The RCEF Blog 博客

下面这封信是一位农村教师参与今年支教培训后写的感想。他去年全程参与了RCEF的暑期支教项目，今年参加了支教项目培训以及培训后的图书阅读交流会。他任教教的学校是2007年暑期支教项目和图书室与阅读项目的项目点。

A rural teacher wrote us this letter sharing what hehad learned and his suggestions for RCEF after participating in the 2008 Summer Volunteer Program training and the Libraries and Reading project seminar. He participated in the 2007 Summer Volunteer program, and the school where he teaches is an RCEF partner for our Libraries and Reading project. The English translation of his letter follows the Chinese original.

治美、欣悦、江鹏、孙校长：

你们好！

我们已经顺利回家。几天来你们的热情款待和周到安排令我们十分感动，在此，在遥远的山东我对你们表示衷心的感谢！

这一次山西之行，让我更进一步了解了乡村教育促进会。几天来，我看到了你们的敬业、无私、执着，也看到了你们为中国乡村教育事业的发展而展现出来的激情与活力。在你们身上没有丝毫的颓唐和萎靡，有的就是对中国乡村教育美好明天的无限向往和憧憬。有时我就想，是什么吸引你们放弃都市里的优越生活而选择到中国落后的乡村来吃苦，并且为了乡村的孩子们做了大量没有任何回报的工作。大部分的我们是不会这样做的，也许这和你们所受的西方教育有关吧。你们关注一切人和孩子的大爱精神令我深感敬佩和感动。比如，遇笑容教授，这么大年纪，拖着个病体千里迢迢地来到山西没有任何回报的给我们上课。为了乡村的孩子们，你们忍受着因文化上的差异而带来的孤独深入到中国偏远的乡村过艰苦的生活。这就是一种大爱。这些都深深的感染了我，如果换成我是很难做到的。通过你们，我看到了自己的弱点。现代社会的高度物质化和商品化不止影响了都市，也正在影响着农村。作为一位地位卑微、薪水微薄农村的小学教师，我（不止我一个人）曾经为我的职业感到自卑，碰到陌生人我羞于启齿说出自己是小学教师。及至认识了你们，才改变了我的想法。你们这些毕业于世界名牌高等学府的大学生和一些外国人都在为中国的乡村教育事业而工作，我们又何谈自卑呢？

此次我们是抱着学习的态度去关爱学校的。回来后，总结了一下，感觉受益匪浅。

首先，又进一步了解了我们这个组织，感受到了以孙校长为代表的山西人的淳朴的民风。我和汤校长一致认为：都说我们山东人实在，其实山西人比我们山东人还要实在哩！刚到的时候安排我们住下边凉快的房间里，咱们在吃饭的时候孙校长他们很少和咱们一块儿吃，可能是怕饭菜不够让给咱们吃吧。后来还要拉着我们去游览普救寺，要不是赶火车，真想成全他们美意。看！多实在，多淳朴的人呀！

其次，我真的学到了不少东西。 十三号那一天廖元铂主持的互相认识的活动，让我第一次感受到：哦，原来互相认识也可以那么有趣。既活跃了气氛又达到了认识的目的，多好呀！我想在接手一个新的班级的时候，也可以用这个方法让陌生的同学互相认识，效果一定会很好。

后来江鹏主持的“中国农村教育与乡村教育促进会”里面所提到中国农村教育的现状，真可谓一语中的，很全面，也很真实。也不知道他从哪儿弄来的资料，真像一位农村教育的专家似的。

