问题描述：
英语翻译.不要机器的.今晚急用.高分.
The question of what children learn, and how they should learn, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the learning of lessons parrot-fashion, the grammar-with-a-whip system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modem psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the need of children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as much.
Well, you may say, this is as it should be, a good idea. But think further. What happens? "Education" becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists (心里学家). What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications (暗示) of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child’s. So teachers worry whether history is "relevant" to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violence? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Verbal expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No: Real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.
You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than to write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teacher-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make elaborate, sophisticated (精致的,复杂的) preparations and try out their "modem methods" on the long-suffering children. Since one "modem method" rapidly replaces another the poor kids will have had a good bellyful by the time they leave school. Frequently the modem methods are so sophisticated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so essential for the " informal" feelings the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.
The question of what children learn, and how they should learn, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the learning of lessons parrot-fashion, the grammar-with-a-whip system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modem psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the need of children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as much.
Well, you may say, this is as it should be, a good idea. But think further. What happens? "Education" becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists (心里学家). What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications (暗示) of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child’s. So teachers worry whether history is "relevant" to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violence? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Verbal expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No: Real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.
You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than to write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teacher-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make elaborate, sophisticated (精致的,复杂的) preparations and try out their "modem methods" on the long-suffering children. Since one "modem method" rapidly replaces another the poor kids will have had a good bellyful by the time they leave school. Frequently the modem methods are so sophisticated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so essential for the " informal" feelings the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.
问题解答：
我来补答展开全文阅读