- Re-look and think about your timed-trial response. Evaluate your response and think about what went wrong and what went right, and what you should do in subsequent trials.
- Look at the error analyses sheets and my comments. Think about what would make a good response.
- Try to craft the best response possible (it doesn't need to be the full response - at least one paragraph of good evaluation will do).
- Go the the previous post and post questions if you still have outstanding queries.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Post your timed-trial redrafts here
I hope that you girls will:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The writer claims that Chinese mothers are superior to western parents because Chinese mothers have more effective parenting methods. The successes of Chinese mothers can be seen in the large numbers of Chinese student’s excelling in math and music. I cannot agree with the writer as her view of success is very narrow and her parenting methods are not as effective as she claims.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I find her view of success is very narrow. She thinks that success is equivalent to the excellence in math and music. Gym and drama are not important. She claims her daughters to be more successful because they get As in all subjects expect gym and drama. I cannot concur with her as her daughters’ excellence in certain areas does not make them more successful than others who are strong in other areas. Hence, it is not fair for the writer to define success as excellence in math and music.
Furthermore, I do not think that the writer’s parenting methods are very effective. The writer values the rote repetition and believes that it is the path to success. However, rote repetition has been proven to be a not very effective way for learning by educational psychologists. Rote repetition does not necessarily improve children’s understandings. When they repeat, they could have repeated their mistakes as well, which would hinder them from improving. In addition, children cannot learn certain skills or develop certain abilities just through rote repetition. For example, it is hardly possible for children to learn to be creative through the drillings. Hence, rote repetition is not very effective to help children to succeed.
I agree with the writer that parents should not let their children to give up in front of obstacles easily. I do not think that harsh methods such as threatening, insulting and coercion that the writer uses can motivate children to overcome obstacles. The writer claims that her methods are successful because Lulu managed to play the piano piece in the end. The writer seems to assume that her harsh methods contributed significantly to Lulu’s success. It is true that Lulu would have given up playing the music piece without the writer’s insistence. However, Lulu’s success could have been a coincidence as the writer says- “out of the blue, she did it”. It could have been the case that Lulu just overcame obstacles herself in a sudden not necessarily because of the writers’ coercion. Lulu might even achieve the same result in a shorter time if her parents encouraged her and provided her with their advice instead of threatening and insulting her. Hence, the writer does not have good ground to believe that her parenting methods are successful and effective.
Lastly, the writer seems to be too obsessed with the result and neglect the value of the process. She claims that “nothing is fun unless you are good at it”, which I cannot agree with. I believe that it is possible to make the learning process enjoyable and yield good results at the same time. The writer seems to assume that only extrinsic factors like praises motivate children to learn. However, intrinsic factors motivate children to learn as well. Intrinsic factors like interests might even have stronger drives in children’s learning as they come from children’s hearts. Whether they can do well or not in learning, they are willing to learn for themselves instead of pleasing their parents. Furthermore, children should be taught to learn and have fun from the process regardless of the result. Thus, they can still enjoy themselves even when they fail.
In conclusion, I do not agree with the writer as her parenting methods are not so effective. I believe that better parents would be more encouraging and value the process more.
The successes of Chinese mothers can be seen in the large numbers of Chinese student’s excelling in math and music. <== you should state that she claims that this is the case. This statement is the writer's claim.
ReplyDeleteShe claims her daughters ARE more successful because they get As in all subjects (save for gym and drama which she deems unimportant).
I cannot concur with her as her daughters’ excellence in certain subjects of learning does not make them more successful than others who might be good in areas of learning.
In the writer’s opinion, the definition of success of a child is becoming a math whiz or a music prodigy or both. The writer thinks that Chinese parents are hence more superior than Western parents as Chinese parents tend to produce more math whizzes and music prodigies. The writer stereotypes Chinese parenting style to be strict and harsh, which she thinks is the key to producing many stereotypically successful Chinese children. The writer also stereotypes the Western parenting style to be more lax and that “Western parents tend to give up”. The writer emphasizes that Western parents tend to focus too much on “fostering the idea that learning is fun rather than a torturous process that damages the child’s self-esteem”, which in her opinion is a weakness of the Western parenting style. The writer on the other hand thinks that it is necessary to sacrifice the child's self-esteem in pursuit of excellence; she thinks that all the hard work will be worthwhile only after the child has succeeded. I disagree with the writer as I think her reasoning is flawed.
ReplyDeleteThe writer's definition of success emphasizes on academic excellence, particularly in mathematics, and musical achievements. I disagree with the writer's definition of success as i think it is too narrow and skewed. It is a rule that the writer imposed on her daughters whereby they are prohibited to "not be the No.1 student in every subject except gym and drama" that betrays the writer's biased views. The writer rates academic work as more worthy than physical and drama achievements but excellence in academic work may not necessarily be more worthy than excellence in gym and drama. The writer's biased view may be a result of her own skewed definition of success. The idea of success in life encompasses much more than just excellence in academic work and musical achievements, it includes others like art, literature, sports, cookery and many more. And because of success in life is very diversified we should not make comparisons between different people's successes as there is no a rigid guideline for comparison. Hence, i think that it is fundamentally wrong for the writer to rate the success of math whizzes and music prodigies as more worthy than sports and drama achievements as there is no basis of comparison. In addition, i think that each individual's success is unique to that person and thus it should not be rated as superior or inferior to other people's successes. For example, a Physics Nobel Prize winner cannot compare his achievements to a paralysed person who learnt to walk independently through perseverence and rate his achievements as superior to the paralysed person as there is no basis of comparison. So similarly the writer has no basis of comparison to rate excellence in academic work as more worthy than excellence in sports and drama. Hence i disagree with the writer's definition of success as i think her definition is too narrow and skewed.
