《虎媽戰(zhàn)歌》讀后感500到800字

其實讀這本書是因為我根本不相信簡單粗暴的方法能夠培養(yǎng)出優(yōu)秀的人才，我相信該書一定會為我展不同教育理念下的沖突和實踐。

虎媽確實很粗暴，但并不簡單! 虎媽沒有讓人失望，在這本書的最后，更加明確而清晰的闡述了她的觀點，還舉了一個有趣的例子。

她認為：西方父母對孩子的自尊擔憂頗多，但是作為父母，最不利于保護孩子自尊心的行為，就是你眼看著他們在困難面前放棄努力而不作為。

而她在教育小女兒學習彈奏“小白驢”這首曲目時，由于曲目的難度超過了小女兒當時的水平，因此需要經過非常艱苦的練習才能完成，但因為她的大女兒當時能夠完成，因此虎媽堅信同年齡的小女兒一定也能做到。

于是，她采取了幾乎所有的辦法，包括不吃飯，將撕壞的琴譜重新黏好，并采用多種多樣的手段來進行練習，于是，到了最后，小女兒終于取得了突破，完成了這首曲子，母女重歸于好，小女兒自信滿滿。

虎媽粗暴嗎，相當粗暴，非常粗暴，但她并不簡單。

就這個案例來分析一下她的粗暴而不簡單的成功之處。

1. 她的沒有針對小女兒本書進行指責和批評，而是針對所設定的目標給出具體的而明確的練習要求。

沒有因為小女兒不想練習就采取簡單的體罰，譬如打手心、罰站等做法，而只是要求其堅持在鋼琴旁邊進行練習，不能分心去干別的事情或消極抵抗。

這一點與某些中國父母看到孩子成績不理想就暴打一頓的做法顯然有著天壤之別。

2. 在整個過程中，她保持了耐心、克制、冷靜、理智，以及敢于承擔責任的勇氣。

當小女兒失去信心，放棄努力，花樣百出的不肯練習時，虎媽沒有失去耐力和冷靜，而是目標明確的加以堅持和引導。

譬如當小女兒因為反復練習不能突破，因為要放棄努力而不被允許時，憤怒地將琴譜撕毀，但是虎媽沒有因此被激怒，而是將琴譜重新黏好并裝在塑料袋中以防再次被撕毀。

這個小舉動可以看住虎媽允許小女兒發(fā)泄自己的不滿，但發(fā)泄完了之后還是要繼續(xù)練習以達到事先設定的目標。

當她的丈夫也提出反對意見的時候，她也努力加以說服，深刻地指出她并不想讓女兒成為一個獨特的失敗者，并表示她愿意獨自擔當一個“被孩子憎惡的惡人”。

3. 有足夠的知識、技能和辦法。

強制小女兒去反復練習也要講方法，要有正確的辦法。

虎媽自身有一定的音樂素養(yǎng)，并且陪著女兒去聽了每一節(jié)鋼琴課，不僅有指導大女兒學鋼琴的經驗而且還操辦了大女兒的幾場音樂會，因此具備了指導小女兒進行練習的能力，在練習中不是簡單的要求小女兒反復練習，而是采用多種練習手段變換使用，或者分解練習，或者綜合演練，逐步推進，在小女兒難以堅持的時候，或者顧慮或者強制，最終使得小女兒取得突破，并且在隨后的公開演奏中取得了成功。

對于這個問題還要多說幾點，鋼琴演奏技巧，本質上說也是一種動作技能的學習，而人類習得和掌握動作技能的過程既有基本的發(fā)育規(guī)律，也確實存在不同的天賦，因此若非十分把握，不要輕易拔苗助長，在體育運動訓練中，就強調不要過早的進行專業(yè)化訓練，要在運動員身體素質達到一定程度后再加量上強度，否則雖然能夠較早的取得較好的運動成績，但由于傷病等原因，潛力也就沒了。

