如何做好孩子的养成教育

养成教育是培养孩子良好行为习惯的教育。习惯是养成教育的产物,它往往起源于看似不经意的小事,却蕴含了足以改变人类命运的巨大能量。好的行为习惯可以成就一个人,不良的行为习惯也可以毁掉一个人。抓好养成教育,应当从培养孩子的良好习惯入手。家长错误的教育理念和教育方法会给孩子造成不良的影响,毁掉孩子的一生。如何做好孩子的养成教育呢?孩子的养成教育要从小抓起,重视家庭教育和学校教育,把学校教育与家庭教育有机协调起来才能更好地做好孩子的养成教育。     

小学生写字教育探析

小学教育是基础教育,是对孩子们的学习习惯、生活习惯、劳动习惯等各种行为习惯的养成教育。既然是基础教育,我们就应该从关心孩子的点滴小事抓起,特别是在力行素质     

论养成教育的内容、原则和方法

养成教育是亲职教育的重要内容和基本实现途径,养成教育就是培养孩子良好习惯的教育.养成教育的内容主要包括心理养成教育、行为规范养成教育、学习能力养成教育、创新精神养成教育、审美情趣养成教育.养成教育要遵守严格,持之以恒, "苦练"与"趣练"相结合的原则.养成教育的方法主要有榜样法和训练法.     

儿童教育从习惯养成开始

养成教育就是培养孩子养成良好习惯的教育,而所谓培养,就是按照一定的目的长期地教育和训练。养成教育就是从行为训练入手,综合多种教育方法,全面提高孩子的素质,从而达到其最终的目的,形成良好的习惯。     

学生行为习惯养成教育刍议

一、提高对养成教育的理解与认识 加强学校德育工作,需要研究的课题很多,其中最需要解决的是对学生进行行为习惯养成教育问题。什么是“养成教育”呢？首先理解“养成”一词,就是通过抚养、教育使孩子成为合格的人。“养成教育”是一种使自然人成为社会人的教育,是基本技能的教育。     

养成教育应从幼儿抓起

家庭教育是一切教育的基础。高素质父母的言传身教,良好的家庭教育则是养成教育的基础和关键。青少年时期是养成教育的最佳时期。对养成教育必须抓早、抓小、抓紧、抓好。孩子良好的行为习惯一旦形成,它就会成为一种无形的力量,推动孩子朝着德智体全面发展的方向健康成长。     

浅谈小学生公民意识中养成教育的培养

目前的孩子几乎都是独生子女,家长们都十分重视孩子的学习成绩,为了不耽误孩子的学习时间,不让孩子做任何家务,养成孩子饭来张口、衣来伸手、怕苦怕累的不良习惯,致使学生的养成教育较为缺失。不少学生认为享受父母的关心照顾是理所当然的,他们只知道接受爱,不懂得关心体贴父母,跟长辈说话不讲礼貌,更不懂得要报答父母的养育之恩。面对养成教育的新问题,再使用过去的老思想、老办法已经很难解决传授知识和学生德育养成之间的实际矛盾冲突。     

诵读《弟子规》 促进养成教育

养成教育,是培养孩子养成良好习惯的教育。习惯是养成教育的产物,它往往起源于看似不经意的小事,却蕴含了足以改变人类命运的巨大能量。好习惯常常让人受益终生,坏习惯往往使人深陷泥潭。要抓好养成教育,应当从培养孩子的良好习惯人手。小学阶段培养孩子的良好习惯尤为重要。我校采取多种形式促进养成教育,其中诵读经典国学《弟子规》是一个非常有效的方法和途径。     

关于养成教育问题的思考

养成教育．是一种基础教育,它着眼于学生基本做人的道理,以社会公德、基本道德、青淡举止、待人接物、品行能力的基本规范为主要内容,使学生懂得如何做人、如何做事和如何思维。它往往从行为训练入手．综合多种教育方法．全面提高学生的“知、情、意、行”,最终形成良好的行为习惯。养成教育义是一种点滴教育,它陵学生在长期的潜移默化中养成良好习惯,只有重视习惯养成教育．从人生启蒙阶段的小学教育开始实施习惯养成教育,才能使孩子养成良好的习惯．为孩子一生奠基．     

