TWENTY years ago, kids in preschool, kindergarten and even first and second grade spent much of their time playing: building with blocks, drawing or creating imaginary worlds, in their own heads or with classmates. But increasingly, these activities are being abandoned for the teacher-led, didactic instruction typically used in higher grades. In many schools, formal education now starts at age 4 or 5. Without this early start, the thinking goes, kids risk falling behind in crucial subjects such as reading and math, and may never catch up.
20年前，上學前班、幼兒園、乃至一二年級的孩子們，大部門時光都在玩：聚積木、畫畫、創作想象的天下，在腦瓜裏想這些事，或和同窗一路玩。但這些運動愈來愈多地被先生的教授教養所替換，而這類教導方法曩昔平日用於年級較高的門生。在許多黌舍，正規教導如今是從4或5歲開端的。人們以為，假如不提前開端接收教導，孩子們在瀏覽、數學等癥結科目上生怕會落伍，大概永久都沒法再趕返來。
The idea seems obvious: Starting sooner means learning more; the early bird catches the worm.
這個設法主意仿佛是不言而喻的：越早開端象征著學到的越多：夙興的鳥兒有蟲吃。
But a growing group of scientists, education researchers and educators say there is little evidence that this approach improves long-term achievement; in fact, it may have the opposite effect, potentially slowing emotional and cognitive development, causing unnecessary stress and perhaps even souring kids’ desire to learn.
但愈來愈多的科學家、教導研討者和教導事情者表現，沒有證據註解這類方法會進步歷久的成就;現實上，它大概會帶來相反的後果，大概會攔阻情緒及認知方面的成長，造成沒必要要的壓力，乃至大概會抹殺孩子的求知欲。
One expert I talked to recently, Nancy Carlsson-Paige, a professor emerita of education at Lesley University in Cambridge, Mass., describes this trend as a “profound misunderstanding of how children learn.” She regularly tours schools, and sees younger students floundering to comprehend instruction: “I’ve seen it many, many times in many, many classrooms — kids being told to sit at a table and just copy letters. They don’t know what they’re doing. It’s heartbreaking.”
我比來與馬薩諸塞州坎布裏奇萊斯利大學(Lesley University)的教導學榮休傳授南茜·卡爾松-佩奇(Nancy Carlsson-Paige)有過一番攀談。卡爾松-佩奇稱，這類趨向反應了對“孩子的進修進程深深的誤會”。她按期觀光黌舍，看到許多年事較小的門生沒法懂得講課內容：“我在許多課堂看到過許多相似的情形，先生讓門生坐在桌子旁，繕寫字母。他們不曉得本身在幹甚麽。真讓人覺得惆悵。”
The stakes in this debate are considerable. As the skeptics of teacher-led early learning see it, that kind of education will fail to produce people who can discover and innovate, and will merely produce people who are likely to be passive consumers of information, followers rather than inventors. Which kind of citizen do we want for the 21st century?
這場爭辯事關龐大。在西席初期指點的質疑者看來，那種教導方法沒法造就出可以或許發明、立異的人材，只會造就出偏向於被動接收信息的人，跟隨者，而不是發明者。在21世紀，咱們須要的是哪一種國民?
In the United States, more academic early education has spread rapidly in the past decade. Programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have contributed to more testing and more teacher-directed instruction.
在曩昔10年中，愈來愈多的初期教導辦法在美國敏捷舒展。《不讓孩子落伍》法案 (No Child Left Behind)、“力求進步”籌劃(Race to the Top)等項目，匆匆使門生面臨更多考試，接收更多由西席主導的教授教養。
Another reason: the Common Core State Standards, a detailed set of educational guidelines meant to ensure that students reach certain benchmarks between kindergarten and 12th grade. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia have adopted both the math and language standards.
另外一個緣故原由：各州配合焦點尺度(Common Core State Standards)。這套細致的教導目標，旨在確保門生在閱歷幼兒園到12年級的進修後，到達必定的尺度。今朝，43個州和哥倫比亞特區采用了數學和說話方面的尺度。
The shift toward didactic approaches is an attempt to solve two pressing problems.
轉而采取說教的方法是為了辦理兩個緊急的題目。
By many measures, American educational achievement lags behind that of other countries; at the same time, millions of American students, many of them poor and from minority backgrounds, remain far below national norms. Advocates say that starting formal education earlier will help close these dual gaps.
從許多方面來看，美國的教導造詣落伍於其他國度;與此同時，數百萬美國粹生的成就仍遠遠低於天下程度，這些門生中許多人家道貧苦，屬於少數族裔。提倡人士表現，提早開端正規教導將有助於縮小這類兩重差距。
But these moves, while well intentioned, are misguided. Several countries, including Finland and Estonia, don’t start compulsory education until the age of 7. In the most recent comparison of national educational levels, the Program for International Student Assessment, both countries ranked significantly higher than the United States on math, science and reading.
這些舉動固然都是出自善意，倒是遭到了誤導。包含芬蘭和愛沙尼亞在內的幾個國度的責任教導都是從7歲才開端。國際門生評估項目(Program for International Student Assessment)對各個國度的教導程度做出的最新比較表現，這兩個國度在數學、科學及瀏覽才能上的排名都比美國高。
Of course, these countries are smaller, less unequal and less diverse than the United States. In such circumstances, education poses fewer challenges. It’s unlikely that starting school at 7 would work here: too many young kids, disadvantaged or otherwise, would probably end up watching hours of TV a day, not an activity that promotes future educational achievement. But the complexities of the task in this country don’t erase a fundamental fact that overly structured classrooms do not benefit many young children.
