小宝贝期末考试成绩不理想

现在已经到了学期的期末，小宝贝今年上的是二年级上学期，按照明面上的规定，二年级是不能考试的。当然这肯定是上有政策才有对策的。学校还是以独立作业的名义进行了考察，并且老师还在家长群里面公布了大致的成绩排序，当然没有精确到每个人是多少分数，只是说只是按分数段公布了每一段中的大致人属。从结果来看，那是相当的卷，一半以上的学生都在九十五到一百分这一档。小宝贝的语文只考了八十八分，按老师在群里公布的分数线只能排在倒数五、六名吗?当然心里肯定是有点不太高兴的。不过才一二年级嘛，这种分数的差也就是细心程度和熟练程度的差别，并不意味着掉队。当然要更加努力，也是必须的。

回到家之后，把试卷拿出来看了一看，发现得分低的最主要原因是最后一题。看图写话被扣了八分啊，这题总分是十五分，题目的图片是一个四格连环画。按照正常的理解，情节应该是一个小男生，一边走路，一边吃香蕉。吃完之后，路边正好有一个垃圾箱，他就远远的朝垃圾箱随手一扔，结果没有投中，香蕉皮掉在地上，他也没有理会，接着往前走。后来看见一个保洁阿姨在辛苦的扫地，小男孩额头上冒出了汗，感到很羞愧，又折返回去捡起他刚才扔下了香蕉皮，扔进垃圾桶里。

小宝贝的理解与这个有些许不同。他认为那个小男生扔了香蕉皮之后，香蕉皮粘在了地上，保洁阿姨用扫帚来扫，怎么也扫不起来，于是，他连忙帮忙捡起香蕉皮，扔进垃圾桶里。这个理解确实相比标准答案在情节连贯性，和逻辑合理性上确实有些差距。但也算得上自圆其说，不至于打不及格的分数。

一切向标准答案看齐，这也是义务教育的正常现象。这让我再度怀疑这样的教育真正有意义吗?真的能够培养出对社会有用的人才吗?这种教学方式对学生的各自特性、天赋几乎没有任何区分。它似乎不太容许学生追求多样化的答案和多样化的思考方式。仅仅是无谓的向标准答案看齐，把学生们都训练成只有一种思维模式。

这种教育方式和AI太像了，Ai也正是这种训练方式。如果与训练数据差距太大，就会给出一个大大的损失函数值,也就是扣去更多的分数。然后改进模型参数，使人工智能模型能给出接近或者与训练数据一致的结果。

但是如果我们像训练AI一样的教育我们的孩子，那这样的教育还有什么意义呢?训练AI用的时间更短，只需要消耗电力。而教育孩子成长，这是一个消耗精力、财富和时间漫长的过程。而且这样的教育体制甚至还不如训练AI。 因为在训练AI的过程中，人们也不会把注意力只放在降低损失函数的值，也就是获取高分上面。人们还会注重保持AI的创造性和它适应训练数据以外问题的能力，也就是泛化能力，而尽量避免所谓的过拟合的现象。

过拟合的现象就是如果给出训练数据集中出现过的问题，AI能够百分之百的解答的很好。但是一旦将他从未见过的数据和问题丢给他时，他给出的结果就错得离谱。这种过拟合的AI模型就是毫无用处的。而我们的教育在分数的导向下，就是在大量的培养这些过拟合的大脑，能够考到很高的分数，但是却不能解决实际中的问题，适应不了现实社会，以至于研究生、博士生毕业了，也只能去送外卖，或者很多年以前就被人诟病的中国的大学生高分低能，没想到到了现在，这种现象反到变本加厉，从小学时就已经严重了，到底应该是需要怎样的教育，怎样去适应应试教育，同时又培养更自信、更有创造力的孩子。真的是每个家长要好好考虑的问题，不能只盯着分数看。

---

Now it's the end of the semester, and the little baby is in the first semester of the second grade this year, and according to the rules on the surface, the second grade can't take the exam. Of course, there must be a policy to countermeasure this. The school still conducted an inspection in the name of independent homework, and the teacher also announced the approximate grade ranking in the parent group, of course, it was not accurate to what the score of each person was, but only the approximate person in each paragraph was announced according to the score segment. Judging from the results, it was quite a paper, and more than half of the students were in the ninety-five to hundred-point range. The little baby only scored 88 points in the Chinese test, and according to the score line announced by the teacher in the group, can he only rank in the bottom five or six? Of course, he must be a little unhappy in his heart. However, it is only the first and second grade, and the difference in this score is the difference between the degree of carefulness and proficiency, and it does not mean that it is left behind. Of course, it is necessary to work harder.

When I got home, I took out the test paper and looked at it, and found that the main reason for the low score was the last question. Eight points were deducted for looking at pictures and writing words.,The total score of this question is fifteen points.,The picture of the question is a four-grid comic strip.。 According to the normal understanding, the plot should be a little boy who eats bananas while walking. After eating, there happened to be a garbage bin on the side of the road, so he threw it at the garbage can from a distance, but he missed it, and the banana peel fell to the ground, he ignored it, and continued to walk forward. Later, I saw a cleaning aunt sweeping the floor hard, and the little boy sweated on his forehead, and felt very ashamed, so he turned back and picked up the banana peel he had just thrown and threw it into the trash.

The little baby's understanding is slightly different from this. He thought that after the little boy threw the banana peel, the banana peel stuck to the ground, and the cleaning aunt couldn't sweep it with a broom, so he hurriedly helped pick up the banana peel and threw it into the trash. This understanding does have some gaps in plot coherence and logical plausibility compared to the standard answers. But it can also be regarded as self-justifying, so as not to score a failing grade.

Everything is in line with the standard answers, which is also a normal phenomenon in compulsory education. This makes me wonder once again whether this kind of education is really meaningful, whether it can really produce human resources who can be useful to society, and whether this kind of teaching method makes almost no distinction between the characteristics and talents of students. It doesn't seem to allow students to pursue a variety of answers and a variety of ways of thinking. It's just a useless attempt to align with standard answers, training students to have only one mindset.

This kind of education is too similar to AI, and AI is exactly this kind of training. If the gap with the training data is too large, a large loss function value will be given, that is, more points will be deducted. The model parameters are then improved so that the AI model can give results that are close to or consistent with the training data.

But what is the point of educating our children in the same way that we train AI? Training AI takes less time and only consumes electricity. And educating children to grow up is a long process that consumes energy, wealth, and time. And such an education system is even worse than training AI. Because in the process of training AI, people will not only focus on reducing the value of the loss function, that is, getting a high score. People will also focus on maintaining the creativity of the AI and its ability to adapt to problems other than the training data, that is, the generalization ability, and try to avoid the so-called overfitting phenomenon.

The phenomenon of overfitting is that if the problem that has appeared in the training dataset is given, the AI can answer it 100% well. But once the data and questions he had never seen before were thrown at him, the results he gave were wildly wrong. This kind of AI model that passes through the gift box is useless. And our education is guided by scores, that is, in a large number of training these gift box bigwigs can actually get high scores, but they can't solve practical problems and can't adapt to the real society, so that graduate students, After graduating from the doctorate, they can only go to food delivery, or many years ago they were criticized, Chinese college students with high scores and low ability did not expect that now, this phenomenon has intensified, since primary school has been serious, what kind of education should be needed, how to adapt to the examination education, and at the same time cultivate more confident, more creative children. It's really something that every parent should think about, and you can't just stare at the scores.