The writer thinks that her method of threatening the child is good method to motivate the child but i find it hard to accept the writer's method of motivation as i think it is at the border line of child abuse. When Lulu could not play "The Little White Donkey" correctly, the writer "threatened her with no lunch, no dinner" and the writer justified her method saying that "I was just motivating her". Although i agree with the writer that it is important to teach her child resilience and tenacity, I do not approve of the writer's method as i think that her method is not motivating at all. The writer has erroneously thought that threats, coercion and insults are motivating. I think that motivation should be more positive and encouraging, instead of being full of negative and harsh comments. I think that the writer does not have to use such extreme harsh measures to teach her child the importance of perseverance, encouragement of the child can also achieve the same aim and may even achieve better results. In addition, depriving the child of access to food can be considered as the border line of child abuse as access to food is a basic human right. Furthermore, the writer's threatening method of motivation has not been proven effective. When the writer hauled insults and threats on Lulu, "there seemed to be only negative progress" but "out of the blue, Lulu did it". This example can only show that Lulu's success is a coincidence, it may not be the result of the writer's "motivation". It also showed that the threats and insults can only discourage the child to do worse as Lulu was making "negative progress". Thus i do not approve of the writer's method of motivating as i think that it is overly harsh and has even be proven to be counterproductive.
ReplyDeleteThe writer thinks that in the pursuit of excellence, it is necessary to sacrifice the child's self-esteem. I disagree with the writer's point of view as i think that preserving the child's self-esteem and pursuing excellence are not mutually exclusive, I think that the child's self-esteem should be preserved in the process of pursuing excellence. The writer thinks that the Western parenting method is inferior to the Chinese parenting methods because Western parents focus too much on preserving the child's self-esteem and making the learning process fun. I disagree with the writer as i think that is actually the strength of Western parents. There is nothing wrong to protect the child's self-esteem and make the learning process fun. It should be the case that learning is fun for the child and in the process the child builds up on his self-esteem. Thus it is not necessarily to sacrifice the child's self-esteem in order to pursuit excellence.
The writer expresses her thoughts on why she thinks Chinese parents raise stereotypically more successful children than Western parents. She attributes this to the difference in parenting methods.
ReplyDeleteShe opines that laying down rules and restrictions on children, as well as imposing heavy control on their lives with an iron hand will allow children to strive hard and achieve goals parents have planned for them. She also feels that methods of parenting like ‘coercion’ and ‘rote repetition’ serve as an effective route towards what she deems as success. I largely disagree with her argument that children's preferences need be overridden, where "Chinese parents understand" what is the best for their children, as well as her views on draconian methods of parenting. However, there are points which I concede to the writer on.
Firstly, at a very tender age like 7, children might not have the maturity to possess the ‘fortitude’ to persist at a task, especially if it is difficult, like Lulu mastering a music piece. One can only achieve success in a task if one perseveres, and children might need constant pushing and urging to continue in a hard task. Thus, I agree when the writer argues that children need be guided and encouraged, so that they will not easily give up and that they will be able to bear the fruits of their labour. Even so, I feel that the writer’s idea of encouragement seems to be highly warped, where she makes learning a tedious process for her children.
While I do relent on the point that there seems to be tangible differences in the way Western and Chinese parents parent, the writer gives a very unfair depiction of parenting methods of Western parents. The writer does not have good grounds to assume that Western parents do not encourage persistence and foster a sense of fortitude in their children, as well as hastily generalise that Chinese parents employ the same methods as her. It is evident that the writer uses obvious cultural stereotypes to justify her own draconian methods of parenting. In Lulu’s case, the writer tries to justify her means of teaching with the end results produced. She further stated that by forcing Lulu to play the same piece “right through dinner into the night”, denying her water and even issuing threats, Lulu would be more ‘motivated’ to learn the piece. What she fails to recognize is that Lulu might not have been motivated and instead, what could have been pushing her on to learn the piece was the stress produced by constant pressure from her mother. This would have been a more negative route than positive learning. In this case, was Lulu truly learning? I doubt so.
Even though Lulu has succeeded in mastering the music piece and enjoyed doing it well, the process of learning was a hard one. I believe that when a child learns, the process is what matters most, and not the end result. Children need to be taught to value the process over the results --- Lulu only valued her learning upon success. Should she have failed in learning that piece, she might not have appreciated the process of learning. Also, the writer asserts that ‘coercion’ is the best way in teaching a child, but children have shown fortitude on hard tasks when parents make the process rewarding and enjoyable for them. The writer also believes that “rote repetition” is one effective method for teaching but however, educational psychologists have ascertained that is in fact not the truth. Children in actuality take longer durations to learn a skill via rote repetition. Therefore, it is unfair for the writer to assume her methods are effective with just a personal anecdote, as she did not take other factors like Lulu’s talent into account.
Also, there is a problem with the writer’s definition of success. She evidently feels that success is based strictly on academic results and achievements of one, and not other aspects like humanities or sports. This seems to be a very myopic view of the definition of 'success' on the writer’s part but in actuality, success should have no basis of comparison because there are many differing types of success, for example, a sportsperson winning gold medals at sports events, and it is not limited to just academic achievements. Academic achievements do not necessarily outweigh achievements in other areas like sports.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the writer indirectly states that results are the most important to her, as shown from the incident pertaining to Lulu. The writer seems to have no qualms about destroying a child’s self esteem in the learning process, as self-esteem can be rebuilt with “praise, admiration and satisfaction” upon completion of a task. This idea of ‘results over process’ might foster in children like Lulu the idea that failure in a task meant that one had not learnt anything. However, learning should be more about the process than the results produced. Thus, I disagree with the point that self-esteem should be fostered only after success in a task. This is because there are other instances where children’s self-esteem is protected during the learning process, where parents have made the process an enjoyable one. Also, as children, a balance between work and play is needed, as well as the space to learn to be social. The writer seems to disapprove of this idea of a well-balanced childhood when she states the rules she had set for her children, like not being able to watch TV. She pays no heed to the wants of her children and claims all restrictions she dictates will make them successful. However, she fails to see that her children do have their own desires and interests too. What may seem good to her might not be so in the eyes of her children. For example, if Lulu possessed no musical abilities whatsoever, coercion would have yielded no success with Lulu.
