【推荐1】Language experts say that spoken English was almost the same in the American colonies and Britain two hundred years ago. Americans began to change the sound of their speech after the Revolutionary War in1776. They wanted to make it different to separate themselves from the British in language, in the same way they separated themselves from the British government.

Some American leaders proposed(建议) major changes in the language. Benjamin Franklin wanted a whole new system of spelling. His reforms(改革) were not accepted. But his ideas did influence others. One was Noah Webster.

Webster wrote language books for schools. He believed the United States should have a system of its own language as well as government. Webster published a dictionary of the American language in 1828. It established rules for speaking and spelling the words used in American English.

Webster wrote that all words should be said in the order of the letters that spell them. This is why Americans use the letters “e-r” to end many words instead of the British “r-e.” He spelled the word “center,” for example, “c-e-n-t-e-r,” instead of the British “c-e-n-t-r-e.”

Webster’s rule for saying every part of a word made American English easier for foreign settlers to learn. They learned to say “waist-coat,” for example, the way it is spelled instead of the British “wes-kit.”

The different languages of many people who came to the United States also helped make American and British English different. Many of their foreign words and expressions became part of English As Americans speak them.

Sometimes Americans and British people do not understand each other because of different word meanings. For example, the word “jumper” in Britain means a sweater. In the United States, it is a dress. The British word “brolly” is an “umbrella” in America. And the British call potato chips “crisps”. All of these differences led British writer George Bernard Shaw to joke that Britain and America are two countries separated by the same language!

【推荐2】No one ever said science education was easy. Certainly the concepts we teach, like conservation of momentum (动量守恒) or quantum mechanics (量子力学)，can be hard to grasp. But what really makes our reaching complicated is that we're also trying to teach a deeper lesson at the same time — to help students understand the nature of science itself.

All too often, young people get the impression that science is about learning certain "laws" and then applying them to different situations. After all, that's what we make them do on tests, to show that they've been doing the work. But that's not it at all. Science is the process of building these concepts through the collection of experimental evidence.

And while I'm on it let's call these concepts what they really are — not laws, but models. Science is all about building and testing models. It's difficult to help students understand that aspect of science when we just give them the models to begin with. Sure, in physics we often include historical or mathematical evidence to support big ideas, but that often isn't enough.

Of course, we can't start from scratch. If students had to build their own models from the ground up, it would be like trying to learn programming by inventing computers. As Isaac Newton is supposed to have said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. We must take models built by others and go from there.

What I'd like to suggest is that this actually provides a great way into the adventure of science and an opportunity to meet our objectives as educators. If you can create a situation that challenges students' assumptions and produces conceptual conflict, that's a great opportunity for learning.

【推荐3】Basically, without the possibility of failure, there is little possibility of success. Education is in danger of becoming a branch of the entertainment industry. Although education should indeed be entertaining where possible, it cannot always be fun. Often, it needs the "hard yards".

Some educationalists feel that if something causes worry it should be avoided at all costs, I would disagree. Facing up to challenges helps develop children. Avoiding challenges can severely limit their potential. Tougher children are able to try and fail. The less tough may simply fail to try anything new.

I’m not advocating putting children under pressure. The real debate is perhaps what pressures are unavoidable. It's not about "throwing children into the deep end", but rather encouraging them to put their foot in the water and giving them the skills to float.

This latter approach is basically the work I and my team do at the University of Hull. We measure mental toughness and then provide interventions to improve this. These interventions include psychological skills such as goal setting, relaxation and thought control. So, for example, many children will say: "What happens if it goes wrong?" We work hard to change this so that the sentence reads: "What happens if it goes right?" One word difference, but a world away when thinking about challenges.

We try to help children deal more effectively with life using a three-step approach. Firstly, it is important to set realistic and achievable goals. Then it is a matter of finding out what factors (因素) are helping children to achieve these goals and what factors are working against this. The final step is to discover which of these factors can be controlled, or at least influenced, and what factors the child is in reality stuck with. Redirecting children's energies to movable obstacles (障碍) can produce huge life changes.

However, I think that for most of us we have become stress averse (反对的) and overreact to it. It has always been there, and it has always been the case that some people enjoy it, some need help to deal with it and some people's lives are ruined by it.

Showing our children that stress can be faced with and beaten offers them a way forward. The more a fear is avoided, the bigger it gets.