我猜想音樂演奏的技能，認知和學習，邏輯思維的發(fā)展，都有著自身的規(guī)律，在教育兒童的過程中應該遵循這樣的規(guī)律，可以適度超前，但不宜超前太多。

這就需要教育者對這些規(guī)律有一些基本的認識。

再舉一個例子，當年馬俊仁在訓練女子中長跑運動員的時候，常常天不亮就要開始越野長跑訓練，有的小運動員跑著累了就放慢速度，脫離了大隊人馬，于是馬俊仁就躲在暗處學狼叫，小運動員聽到后嚇得趕緊加快速度跟上了大隊。

但如果這個小運動員這個時候確實已經體力不支了，恐怕這一聲狼叫一陣猛加速就會導致訓練過度，受傷，等等。

最后想說的是，虎媽教育女兒所取得的“成功”或許還需要時間的考驗，但她的“成功”并不容易復制。

《虎媽戰(zhàn)歌》讀后感500到800字

[《虎媽戰(zhàn)歌》和我的讀后感]（教育心得篇）《虎媽戰(zhàn)歌》和我的讀后感好幾位老美同事跟我提起這個話題，他們感興趣的，是我作為一個在美華人，讀了耶魯大學法學院華裔教授蔡美兒(AmyChua)的《虎媽戰(zhàn)歌》(“Battle Hymn of the TigerMother”)后，有什么感想，《虎媽戰(zhàn)歌》和我的讀后感。