In parenting, one needs to be able to consider the happiness of one’s children during a learning process, instead of the writer thinking that her own parental ideas are the best and that she has the right to override her children’s preferences. She fails to consider that her restrictions and draconian methods of teaching might have a negative effect on Lulu like a lower tolerance for failure rather than “motivating her”, as the writer claimed. She has made ‘learning’, a process that should be fun and enjoyable, into a torturous process where results are deemed as what matters most --- an idea antithetical to the spirit of learning.
On the whole, the writer thinks her methods are conducive for success but in actual fact, they are hardly positive or effective methods for success and might produce adverse effects on a child instead. Thus, I disagree when she says that her methods will produce what she deems as ‘successful’ children and that children’s preferences should be overlooked. In learning, children should derive joy not from the results, but instead, from the process. She has also shown her narrow view on success and learning in her argument, and thus has no good grounds to assume her teaching methods are definite routes to success. With her own myopic views on success as only bound to academic achievements, as well as teaching methods that should focus on only results, the writer might think she has brought her children up to be ‘successful’, but in actuality, she is most definitely not a successful mother, let alone be a superior parent as compared to Westerners.
The writer, Chua, argues that Chinese parents are superior to their Western counterparts in raising “stereotypically successful kids”. She attributes this to the strict parenting style of Chinese parents, which focuses more on discipline, “rote repetition” and “[overriding the child’s] preferences”. Chua believes “Chinese” parenting to be more effective than “Western” parenting in grooming children to be successful, given her personal experiences in raising “successful kids”. To begin with, I do not agree with her overall argument that Chinese parents have superior parenting methods. I find that her labeling of the different parenting methods as typical “Western” or “Chinese” may not be the most fair. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that a strict parenting style like Chua’s is the way for a child to succeed, whether in academics or music. Hence I largely disagree with the writer’s argument.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it is unfair to depict Western parents as people who “give up” easily to the resistance of their children while Chinese parents display “fortitude” in face of a child’s resistance. The writer is making a hasty generalization in saying this, using stereotypes to bolster her argument. It may not be true that Western parents do allow their child to give up easily. Even if it were so, the writer implies that this is the core reason why “Western parenting” is less successful than “Chinese parenting”. “Giving up” may not necessarily be a sign of weakness or failure, contrary to what Chua alludes to. I believe that in some situations, allowing a child to give up a course or subject may offer him other opportunities to develop his untapped potential. Furthermore, it is rather inaccurate for her to label her own set of parenting methods as typically Chinese. Not all Chinese parents employ such drastic and harsh methods as she does to groom their children for success. She feels that “Chinese parenting” is how children are raised to achieve success. While I agree that Chinese parenting methods may be one route that can lead a child to success, there are other parenting methods as well that are equally as effective in grooming a child to be successful.
Secondly, I do not agree with Chua’s strict parenting methods lead to a child’s “success”. For one, I find Chua to have a narrow perspective on what construes “success”. She says her two daughters were never allowed to “get any grades less than A”, “not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama” and “play any instrument other than the piano or violin”. This is the “success” that she claims “Chinese parenting” will bring, hence of its being superior to “Western parenting”. The writer determines the effectiveness of each parenting method solely based on the success that the child achieves. There are other benchmarks to determine the effectiveness of parenting methods, such as the happiness of the child and the ability to actively engage and be self-directed in learning. The process in which the child grows up and learns is more important than the target to achieve “success” as Chua narrowly defines, being “math whizzes and music prodigies”. Furthermore, “success” is such a broad term. It does not mean that to be successful, a child has to be a whizz or a prodigy in disciplines such as that of math or music. Sometimes, the very fact that the child is self-motivated in learning is proof of an effective parenting method. I am of the opinion that learning should be free from the burden of achieving excellence. Chua seems to scoff at the “Western” parents’ belief that “learning is fun”. She believes that “nothing is fun until you’re good at it”. However, learning can be fun, especially children who tend to have short attention spans. Learning through fun activity and games is a good way to engage the child. In the long run, it may nurture a sense of happy commitment in a child towards learning an instrument or subject. To elaborate further, Chua says that “tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence”. She seems to be a strong advocator of “rote repetition”. Bolstered by her “successful Chinese parenting methods”, she implies a casual relationship between her daughters’ success with “rote repetition”. I do agree to a certain extent, practice helps to polish up skills, be it in musical playing or in arithmetic sums. However, “rote repetition” subjects the child unnecessarily to stress and it may create a sense of dread and boredom towards a particular subject. In fact, “rote repetition” may backfire on a child. Chua cannot assume that her methods will work for other children even if to a certain extent, it did work for her and her two daughters.
ReplyDeleteThe writer contends that Chinese parents are more superior to Western parents because they are able to “raise … stereotypically successful kids”. She believes that “it is crucial to override their [children’s] preferences” and “to get good at anything, you have to work, and children on their own never want to work”. However, I do not agree with the writer’s viewpoint as I find her argument untenable and problematic.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the writer provides reassurance to other parents who wonder if they can raise successful children that it is possible to attain such success by following her means. However, simply because the writer has been successful does not mean that other parents will produce the same results since every child is different. For instance, different children have different learning capabilities and hence there should be a varied range of teaching methods to cater to each of them differently. She cannot so presumptuous as to claim that her methods can be adopted and be successful with other sets of parents and children. Furthermore, the writer goes on to elaborate on the various restrictions that she has imposed on her daughters, such as not being allowed to “watch TV or play computer games” or “attend a sleepover”. She seems to be insinuating at a casual relationship between these restrictions and raising successful children. However, I disagree with this opinion because other factors play a part in raising successful children, such as the children’s own talents and interest in a particular aspect. It can very well be a combination of another factor alongside with her strict parenting. Moreover, she provides a single personal anecdote to support her argument which is hardly of substantial value to illustrate that her results are reproducible. She also comments that it is “out of the blue” that her child succeeded, which shows that her child’s success is purely coincidental. Hence, it is erroneous to assume a direct impacted relationship on her strict parenting alone.
