作文讲评是提高学生写作水平的重要环节,这是广大语文教师公认的。但怎样进行讲评,哪一种讲评方法效果最佳?似乎看法并不一致。多年来,我校大多数语文教师的讲评课是这样进行的:在批改本次作文,积累讲评素材的基础上,先讲本次作文的优点,后讲作文存在的问题,再宣读一、两篇优秀作文,并略加评介。这样的讲评方法并非不可取,但终觉泛泛而讲,千篇一律。学生似乎也听得津津有味,特别是讲到学生中存在的问题时,有时甚至哄堂大笑,表面上也生动热闹得很,但究竟讲评后学生得到多少?下次作文又能改进提高多少?一学期少则五六节,多则八九节讲评课的效果如何?这些问题,学生说不上来,教师心中没底。 Composition commentary is an important part of improving students’ writing skills. This is generally recognized by the majority of language teachers. However, what kind of commentary method works best? It seems that the views are not consistent. Over the years, most of the language teachers of our school have lectured and commented on the following: On the basis of correcting this composition and accumulating material for commentary, first talk about the merits of this composition, then discuss the problems with the composition, and then read one or two more questions. Excellent essay and a brief introduction. Such a method of commenting is not desirable, but it is always generalized, and it is stereotyped. The students also seem to hear a lot, especially when talking about the problems in the students, and sometimes they even laughed loudly and they were lively and lively on the surface. But how much do the students get after the commentary? How much can the next composition improve? If the semester is as few as five or six knots, and how many lessons will be discussed in the eighty-nine-ninth festival, the students will not be able to tell these questions.