- 最后登录
- 2012-12-19
- 在线时间
- 80 小时
- 寄托币
- 119
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2010-8-29
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 2
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 93
- UID
- 2891952
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 119
- 注册时间
- 2010-8-29
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 2
|
小弟今日模考i,虽然ISSUE还是没写完,总算上450了,而且有幸结尾,求拍求指导。。。
TOPIC: ISSUE228 - "The best way to teach-whether as an educator, employer, or parent-is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones."
WORDS: 461 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2012-3-21 14:39:44
Education is a very crucial aspect of the whole society for it would determine the future of our world. The recommendation above indicates that the best way to teach is to encourage the positive actions of students and ignore their negative behavior. I partially agree with the statement with reservation for the ignorance of negative activities is less conductive than the stimulation of positive ones. What we need to bear in mind is to take both of these sorts of phenomena into consideration, because either of positive or negative behaviors could result in unthinkable future development. What's more, there are still other alternatives to construct an even better education method.
At the first I have to admit that the encouragement to positive behavior is important for individual development. Based on the animal nature of human beings, we tend to choose the way of living which is more remunerative. As a result, when teachers or parents are praising a child for what his/she has done, the child would be pleased to practice these sort of positive behaviors once and once again. In this way, educators could effectively shape a child's behavior through a series of encouragements of positive actions. After a relatively long period of training, those positive actions tend to come into being of part of settled personal characteristics. These process of encouraging result in a well-educated figure with positive personalities.
However, to overlook those negative behaviors seems to be less conductive in education. We are all common people who would do something negative deliberately or without intention. A better way to deal with bad actions or motivations is punishment. There is an analogy of this kind of punishment in social system, the laws. Criminals should be sentenced to be guilty to emphasize the negative actions should never be practiced again. But in the educations field, it seems to be less strict than law and sentences. Regarding the object of education is to guide young wrongdoers to a positive way, warnings or didactic suggestions is very important to prevent them from committing bad actions again. In this way, ignorance just neglects this part of education to prevent future criminals.
Accordingly, based on those two aspects of education, there is probably something more about a better way of education. What we need to do is not only encourage or punish, but also help children to construct a good standard to judge what they should do and not do. Education is different from training, as a result, we need to help children to build a self-conscious based on their own moral standard. Realistically, most of actions in this world could both positive and negative under different standards of judgment. What an educational process should give a child is a guide of dealing of all these situations but not merely encouragement and punishment. That is a layer above the so called "best way of education".
To sum up, education is a important part of social construction and further development. Everyone has experienced the period of being a student, and we all know partially what we want or do not want throughout our education. Maybe the best way of education never exists, what we need to do is to promote the education standard gradually by all of our devotion.
TOPIC: OG
WORDS: 475 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2012-3-21 14:39:44
The argument above denies the value of both Dr Field's experiment result and his approach to cultures of Tertia people. Even though the author provides a set of seemly convincing evidences to subvert the previous ones, we still need several specific evidences to evaluate the argument.
The only evidence provided by the author is that children in Tertia spend more time talking about their biological parents than abut other adults in the village. Then the author hastily concludes that those children were not raised by the whole village. There would be a apparent fallacy here without the evidence that talking more means greater intimacy or a relationship of raising in Tertia culture. On the other hand, the author also fails to provide the evidence to prove that the new result is closer to the truth than the previous observation. An evidence should be given to indicate that the tradition of raising children in Tertia has not been changed in the past 20 years in order to prove that the previous result is invalid.
Given the assumption that the Dr. Field's observation is with little value, the observation-centered approach may not be wrong. The author simply regards the way in the previous study as a meaningless approach because of its result is wrong. The evidence neglected by the author is that a mistaken result have to come from a invalid approach. If the evidences show that the mistaken result of Dr. Field is because of his personal fallacy of neglecting the fact observed in Tertia, the observation-based approach would still valuable to deal with affairs in Tertia.
To a step further, even if the approach of observation is invalid, the author could not come to a conclusion that his interview-centered approach is appropriate. There is no evidence shows that his investigation result is right. On the other hand, even his result is correct, evidences have to be given to point out that his success of rightly because of his interview-centered method. It might be his equipment or fortune that make his result more valid than the Dr. Field's observation, but two of the methods would probably both right or wrong,
What's more the author is trying to expand the suitable range of his approach to studies on other island cultures. Here lacks the evidence that the situation of those islands and Tertia are all suitable for the interview-centered approach. If evidence shows that residents on other islands could hardly understand letters or languages used in the interview, the observation may be the only alternative way of studying.
To sum up the evidence above, it might be possible that a new way of investigating insular culture is valuable, but without those specific evidences, this argument could hardly persuade readers to trust the new method, let alone to use it in other fields of studies as an innovation. |
|