Secondly, the writer assumes that the tedious process of preparing the child for success will eventually turn out to be fun. She believes that “once a child starts to excel at something, he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction”, thus making “the once not-fun activity fun”. However, I dispute the writer’s opinion. Admittedly, the child will be proud of himself upon success, but the writer seems to be placing a lot of emphasis on the results of the children, rather than the process. For example, fun is deprived during the process of learning for her children, such not being able to attend sleepovers. The writer has even gone to the extent of threatening her child, Lulu, “with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas presents” and so on. Lulu clearly did not enjoy the process of learning, crying out “in exasperation” and tearing the music score “to shreds”. The writer is advocating for the process of learning to be strict in forcing the child to learn, even if it is at the cost of “damag[ing] the child’s self-esteem”. However, she fails to consider that the process of learning can very well be fun, which may even produce better results for the child will display stronger interest for learning. Furthermore, if the child does not receive praises, he may lose the motivation to continue learning, since that is what he is looking forward to throughout the mundane process. Hence, it is evident that the writer’s way of parenting is not the most effective method.
Lastly, I ponder over how successful the child really is, even if he attains the best results but dislikes everything he has done. I question the writer’s definition of success which I find extremely narrow. She does not allow her children to “not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama”. She seems to have the preconception that being successful in certain subjects like gym and drama are still inferior to success in other subjects. This brings me to her point about Chinese-style parenting being better than Western-style. Western-style parenting has also raised successful children, but in the opinion of the writer, they seem to be of less value, displaying a microscopic view of success. The Westerners has arguably more success stories in the fields of the arts and humanities while the Chinese top in sciences and mathematics. However, the writer blatantly disregards the success in such aspects as worthy which leads to an unsound conclusion that Chinese parents are superior to Western parents in terms of raising successful children. Furthermore, no statistics showing the number of successful children in various aspects in comparison have been provided to support her stand. Therefore, I am unable to concur with her point of view.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, I find the writer’s argument fallacious due to several bold assumptions made. Therefore, I do not agree with the writer.
The writer opines that children never want to work, they resist work and by scolding and pressurizing them as the part of parents, children would work harder and thus attain excellence. I find this claim problematic because although children do indeed tend to resist working if the task is not very well structured and fun, reprimanding them may not be the best way of going about getting them to learn. The writer mentions that threats of “no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas presents, no birthday parties” and using “every weapon and tactic” are simply attempts to ‘motivate’ her child and that they “worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn’t let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom.” This suggests the writer employed and endorses extreme methods of ‘motivation’ and though Lulu did indeed manage to play the piece in the end, the ends hardly can justify the means the writer adopted called “lazy, cowardly, self0indulgent and pathetic” may be detrimental to the child’s self esteem and can hardly be deemed motivational, it may not be at all effective in attaining success. In fact education psychologists have actually shown that learning by rote method is one of the less effective ways to learn. Thus, the method that the writer endorsed is not only ineffective in achieving success, but also acts against the child’s ability to gain success.
ReplyDeleteFrom the result of Lulu having managed to play the piano piece well, the writer concludes that threats are necessary as motivation to prevent a child from giving up. However, this is not the case. Firstly, threats may cause harm to a child’s learning experience, causing negative feelings whenever the child is called upon to do that task. Thus, threats may actually have the opposite effect of what the parents intended – increasing the likelihood and want in the child to keep away from that particular activity, thus preventing success. Secondly, threats have more of a destructive rather than constructive effect. By calling her daughter “lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic”, the writer would have inevitably caused unhappiness, exasperation and disappointment in the child. While this may have ‘motivated’ her child to work harder, other children may actually acquire a sense of failure and low self-worth. Thus, her so-called ‘motivational’ threats may actually work against the purpose of creating success, inevitably causing emotional distress and abandonment. A child may feel that he or she is worthless just because he or she could not complete a difficult task due to negative remarks from a parent. Instead, more encouragement and positive assurance might actually allow a child to fully achieve his or her potential in an activity he or she likes and help him or herself to excel in it through pure enjoyment, something essential for all children to attain success in a particular activity.
The writer is of the view that Chinese parents are superior and are able to raise “stereotypically successful kids” because they take an iron hand with their children. Examples of “Chinese” parenting, in Chua’s opinion, includes stressing success in what she deems to be worthy subjects over other things by “[overriding their children’s] preferences.” She believes in strict parenting and never allowing the child to give up. While I do agree that it would be preferable for a child to be successful, academically or otherwise, I disagree with her strict methods of parenting, and feel that it might not necessarily lead to the moulding of successful children.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Chua raises her successes with her two daughters as a testament to her superior parenting methods. She lists out the rules she set for her daughters, including never being allowed to score below an A, and implies a casual relationship between their success and her strict parenting. I find this difficult to concede on two points. One, although she was strict with her children, and they were successful, her draconian methods might not have been the cause of her children’s success. There might have been other reasons for their success, such as their teachers’ encouragement, or their own talent. Two, even if it was true that her daughters did indeed succeed due to her strictness with them, her methods might not work with other children as she claims they will. She only raises two examples to prove her point, and furthermore they are personal anecdotes, and it is hasty generalisation on her part to make such a bold claim that her parenting methods are superior simply based on these two examples. Also, different children learn best with different teaching methods. All children are different, and it can be concluded that children with different personalities learn differently. Hence, her supposed evidence that she raises, the cases of both her children, cannot logically support her claim.