本來上班挺忙的，但為了不讓老美覺得老中們都是一幫只重學業(yè)不顧其他的”nerds”，我還是抽空用英文寫了以下的回答，“以正視聽”：The Chinese “Tiger Mom” and my responseThanks for sharing this article and youropinion.Parenting andeducationis such an interesting issue.Ihave also seenthe excerptstranslated in some Chinese websites. Similarly, the views (andpractices) of the author raised quite some debates in those placesas well.A couple of my feedbacks will follow. First of all, bear in mindhowever, that I think each person should have their own practicesand ideas about parenting, because each kid is unique as anindividual. The parents may fail miserably if they try to followothers without consideration to their kid’s specialcircumstances.My first reaction, just like one quoted in the WSJ, is that“I am in disbelief after reading this article.”Any attempts to contract and compare the HUGE topic of Chineseand Western practices would be a daunting task. Any generalizationwould lose the finer details of individual approaches.The author, while using the excuse of being “the Chinesemother”, finds validation for her strict rules and control tacticsfor her daughters from the vague and generalized concept of the“Chinese practice.” I, for one, do not feel this represent the trueunderstanding of the Chinese (or Confucian) culture.A very famous Confucius saying is“因才施教”, (pinyin: Yin CaiShi Jiao), that is, teaching or raising a kid according to hisor her own strengths (or weaknesses). The author, a professor atYale Law School, supposedly a successful and smart professional,and educator, seems to forget this basic Chineseeducationaltenet at home.Not every child is necessarily good at all these sort of things(violin, piano, math, sciences, etc), not every kid needs to beplaying violin or piano that well at that young an age. Yes, amongour numerous friends, many of whom are Chinese, there are strictmoms, but I don’t think I have come across one who is THAT strictas Amy Chua.Her actions adhere to the stereotype of “the Chinese mom,” andher writing adds to that myth. How sad!The author wrote: “For their part, many Chinese secretly believethat they care more about their children and are willing tosacrifice much more for them than Westerners, who seem perfectlycontent to let their children turn out badly. I think its amisunderstanding on both sides. All decent parents want to dowhats best for their children”. She is right in saying that allparents want to do what’s best for their kids, but her writing, andher seemingly strong believe in her own “correctness”,unfortunately adds to that misunderstanding, rather thandispelling it.My second comment: Now that our son Kevin is in college, I feelwe have gone through all thedue processes andstages described in Chua’s article. But I think there is morethan one road to success, at least other roads than what Chuapreached.In our family, my wife probably stands firmer than me with therules for our son. But I can say proudly that we didn’t do any ofthe things described as “must do’s”, such as no sleepover, no play,no TV, no video games, no this or no that. We loved to have Kevingo to sleepovers with his friends when he was little. We encouragedhim to participate in sports and\\\/or other school activities. Heplayed quite a bit of video games and watched TV probably as muchas his peers. Actually, he probably won quite a bit of friendsbecause he was able to guide classmates in solving some of thegames. :=) How can a boy’s childhood be complete if he is notallowed to play games?Kevin did play piano, and then violin duringhisteenage years. That caused quite someheadaches for us, for he didn’t like to practice. But we neverpushed him to practice more than what the private tutors asked for.Other than that, we were probably lucky, because he was quite selfdisciplined and always managed his school work well.My third comment: “Don’t compare apples to oranges”. Isaw in one of the reader feedbacks, where areadernamed “Mike Reiche” wrote that thedisparity between Chinese and Western is that out of 1.3billion Chinese, the top 1% have moved to the US. Out of 300million US children, 100% are in the US. So when you randomlypick a Chinese family, you are picking from the top 1% andcomparing with the general population of western families.While I don’t totally agree about the “top 1%”, the fact is thatmost of the Chinese families people come across here in the USprobably are typical of such make-ups: mom or dad with PhD degreesfrom some science or tech fields, or with at least college leveleducation backgrounds. They most likely work in high techcompanies, or are doctors, accountants, or businessmen. They aresomewhat “cream of the crop” from the rigid education and selectionprocess in China, thus, they tend to place more emphasis oneducation and would push their kids harder. Chua herself may be theresult of such a product, judging from her WSJ article familypicture, where she was a new-born with bespectacled parents, who asnew immigrants know the difficulty realities of surviving in a newpromised land.Also, though Chua didn’t mentioned in the WSJexcerptthe background of her husband, from myreading she is married to a Jewish person. She mentioned herhusband’s Jewish traditions, and had threatened her daughter with“no Hanukkah presents.” I remember people saying Jewish familiesplace education as highly, if not higher, than Chinese families. Sowhen her two poor little girls have parents from the Chinese andJewish backgrounds, what else can they expect?As you can tell, I am somewhat critical of Chua’s approach, andam a strong believer that there are merits in both “Chinese” and“Western” approaches, rather than preferring one vs. the other. Ibelieve students need to work hard and take studies seriously, butyes, life is also so much more than just school. And there are somany things to enjoy along the way, that we should not limitourselves to textbooks, classrooms, recital halls, so let’s dontforget to go to the sports fields, nature and wilderness, volunteeractivities, and live a fuller life.This response has gone a bit too long, because education is oneof my favorite topics. You mentioned that Emily and you have hadmany discussions on this topic. Please feel free to share myresponse with her, so she sees at least one Chinese parent’s candidview.　　〔《虎媽戰(zhàn)歌》和我的讀后感〕隨文贈言：【這世上的一切都借希望而完成，農夫不會剝下一粒玉米，如果他不曾希望它長成種粒；單身漢不會娶妻，如果他不曾希望有孩子；商人也不會去工作，如果他不曾希望因此而有收益。

】

‘虎媽’讀后感

視頻簡介：《楊瀾訪談錄》是陽光衛(wèi)視制作的名牌訪談節(jié)目，創(chuàng)辦于2001年，國內最早推出的高端訪談電視節(jié)目，至今已走過十年的光輝歷程，國內知名人士楊瀾女士擔任主持，與550多位“重量級”嘉賓坐而論道，內\ 容涉及政治、經濟、文化、社會等諸多領域。

力圖穿越風云際會的有限時空，將嘉賓的人格力量和社會價值作為節(jié)目的終極呈現(xiàn)。

經過制作團隊的不懈努力，節(jié)目取得了強烈的社會反響，獲得了良好的社會效益。

[展開]

