切实直面学生活动

李德强

在具体的课堂教学中，学生活动往往会出现许多“失控”的状况，使教学充满了矛盾和再选择可能。直面学生活动，就是教师面对学生真实的活动反應，及时作出相应的教学抉择。科学教学中做到直面学生活动，至少需要明确以下三点：

首先，学生活动应该是什么样的？

只有当教师设计出的学生活动符合科学教育规律的时候，“直面”才会有意义。比如，同样是研究“食物链和食物网”，一种做法是让学生在黑板上画出几个箭头，标出几种动植物之间的食物关系，然后教师给出相应的概念。另一种做法是教师展示一个大的生态环境，让学生利用已有的生活经验，采取多种方法，通过多种途径，尽可能找出多的食物链，然后全班同学在一起展开讨论，探求各类动植物之间的相互依赖关系，明白关系中“连结点”的意义所在，进而建构起“链”和“网”的观念。对比这两个学生活动，前者是可以在少数个体的作用下完成的，单向运行且具有很强的确定性。后者则不然，来自不同小组或者个体的认知会交织在一起，形成一个较为复杂的“观点群”，最后在大家共同的活动过程中，形成一个相对一致的观念。这样的活动依靠的不是某一个个体，也不是静止和一成不变的，而是在无数个不确定性中走向确定的动态过程，这一过程正是探究实践所应有的学生活动形式。

其次，教师要有“非中心”意识。

传统上，教师在科学课堂中的中心地位是很牢固的，即便是提倡“学生主体”多年，依然可以看到许多“垂帘听政”下的学生自主假象。直面学生活动，需要解除教师在课堂上的“中心控制器”作用，使学生多个学习共同体产生相互作用，最终达成一致。要实现这一目标，科学教师至少要做到两点：

一是对课堂“失控”现象有正确的理解。特级教师章鼎儿曾经谈到，当学生面对感兴趣的教学材料时，表现出的“失常”举动是正常反应，教师应该用儿童视角去正确看待。为什么有人会认为其“失常”呢？就是因为他冲撞了“中心”意识下的某些规范。如果再深究就会发现，学生在活动中的行为、思维乃至认知观点都会时不时脱离教师的预期，进入“失控”状态，让课堂变得难以把控，但这些“失控”同样不应被简单视为“失常”。教师需要思考的是，这些“失控”冲撞了教师的哪些“中心意识”，又该如何真正放弃“中心”角色，进入学生活动的真实情形中去。

二是要看到学生在直面活动状态下发展的可能性。当学生意识到教师中心淡化或者消失的时候，其潜能就会显现出来，个体、小组以及相互间的思维、观点的碰撞也会随之产生，表面看起来的“失控”状况就会在相互作用的推动下，向着协调一致的方向发展，教学从而由“无序”走向“有序”。

最后，有适切的行为规则意识。

“直面”强调了基于学生活动的真实反映，“去中心化”突出了活动中各主体的相互作用，行为规则意识则强化了科学教师的引导方式及方法。毋庸置疑，直面学生活动的课堂教学依然需要教师的引导，以达成教学目的，做到“两不”是基本要求：一是不干涉学生的思维进程。科学教师应该明白，学生当下的每一次表达都是其现时的最高思维水平，阻止、隔断等行为都是不可取的。教师需要做的是和大家讨论“这样的说法有什么问题？还有什么更好的想法”等等。二是不站在自己已知或者需要的角度判断正误，迫使学生放弃自己的观点来认可所谓的结论。教师需要做的是反复提醒学生“你何以能够证明自己的观点”，并在他们实在难以继续下去的时候，为他们提供方法、思路上的支持。

Face Students’ Activities

LI Deqiang

中图分类号：G424文献标识码：ADOI：10.16400/j.cnki.kjdk.2021.30.004

LI Deqiang

Deputy Editor in Chief of Science Textbook of People’s Education Hubei Education Press

Vice Chairman of Primary School Science Teaching Steering Committee of Hubei Provincial Department of Education