Secondly, the writer makes baseless assumptions about both parents and their children. Chua starts off with the generalisations about Chinese and Western parenting methods that diminish the credibility of her argument. She herself admits that the supposed differences between Western and Chinese parenting methods are “cultural stereotypes”, yet commits same mistake of stereotyping. She labels her own draconian parenting methods as “Chinese” methods of parenting, which may not necessarily be true. She also says that “Western parents tend to believe that stressing academic success is not good for their children” and that Western parents allow their children to give up. I admit that Chinese parents may be more concerned about academic success, while Western parents would possibly prefer their children to develop creativity, due to their cultural differences. However, I cannot concur with her extreme views on both. While Chinese parents want their children to excel academically, I highly doubt that they would resort to depriving their children of meals on order to get them to study. And while Western parents are more liberal with their children, I doubt that they would encourage their child to give up in every instance.
Furthermore, this does not validate her argument at all. She seems to be implying Western is an ineffective method of parenting, which may not be true. There are many Western children who are successful as well, and it cannot be assumed that supposed Western methods are ineffective because another method, the Chinese method, is effective; there is no correlation between the two. Although Chua’s method of parenting may have led to success as defined by her, there is no evidence that this is the one and only road to success, and there are other effective parenting styles.
The writer assumes that “children on their own never want to work, which is why it is critical to override their preferences”. Although it may be true that children prefer playing to studying, it may not be true that they hence dislike and are averse to voluntary learning. In fact, given children’s innate sense of curiosity about the world, they are more inclined towards learning and discovering on their own. Even if it were true that children never want to work, there is no need to “override their preferences” and prevent them from playing altogether. It is only natural that children are more successful and interested in some areas than others, and it is illogical to say that overriding their preferences would make them work harder. On the other hand, why not ride on the child’s interests and help the child to develop proficiency at the areas that he is interested in? If the child is interested in the area that he is studying in, it is rather more likely for the child to progress faster and succeed in that that particular area. Chua has a rather strange conception that learning cannot be fun. There is merit in the school of thought that learning best takes place when the learner is interested and having fun, and therefore, more engaged in whatever he is learning.
ReplyDeleteThirdly, I believe that rote repetition is not the only factor to success. Talent in a particular area is necessary to a certain degree. Although working hard is a must, talent is needed as well. If a child is naturally not adept at something, coaching may improve the child’s abilities but he would never be successful in that aspect. Hence, “rote repetition” may not work as well as Chua thinks it does. This makes her claim that “once a child starts to excel at something, he gets praise, making the once not fun activity fun” illogical. The first statement itself is logical, but combined, the statements are tenacious at best. What if the child never excels at that particular skill? He would never be praised, the activity would never be fun, and it might make the child depressed rather than happy.
And lastly, I find fault in her perception of success. Chua herself says that academically successful children are but “stereotypically successful”, and her idea of a successful child is a “math whiz” or “music prodigy”. While I have no problem with her statement that “math whizzes and music prodigies” are successful, I feel that it is rather narrow-minded of her to limit success to such areas. In fact, the only two subjects she allows her children not to be no.1 in are “gym and drama”. There are many successful professionals in related lines of work to disprove her point, and for her to dismiss the arts simply as subjects that are not valuable is illogical and unacceptable. Furthermore, she ignores life skills also essential for success, such as social skills, which is necessary for interaction with others in the future.
Hence, in conclusion, Chua’s argument does not stand, and in fact is contrary to the spirit of learning and teaching. Her methods of parenting cause the child to be under constant stress and pressure and removes interest in learning from the child.
LA Redraft—Why Chinese Mothers are Superior?
ReplyDeleteThe writer’s main argument is that the supposedly Chinese style of parenting is the best way to raise successful children. The writer feels that children must be forced to work in order for them to be successful. The writer argues that in order for one to be good at something, we would have to work for it. I do agree with her that nothing comes free in life. The writer went on to say that “children on their own would never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences, in which the child is made to work hard and strive to achieve success in their work”. The writer seems to be a strong believer in a forceful style of parenting in which she identifies as the Chinese style of parenting.
The writer thinks that the Chinese style of parenting is more superior as compared to the Western style of parenting. She tries to support her argument by stating that there are high numbers of math and music prodigies that are Chinese children. She has identified the Chinese style of parenting to be one that is forceful and drives children by means of threat and punishment. However this seems to be the writer’s stereotypical view as a Chinese parent herself. It is highly questionable if Chinese parents in general use draconian methods of parenting to bend their children to their will. The writer also states that Western parents advocate fun learning for their children and not force them to do things they do not want to do. She also states that “Western parents allow them to give up.” This also seems to be the writer’s stereotypical view that Western parents are lenient. She further supports it by stating that her Western husband tries to ask her not to be so hard on their daughters. While it may be true that Western parents do not use forceful methods to drive their children to success, it cannot be said that Western parents allow children to give up easily based on the writer’s isolated experience.
The writer says that she insulted and threatened her daughter to force her to practise playing her piano piece properly. She even prevented her daughter from going to the bathroom and drinking water. She felt that her actions were justified as she felt that she was just “motivating her daughter. She then reveals that it is due to her strict parenting methods that her daughter was able to play her overly difficult piano piece. She also attributed her success with her daughter to her harsh parenting methods. Therefore she has used her success she has enjoyed with her daughters as testament that strict Chinese parenting methods is the key to developing successful children. However this is highly questionable as it is only based on her own experience and not the opinions of the masses. The assumption that this method of parenting would work for most children is a highly generalised statement. Not every child needs to be pushed in order to be motivated to learn. Also it is not necessarily the case that children that are good in their work would find their work fun. Contrary to the writer’s belief, the act of pushing children to their limits has been proven ineffective by educational psychologists. Children would tend to remember things better if the process is made fun. As compared to the fun process in learning, developing real interest in the subject, rote learning has been proven less effective. I agree that positive encouragement and genuine interest in learning would allow one to be self-motivated and not need to be forced to learn. They would be driven by their thirst for knowledge and the genuine love for what they are doing. Thus I feel that the writer’s point of view is seemingly flawed.
