⊙o⊙~⊙o⊙~⊙o⊙ 樱木和shadow两人小组学习大贴o(╯□╰)o~o(╯□╰)o~o(╯□╰)o
本帖最后由 ~樱木花道~ 于 2012-2-22 03:41 编辑13. Universities shouldrequire every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's fieldof study.
Write a response in which you discuss theextent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing andsupporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/orexamples that could be used to challenge your position.
类似题目：46，70，102，112
Due Date 2月22日晚12点之前
习作要求：
1. 附上中文提纲。
2. 习作完成之后需仔细剔除低级语法、拼写错误才可上传。 13 Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study.
大学应该要求每个学生选修自己专业以外的各种学科。
提纲：
大学教育是否应该要求每个学生选修专业以外的各种学科，在更深层次上也就是大学教育应该培养“通才还是专才”的问题。 我的观点是，通才与专才并不是矛盾的，它们可以统一起来，并且是必要的，这在每个人的身上都不同程度体现。所以大学教育应该要求学生选修其他学科课程，但是实施上要灵活。
【反】
1. 专才教育是社会分工必须的，但过分的专才教育会导致：学问家出现，思想家退出。
过分强调技术和职业化的训练而忽略人文内涵的拓展，其结果，就是李 泽厚在20世纪90年代就曾提出过的“学问家出现，思想家退出”的学术走向。读书本该是一种心灵的活动、思想的激荡，然而在大多数博士生的长期“读书”生 涯中，读书却并不是一件得其所趣，本该“乘兴而来、尽兴而返”的自得，反而演变成了一种机械式的摄取。等博士生们毕业后成为了学院里的教授，学问是有了， 但知识结构却狭窄片面，只有分析而没有联想，只有技术而没有文化，只有实证而没有批判，缺乏社会理想和人文关怀，对本专业以外更为重要的社会结构、政治伦 理、文化形态等问题也缺乏应有的信念和投入，“专家没有了灵魂”(韦伯语)，那就会成为“一根筋”和“工具人”。
【正面】
2. 通才与专才并不矛盾，在一个人身上可以同时体现并且互补的。
3. 而完全的追逐通才，对于个人是不切实际的，人一生的精力有限。即使是一些社会承认、赞扬的通才也只是在某一个，两个，几个方面做出突出成就。 并且每个人的能力是不同的，尺有所长，寸有所短。
总结：每个人是通才与专才的结合体，需根据学生能力水平制定 相对灵活 的选修制度。 Deep down whether University should require students to take a variety of courses outside their fields of study is the question that should University cultivate generalist or specialist? In my opinion, "generalist or specialist" is a false dichotomy, and they are complemented. Both "generalist and specialist" exist in everybody at some extent. So University should require students to take courses outside their fields on the condition of ensuring sufficient time and work for students on their majors.
It is true that we need lots of specialists in all kinds of areas due to more and more specific labor division in today's society. However, the over emphasize of specialists education could be harmful. As the Chinese scholar Li Zehou pointed out in 1990s that, the academic trend would become more and more like "Learners appear, Thinkers exit". The over emphasize of specialist simply turns the study process into a way of passive absorptions with skills and subject matter to students. When these students graduate, and become professors. Although they are full of learning in their individual fields, but their views are limited to a very narrow range. They have analysis but no imagination, have skills but no culture, have empirical but no critics. The humanity and social ideas, which help shape our human society and move steady and further, are disappearing. Finally, they become specialist without soul and like a tool man. I believe no one would like to see such a hopeless scene.
Secondly, "generalist or specialist" is a false dichotomy. When people are asked that question, most people would choose specialist or generalist. But the question itself is misleading. Why can't we be both generalist and specialist at the same time? For example, like a man who studies gene sequences. As we all know, one small part of gene sequences could contain thousands and millions base pairs, which is a formidable job for human kind to analyze. But with learning about the programming languages and skills, such as, Python or C++ language, the problem could be solved in quite a short time, even in seconds. Thus, for the man studies gene sequences, he needs to be specialist in biology as well as being in programming at some extent. It is to say, he is some kind of both specialist and generalist at some extent at the same time.
Lastly, to be a generalist is nearly impossible for one person, for one's lifetime and power are limited. Just as one old Japanese proverb says, if you try to chase two rabbits at the same time, you may lose both. Some may argue that, there did exist some generalist in history. Such as Leonardo da Vinci, who had great achievements in painting, mathematics, science, mathematics, chemicals and so on. But how many Da Vincis we have in history? What proportion are they in the total population of human? In my point of view, it is wise and advisable for our common people to catch one rabbit at a time, while those Da Vincis catch two, three, or even more rabbits for they are talented in that. However, in our lifetime, we may catch different rabbits at different time. And higher education should be responsible to provide students tools or ways for getting them. Most important of all, University should help students get the first rabbit to give them confidence and courage.
In sum, for everybody, generalist and specialist exist in them, but at different extent. Universities should require students to take a variety of courses outside study to prepare them for future, but on the condition to ensure students have sufficient time and work for their first rabbit-- their majors. 48) Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
观点： 为了更好的帮助学生形成独立思考、解决问题的能力，有助于解释知识的理念、趋势和概念的学习是比不可少的， 但是一定要再掌握这些后，教育工作者才能教学生那些问题么？ It depends, a balance should be held.