廖元铂的两个活动给我以深刻的启迪。一个是“支教活动要不要制定班级规章”，他从一个某学校的爆笑校规说起引出本话题，这种导入方式新颖有趣，一下子就激发了听众的热情。（虽然这个活动最终也没有讨论出一个结果） 另一个是“教育和志愿工作价值观”。他在这个活动中也同样注重了导入的作用，一开始他撒了一个弥天大谎说：“这次的支教活动是我们RCEF最后一次支教活动。”欲擒故纵，欲扬先抑，给志愿者身上泼了“一盆冷水”，让他们吃惊并思考“为什么”。然后才列出以往志愿者在支教活动中所犯有的“六大罪状”，引起新志愿者的思考。这样的导入方式也可以拿来借鉴到我以后的课堂教学中。在这个活动中所列出的以往志愿者在支教活动中所暴露出的六大弱点我感觉是非常准确和真实的，从中也可以看出RCEF是一个严谨而务实的组织。

遇笑容教授用问卷法和自己的亲身经历向我们阐释了“关注学生需要的教学”，她所提到的“以人为本”、“以学生为中心”、“关注生命和人性”的一些教育理论正是我们新课程标准所提倡的。

另外，林治美和郑冰所讲的课程也令我感悟良多，我觉得郑冰不仅是一个农民协会的会长，她更是一个女强人，一个农村妇女解放之路的开拓者。她从自己的亲身经历中总结出的诸多中国农村问题真实深刻，一个仅拥有初中学历的农村妇女能从生活中领悟到如此深刻的思想真是难得呀！早在“五四”时期，中国新文化运动的伟大先驱鲁迅先生就一针见血地揭露了中国农民由于长期的封建思想意识的渗透和积淀而形成的愚昧、麻木的精神状态，他们喜好以别人的不幸当作自己鉴赏和聊天的谈资，妇女的丝毫活跃都被视为不安分甚至伤风败俗的表现，他们缺乏个性主义精神和独立精神。时至今日，中国的绝大多数农民依然如此。所以郑会长很不简单啊！

最后的图书阅读教学交流更是大有收获，你们所提到的有关图书阅读的一些新颖的方法我都有选择地做了标记和记录，以备今后之用。因为其中有一些可能是欧美学校的做法，不太适合中国的农村，所以没有记录。

我这人有一个毛病，就是爱说，我有话心里憋不住。最后给你们提点意见吧。事先声明，纯粹是个人感受，正确与否，尚未可知。

第一，就是志愿者所设计的课程“大”而“空”。“大”就是他们只设计了几个大标题，而没有具体的资料和内容。“空”就是具体到每一课时没有具体的教学目标和内容。准备不充分。这就会造成上课时因没有多少内容而“冷场”。建议RCEF在培训时给以课程设置方面的具体指导。课程设置不应以传授知识为主，而应注重孩子们思维能力，学习方法，人生态度与价值，道德情感和理想等方面的培养。因为短期支教如果只传授知识很难取得最大效益，授之以“渔”，而不授之以“鱼”，重要的是教给他们思维、学习的更好的方法，即使志愿者走了以后，孩子们依然会运用这些方法指导以后的学习生活。做到这一点，我认为得动一番脑筋。

第二，在志愿者短期支教之外是否考虑为当地教师开展职业培训。应当承认志愿者学识渊博，教学方法活泼多样。但是毕竟是短期，志愿者走后陪伴孩子们的还是当地的老师。江鹏所讲的中国农村教育现状归根结底就是两个方面问题——硬件和软件，前者是指教育设备和环境等方面的问题，后者就是师资水平的问题了。目前中国农村教师业务水平的偏低制约了农村教育的发展。教师教育观念的落后，知识储备的严重不足，使我们的教育变得没有任何成效可言。“巧妇难为无米之炊”，一个老师肚里没有足够多的知识，即使他有绝妙的方法也难以让学生得到什么。RCEF可以进一步发挥自己的“桥梁”作用，引进外界的一些教育资源对当地教师进行职业培训以提高当地农村教师的职业水平。

千里之行，始于足下，我们正处在摸索阶段，但我相信，我们前进的方向就是中国农村教育改革的方向！

好了，说了那么多，是不是太罗嗦了？一孔之见，不当之处还望海涵。就到这里吧。最后祝我们这次支教活动圆满成功！

Dear Sara, Diane, Jiang Peng and Principal Sun,

Greetings!

