《10到25岁》介绍(2)
说明：我正在连载《10到25岁》这本书的原文和翻译。本文是介绍部分的第二篇。
之前的部分：
The Wise-Feedback Study 智慧反馈研究
In 2014 I published a scientific experiment with Geoffrey Cohen (and others) on a simple but effective solution to the mentor’s dilemma. We called it wise feedback. We had instructors be critical with their feedback but accompany that criticism with a clear and transparent statement about the reason they were giving that feedback—-namely that they believed the student could meet a high standard if they got the right support. So-called wise feedback is wise (or attuned) to the predicament of young people who don’t want to be held to an impossible standard and who also don’t want to be talked down to.
2014年，我与杰弗里·科恩（及其他人）共同发表了一项科学实验的文章，针对导师困境提出了一个简单而有效的解决方案。我们称之为智慧反馈。我们让教师在给出批评性反馈的同时，附上一份清晰透明的声明，说明他们给出反馈的原因——即他们相信如果学生得到正确的支持，就能达到高标准。所谓的智慧反馈是明智的（或契合的），因为它理解年轻人既不想被设定不可能达到的标准，也不想被轻视。
We tested wise feedback in an experiment with middle school students in social studies classrooms. The seventh-grade students wrote first drafts of five-paragraph essays about their personal heroes. Next, teachers covered the essays with critical comments and suggestions: You need to put a comma here. Explain this idea further. Rearrange that sentence. Before the students got the essays, though, the research team attached handwritten notes from the teachers—-either a treatment note or a control note. (Teachers wrote the notes, but they didn’t know which student got which note or what the study was trying to test.)
我们在一项针对中学社会课教室的实验中测试了智慧反馈。七年级学生撰写了关于他们个人英雄的五段式文章初稿。接下来，教师们对这些文章进行了批评和修改建议：“这里需要加个逗号。进一步解释这个想法。重新组织那个句子。” 然而，在学生拿到文章之前，研究团队附上了教师手写的便条——要么是实验组便条，要么是对照组便条。（教师写了便条，但他们不知道哪个学生拿到哪张便条，也不知道这项研究试图测试什么。）
Half the students, randomly assigned, got the treatment note with the wise feedback, which said, I’m giving you these comments because I have very high standards and I know that you can reach them. The other half of the students got a vague control-group note. I’m giving you these comments so that you’ll have feedback on your essay. That note conveyed no clear reason for the feedback. Teachers handed back the essays in sealed folders so they couldn’t see who got which note. Then, students were given a week to revise their essays or choose not to revise them.
随机分配的一半学生拿到了带有智慧反馈的实验组便条，上面写着：“我给你这些评论是因为我有非常高的标准，并且我知道你能达到这些标准。”另一半学生拿到了含糊的对照组便条：“我给你这些评论是为了让你对文章有反馈。”这张便条没有传达出明确的反馈原因。教师们将文章装在密封文件夹中退还，所以他们看不到谁拿到了哪张便条。然后，学生有一周的时间来修改他们的文章，或者选择不修改。
We were hoping that the wise feedback would motivate students in the treatment group to work harder on their revisions. But even we were surprised by how strongly they responded. When students received the wise-feedback note, they were twice as likely to revise their essays: 40 percent of students in the control group revised their essays, but 80 percent did in the treatment group. The next year, when we ran the study with new students in the same teachers’ classes, we required all students to revise their essays. We wanted to see if receiving the wise-feedback note would encourage the students who received it to push themselves to do better. Again, it worked. We found that students made more than twice as many of the teachers’ suggested corrections, from 2.2 in the control to 5.5 when they got the wise-feedback treatment note.
