First, the confusion between fish and fishing: finding the balance point of argumentative teaching
In the classroom teaching of argumentative writing, there has always been confusion about how to give "fish" (teaching students argumentative knowledge directly) and how to give "fish" (teaching students how to master argumentative knowledge). Most teachers will say that we are awarding "fish" and "fishing"! But is this really the case in actual classroom teaching? Undeniably, the teaching of argumentative writing is inseparable from the teaching of stylistic knowledge. This knowledge is the basis of learning argumentative writing, so how should teachers impart this knowledge? In teaching practice, teachers are often used to putting forward some key points of stylistic knowledge first, then mechanically cutting the language material of the article with so-called rational analysis, and then extracting cold concepts from it, and then verifying the correctness of these concepts one by one. We can't arbitrarily say that such teaching ideas must be invalid and whether such teaching is appropriate, but we should think further: in daily life and work, is people's reading of argumentative papers guided by these rigid knowledge? How much effect can teachers have on the growth of students by imparting knowledge in this way? These are all debatable. However, in the process of argumentative teaching, some teachers can not only teach students stylistic knowledge, but also base their understanding of knowledge on the cultivation of students' acquisition ability, thus prompting students to actively build a framework system of argumentative knowledge, thus effectively transforming students' learning of argumentative knowledge into practice. Therefore, thoughtful Chinese teachers should strive to find a balance between knowledge and ability in text teaching, giving students both "fish" and "fishing".
Second, where is the problem? I lost my doubts about text teaching.
"Learning begins with thinking, and thinking begins with doubt". The purpose of people reading argumentative essays is to understand the author's position on this issue. In the process of learning, I either believe in the author's point of view or have doubts: is the author's point of view correct? Is the argumentation process logical? To solve these problems, we should first pay attention to cultivating students' problem consciousness. It is a common phenomenon to pay insufficient attention to the problem consciousness in argumentative teaching. There are mode problems in the selection of argumentative essays in the original middle school textbooks. I think argumentative writing simply tells us some truth, as long as we find a clear point of view from it. As we all know, in real life, the argumentative papers we come into contact with are sometimes very complicated, and it is impossible to get the desired answers without asking questions. Some teachers will also say that many questions have been raised in the classroom teaching, and even reached the point of asking questions in full house. But in fact, many teachers ask questions only to verify the knowledge of the text and complete the teaching, and they are not consciously asking questions in the true sense. Students who have not been trained in problem consciousness often have superficial and simplistic thinking, and can't look at problems in multiple dimensions and aspects. When there is only the teacher's voice in the classroom, students have no "questions" to ask. Argumentative writing teaching should teach students to "doubt" and let them "ask questions". However, in the long-term teaching practice, the old way of thinking restricts the students' vision. Our argumentative classroom teaching should not be narcissistic, but multi-dimensional and open.
Third, argumentative writing falls behind: the sorrow of argumentative teaching
Since primary school, students have been surrounded by narrative and lyrical articles, accustomed to emotional venting and lacking rational thinking. In the face of argumentative writing, quite a few students can't understand the content of the article, can't find the viewpoint of the article, and can't figure out the idea of the article. What are the reasons for the current situation of argumentative classroom teaching? The purpose of argumentative teaching is the starting point and focus of our teaching. Argumentative teaching should make students think and analyze articles rationally, that is, learn to "discuss". Argumentative writing focuses on reasoning, so it is inseparable from rational thinking of the text. Only in this way can we interpret the text effectively. In actual text teaching, most teachers analyze the text paragraph by paragraph in isolation. But argumentative writing stresses the logic of internal reasoning. It should be said that each paragraph is related in structure, and the author's thinking development is also contextual. Ignoring these, students only get the stylistic knowledge of argumentative writing, which is not the original intention of our argumentative teaching. The key to the real argumentative teaching is that teachers guide students to think dialectically about the text, reveal problems, analyze contradictions, grasp its ideological context and understand its rational light hidden in the text, which is exactly the missing part in the real classroom.
Fourth, ideological solidification: lost the light of argumentative teaching. Because of the heavy teaching tasks, teachers spend a lot of time on daily teaching and have little time to study texts. Another fact that can't be ignored is that argumentative writing accounts for a small proportion in middle school textbooks, so teachers spend most of their limited energy on the teaching of prose, poetry, novels and drama, and pay little attention to argumentative writing, let alone in-depth research. In the long run, teachers themselves have certain obstacles to their understanding and taste of argumentative writing. They always feel that the reading process of argumentative writing is dry and there is really nothing to talk about, so the teaching of argumentative writing is naturally unpopular. This cognitive deviation makes it quite common for teachers to copy teachers' teaching books and teachers' teaching designs in preparing lessons. Because they didn't really interpret the text effectively, didn't explore the rationality of the text, teachers' teaching ideas were rigid, and the re-creation of the text could only be empty talk. In normal classroom, text teaching is mostly shallow but not deep, wide but not wide. Teachers are still accustomed to the rigid style on the surface, and have not formed their own independent opinions, let alone specific logical reasoning analysis. They only analyze the text according to a fixed stylistic pattern, and the internal "wisdom" and external "meticulous writing" of argumentative essays will naturally be considered boring.
It can be said that although the current situation of argumentative classroom teaching is not satisfactory, I think that as long as we face the problems seriously and solve them in a simple way with teaching wisdom, the spring of argumentative teaching will surely come soon.