We have safely returned home. Over these past few days, your generous hospitality and thoughtful arrangements have moved us tremendously. From afar here in Shandong, I offer you my heartfelt thanks!

The recent expedition to Shanxi let me to know much more about RCEF. As the days passed, I saw your dedication, selflessness, and perseverance, and have observed the passion and enthusiasm that you have shown in your endeavor to improve Chinese rural education. There’s not even a small hint of listlessness or depression, only a profound will and limitless vision to provide a better tomorrow for Chinese children in the country. Sometimes I would ponder, what is it that makes you give up the much better living standards of the city and choose to toil in the underdeveloped Chinese countryside instead to work for the village children, all the while knowing full well that you may never get any returns for the work that you’ve done. Many of the folks like us will definitely not do the same. Perhaps it has to do with the Western education in which you have been immersed. I am deeply impressed and touched by your concern and love towards all children and other people. For example despite her age, Professor Yu Xiaorong traveled thousands of miles just to teach the children, full awareness that she wouldn’t get paid for her work. For the kids in the countryside, all of you have striven to overcome cultural differences and homesickness to live in an isolated Chinese village. It is this type of altruism that has deeply moved me, as I honestly doubt that I myself could achieve the same. After watching you, I have discovered my own weaknesses.

The materialistic beliefs of our society have not only held sway over our urban life, but are also secretly crept into the countryside. As a modest, poorly paid elementary schoolteacher like many of my peers, I often felt embarrassed by my occupation and revolted at the idea of talking about it with acquaintances. This has changed after my personal encounters with you. If all of you, graduates from reputable colleges around the world and some even foreigners, are willing to do this kind of “lowly” work for Chinese rural children’s education, why should I complain about my own occupation?

On this recent expedition, I set out with a scholarly attitude, ready to learn. After returning I can sum it up by saying that the benefits greatly outweighed any losses.

First of all, I have learned more about our organization and what Principal Sun meant when she said the people of Shanxi are know for the simplicity of their customs. Principal Tang and I felt that people like us from Shandong Province are the most dependable, but it seems that Shanxi people are even more reliable than us! When we first came, we were shown to a breezy and comfortable room. Principal Sun and others would rarely sit down with us for dinner, possibly being afraid that there wasn’t enough food to go around. Afterwards, they even insisted on taking us on a tour to Pujiu Temple, and if it weren’t for the departure date on our train tickets, we probably would have accepted that magnanimous offer. Lo and behold, what honest, simple people!

Aside from this, I have learned much from the trip. On the 13th, Steven Liu organized an interactive activity to help us get to know each other better. For the first time, I discovered how fun introductions could be. The experience was exciting and fulfilled its desired purpose- how great is that? I think that I’ll try to use this method in future for welcoming a new group of students next year as a great way of ice-breaking between strangers. Fantastic results are assured.

Later, Jiang Peng gave a very thorough speech that introduced RCEF and elaborated on the current state of education in the country. It was so well-researched and faithfully informative that I had to wonder where he got all those sources. It certainly made him look like a rural-education expert.

The two activites organized by Steven Liu inspired me. One of them was when he brought up the subject of “Should We or Should We Not Have Classroom Regulations” by telling a funny story about some teacher’s rules, and through this unique way,introducing the topic and getting us all hooked. (Unfortunately, we didn’t decide on an answer to the question in the end.)

Another was “Educational and Volunteer Values.” In this activity he also used a special way to capture our interest by making a blatant lie that “This would be the last time that RCEF would do the Summer Volunteer Program.” This really shocked all of us, and naturally our first thought was “why?” Only after he said this did he actually begin to explain that past misdeeds of volunteers (including the “Six Worst Mistakes”) for the new recruits to ponder. This kind of approach can also be used when sharing information in a classroom setting. Through the delivering of a (in my opinion) truthful and realistic account about the six mistakes of previous volunteers, I come to see the RCEF as a well-disciplined and pragmatic organization.