固然，這些國度比美國小，不屈等和多樣性的水平也較低。在如許的情形下，教導組成的挑釁較少。7歲開端上學的政策在美國不太大概行得通：那會致使太多小孩——不管貧苦與否——大概一天會看幾個小時的電視，而不是加入晉升將來教導成就的運動。在美國，教導的義務異常龐雜，但這也沒有清除一個根本究竟，即教室構造過於呆板對很多兒童沒有利益。
Some research indicates that early instruction in reading and other areas may help some students, but these boosts appear to be temporary. A 2009 study by Sebastian P. Suggate, an education researcher at Alanus University in Germany, looked at about 400,000 15-year-olds in more than 50 countries and found that early school entry provided no advantage. Another study by Dr. Suggate, published in 2012, looked at a group of 83 students over several years and found that those who started at age 5 had lower reading comprehension than those who began learning later.
一些研討表現，瀏覽及其他方面的初期指點，大概會贊助一些門生，但這類贊助仿佛是臨時的。德國阿蘭努斯大學(Alanus University)的教導研討者塞巴斯蒂安·P·薩蓋特(Sebastian P. Suggate)在2009年展開了一項研討，對50多個國度的40萬名15歲門生舉行查詢拜訪，發明早上學並無帶來上風。薩蓋特在2012年揭櫫的另外一項研討，在幾年的時光裏對83邏輯學生展開了查詢拜訪，成果發明那些5歲開端進修的門生，瀏覽懂得才能不如晚些開端進修的門生。
Other research has found that early didactic instruction might actually worsen academic performance. Rebecca A. Marcon, a psychology professor at the University of North Florida, studied 343 children who had attended a preschool class that was “academically oriented,” one that encouraged “child initiated” learning, or one in between. She looked at the students’ performance several years later, in third and fourth grade, and found that by the end of the fourth grade those who had received more didactic instruction earned significantly lower grades than those who had been allowed more opportunities to learn through play. Children’s progress “may have been slowed by overly academic preschool experiences that introduced formalized learning experiences too early for most children’s developmental status,” Dr. Marcon wrote.
其他研討發明，初期教授教養現實上大概會使學業表示變得更糟。北佛羅裏達大學(University of North Florida)生理學傳授麗貝卡·A·馬爾孔(Rebecca A. Marcon)對343名加入學前教導的兒童舉行了研討，個中有的學前班“以學業為導向”，有的勉勵“兒童自覺”進修，大概介於二者之間。她在幾年以後檢察這些已升入三或四年級的門生的表示，發明四年級的進修停止後，那些接收教授教養式指點的門生的成就遠低於那些有更多機遇經由過程玩來進修的孩子的成就。馬爾孔寫道，“學前班匆匆使兒童打仗正式的進修閱歷，這對付大多半兒童的發展階段來講都是過早的，而這類過量的學前班進修閱歷大概會攔阻”兒童的提高。
Nevertheless, many educators want to curtail play during school. “Play is often perceived as immature behavior that doesn’t achieve anything,” says David Whitebread, a psychologist at Cambridge University who has studied the topic for decades. “But it’s essential to their development. They need to learn to persevere, to control attention, to control emotions. Kids learn these things through playing.”
但是，許多教導人士願望收縮孩子在進修時代的頑耍時光。“玩平日被以為是一種不可熟的行動，不會造詣任何工作，”劍橋大學(Cambridge University)生理學家戴維·瓦特布雷(David Whitebread)說。“但這在他們的發展過程當中是必弗成少的。他們須要學會保持、掌握留意力，掌握情感。孩子經由過程頑耍學會這些工作。”瓦特布雷研討該課題已稀有十年時光。
Over the past 20 years, scientists have come to understand much more about how children learn. Jay Giedd, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Diego, has spent his career studying how the human brain develops from birth through adolescence; he says most kids younger than 7 or 8 are better suited for active exploration than didactic explanation. “The trouble with over-structuring is that it discourages exploration,” he says.
在曩昔20年中，科學家已對孩子的進修進程有了更多懂得。加州大學聖叠戈分校(University of California, San Diego)神經體系學家傑伊·吉德(Jay Giedd)的專業範疇是研討人類大腦從出身到芳華期的發育進程;他表現，與說教式的說明比擬，大多半不到7或8歲的孩子更合適自動摸索。他說，“過於呆板的教授教養會攔阻摸索。”
Reading, in particular, can’t be rushed. It has been around for only about 6,000 years, so the ability to transform marks on paper into complex meaning is not pre-wired into the brain. It doesn’t develop “naturally,” as do other complex skills such as walking; it can be fostered, but not forced. Too often that’s what schools are trying to do now. This is not to suggest that we shouldn’t increase access to preschool, and improve early education for disadvantaged children. But the early education that kids get — whatever their socioeconomic background — should truly help their development. We must hope that those who make education policy will start paying attention to this science.
特別是瀏覽，不克不及急於求成。瀏覽只有約莫6000年的汗青，是以大腦其實不天賦具有將紙上的標記轉化為龐雜寄義的才能。與走路等龐雜技巧分歧，瀏覽才能不是“生成的”;這類才能可以造就，但不克不及強制控制。而黌舍如今經常迫使門生控制這類才能。這不是說，咱們不該該增長接收學前教導的機遇，改良貧苦兒童的初期教導。但不管其社會經濟配景若何，孩子們接收的初期教導應當真正贊助他們成長。咱們願望教導政策制訂者會開端存眷這方面的科學研討。
市場價：HK$ 110