【正】
1.讲述有助于解释知识的理念、趋势和概念，有利于形成完备的已知可控的基础知识。 没有这些知识的理念、趋势和概念， 很难形成对复杂问题的理解，并提出解决办法。 复杂问题其实就是有分立的问题构成的，而解决这些分立的问题需要了解很多定义和概念。
【反】
2.但是一开始就讲述，理念、趋势和概念的话，有的时候这些知识点太多，太繁杂，会使得学习显得枯燥。
【balance】
3.所以，有的时候一上手就是大量理念、趋势和概念的话，很容易造成学生的逆反心理，反而起了反效果。应当激发学生的兴趣，而激发学生兴趣的最好不过一些问题和现象的提出。
总结： balance观点。 Should Educators teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts? I agree that with the help of those ideas, trends, and concepts, students could have better understanding of the facts. However, the assertion ignores the possible negative effects by firstly introducing ideas, trends, concepts. In my point of view, a balance is needed to make the best.
To begin with, the firstly introduce of ideas, trends, concepts are very important for students have a better or deeper understanding of facts, and provide them tools or help them develop the ability to solve the specific problems, especially complex ones. As we all know, the complex problem could be divided to some simple problems, and with those simple problems solved, then the complex one is solved. Take the design of airplanes as an example. Without basic ideas, concepts of mass, force, velocity, acceleration, gravity, pressure, newton fluid dynamics, we could not understand and figure out how to make a lift-up force, and how to make a turn in the air. Without all of that, we could not make a plane to fly.
However, sometimes the learning process of the ideas, trends, concepts, could be very long and frustrating, eventually boring at last. The students' interest and motivation could all be flushed out. Thus, the learning of those ideas, trends, concepts, may have negative effects in return. For example, in a history class, for most students, it could be boring when teacher keeps talking about names of some one, or years of some events, etc. For most children, they cannot follow the continuing spoken out names, years, events and so on. It could be very frustrating. At the even worse, some of them may lose interest of history. That is against the prime purpose of history class, which is to excite children's interesting.
As a result, for those classes, which may introduce a long time, or a large amount of ideas, trends, concepts, we should not apply the same policy. That could not help at all. And the best solution to that, is quite simple: bring back the interest of students. Such as, for history class referred above, teachers could firstly introduce some interesting events, or affairs happened in history to catch their attention and interest. At sometimes, interesting questions are also helpful.
In summary, we should not simply follow the rule to only teach students facts after they have studied the ideas, trends, concepts all the time. Instead, we should depend on the specific situation of each class and students' requirement to adjust. To make the best, a flexible policy is in need. 本帖最后由 ~樱木花道~ 于 2012-2-22 03:20 编辑
48. Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
提纲：
反对题目观点。
一，让步，承认理解和事实相关的思想、趋势和概念有利于帮助我们理解事实。
例子：太阳系行星不同的特点和物理学解释。
二，反对题目观点，不是所有的学生都适合先学习理论再学习事实。
例子，小学生缺乏物理学背景，更适合先学习关于行星的事实。
三，反对题目观点，不是所有的知识都具备相关的思想、趋势或概念，但有学习价值。
例子, 人们现在仍旧不太了解动物大脑如何运作。疼痛差异。
The statement talks on how should educators teach their students about facts, and I do not agree with the speaker.
Admittedly, learning the underlying ideas, trends and concepts first could help us to get a deeper or systematical understanding of the facts. Facts are detailed and isolated in terms of data and phenomenon, and ideas and trends connect them together and answer why. Take our solar system for instance. When we observe different planets and their satellites under telescope for the first time, questions always rise about their surface features. Given that we all rotate around the Sun, why Venus has a thicker atmosphere than our Earth? If the same question is roused in a cosmology lecture, introducing the knowledge of physics first may of great help to clarify. Without knowing that a planet's ability to retain an atmosphere relies on its mass and temperature, how does each planet look like would not lead to a systematical study on our solar system. Many facts could be better understood and furthered if educators teach about the relevant ideas, trends, or concepts first.
But the statement neglects the differences among students groups with reference to their knowledge, learning ability, interests and etc. While it may be instructive for teachers to introduce high school students Newton's Laws before showing the picture of Jupiter, the same order may bring confusion if presented to children. Children lack the understanding of subatomic world when compared with senior students, thus we puzzle instead of inform children if we tell them that greater surface gravity accompanying greater mass makes a gas molecule harder to escape. Similarly, ideas, trends and concepts usually ask for backup knowledge of interdisciplinary areas. Learning them first before examining facts would not be as good if there is large gap between what is about to teach and what do students know. It is arbitrary to treat all students the same, regardless of their learning status and needs.
The statement goes further wrong for the speaker thinks that facts are always followed with ideas or concepts. In fact this is not the case. From the smallest scales like molecules and atoms to the largest scales like stars and galaxies, we are thousands and millions miles far from a thorough understanding of all the wondrous happenings of the universe. Consider our awkward position in brain study. With modern sophisticated equipments we are still excluded from understanding how does the brain work. For instance, we do not know the way the mind perceives pain after tissue injury, nor we know why pain tolerance differs from person to person. If there is any concept about the brain, today we are just allowed a glimpse to it. Many other facts do not even have ideas or concepts. But it is to say that those facts are not worthy studying? No. Just as the recognition of difference on pain tolerance—some people with obvious injuries report no pain while other people with no injuries experience pain—brings more efficient medical treatments, many facts have been exploited to better human life. After all, we can still take advantage of facts that have no supporting concepts.
In short, though with some merits the speaker's claim is not as convincing as it stands. shadow君，你的作业我收走了，22号夜里发给你。
我不知道你已经写过哪些题目了，你随便布置一道吧。我们23号晚上第二次作业due？
THX 本帖最后由 ~樱木花道~ 于 2012-2-23 06:54 编辑
第二次作业 issue 88
页:
[1]