Professor Yu Xiaorong used books and her own personal experiences in her talk on student-centered teaching. The things she mentioned (including educational theories like “people-oriented, children-centered” and “care about life and humanity”) are basic components of our new school curriculum.

Furthermore, the curricula that Sara and Zheng Bing spoke about prompted me realize something- Zheng Bing is more than just the head of a rural association, but but also an extremely strong lady and a leading advocate of liberation for rural women. Her conclusions on the problems facing rural China, all drawn from her own experiences, are truly insightful. For a rural woman with no more than a lower middle school education to comprehend such deep ideas is undoubtedly a human feat! Even as early as the ‘May Fourth’ movement in 1919 Lu Xun, pioneer of China’s New Cultural Movement, pinpointed the problem when he exposed the ignorance and apathy of China’s peasants, brought about the age old influences uncivilized thought. In the olden days, they would take pleasure in other people’s misfortune, reducing it to a topic of conversation; the slightest activism on the part of women was seen as unruly and even as an assault to public decency; and they lacked individualism and a spirit of independence. Even to this date, China’s huge rural population has not changed completely. In light of this, Ms. Zheng really is quite remarkable!

Finally, the teaching of reading, writing and mathematics can profit enormously from communication, and so I have voluntarily noted some of the new literacy-teaching methods that you discussed and recorded them to facilitate future use. Some of them – (perhaps specifically Western methods) – may not really suit rural China and therefore have not been included.

I have a problem here, though: I love to talk. I’ll announce whatever that is on my mind. So, finally, I’ll give you a few suggestions. What follows is purely my personal opinion. Whether or not they are correct remains to be seen.

Firstly, the volunteers’ lesson plans are both “big” and “empty”. They are “big” because they plan a few very broad topics without providing specific materials. They are “empty” because when it comes to individual lessons, they have no specific teaching goals. The preparation is inadequate. This kind of insufficient content can make a lesson fall flat completely. I would advise RCEF to give specific guidance on lesson-planning during training of new recruits. The aim of a lesson plan should not simply be to pass on knowledge; it should instead give high priority to such things as development of the children’s ability to reason, their study methods, their attitudes towards life, and their sense of morality and individual thought. If short-term teaching placements only aims to give students knowledge, then getting results is almost impossible. The pupils should be “taught how to fish and not simply given a fish”. The most important thing is to teach them rational thinking and better learning methods so that, after the volunteers have left, the kids can still benefit from their teaching in improving their future study. However, I believe, to achieve this, it would take a lot of our imagination.

Secondly, apart from the volunteers’ short-term teaching period, the training of local teachers should be taken into consideration. While the volunteers’ scholarly wisdom and their dynamic approaches to teaching deserve recognition, most of them are only available there for a short time and it is the local teachers who remain to look after the children. The current condition of China’s rural education that Jiang Peng spoke of ultimately boils down to two things: hardware and software. The former is a question of facilities and environment. The latter is a question of the teachers’ ability. At the moment the level of ability of China’s rural teachers tends to restrict its educational development. The teachers’ pedagogiacal ideas are outmoded, their knowledge inadequate, and this means our education system produces barely reliable results. There is a Chinese saying which goes: “Even the cleverest housewife cannot cook without rice.” Likewise a teacher without a bellyful of knowledge, even with the most brilliant techniques, cannot help his students learn effectively. So, perhaps RCEF can go a step further in its role as ‘bridge” by mobilizing some outside resources to boost local teachers’ current teaching standards and take them to a new level.

I think the old axiom hold true: “Even a thousand-mile journey begins with a first step.” Although we are very much still at the ‘experimental’ stage, I believe that the direction we are heading in will lead us towards a positive overhaul of rural China’s education.

All right, enough said. I may have given no more than an individual’s limited view. Please do pardon me fro any inappropriate remarks. Finally, I would like to give my best wishes to the current volunteer teachers!

(Translated into English by Maggie Zhou and Jeffrey Sheldon. Edited by NK Wong.)