品格為中國(guó)教育科學(xué)研究院(China’s National Institute of Education Sciences )提供母語(yǔ)級(jí)翻譯，語(yǔ)種：CHI → ENG，內(nèi)容：教育行業(yè)論文。
真實(shí)譯文展示（如有保密內(nèi)容均以XX替代）
Sample of real translation (Confidentiality retained with XX)
教師是學(xué)生家人之外與其接觸時(shí)間最多的成人，是最合適的學(xué)生需求代言人和保護(hù)者。教師日常已經(jīng)承擔(dān)了很多教學(xué)任務(wù)之外的照料任務(wù)，但還不能適應(yīng)福利需求提高的時(shí)代要求。首先，教師對(duì)學(xué)生福利的認(rèn)識(shí)不全面影響了學(xué)生需求的識(shí)別和滿(mǎn)足。教師討論學(xué)生福利時(shí)，基本上指的是物質(zhì)需求而不涉及非經(jīng)濟(jì)性福利，教師如何發(fā)現(xiàn)、回應(yīng)和實(shí)施學(xué)生福利在職前培養(yǎng)和職后培訓(xùn)中被忽視了。
Other than family members, teachers are adults that students interact with most frequently. They’re thus the most suitable spokespersons and protectors of students’ needs. Even though teachers have taken on a lot of care tasks in addition to teaching, they are still unable to meet the increasing welfare needs of today’s era. First of all, the teachers lack a full understanding of student welfare. In turn, it affects their ability to identify and satisfy student needs. When teachers talk about student welfare, they generally think of material needs rather than non-economic welfare. In the pre-service cultivation and post-service training of teachers, the questions of how to discover, respond to, and provide student welfare are also often overlooked.
大部分教師的精力都集中在幫助學(xué)生獲取知識(shí)、學(xué)會(huì)學(xué)習(xí)等方面，忽視了學(xué)校在學(xué)生發(fā)展的其他方面的責(zé)任。其次，教育的創(chuàng)傷和治療性質(zhì)也沒(méi)有得到足夠認(rèn)識(shí)。學(xué)校是家庭之外給學(xué)生提供形成性經(jīng)驗(yàn)的主要場(chǎng)域，有的學(xué)生在學(xué)校獲得成長(zhǎng)獲得幸福體驗(yàn)，有的學(xué)生在學(xué)校艱難度日。學(xué)習(xí)或考試失敗、排名靠后對(duì)學(xué)生自尊和情感帶來(lái)持續(xù)創(chuàng)傷，由于熟視無(wú)睹因此很少被視為教育的副作用。教師在教學(xué)中將認(rèn)知學(xué)習(xí)和心理建設(shè)結(jié)合起來(lái)能夠產(chǎn)生治療性影響，但工作繁重且缺乏訓(xùn)練，教師很難讓自己的教學(xué)活動(dòng)發(fā) 揮治療作用。
Most teachers devote their time to teaching students how to learn and how to study, ignoring other responsibilities the school takes on for students’ development. Secondly, the traumatic and therapeutic nature of education is not fully recognized. Schools are the main place outside the home to provide students with formative experiences. Some students grow up and experience happiness in school, while others struggle to live in school. Failing studies or exams and being low in rankings cause persistent trauma to students’ self-esteem and emotions. Yet, this is rarely seen as a side effect produced by education due to indifference. The combination of cognitive learning and psychological construction in teaching by teachers can have a therapeutic impact, but the heavy workload and lack of training make it difficult for teachers to make their teaching therapeutic.
再次，教師不能很好適應(yīng)學(xué)生的背景差異。有階層意識(shí)的教師經(jīng)常公開(kāi)要求貧困學(xué)生為家長(zhǎng)好好學(xué)習(xí)，而忽視了其內(nèi)在學(xué)習(xí)動(dòng)機(jī)的培養(yǎng)；缺乏階層差異意識(shí)的教師往往忽略不同階層學(xué)生的發(fā)展需求和發(fā)展方式的差異，如關(guān)注不到貧困學(xué)生的敏感的公平意識(shí)等。以往研究顯示，如果教師能夠成功發(fā)現(xiàn)學(xué)生的需求，就能從對(duì)學(xué)生的照護(hù)中找到個(gè)人和工作的價(jià)值；反之，教師在照護(hù)學(xué)生過(guò)程中會(huì)產(chǎn)生角色迷茫，質(zhì)疑專(zhuān)業(yè)界限、職業(yè)能力自我評(píng)價(jià)下降。
Thirdly, the teachers are unable to adapt to different student backgrounds. Teachers with a sense of social class often openly tell students in poverty to study hard for their parents and overlook ways to cultivate the student’s intrinsic motivation for learning. Teachers who lack the sense of social class tend to ignore the differences in development needs and methods of students from different classes. They may, for instance, ignore the sense of fairness that students in poverty are sensitive to. Previous studies have shown that if teachers can identify the needs of students, they can recognize personal and professional value from caring for students; otherwise, they will be confused about their roles in the process of caring for students, question the professional boundaries, and underrate their professional ability in self-evaluation.