【教案】我的老师主题教研活动记录：作文教学如何写出真情实感

教研活动记录范本：写人作文真情实感研讨全程

研讨主题：写人作文如何引导学生写出真情实感，以我的老师单元为例。时间周三下午第三、四节课，地点二楼会议室，参加人全体语文教师十二人，主持人教研组长。记录分三个环节。

环节一，课例展示。三年级李老师执教作文讲评课把老师写具体。课堂流程：出示病文与范文对比，学生用三个符号批注互评，当堂修改一处空洞句。听课教师各自记录时间轴和数据。组长汇总观察数据：教师讲解累计十四分钟，学生互评九分钟，当堂修改十一分钟，全班四十一人当堂完成修改三十七人。

环节二，问题研讨，围绕两个问题发言。问题一：真情实感是教出来的还是写出来的？张老师认为先有真实经历才有真感情，建议把写老师单元前移，开学第一个月布置观察任务，学生有存货再写。陈老师反对，认为四年级学生即使观察了也未必会表达，表达训练要先行，她举了自己班上的例子：同一个素材，训练过拆事的学生写出的段落长三倍。李老师补充课例感受：课上学生改得动，是因为病文范文对比把标准可视化了，空讲要有感情没有用。问题二：怎么评价真情实感？王老师提出作文评分表里感情分无法操作，建议改为可查指标：是否写了自己真实经历的事、有没有引用人物原话、有没有只属于这个老师的细节，三项都有即给高分。赵老师提醒：可查指标防假不防懒，还要配合素材本检查，防止学生互相抄素材。

环节三，改进建议与结论。形成四条决议。一，各年级写人作文单元前两周启动每日一条观察记录，由班主任配合提醒。二，拆事练习进课堂，每单元至少一次，口头拆到五步再动笔。三，本月内各组统一写人作文评价表，用可查指标替代感情分。四，两周后二次教研，每人带五份学生修改前后对比作文来交流。记录人：教研组长，散会时间第五节课后二十分钟。

记录末尾附了听课名单和李老师教案、板书照片编号，材料存教研组档案盒。这份记录当天发到组内群，没提意见的视为同意决议。

A Model Teaching Research Record: The Whole Session on Genuine Feeling in Character Essays

Topic: how to guide students to write genuine feeling in character essays, using the My Teacher unit as the example. Time: Wednesday periods three and four. Place: second-floor meeting room. Attendees: all twelve Chinese teachers. Host: the teaching research group leader. The record has three segments.

Segment one, lesson demonstration. Teacher Li from grade three taught the review class Make the Teacher Portrait Specific. Flow: compare a flawed text with a model text, students annotate and peer-review with three symbols, then revise one empty sentence in class. Each observing teacher recorded the timeline and data. The leader summarized: teacher talk totaled fourteen minutes, peer review nine minutes, in-class revision eleven minutes, and thirty-seven of forty-one students finished the revision in class.

Segment two, discussion on two questions. Question one: is genuine feeling taught or written? Teacher Zhang argued real experience comes first, suggesting the unit be moved earlier with observation tasks assigned in the first month, so students have stock before writing. Teacher Chen disagreed, saying fourth graders may not express themselves even after observing; expression training should come first, citing her own class: for the same material, students trained in event-breaking wrote paragraphs three times longer. Teacher Li added a lesson observation: students could revise in class because the flawed-versus-model comparison made the standard visible; empty exhortations about having feelings do not work. Question two: how to assess genuine feeling? Teacher Wang noted the feeling score in rubrics is unoperational and proposed checkable indicators: whether the writer describes a truly experienced event, whether character speech is quoted directly, and whether details belong only to this teacher; all three earn a high score. Teacher Zhao cautioned that checkable indicators guard against faking but not laziness, so material book checks are still needed to prevent students from copying each other's entries.

Segment three, improvement suggestions and conclusions. Four resolutions. First, each grade starts a daily observation entry two weeks before the character essay unit, with homeroom teachers reminding students. Second, event-breaking drills enter class time at least once per unit, breaking orally to five steps before writing. Third, all grades unify the character essay rubric this month, replacing the feeling score with checkable indicators. Fourth, in two weeks a second research session where each teacher brings five before-and-after revision samples. Recorder: group leader. Adjourned twenty minutes after period five.

