孩子的幼兒教育不是越早越好

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(xué)前班、幼兒園、甚至一二年級的孩子們，大部分時間都在玩：堆積木、畫畫、創(chuàng)作想象的世界，在腦瓜里想這些事，或和同學(xué)一起玩。但這些活動越來越多地被老師的教學(xué)所替代，而這種教育方式過去通常用于年級較高的學(xué)生。在很多學(xué)校，正規(guī)教育現(xiàn)在是從4或5歲開始的。人們認(rèn)為，如果不提早開始接受教育，孩子們在閱讀、數(shù)學(xué)等關(guān)鍵科目上恐怕會落后，或許永遠(yuǎn)都無法再趕回來。

The idea seems obvious: Starting sooner means learning more; the early bird catches the worm.

這個想法似乎是顯而易見的：越早開始意味著學(xué)到的越多：早起的鳥兒有蟲吃。

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.

但越來越多的科學(xué)家、教育研究者和教育工作者表示，沒有證據(jù)表明這種方式會提高長期的成績;實(shí)際上，它可能會帶來相反的效果，可能會阻礙情感及認(rèn)知方面的發(fā)展，造成不必要的壓力，甚至可能會扼殺孩子的求知欲。

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.”

我最近與馬薩諸塞州坎布里奇萊斯利大學(xué)(Lesley University)的教育學(xué)榮休教授南茜·卡爾松-佩奇(Nancy Carlsson-Paige)有過一番交談。卡爾松-佩奇稱，這種趨勢反映了對“孩子的學(xué)習(xí)過程深深的誤解”。她定期參觀學(xué)校，看到很多年紀(jì)較小的學(xué)生無法理解授課內(nèi)容：“我在很多教室看到過很多類似的情況，老師讓學(xué)生坐在桌子旁，抄寫字母。他們不知道自己在干什么。真讓人感到難過。”

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?

這場爭論事關(guān)重大。在教師早期指導(dǎo)的質(zhì)疑者看來，那種教育方式無法培養(yǎng)出能夠發(fā)現(xiàn)、創(chuàng)新的人才，只會培養(yǎng)出傾向于被動接受信息的人，追隨者，而不是創(chuàng)造者。在21世紀(jì)，我們需要的是哪種公民?

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.

在過去10年中，越來越多的早期教育措施在美國迅速蔓延?！恫蛔尯⒆拥絷?duì)》法案 (No Child Left Behind)、“力爭上游”計(jì)劃(Race to the Top)等項(xiàng)目，促使學(xué)生面對更多測驗(yàn)，接受更多由教師主導(dǎo)的教學(xué)。

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.

另一個原因：各州共同核心標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(Common Core State Standards)。這套詳盡的教育方針，旨在確保學(xué)生在經(jīng)歷幼兒園到12年級的學(xué)習(xí)后，達(dá)到一定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。目前，43個州和哥倫比亞特區(qū)采納了數(shù)學(xué)和語言方面的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

The shift toward didactic approaches is an attempt to solve two pressing problems.

轉(zhuǎn)而采用說教的方式是為了解決兩個緊迫的問題。

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.

從很多方面來看，美國的教育成就落后于其他國家;與此同時，數(shù)百萬美國學(xué)生的成績?nèi)赃h(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)低于全國水平，這些學(xué)生中很多人家境貧困，屬于少數(shù)族裔。倡導(dǎo)人士表示，提前開始正規(guī)教育將有助于縮小這種雙重差距。

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.

這些舉措雖然都是出自善意，卻是受到了誤導(dǎo)。包括芬蘭和愛沙尼亞在內(nèi)的幾個國家的義務(wù)教育都是從7歲才開始。國際學(xué)生評估項(xiàng)目(Program for International Student Assessment)對各個國家的教育水平做出的最新對比顯示，這兩個國家在數(shù)學(xué)、科學(xué)及閱讀能力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.

當(dāng)然，這些國家比美國小，不平等和多樣性的程度也較低。在這樣的情況下，教育構(gòu)成的挑戰(zhàn)較少。7歲開始上學(xué)的政策在美國不太可能行得通：那會導(dǎo)致太多小孩——無論貧困與否——可能一天會看幾個小時的電視，而不是參加提升未來教育成績的活動。在美國，教育的任務(wù)非常復(fù)雜，但這也沒有消除一個基本事實(shí)，即課堂組織過于死板對許多兒童沒有好處。

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.

