盲目地对孩子实施早期训练

Raymond

Sindy,

多謝妳比面及回應 可是我仍是要回應:「我冇quali可以show！」

但妳既然咁比面，借此介紹一本好書給大家：
「如何跟孩子有效的溝通」(How to talk so kids can learn) 作者：Adele Faber, Elaine Mazlish, Lisa Nyberg, Rosalyn Templeton , 原著：1995 Simon & Schuster, New YORK, Rawson Associates, Scibner  1996 中文版 世茂出版社

要教育孩子，重要前題是與孩子溝通的質素和其有效性！相信BK各位育兒專家都會同意，「对孩子

JackMon

Hi Raymond,

同意你的講法, 最終大家都想孩子好.  其實只不過是有時在用詞及語氣方面, 另對方感覺不舒服!!!

[quote]
Raymond 寫道:
belindamok ,

只要子女對方法受落及有興趣，話之佢是誰說的？！我們上BK的主要目的是交流方法、心得！(當然，學術上的討論也未常不可！不過，鄙人對這興趣不大！)

此外，情緒的疏導發洩也未常不可(但可能需負代价呢！)說話時不要抱着"批評"而是"討論"的語氣態度交流，世界就和平得多了！

Raymond

HuiTung

I dare not to say I know a lot about child education.  Sharing is important for a learner like me to be a better parent.  As I said before, this book is to help us justify what sort of early childhood training is suitable and good for our children.

I brought the Chinese version of Carl Weter's Educational Law and was fascinated by its methods used.  Mrs Lau (Lau Yik Ting's mother) was affected by this book and followed the methods used.  However, I later read an article about the book that many of the methods mentioned are "invented" by the translator!  The article gives a lot of examples to support this.  One of them is the use of coloured air balloons.  According to the Weter's years, rubber was mainly for industrial used - not a stage to produce air balloons.

After reading the article, I dumped the book.  That is to say we should use our own justifications to identify if a book is saying the truth or not, especially the translated version.  Don't just be fascinated by its story.

     

Raymond

HuiTung,

I think there is still an interesting challenge that how can we ensure our "justifications" is right?  (how about if we misuderstood the real meaning of the author or simply we misuse the skills, etc?)

Raymond

HuiTung 寫道:
I dare not to say I know a lot about child education.  Sharing is important for a learner like me to be a better parent.  As I said before, this book is to help us justify what sort of early childhood training is suitable and good for our children.

I brought the Chinese version of Carl Weter's Educational Law and was fascinated by its methods used.  Mrs Lau (Lau Yik Ting's mother) was affected by this book and followed the methods used.  However, I later read an article about the book that many of the methods mentioned are "invented" by the translator!  The article gives a lot of examples to support this.  One of them is the use of coloured air balloons.  According to the Weter's years, rubber was mainly for industrial used - not a stage to produce air balloons.

After reading the article, I dumped the book.  That is to say we should use our own justifications to identify if a book is saying the truth or not, especially the translated version.  Don't just be fascinated by its story.

     

HuiTung

Raymond,

I really have no idea about the question, but there is no absolute answer for sure.

There are a lot of factors affecting it.  But some of the methods are easily to be identified as radical, such as the use of ice (I can't remember how Mrs Lau used it and for what purpose).  Will you follow it?  Other people's experience, such as the book mentioned here, is a good reference for us to justify the methods we are using.

Any methods that are proved to have good effects on children education cannot be neglected or denied.  I just try to open my mind to the widest to make the best justification!

Regards,

            

cherly

呢個世界就係因為有唔同既父母、唔同既睇法、唔同既方法、唔同既子女，才有每一個獨一無異的人嘛！
我本人覺得每個分享都有啱既點 ~
不應 ”盲目” – 正確！
學前教育(以兒童為本) – 正確！
其實我哋教BB進食/行路都係學前教育一部份吖 ~
或者 “求同存異” 都係人人要學嘅：
如果呢一刻你真心覺得係”分享”緊嘅，你可繼續”分享”落去；
如果呢一刻你自覺憤怒難下嘅 ~ 退出去消咗啖氣先番嚟”分享”不失為一個方法。

Share

Davis,
我幾認同你的看法, 一開始接觸Glenn, 我都十分入迷, 不過, 我老公都係話如果Glenn真的這樣好, 這麼多年, 大把實証.
所以我都唔再這麼執著,亦無用到flash card.
其實, 各有所信, 合則聽, 不合則離開,
大人都唔理性討論, 就會學少好多野, (我最喜愛學野), 亦會做壞榜樣給子女.
      

viviancfhung

agree,
But I learn more from here. I found that I am intersting in both early education and later education now.
Thank you very much

Share 寫道:
Davis,
我幾認同你的看法, 一開始接觸Glenn, 我都十分入迷, 不過, 我老公都係話如果Glenn真的這樣好, 這麼多年, 大把實証.
所以我都唔再這麼執著,亦無用到flash card.
其實, 各有所信, 合則聽, 不合則離開,
大人都唔理性討論, 就會學少好多野, (我最喜愛學野), 亦會做壞榜樣給子女.
      

mcheng

我都係比個標題吸引左入嚟睇！好好奇為何要爭辯呢！
其實每個父母對孩子的教法都不同，只不過道不同不相為謀！
我睇幼兒書都超過３０本，都係想吸收多些方法及經驗來教育小朋友，當中都有適合或不適合的，其實都要配合小朋友，所以係無絕對或不對的！
每個人吸收都不同，自然運用出來都有些不同，就好似小朋友返playgroup，每個家長都有不同見解，亦因為每個小朋友都不同嗎？
又好似小朋友每天都需要到公園玩最小一小時，對腦部發展有膜大益處，其實呢樣活動都好好，但又有幾多家長會陪小朋友呢？
早期教育是多方面的，bk其實係一個分享既地方，當中分享的有人應為好，有人應為唔好，無需做成不愉快的交流！