Wenjia:
ReplyDeleteThe writer believes that Chinese parenting methods are more effective than Western parenting methods as Chinese parents are able to “raise such stereotypically successful kids” who are “math whizzes and music prodigies”. However the writer’s view on success is a very narrow one. As shown in the rule imposed on her daughters “to be the No. 1 student in every subject except gum and drama”, the writer emphasizes a lot on academic excellence and deems subjects such as gym and drama to be not of any importance. She views academic achievements to be more worthy than physical or theatrical achievements, which is problematic as subjects such as gym and drama teach a child on important qualities such as perseverance and teamwork. There are many different forms of successes in life and everyone can be successful in whatever they do, no matter if it is academic work such as mathematics or leisure activities such as cooking or playing sports. The writer cannot use academic excellence as criteria to judge whether a child is successful or not as a child who is good in sports can be just as successful as another child who performs well in his or her academic work.
Secondly, the writer also portrays very unfair stereotypes of Chinese and Western parenting methods. While it may be true that due to different cultural backgrounds there are certain differences between the two teaching methods, but it is inaccurate for the writer to say that western parents “tend to [allow their children] to give up” as “ they worry [too much] about their children’s self esteem.” Western parents seem to generally “foster the idea [of] learning [being] fun” in their children and encourages their children to learn things based on their own interests or curiosity. However it is untrue that when the child starts to resist hard work, Western parents would allow their children to give up easily. Instead, the child may be even more willing to work hard after receiving constant motivation and encouragements from his or her parents. Hence the writer’s portrayal of Western parents is inaccurate and unfair.
Furthermore contrary to her beliefs, the writer’s teaching method based on coercion is ineffective and counterproductive. While teaching her daughter Lulu to play the piano piece “The Little White Donkey”, the writer conatantly uses threats and insults on her as a way to motivate her to practice. However, this is hardly “motivating” as it damages the child’s self esteem and may result in the child resenting his or her parents. Although this method worked for her daughter, it may not apply to other children as every child is born different and has differing personalities. Such harsh teaching method may prove to be counterproductive as when applied to other children, it may cause the child to even more hate and resist the thing he or she is forced to do. Also, the method of rote repetition is hardly effective in teaching a child to do something. As shown, Lulu managed to play the song successfully “out of the blue”, which shows that she may have gotten this achievement by mere coincidence and not by the method of rote repetition. Studies have proved that children tends to perform better through effective learning rather than rote repetition.
The writer feels that Chinese parents raise more successful children in comparison to Western parents, as Chinese parents produce “so many math whizzes and music prodigies”. She feels that this is due to the fact that Chinese parenting methods are superior to Western ones. She insinuates that this is the case because Chinese parents place a lot of pressure on their children to excel academically and musically, her ideas of success, whereas Western parents try to protect their child’s self-esteem and allows them to “easily give up”.
ReplyDeleteEven though the writer brings up some valid points, I find that I cannot agree wither point of view as I find her way of parenting too harsh, to the extent that it might even be detrimental to a child’s mental and physical health. She also has a very myopic view of success and what success constitutes. I will first explain why I find some of the points the writer brings up valid before I explain why I disagree with the writer’s overall argument.
The writer feels that “most children on their own never want to work” and thus, it is necessary for parents to override their preferences. Even though this seems to be a border on generalization, it is undeniably true that most children are more inclined to having fun and playing than sitting down and hitting the books. However, what the writer fails to recognize at this point is that fun and learning are not mutually exclusive. Learning is supposed to be a fun and enjoyable process, and a child should not be denied the right to discover the joys of learning. When learning is made fun for a child, a child will naturally look forward to the whole process and enjoy the subject, eventually excelling academically in that particular subject. The writer also believes that it is important to impress upon children that they should not give up easily and that they should continue working on tasks until they perfect it. The writer gives an example of her own daughter Lulu, who had difficulties mastering a rather challenging piano piece. Even though the writer’s methods of achieving this are questionable, t is also undeniably true that if certain values such as determination and the desire to strive for the best are inculcated in children from young, it is very likely that these values will stay with children for the rest of the lives, and make them stronger adults in the future.
However, what the writer fails to recognize are the severe repercussions of the draconian measures she uses into coercing children into doing things against their will, insulting them and putting too much pressure on them to do well. Firstly, the writer fails to see that rote repetition and pushing children too hard can cause children to develop a strong aversion towards the subject and learning itself, which is against the spirit of learning. Even though they might eventually excel in the subject, the mental trauma of having to do something they dislike over and over again, as well as being punished upon failure to do well might stay with the children for life. In the writer’s own example, she mentioned that she threatened Lulu with “no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas presents, (and) no birthday parties” when she failed to play her piano piece well. Her methods are too harsh and can be even considered as borderline abuse. Christmas presents and birthday parties are the little things that matter a great deal to a child. Such children will naturally associate punishment, long hours and exhaustion with the subject and in time to come, develop a strong dislike for the subject.
ReplyDeleteAlso, by constantly scolding and threatening the child, the parent-child relationship will no doubt worsen as the child develops and extreme hate towards the parent for constantly insulting her. The child will grow up in an environment where, to he or she, does not feel loved and is constantly verbally or even physically abused. By placing great pressure on a child to do well, the writer does not realize that children are still young and there is a limit to how much pressure they can handle. A little pressure is always good but too much pressure on a young child only serves to create unnecessary stress. The writer does not see that success does not necessarily just mean academic and musical success, but also child’s socio-emotional well-being and his state of mind.
The writer's point of view is Chinese mothers nurture mor successful children than Western parents because "Chinese-style" parenting methods" are better. Her so-called "Chinese-style" parenting is forcing her children to work and work and practice and pratice on something until the children is good at it, and will thus like it. The writer assumes that all children in the world are like her children, who will succumb to coercion and listen to their parents.
ReplyDeleteI think that her assumption is not valid. Every child is different. If forcing tactics are used on a child who has a hot temper and is stubborn, such tactics may only generate more rebelliousness in the child. For example, to say as the writer does, that there will be no lunch for him or her, a child like this may not care about the threatens and may go hungry. The implication will be that there are no learning or productive outcomes.