一些研究顯示，閱讀及其他方面的早期指導(dǎo)，可能會幫助一些學(xué)生，但這種幫助似乎是暫時的。德國阿蘭努斯大學(xué)(Alanus University)的教育研究者塞巴斯蒂安·P·薩蓋特(Sebastian P. Suggate)在2009年開展了一項(xiàng)研究，對50多個國家的40萬名15歲學(xué)生進(jìn)行調(diào)查，發(fā)現(xiàn)早上學(xué)并沒有帶來優(yōu)勢。薩蓋特在2012年發(fā)表的另一項(xiàng)研究，在幾年的時間里對83名學(xué)生開展了調(diào)查，結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)那些5歲開始學(xué)習(xí)的學(xué)生，閱讀理解能力不如晚些開始學(xué)習(xí)的學(xué)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.

其他研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，早期教學(xué)實(shí)際上可能會使學(xué)業(yè)表現(xiàn)變得更糟。北佛羅里達(dá)大學(xué)(University of North Florida)心理學(xué)教授麗貝卡·A·馬爾孔(Rebecca A. Marcon) 對343名參加學(xué)前教育的兒童進(jìn)行了研究，其中有的學(xué)前班“以學(xué)業(yè)為導(dǎo)向”，有的鼓勵“兒童自發(fā)”學(xué)習(xí)，或者介于兩者之間。她在幾年之后查看這些已經(jīng)升入三或四年級的學(xué)生的表現(xiàn)，發(fā)現(xiàn)四年級的學(xué)習(xí)結(jié)束后，那些接受教學(xué)式指導(dǎo)的學(xué)生的成績遠(yuǎn)低于那些有更多機(jī)會通過玩來學(xué)習(xí)的孩子的成績。馬爾孔寫道，“學(xué)前班促使兒童接觸正式的學(xué)習(xí)經(jīng)歷，這對于大多數(shù)兒童的成長階段來說都是過早的，而這種過多的學(xué)前班學(xué)習(xí)經(jīng)歷可能會阻礙”兒童的進(jìn)步。

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.”

然而，很多教育人士希望縮短孩子在學(xué)習(xí)期間的玩耍時間。“玩通常被認(rèn)為是一種不成熟的行為，不會成就任何事情，”劍橋大學(xué)(Cambridge University)心理學(xué)家戴維·瓦特布雷(David Whitebread)說。“但這在他們的成長過程中是必不可少的。他們需要學(xué)會堅(jiān)持、控制注意力，控制感情。孩子通過玩耍學(xué)會這些事情。”瓦特布雷研究該課題已有數(shù)十年時間。

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.

在過去20年中，科學(xué)家已經(jīng)對孩子的學(xué)習(xí)過程有了更多了解。加州大學(xué)圣迭戈分校(University of California, San Diego)神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)學(xué)家杰伊·吉德(Jay Giedd)的專業(yè)領(lǐng)域是研究人類大腦從出生到青春期的發(fā)育過程;他表示，與說教式的解釋相比，大多數(shù)不到7或8歲的孩子更適合主動探索。他說，“過于死板的教學(xué)會阻礙探索。”

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.

尤其是閱讀，不能急于求成。閱讀只有大約6000 年的歷史，因此大腦并不先天具備將紙上的符號轉(zhuǎn)化為復(fù)雜含義的能力。與走路等復(fù)雜技能不同，閱讀能力不是“天生的”;這種能力可以培養(yǎng)，但不能強(qiáng)迫掌握。而學(xué)?，F(xiàn)在常常迫使學(xué)生掌握這種能力。這不是說，我們不應(yīng)該增加接受學(xué)前教育的機(jī)會，改善貧困兒童的早期教育。但無論其社會經(jīng)濟(jì)背景如何，孩子們接受的早期教育應(yīng)該真正幫助他們發(fā)展。我們希望教育政策制定者會開始關(guān)注這方面的科學(xué)研究。