The record ends with the observer list and reference numbers of Teacher Li's lesson plan and board photos; materials go into the research group's archive box. The record was posted to the group chat that day; silence counts as agreement to the resolutions.

研讨发言摘编：六个老师的观点为什么针锋相对

这次研讨最有价值的部分是吵起来了。摘编六段发言，按争议整理。

争议一：先解决没得写，还是先解决不会写。张老师主张观察先行：学生写不出真情，根子上是脑子里没有老师的形象，他现场让三位老师说出自己班主任的一个习惯动作，三位都想了十几秒，何况学生。陈老师主张表达先行：她上学期做过对照，同班两组学生，一组先练两周拆事，一组照常，期末写人作文两组素材差不多，但练过拆事的组段落平均多一百四十个字。她的结论是材料人人有，加工能力才拉开差距。两边没说服对方，组长把问题带进决议：观察和拆事同时启动，两周后用学生作文验证。

争议二：真情实感能不能量化。王老师提议把评分表里的感情分换成三个可查指标，真实经历、原话引用、独有细节。赵老师当场反对：可查指标会催生新的假，学生会编一件假事、塞一句假原话，指标全绿但文章还是死的。王老师回应：指标防不住造假，但素材本每天一条、有日期、要家长签字，造假成本比临时编一篇作文高。赵老师仍保留意见，记录里如实写了保留意见四个字。

争议三：统一评价表会不会把教学教死。年轻教师孙老师担心各组用同一张表，教学会趋同。组长回应：表只管评，不管怎么教，教法各年级自己定；而且表每月改一次，谁发现指标失灵，下次教研就提修改案。孙老师接受，但要求每次修改留名，方便追溯，这条写进了决议附注。

会后复盘，组长说了一句实在话：教研记录如果只记共识，下次开会没人再发言。这次把分歧原样记下来，两周后的二次教研才有真正的议题。没解决的问题也列了出来：素材本检查由谁做、家长签字是否必要、拆事练习占不占阅读课时间，三条都挂在下次会议议程上。

Highlights From the Discussion: Why Six Teachers Clashed Head-On

The most valuable part of this session was that people argued. Six remarks are excerpted below, organized by dispute.

Dispute one: fix having nothing to write, or fix not knowing how to write. Teacher Zhang argued observation first: students lack genuine feeling because they hold no image of the teacher in mind. On the spot he asked three teachers to name one habitual action of their own homeroom teacher, and all three hesitated for over ten seconds, let alone students. Teacher Chen argued expression first: last term she ran a comparison in one class, one group drilling event-breaking for two weeks and the other as usual; by the final character essay the two groups had similar material, but the trained group wrote paragraphs averaging one hundred forty characters more. Her conclusion: material is available to everyone; processing skill creates the gap. Neither side convinced the other, and the leader carried the question into the resolution: start observation and event-breaking together, and verify with student essays in two weeks.

Dispute two: can genuine feeling be quantified. Teacher Wang proposed replacing the feeling score with three checkable indicators: a real experienced event, direct speech quoted, and details unique to the person. Teacher Zhao objected on the spot: checkable indicators breed new fakes; students will invent a false event and stuff in a false quote, all indicators green but the essay still dead. Wang replied: indicators cannot stop fabrication, but a material book with one dated entry a day and a parent signature costs more to fake than a single invented essay. Zhao kept his objection, and the record faithfully wrote the words kept his objection.

Dispute three: will a unified rubric kill teaching variety. Junior teacher Sun worried that one shared form across grades would homogenize teaching. The leader answered: the form governs assessment only, not instruction; methods stay with each grade, and the form is revised monthly, anyone finding an indicator broken raises a amendment at the next session. Sun accepted but required amendments to carry the proposer's name for traceability, and this went into the resolution's footnote.

At the debrief the leader said something honest: if research records only note consensus, nobody speaks at the next meeting. Recording the disagreements as they were gives the follow-up session real agenda items. Unresolved questions were listed too: who checks the material books, whether parent signatures are necessary, and whether event-breaking drills take reading class time. All three sit on the next agenda.