Furthermore, being good at something does not necessarily mean that one likes that thing, and vice versa. For example, some people may be good at art, but hates art and some others may like piano, but are just unable to learn it. Thus, the writer cannot make such a bold claim that one will like something when one is good at it.
I think that the writer's opinion about forcing children to practice and excel in something is not sound. If a child has a liking for something, the child will naturally practice it without anyone aking him or her to do so. A Chinese pianist had the love for playing the piano since young, and he practised piano for a few hours everyday without his parents asking him to. As long as a child likes something, parents need not ask him or her to practice as he or she will do so on his or her own accord. All the parents need to do is to encourage the child. Thus, the writer's argument about overriding the child's preference is an ineffective way for the child to learn.
I also think that the writer's decision of "not allowing her children to play any instruments other than the piano or violin" is very unreasonable. What if her child has a talent for other instruments? Then, her actions of overriding her children's preferences will be depriving her children to develope their talents. Is this really good for the child? The writer "never allowed her children to watch TV or play computer games, get any grades less than A, not be the number 1 student in everysubject except gym and drama". Such is putting a lot of pressure on her children, and depriving them of a childhood which they have the right to have. This may result in defects in her children's character, which is not the outcome of good parenting.
The writer "wouldn't let Lulu get up, not for water, not even go to the bathroom" when her daughter, Lulu, was practising her piano piece. I think that this is very overboard. Even if she did not really do it to Lulu, the words alone are rather inhumane, draconian and exteeme. It is normal for a human being to want to drink water and go to the bathroom. Lulu should have been under a lot of pressure at that time. The writer's actions seem contrary to good parenting.
PART 1:
ReplyDeleteThe writer, Chua, thinks that Chinese parents “tend to raise … stereotypically successful kids” and “produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies” because Chinese parents have superior parenting methods as compared to Western parents. She stereotypes Chinese mothers or parents as harsh and strict parents that use “coercion” to prevent their children from giving up, and Western parents as the ones who believe in making learning fun and preserving their children’s self esteems, but often are the ones who “tend to give up”. Chua endorses what she deems as the “Chinese-style” of parenting, and advocates her stand with a few of her own personal anecdotes. While I do concede with her that allowing children to give up may result in them achieving less than what they can, I cannot agree with some of her draconian methods of “overriding … [the child’s] preferences” and coercing the child to practice with the use of threats.
Firstly, it is unfair to stereotype Chinese and Western parents, and it improbable that most Chinese parents are strict and employ coercive means of parenting, and most Western parents are lenient and worry excessively about their children’s self esteem that they often give up. Even if it is the case, it is unfair to say how the “Western” parenting style pales in comparison to the “Chinese” parenting methods, as every set of parents and children are different. The writer cites her own personal anecdote, of the time her daughter, Lulu, succeeded in playing a piano piece, to prove how “Chinese” parenting methods of coercion works. However it is illogical on her part to assume that just because she had done it, and had success with making Lulu not give up, her methods would work for all parents. This is a generalisation on her part and is hardly representative of “Chinese” parenting methods. No two parent-child relationships are the same and it is highly unlikely that many other children would respond the same way as lulu, thus it is unfair to judge the effectiveness of parenting methods and say that “Chinese” parenting methods are more superior.
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the writer believes “tenacious” practice, “rote repetition” and “coercion” as “motivating” and effective, but these seem to be negative means of producing learning. She has no qualms about destroying a child’s self esteem during the process of learning, so long as she gets the results in the end, but this hardly seems to be the right way to go in educating a child. Studies have shown that rote repetition is hardly an effective way of learning, and fostering a passion for learning is more effective. “Western” parenting methods do have their merits, and there is nothing inherently wrong with “parents worry[ing] a lot about their children’s self esteem”. This may, in fact, be more conducive for success, as a child with self esteem will have the motivation to learn more, love learning, and become an independent learner, as compared to a child with zero self esteem and only learns to seek parental approval. The writer fails to see the repercussions of her actions on the child, and the child may develop an aversion towards learning if he or she is forced to learn, which is against the spirit of learning.
The writer seems to have a warped concept of learning, as she believes learning can only be fun when you attain the results, “praise, admiration and satisfaction”. This betrays that the writer is more results-orientated rather than process-orientated. However education seems to constitute more than just results, it is a process of learning and discovery, and can only be effective when a child finds joy in learning and is involved in the process. The writer believes that it is necessary to “override [the child’s]… preferences” as he or she will resist work, but this is problematic as not allowing the child to learn what he or she is interested in will only result in the child not enjoying the learning process, and thus this is also antithetical to the spirit of learning. Overriding the child’s preferences in favour of what the parent believes to be better for success, for example the writer favouring mathematics and music over gym and drama, also does not seem to show how this would result in more success for the child. This only shows how the writer’s concept of success is narrow, “no. 1 in all subjects except gym and drama”, and this is erroneous as success is not limited to academic excellence or musical excellence. Success can also be constituted to being an effective learner and loving learning, even if the child does not produce the best academic results. Thus the writer’s argument that “Chinese” parenting methods are more superior does not stand, as it is untrue that her parenting methods constitutes good learning and will inevitably result in success. The writer’s parenting methods seem to be antithetical to the spirit of learning, and counter-productive instead of effective.
The writer, Chua, posits that Chinese mothers are superior in the way they raise their children as compared to the Western parents, as the Western parents place far too much emphasis on protecting their children’s self esteem and they over emphasise the idea that learning is fun. She lists her parenting methods as examples of how Chinese mothers groom their children to be what she deems “successful”.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Chua’s parenting methods are too strict. She proudly proclaims that she does not allow her children to attend sleepovers, watch TV, play computer games or not be the top student in all subjects except gym and drama. She expects them to excel in all subjects that she deem important and denies them recreational activities most children normally do. Chua does not accept failure from her children. I feel that such is too strict and harsh as it does not give children the freedom they should have to explore and enforces the idea that failure is not an option. Somebody once said that “Failure is the key to success”, and only through failing can children effectively learn and grow. She does not allow her children to learn any other instrument other than the violin and piano, depriving them of the opportunity to learn new things, only being able to do whatever their mother wants them to do. Even if the children were to become successful young individuals, they might have led a rather deprived childhood.