谈小学生的养成教育

养成教育,是培养孩子养成良好习惯的教育。特别是小学生,养成教育尤为重要。习惯是养成教育的产物,它往往起源于看似不经意的小事,却蕴含了足以改变人类命运的巨大能量。好习惯常常让人受益终身,坏习惯往往使人深陷泥潭。要抓好养成教育,应当从培养孩子的良好习惯人手。那么怎样才能抓好学生的养成教育呢？结合自己的实践谈谈看法。     

论祖孙关系在幼儿家庭教育中的作用

孔子的成长离不开家庭教育。以往人们较重视改善家庭教育中的亲子关系，现在由于祖孙关系在幼儿家庭教育中承担越来越重要的作用，对这一现象作更深入、更客观、更全面的科学研究已十分迫切。同时，社会、学校应共同努力，积极探索一套合理的祖父母教育的方法，从而提高我国家庭教育的质量。     

Zwischen Selbsttätigkeit und Erziehungsbedürftigkeit: das Kind in der “Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung”

In the history of education it is rather common to distinguish two opposing ideas of childhood: the romantic image of the innocent child on the one hand and the image of the evil child that has to be rescued on the other. According to historiography at the beginning of the twentieth century this dichotomy has gained a particular shape in German pedagogy: the exponents of Progressive Education recover the child and founded their pedagogy on trust in its good nature. Their agenda tries to overcome the prevailing Herbartian pedagogy. Those “conservative” educators stress the importance of the technological aspects of education. They are said to have no explicit understanding of the child as they would regard it only as the negative counterpart to an education that aims to overcome its nature. This article claims to prove that such a simple dichotomy is not sufficient to describe the complex image of the child in the German pedagogical debates at the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century. For this purpose the article concentrates on the first volumes of the “Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung” (Journal of Child Studies) that was founded in 1896. The ideology of the main editors of the journal is attributed to Herbartianism. In the “Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung” those Herbartians aim to bring together pedagogy with child studies as well as with medicine and psychiatry. Moral education is an important topic within the journal’s discussion but the child is usually not morally judged itself and therefore regarded neither as evil nor as good. Instead the knowledge of natural research and child studies is adapted to learn about the nature of the child and its development. According to the journal’s authors the results of child studies form a crucial background for professional education in general. Later on, those children that do not develop as scientifically expected can be declared the object of special pedagogical care. Should the deviating development be classified as pathological, this “treatment” will be inspired by medicine and psychiatry. Thus the religious or ethical categories of “good” and “evil” are partly replaced by scientific ones such as “normal” or “pathological”. Nevertheless pedagogical theorising remains highly moral in its goals – and setting these goals is regarded as the duty of adults. Although the child is understood as an active being, the educational authority has to be borne by the grown‐up generation. Altogether the educational programme of the “Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung” conforms to the attitude of the Wilhelminian era. In contrast to most of the “progressive” movements, the ideas are not utopian – they aim neither for a republican society nor for the improvement of the German race as the basis for a new nation. The editors explicitly neglect the notion of a child as a political subject with its own rights. Later they remain highly sceptical about the character of human nature itself and do not believe that a new society can be built only upon the faith in it. Nevertheless some of the key authors are regarded as representatives of Progressive Education today – for example Karl Wilker, who acted as an editor of the journal and was also engaged in the New Education Fellowship later on. Also the journal authors’ claims for a renewal of education resemble those of the “progressive” movements: They also call for a turn to the child as the basis of pedagogy. These findings lead to the result that a history of childhood and education may not start out from a distinction between a child‐centred progressive education on the one hand and a conservative education on the other. Phrases like “the child” or “child‐centred” are to be found in very different pedagogies and hence are not sufficient to characterise a particular educational programme. In fact a great number of very different pedagogues recovered “the child” at the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century and founded their model on this idea. In consequence “the child” turns out to be more like a metaphor. This insight does not mean that “the child” was an empty and useless phrase for historiography. On the contrary: as a medium of education it may help to gain a deeper understanding of the contrasts and similarities between different pedagogical approaches – regardless of whether they turn out to be more “progressive” or “conservative”. Therefore it is necessary to analyse in which contexts within the pedagogical discourse “the child” arises and which special functions it is meant to contain.     

