaves a mode of thinking and an attitude towards people. This may seem abstract, but in this brief preface, I decided to make things more abstract. Next, I want to talk about this book from the perspective of an amateur philosopher. Individualism and universalism in ethics are two different directions of moral research. One is universalism and the other is individualism. Universalists believe that there are some universal moral norms in society that allow us to judge right and wrong, and they are applicable to anyone and any situation. For example, "don't kill", "don't lie" and "don't steal", no matter who and under what circumstances, these rules are iron laws and cannot be violated. If you violate these rules and steal something, you are wrong. No matter what the reason, you can't rationalize the theft, just as you can't say that black is white and white is black. This should be in line with most people's imagination of morality, but individualists don't think so. Individualists are opposed to this kind of moral code that does not take into account specific circumstances. For them, right or wrong always depends on who did what under what circumstances. For example, if you are kidnapped by kidnappers and held in a small room, you can only save your life by stealing the key in the kidnapper's pocket. At this time, should you strictly abide by the "don't steal" rule? In different situations and different life situations, seemingly the same behavior may have different meanings. This way of thinking can not only enrich our knowledge, but also arouse different sparks of thinking in the field of education. Junyi's book, when I read it, is advocating this kind of "educational individualism". Educational individualists are a group of "pain in the ass" because they rarely give specific answers (if they do, they usually just give each other confidence). When you ask him if he supports children to use electronic products, he will not say "yes" or "no", but start to discuss the significance of using electronic products to children. What experiences can children get in the use of electronic products? What experience can adults get from watching children use electronic products? Inside, they ask about experience and emotion; Outward, they ask the environment: under what circumstances will children be addicted to electronic products and when will they choose to leave electronic products? Will parents' work and emotions affect their children's use of electronic products? Things are complicated and concrete, and each actor's face becomes clearer. Only in this way can we ask: What does it mean for everyone in the story to use or not use electronic products? The universalism of lazy education, like all kinds of parenting books mentioned by Junyi, is constantly asking everyone to "do something" or "do nothing". All these requirements eventually turned into responsibilities, and the responsibilities were placed on parents, especially mothers. Junyi presented this picture of modern education with seven different themes, depicting everyone's role and troubles. If strict rules are removed, can each of us relax and be lazy? Is it more likely to meet each other and cherish each other? Behind the rules are "individual" people who have their own lives and hopes, strong and fragile. Abstract rules or values can't bring us back to specific people, but laziness can. I think this is what this book hopes to do: strive for some slack space and lazy space for those relationships that are tense because of responsibility, so that each other has the opportunity to cherish and love each other.