核心提示：格林內(nèi)爾學(xué)院古典研究系主任、講課很受歡迎的莫內(nèi)薩·卡明斯告訴筆者，在人文學(xué)科，講課“非常重視各個(gè)事實(shí)之間的聯(lián)系。它不是在背誦事實(shí)，而是在組織論據(jù)”。
Lecture Me. Really.
給我講課吧，真的
Before the semester began earlier this fall， I went to check out the classroom where I would be teaching an introductory American history course. Like most classrooms at my university， this one featured lots of helpful gadgets: a computer console linked to an audiovisual system， a projector screen that deploys at the touch of a button and USB ports galore. But one thing was missing. The piece of technology that I really needed is centuries old: a simple wooden lectern to hold my lecture notes. I managed to obtain one， but it took a week of emails and phone calls.
在今年秋天本學(xué)期開(kāi)始前，我去檢查了一下我將講授美國(guó)史入門課程的教室。像我所在大學(xué)里的大多數(shù)教室一樣，這個(gè)教室里有許多有用的裝置：與視聽(tīng)系統(tǒng)連接的電腦控制臺(tái)、按一下按鈕就能展開(kāi)的投影幕，大量USB端口。但是缺一樣?xùn)|西。我真正需要的那項(xiàng)技術(shù)已有幾百年的歷史了：一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的木制講臺(tái)，能放我的講義就行。我設(shè)法弄到了一個(gè)，但發(fā)電子郵件和打電話花了我一周的時(shí)間。
Perhaps my request was unusual. Isn't the old-fashioned lecture on the way out？ A 2014 study showed that test scores in science and math courses improved after professors replaced lecture time with “active learning” methods like group work — prompting Eric Mazur， a Harvard physicist who has long campaigned against the lecture format， to declare that “it's almost unethical to be lecturing.”
也許我的要求非同尋常。老式的授課方式不是已經(jīng)過(guò)時(shí)了嗎？2014年進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)研究顯示，在教授們以小組作業(yè)之類的“主動(dòng)學(xué)習(xí)”法取代授課時(shí)間后，學(xué)生們的自然科學(xué)和數(shù)學(xué)考試成績(jī)有所提高——這促使長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)一直反對(duì)演講式授課的哈佛大學(xué)物理學(xué)家埃里克·梅熱宣稱“喋喋不休地講課簡(jiǎn)直不道德”。
Today's vogue for active learning is nothing new. In 1852， John Henry Newman wrote in “The Idea of a University” that true learning “consists， not merely in the passive reception into the mind of a number of ideas hitherto unknown to it， but in the mind's energetic and simultaneous action upon and towards and among those new ideas.” The lecture course， too， has always had skeptics. In his 1869 inaugural address as president of Harvard University， Charles Eliot warned that “the lecturer pumps laboriously into sieves. The water may be wholesome， but it runs through.”
目前流行的主動(dòng)學(xué)習(xí)并不是什么新鮮事。1852年，約翰·亨利·紐曼在《大學(xué)的理想》一書(shū)中寫(xiě)到，真正的學(xué)習(xí)“不僅僅是被動(dòng)地將一堆原來(lái)不知道的觀念都接納到腦子里，同時(shí)也是針對(duì)和圍繞這些觀念積極開(kāi)動(dòng)腦筋”。講課課程也一直有懷疑者。1869年，哈佛大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)查爾斯·埃利奧特在發(fā)表就職演說(shuō)時(shí)警告說(shuō)：“演講者辛勤地往篩子里倒水，水也許有益，但都從篩孔里流走了?！?/p>
Eliot was a chemist， so perhaps we should take his criticisms with a grain of salt. In the humanities， a good lecture class does just what Newman said: It keeps students' minds in energetic and simultaneous action. And it teaches a rare skill in our smartphone-app-addled culture: the art of attention， the crucial first step in the “critical thinking” that educational theorists prize.