Also, Chua evidently has a very myopic view of success, as she does not seem to felt that gym and drama are subjects important enough for her children to excel in. However, Chua should not have a right to determine which subjects are important and which are not, and it is incorrect of her to state that Chinese children are more successful as compared to Western children simply because Chinese children excel in the subjects that Chinese parents deem ‘important’. Thus, it is not neccessarily correct that Chinese mothers are more superior than Western parents.
The main contention of the writer is that she feels that Chinese mothers are superior to their Western counterparts because they raise “stereotypically successful kids”. The writer, Chua, explains that this is due to the fact that Western parents (as she claims) believe that stressing academic success is not good for the child. Chua also attributes why Chinese mothers are superior to the fact that Western parents “let them [their children] give up”.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Chua starts off by saying that “a lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids”. Chua is essentially saying Chinese children are more successful that their Western counterparts. In that sentence, Chua assumes that academic success is the only yardstick for success. This is because she continues to say that Chinese parents can “produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies” and that Louisa and Sophia must “be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama”. Her obvious disregard for gym and drama betray her sentiments on how these aesthetics are not as important as subjects like math and music. I think this assumption is problematic because without the fundamental premise that Chinese children are more successful, her argument about how the Chinese way of parenting is more superior falls. In fact, it is reasonable to say that Chinese are not necessarily more successful, if we consider “success” to be more than tangible academic results.
In addition, while I find it reasonable for Chua to explain the differences in parenting with the things her daughters were never allowed to do, it does not represent the typical Chinese way of parenting. In fact, it is even possible, contrary to what Chua claims, that there is no such thing such as “marked differences” in parenting due to cultural differences. Chua merely assumes that her way of teaching is representative of the Chinese way of teaching, and does not compare or give any evidence to show that many Chinese parents are like her. Hence, it is a hasty generalisation to generalise that most Chinese parents are as strict, coercive and adopt the same extreme parenting methods as her. No two parent-child relationships are the same; hence, different methods should be used in every situation, and it cannot be said that Chua’s way of parenting will definitely bring about academic success for every child. Furthermore, every child has different learning styles and capabilities. Just because Louisa and Sophia are able to excel under her method of parenting does not mean that all children will react in the same way to Chua’s form of parenting.
Chua then raises the example of Lulu, who she taught to play “The Little White Donkey”, as the writer claims is an “incredibly difficult [piece] for young players”. Firstly this is an isolated case of success; furthermore, it is likely that the success is due to other factors like Lulu’s raw talent because she did it “out of the blue”. If Chua wanted to claim that her methods work, she should have said how Lulu made slow but steady progress and finally did it with Chua’s guidance on how to play the piece, and not just due to her demands of rote repetition.
Firstly, the writer advocates rote repetition and practice as ‘crucial for excellence’. While I concede that ‘tenacious practice, practice, practice’ indeed contributes significantly to one’s excellence in a particular area, I cannot concur with the writer’s stance that ‘rote repetition’ is indeed an effective way to learn. Chua believes that endless repetition of a task will eventually enable a child to “excel” in it, but what Chua fails to realize is that if one has factual misconceptions about what is being learnt, then rote repetition will only result in “negative progress” and a lot of wasted effort and time.
ReplyDeleteTo dispel the prevalent notion that rote repetition is ineffective, Chua provides her experience with Lulu as an example to support her stance. However, her example is a sweeping one and unrepresentative of the majority of young children. Secondly, what the writer neglects to mention is that rote repetition is often detrimental to the progress of young children because it only adds on to their frustration. This frustration is in fact evident in Lulu’s case, where she and Chua “worked on it nonstop for a week” and resulted in her “announc[ing] in exasperation that she was giving up” as well as “grabb[ing] the music score and [tearing] it to shreds”.
Secondly, while I applaud the writer’s persistence in teaching her daughter music, as well as acknowledge that she may not be that unfeeling a mother if she can “beg[i]n to have doubts” about her strategy, I cannot concur that Chua’s harsh way of showering her daughter with threats of “no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas presents, no birthday parties” and insults of “lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic” is motivational. The writer believes that damaging a child’s self-esteem in the learning process is fine because the child will receive “praise , admiration and satisfaction” once he or she excels in it. Chua’s conception of learning is highly flawed if she believes that the outcome is what matters, regardless of how draining the process may be.
Furthermore, the writer cannot conclude that her method of threats, insults and coercion is effective based on Lulu’s example. Lulu could have succeeded in learning the piece based solely on her own efforts or skill. The fact that Lulu was able to play the piece under Chua’s draconian measures could have been attributed to coincidence. Chua actually propagates this idea of a coincidence further in stating that Lulu did it “out of the blue”.
Thirdly, the writer has an extremely myopic view of success. She deems gym and drama as subjects too insignificant to contribute to one’s success. Her view that the outcome matters more than the learning process only reinforces this point. The writer opines that ‘success’ is measured by one’s performance in terms of academia and music and is something worth sacrificing one’s self-esteem or personal interests for. By forbidding her daughters to “attend a sleepover” or even “watch TV or play computer games”, Chua limits their interaction with their peers and instils in them the belief that success is all work, no play. By enforcing her idea of success on her daughters, Chua overrides their needs and interests. The writer is misguided in her belief that it is “crucial [for parents] to override their [children’s] preferences”. While I relent that young children rarely want to work, I believe that in doing so she is mistakenly assuming that parents always know what is best for their children. Children should decide for themselves what they are interested in and what they want to spend time pursuing.
ReplyDeleteLastly, the writer makes unfair assumptions about Western and Chinese parenting, choosing to believe that the Chinese way of parenting is superior because they raise children who are what she deems as “stereotypically successful”.