看看“虎媽”對孩子教育的十不準，有何感想

為什么不是《虎媽鷹爸》或《虎媽狼爸》?“虎媽”的特點是家長制和高壓，不乏咒罵、威脅、賄賂和利誘等手段。

為了把女兒培養(yǎng)成未來精英，“虎媽” 蔡美兒對女兒提出十大戒律，比如不準看電視和玩電腦游戲，每門功課至少要得A，甚至不準女兒在練琴時喝水上廁所。

《虎媽戰(zhàn)歌》上市后在美國引發(fā)軒然大波，被不少講求寬容的美國母親和媒體評判為“虐待兒童”。

就在“虎媽”登陸的次年除夕清晨，一名4歲南京幼童穿著小短褲在零下13度的紐約暴雪中裸跑視頻爆紅網絡，推行極限教育的“鷹爸”何烈勝隨之被推倒大眾視線。

緊隨其后，憑借藤條和雞毛撣子把4個兒女“揍”進了北大的蕭百佑被推上中國“狼爸”寶座。

顯而易見，“虎媽”、“鷹爸”或“狼爸”的教育方式都是高壓式的，一旦結合，難免極端。

相比之下，“貓爸”常智韜的教育方式要柔和得多，他遵循的是因材施教，主張民主、寬容的個性化教育，倡導與孩子共同成長，這點與家長作風的“虎媽”完全相左，形成教育理念的鮮明反差。

　　從某種程度上說，電視劇《虎媽貓爸》的趙薇和佟大為，即是現(xiàn)實中的“虎媽”與“貓爸”的戲劇化身。

趙薇演繹的“虎媽”畢勝男強勢高壓，對孩子要求苛刻，佟大為飾演的“貓爸”羅素對女兒卻多為順從，甚至經常聯(lián)合女兒對付“虎媽”。

由于中國“虎媽”與美國華裔“虎媽”所處教育環(huán)境和教育體制不同，“虎媽”趙薇要面對和解決的問題更多，也更復雜。

劇中的小寶貝羅茜茜是獨生女，由于父母工作忙，打小由爺爺奶奶撫養(yǎng)，爺爺奶奶推行的是極度溺愛的“公主”教育，因此烙下一身公主病。

畢勝男對羅茜茜的虎式 教育，激發(fā)點就在于改造其公主病。

與此同時，孩子的就學問題撲面而來，所以畢勝男忙著改造女兒的焦頭爛耳之際，和中國追逐精英教育的億萬家長一樣，還要為孩子上學的事絞盡腦汁，工作和家庭一片韓國亂打之聲。

　　一個是此前從未為孩子教育問題操心的工作狂，一個是自己都沒長大的暖男家長，改造別人的同時，更手忙腳亂地改造著自己。

《虎媽貓爸》的形式是“虎媽”式的，故事的落幅卻是“貓爸”式的，其中涉獵的教育，并非教科書，也不是導航燈塔，而是一次家長與孩子共同的成長旅程。

　　毫無疑問，這是一部話題性很強的家庭生活劇，同時也是一部很容易被娛樂性給淹沒的現(xiàn)實劇。

佟大為一直在影、視雙線作戰(zhàn)，“貓爸”形象相對弱勢，表現(xiàn)中規(guī)中矩，如何掰開“貓爸”形象與《想明白了再結婚》和《俏媽萌爸的甜蜜時光》表演的差異性是他的首要任務。

而“虎媽”趙薇則是自2008年《一個女人的詩史》后時隔七年的電視熒屏大回歸，對她來說是一次不容有失的歸來獻禮——一來“虎媽”形象的成敗，決定著這部戲的成色;二來趙薇選擇收視低迷的二星時代回歸，無形中還肩負著“大腕救世”的使命，很容易讓這部戲超出它“教育問題”本身所能承載的體量。

　　就教育話題來說，有句老話很值得成天雞飛狗跳的中國“虎媽” 消化和吸收：兒孫自有兒孫福，莫為兒孫做牛馬。

中國的教育是不是只有狼爸虎媽打出來的才子

不是的，打不打不是問題，主要是怎么打