Excellent Expert in Yichang City， Hubei Province

In the specific classroom teaching， there are of？ ten many "out of control" situations in students’ ac？ tivities， which makes the teaching full of contradic？ tions and the possibility of re selection. Facing stu？ dents’ activities directly means that teachers respond to students’ real activities and make corresponding teaching choices in time. In order to face students di？ rectlyinscienceteaching，atleastthefollowing three points need to be clarified：

First of all， what shouldstudent activities be like？

Onlywhenthestudentactivitiesdesignedby teachersconformtothelawofscienceeducation，"face-to-face" will be meaningful. For example， in the same study of "food chain and food web"， one way is to ask students to draw several arrows on the blackboard to mark the food relationship between sev？ eral animals and plants， and then the teacher gives the corresponding concepts. Another way is for teach？ ers to show a large ecological environment， so that students can use their existing life experience to find asmanyfoodchainsaspossiblethroughvarious methods， and then the whole class will discuss togeth？ er to explore the interdependence between various an？ imals and plants， understand the significance of the"connection point" in the relationship， and then con？ struct a "chain" and "network" The idea of. Com？ pared with the two student activities， the former can be completed under the action of a few individuals， which runs one-way and has strong certainty. The lat？ terisnotthecase.Thecognitionfromdifferent groups or individuals will be intertwined to form a more complex "viewpoint group"， and finally form a relatively consistent concept in the process of every？ one’s common activities. Such activities do not rely on an individual， nor are they static and invariable， but a dynamic process towards certainty in countless uncertainties. This process is the form of student ac？ tivities that inquiry practice should have.

Secondly， teachers should have "non center" con？ sciousness.

Traditionally， the central position of teachers in science classroom is very solid. Even after advocating"student subject" for many years， we can still see many illusions of students’ autonomy under "hanging the curtain and listening to politics". Facing student activities directly， teachers need to remove the role of "central controller" in the classroom， so that stu？ dents can interact with multiple learning communities and finally reach an agreement. To achieve this goal， science teachers should do at least two things：

First， have a correct understanding of the phe？ nomenon of "out of control" in the classroom. Zhang dinger， a special grade teacher， once said that when students face teaching materials they are interested in， their "abnormal" behavior is a normal reaction， and teachers should treat it correctly from the per？ spective of children. Why do some people think it is"abnormal"？Itisbecausehecollidedwithsome norms under the "center" consciousness. If we study further， we will find that students’ behavior， thinking andevencognitiveviewsinactivitieswill deviate from teachers’ expectations from time to time and en？ ter the "out of control" state， making the classroom difficult to control， but these "out of control" should not be simply regarded as "abnormal". Teachers need tothinkaboutwhat"centralconsciousness"these"out of control" have collided with teachers， and how to really give up the "central" role and enter the re？ al situation of students’ activities.

The second is to see the possibility of students’ development in the face-to-face activity state. When students realize that the teacher center fades or disap？ pears， their potential will appear， and the collision of individual， group and mutual thinking and views will also occur. The seemingly "out of control" situation will develop in the direction of coordination under thepromotionofinteraction，sothatteachingwill move from "disorder" to "order".

Finally， have a sense of appropriate rules of be？ havior.

"Facetoface"emphasizesthetruereflection based on students’ activities， "decentralization" high？ lights the interaction of various subjects in activities， and the awareness of behavior rules strengthens the guidance methods and methods of science teachers. There is no doubt that classroom teaching facing stu？ dents’activitiesstillneedsteachers’guidanceto achieve the teaching purpose. The basic requirements are to achieve "two noes"： first， not interfere with stu？ dents’ thinking process. Science teachers should un？ derstandthat every expressionof students is their current highest level of thinking， and it is not advis？ abletostop，partitionandotherbehaviors.What teachersneedtodoistodiscusswitheveryone"what’s wrong with this statement？ What better ideas are there" and so on. Second， do not judge right and wrong fromthe perspective of what they knowor need， and force students to give up their views to recognizetheso-calledconclusion.Whatteachers need to do is to remind students repeatedly "how can you prove your point of view"， and provide them with support in methods and ideas when they are re？ ally difficult to continue.