Educational Failure and Working Class White Children in Britain
Educational Failure and Working Class White Children in Britain
复制标题
英国的教育失败和工人阶级白人儿童
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Leclercq
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Cramers;P. Leclercq
关于学生的创造力经历，这本书中有一个隐含的信息，即尊重和信任的环境需要嵌入到课程文化中，甚至高等教育机构本身。正如玛丽莲·弗莱尔（Marilyn Fryer）对国家教学研究员（National Teaching Fellows）的调查所发现的那样，教师们明白，培养创造力取决于赋予学生建立自信的权力，以及“挖掘每个人的梦想、需求、抱负、好奇心和动机”（第83页）。这些目标需要一种尊重学生个体的氛围，以便他们能够承担风险。诺曼·杰克逊（Norman Jackson）和克里斯汀·辛克莱（Christine Sinclair）使用认知学徒制的概念（第130页）来建议导师如何在培养学生的创造力方面发挥榜样作用。这再次给我提出了一个问题，即在当前的环境下，教师很难成为合适的榜样，因为他们承受着以牺牲教学为代价的研究压力。然而，帮助是触手可及的：从第10章开始提供了关于做什么和如何做的实用建议。创造力的评估无疑是一个巨大的挑战。如何“衡量”和评估创造力？幸运的是，John Cowan和Tom Balchin写了两个非常有用的章节来讨论这个问题。然而，书中我最喜欢的一句话出现在马丁·奥利弗和他的同事关于学生对创造力的看法的那一章中：“学生们明确表示，评估死者的创造力更容易……（第47页）。考虑到对一个人的创造潜力的事后分析是随着时间的推移而发展起来的，这种说法背后的想法是合理的，但它确实对高等教育教师构成了特别的挑战。因此，创造力也许是理想的高等教育的结果。理想情况下，应该鼓励教师培养学生的冒险精神，从而为他们自己创造出创造性的成果。创造力可以帮助学生建立自信，并通过鼓励他们建立意想不到的联系和协同作用，使他们成为我们希望他们成为的那种批判性思考者。这些类型的结果不是立即可见的，在当代高等教育体系中没有给予足够的重视。这本书提供了一个令人信服的论据，说明为什么我们应该注意到这种缺乏关注。
In relation to the students’ experiences of creativity, there is an implicit message in this book that an environment of respect and trust needs to be embedded in the culture of the course and even the higher education institution itself. As Marilyn Fryer’s survey of National Teaching Fellows found, the teachers understood that fostering creativity depended on empowering students to build their self-confidence, and ‘tapping into each individual’s dreams, needs, aspirations, curiosity and motivation’ (p. 83). These objectives require an atmosphere of respect for the students as individuals in order that they can take risks. Norman Jackson and Christine Sinclair use the notion of cognitive apprenticeship (p. 130) in order to suggest how tutors might act as role models in fostering creativity amongst their students. Again this raises issues for me about the current climate in which it can be difficult for teachers to act as appropriate role models given the pressures they are under to perform well in research at the expense of teaching. However, help is at hand: practical advice in terms of what to do and how it can be done is provided from chapter 10 onwards. The assessment of creativity is undoubtedly a huge challenge. How can creativity be ‘measured’ and assessed? Fortunately, there are two very useful chapters in relation to this issue, by John Cowan and Tom Balchin. My favourite quote from the book, however, appears in the chapter by Martin Oliver and colleagues on students’ perspectives on creativity: ‘Students made it clear that it was easier to assess the creativity of the dead ...’ (p. 47). The idea behind this statement is sound, given that post-mortem analyses of someone’s creative potential are developed over time, but it does pose a particular challenge to higher education teachers. Creativity, then, is perhaps an outcome of an ideal higher education. Ideally, teachers should be encouraged to foster the kinds of risk-taking in their students that result in creative outputs for their own sake. Creativity could help build the self-confidence of students and, through encouraging them to make unexpected links and synergies, also enable them to become the types of critical thinkers that we want them to be. These types of results are not immediately tangible and are not given enough value in the contemporary higher education system. This book offers a convincing argument as to why we should take note of this lack of attention.