小学生良好社会适应性的培养

当前，我国教育正确面临着从传统的升学教育向素质教育、人格教育的转变。如何针对当代学生的特点，有效地解决独生子女的社会适应性的教育难题已越来越显示出它的迫切性。运用人五人格理论分析一个有良好社会适应性的人应具有的人格特征，构建一种新的“人格模型”，对学校教育探讨培养学生良好社会适应性是具有现实意义的。当前小学教育应通过营造良好的心理环境，依靠课堂教学和活动交往培养学生的社会适应性能力。     

Personalisation: the nostalgic revival of child‐centred education?

Personalisation is an emerging ‘movement’ within education. Its roots reside in marketing theory, not in educational theory. As a concept it admits a good deal of confusion. It can refer either to a new mode of governance for the public services, or it qualifies the noun ‘learning’, as in ‘personalised learning’. The concern here is with its intellectual affinity to child‐centred education, one which the government in England has strongly denied. On balance, the government’s view of personalisation is not of a piece with what may commonly be regarded as child‐centred education. But the strong semantic accord between the terms ‘personalisation’ and ‘child‐centred education’ provokes a question: why does the government not provide a term which unequivocally distinguishes its current ‘vision’ for education from child‐centred education? By retaining the term personalisation, the government purports to do two things: first, because of its focus on personalised ‘tailored’ needs and co‐produced solutions, it adapts education even further to a consumerist society; and second, because the term personalisation strikes a chord with the discourse of child‐centred education, it blurs the fact that little to do with pedagogy or with curriculum has in fact been changed. The term personalisation generates a nostalgic appeal to better times long gone.     

学前儿童受教育权的保障

受教育权是学前儿童应享有的一项基本权利,其保障有赖于家庭、政府和社会的共同努力。家庭是学前儿童受教育权保障的原生性责任主体,应为学前儿童创设适宜的成长环境,并进行教育启蒙。政府是学前儿童受教育权保障的次生性责任主体,应加强制度建设以确保学前儿童的受教育权,并提供充分且优质的教育供给。社会是学前儿童受教育权保障的补充性责任主体,应为学前儿童提供多样化的教育选择,并为其学习与成长创设良好的外部环境。     

农村教育:现代化的弃儿及其前景

中国农村教育与城市教育的天壤之别,显示出现代化历史进程中农村社会弃儿命运的一幅侧影。农村教育被双重边缘化的不幸遭遇,只有在推进农村社会现代化尤其农村人口城市化的艰难过程中,才可能得到缓解和最终消除。而这必将经历一个极其漫长和痛苦的历史进程。     

城乡未成年人赏识教育的实践与价值探讨——以成都郫筒小学的改革实验为例

教育共同体强调社区教育主体之间的合作协调,成都郫筒小学整合各方教育资源,在学校、家庭、城乡社区联合实施“明日之星”表彰机制,实践教育共同体下的赏识教育,促进学生的健康成长。该实践进一步明确了教育学生是整个社区的义务的认识,掀开了素质教育的新篇章,验证了城乡统筹在促进城乡未成年人受教育质量同质化方面产生的积极作用。     

我国教师教育课程中儿童学课程设置的构想

我国教师教育课程中设置儿童学课程是重塑教师专业素养、顺应国际教师教育发展趋势和应对教师现实困境的必然要求。其设置需要超越学科体系的组织线索,以问题领域为核心组织课程模块;超越心理主义的课程内容,彰显课程建构的社会文化视角;超越对儿童发展普遍规律的依循,关照儿童个体差异。儿童学课程要设置如下课程模块:儿童身心发展、儿童发展与社会、儿童研究方法、儿童研习实践。     

论幼儿道德教育的现代性及其理论基础

道德教育现代性的生成与转换是社会现代化和人自身现代化的必然要求，幼儿道德教育也应实现这一转变。当代道德哲学和道德心理学的发展成果是其实现现代性的基础。     

儿童性虐待认定及其存在的问题

儿童性虐待已经成为世界范围内的公共卫生问题,各国对儿童性虐待的流行学调查显示一致的高流行率及某些共同的特点,儿童性虐待由于具有特殊的创伤特征以及虐待形式的多样化而存在认定困难。建立专业的儿童性虐待评估机构是减少受虐儿童反复受到伤害,降低其创伤后障碍风险的有效途径。性科学教育及普法教育是提高人们自我保护和保护他人意识的关键,学校是性教育的主要场所,同时需建立家庭、学校、社会三位一体的安全责任体系。