埃利奧特是一位化學(xué)家，所以，對(duì)于他的批評(píng)，我們或許應(yīng)該持保留態(tài)度。在人文學(xué)科，一堂好的講課達(dá)到的正是紐曼當(dāng)年所說(shuō)的效果：使學(xué)生們積極開(kāi)動(dòng)腦筋。它還能教授一種如今在被手機(jī)應(yīng)用敗壞的風(fēng)氣中罕有的技能：全神貫注。全神貫注是教育理論家所重視的“批判性思維”至關(guān)重要的第一步。
Those who want to abolish the lecture course do not understand what a lecture is. A lecture is not the declamation of an encyclopedia article. In the humanities， a lecture “places a premium on the connections between individual facts，” Monessa Cummins， the chairwoman of the classics department and a popular lecturer at Grinnell College， told me. “It is not a recitation of facts， but the building of an argument.”
希望廢除講課課程的人并不了解講課到底是什么。講課并不是朗誦百科全書(shū)上的文章。格林內(nèi)爾學(xué)院古典研究系主任、講課很受歡迎的莫內(nèi)薩·卡明斯告訴筆者，在人文學(xué)科，講課“非常重視各個(gè)事實(shí)之間的聯(lián)系。它不是在背誦事實(shí)，而是在組織論據(jù)”。
Absorbing a long， complex argument is hard work， requiring students to synthesize， organize and react as they listen. In our time， when any reading assignment longer than a Facebook post seems ponderous， students have little experience doing this. Some research suggests that minority and low-income students struggle even more. But if we abandon the lecture format because students may find it difficult， we do them a disservice. Moreover， we capitulate to the worst features of the customer-service mentality that has seeped into the university from the business world. The solution， instead， is to teach those students how to gain all a great lecture course has to give them.
理解說(shuō)理性長(zhǎng)篇大論頗費(fèi)腦筋，要求學(xué)生們?cè)诼?tīng)講時(shí)進(jìn)行綜合、組織并做出反應(yīng)。在凡是長(zhǎng)度超過(guò)臉書(shū)上一條帖子的閱讀作業(yè)都顯得冗長(zhǎng)乏味的當(dāng)今時(shí)代，學(xué)生們這樣做的經(jīng)驗(yàn)很少。一些研究顯示，來(lái)自少數(shù)族裔和低收入家庭的學(xué)生面臨的困難更多。但是，如果我們因?yàn)閷W(xué)生們也許會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)很難而放棄講課課程，那我們就是在害他們。此外，我們還是在“屈從于”從商業(yè)社會(huì)滲入到大學(xué)里的客服心態(tài)的最糟糕特點(diǎn)。解決辦法應(yīng)當(dāng)是教會(huì)這些學(xué)生如何獲得一門精彩講課課程能提供給他們的所有東西。
Listening continuously and taking notes for an hour is an unusual cognitive experience for most young people. Professors should embrace — and even advertise — lecture courses as an exercise in mindfulness and attention building， a mental workout that counteracts the junk food of nonstop social media. More and more of my colleagues are banning the use of laptops in their classrooms. They say that despite initial grumbling， students usually praise the policy by the end of the semester.
對(duì)大多數(shù)年輕人而言，持續(xù)一小時(shí)聽(tīng)講并記筆記是一種非同尋常的認(rèn)知體驗(yàn)。教授們應(yīng)該欣然接受甚至宣傳講課課程，指出它們是提高學(xué)生注意力、使他們專心致志的一種訓(xùn)練，是可以抵消像食用垃圾食品一樣沒(méi)完沒(méi)了地接觸社交媒體所帶來(lái)危害的心智鍛煉。在筆者的同事中，越來(lái)越多的人開(kāi)始禁止在教室里使用筆記本電腦。他們表示，學(xué)生們起初頗有怨言，但在學(xué)期末通常都會(huì)稱贊這項(xiàng)規(guī)定。（金進(jìn)龍譯自美國(guó)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》10月18日文章）
聯(lián)系客服