我们希望智慧反馈能激励实验组的学生更努力地修改文章。但即使是我们，也对他们强烈的反应感到惊讶。当学生收到智慧反馈便条时，他们修改文章的可能性翻了一番：对照组中有40%的学生修改了文章，而实验组中则有80%。第二年，当我们在同一教师的班级中对新学生进行这项研究时，我们要求所有学生修改他们的文章。我们想看看收到智慧反馈便条的学生是否会因此受到鼓励，更加努力。再一次，它奏效了。我们发现学生根据教师的建议进行的修改数量增加了一倍多，从对照组的2.2次增加到实验组的5.5次。
What’s more, the wise-feedback study led to more equitable outcomes. All students benefited from receiving wise feedback, but those belonging to minority groups (in this case, Black students) benefited most. Wise feedback drastically reduced racial disparities in the students’ willingness to make revisions.
更重要的是，智慧反馈研究导致了更公平的结果。所有学生都从智慧反馈中受益，但属于少数群体（在这种情况下，是黑人学生）的学生受益最大。智慧反馈极大地减少了学生在修改意愿上的种族差异。
Here’s the takeaway. When you hold young people to high standards and make it clear that you believe they can meet those standards, you are respecting them because you are taking them seriously. Young people rise to meet the challenge because being respected is motivating. Further, you lift up all students and see greater equity.
以下是结论。当你对年轻人设定高标准，并明确表示你相信他们能达到这些标准时，你是在尊重他们，因为你认真对待他们。年轻人会迎接挑战，因为被尊重是激励人的。此外，你提升了所有学生，并看到了更大的公平性。
In this book, I’ll share many examples like wise feedback. These are simple, powerful ways of connecting with and motivating young people. They are scientifically proven to have a positive impact on a wide array of people. As I’ll show, they work across gender, racial or ethnic, national, and religious groups. There’s a simple reason for that. These practices get at the heart of what it means to be a young person, struggling to carve out a place in the adult world.
在这本书中，我将分享许多像智慧反馈这样的例子。这些都是简单而有效的方法，可以与年轻人建立联结并激励他们。这些方法经过科学验证，对广泛人群都有积极影响。正如我将展示的，它们适用于不同的性别、种族或民族、国家和宗教群体。这有一个简单的原因：这些做法触及了年轻人努力在成人世界中找到一席之地的核心。
Employing the science-based strategies in this book may take a little bit of thought, but it doesn’t have to take a lot of time. The wise-feedback note was just nineteen words. This makes it accessible to anyone.
采用本书中的科学策略可能需要一点思考，但不必花费大量时间。智慧反馈便条只有33个字（19个英文单词）。这使得它对任何人来说都是简单实用的。
Years ago, when I shared the wise-feedback study with Dr. Alex Sweeney, it helped him realize why he couldn’t get his medical trainees to listen. They were intimidated. They saw his critical feedback as a sign that he thought they weren’t good doctors, not as a sign that he was trying to make them better doctors. Alex changed his approach. He started explaining to the medical residents that he provides critical feedback because he thinks they can improve and that he was taking them and their potential seriously. Like the middle school students in our experiment, Alex’s young medical trainees have responded. They’ve been more open to improving their medical skills in response to his feedback—and happier to get his criticisms. These days, Alex runs one of the top surgical units at his medical school. He’s known for getting great medical outcomes and having a positive culture that trains doctors and retains the best employees.
多年前，当我与亚历克斯·斯威尼博士分享智慧反馈研究时，它帮助他意识到为什么他无法让其医学生听进去他的话。他们感到害怕。他们将他的批评性反馈视为一种信号，表明他认为他们不是好医生，而不是他在努力让他们成为更好的医生。亚历克斯改变了他的方法。他开始向住院医生解释，提供批评性反馈是因为他认为他们可以改进，并且他认真对待他们，也认真对待他们的潜力。就像我们实验中的中学生一样，亚历克斯的年轻医学生也有了回应。他们更愿意根据他的反馈改进医疗技能，并且更乐意接受他的批评。如今，亚历克斯管理着他医学院最顶尖的外科部门之一。他以取得卓越的医疗成果和拥有培养医生并留住最佳员工的积极文化而闻名。