- 最后登录
- 2010-7-9
- 在线时间
- 158 小时
- 寄托币
- 682
- 声望
- 6
- 注册时间
- 2007-8-11
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 453
- UID
- 2380285
- 声望
- 6
- 寄托币
- 682
- 注册时间
- 2007-8-11
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
Why, you may wonder, should all faculties be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach? Does it really work to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level, as the statement suggests? In response to the questions, we need to analyze the proposition comprehensively and systematically. In a sense(in a sense 是什么意思啊?~), I agree insofar as the combination theory with practice gains lots of benefits for the quality of instruction.(这句看起来很高深的样子,可以不可以给解释一下~学习学习~~呵呵~) However, a far more compelling argument can be made that not all faculty and academic course are befitting in this way. In my view, an all-around consideration is critical to improve the quality of instruction when deciding(considering) the issue.
First and foremost, there is no denying the fact that working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the faculty's courses is surely helpful to improve the quality. That is, working in practice does a lot of favor to improve the level of quality. Firstly, working in practice can promote the faculty to(for?~) deeper understanding of their inherent knowledge. It is also beneficial(呵呵~就想找个这样的词~记下了~) to improve their quality of teaching and to better impart the theory and knowledge to the students. Secondly, to some extent practice working can have a reflection on the application of the academic knowledge in practice. In other words, it contributes to make the students gain a clear occupational planning and consequently develop the interests of the study in major.
In spite of the merits, however, I hold a different opinion against the statement in virtue of(这个也学习一下~) the factors in following respects. To begin with, it is well-known that not all course teaching(all teaching courses?) could be related to relevant work in practice. In fact, for some subjects, theoretical physics and some mathematical researches, for example, it is neither necessary nor possible for researchers in these areas to directly apply their knowledge to practical work. These sciences seem only to perform well within the brain cells. Besides, actually overemphasis on the workshop experience will conversely have a worse influence on the subjects in the classroom, as a saying goes, "the game is not worth the candle"(得不偿失 继续学习,呵呵~). Teachers would task their energies to focus on the work outside the academic world, instead of the subjects in classroom. Thus, it would have a bad effect on the students' learning and the quality of instruction. Hypothetically, if all faculty(faculties) were required to spend time working outside the academic world, some subjects such as astronomy and philosophy in which theory basis, ability of science thinking and abstract thinking are only widely required are hard to get sequentially unceasing development and perfection. If so, all we did means nothing.
Finally, as for methods contributing to the teaching quality, they include many apart from sharing workshop experience, such as the long-term academic accumulation, the sufficient teaching facilities, the free and tolerant academic atmosphere, the good-timing birth of geniuses etc.
From the analysis made above, I commit to the optimal approach that we need to seek a balance and take an all-sided consideration. Without working in practice, we will(may可能更好些~) not find the right sailing direction. Without the theory of subjects in classroom, we will not gain the engine to set out. In a word, this complicated issue hinges on the concrete condition of the college and university.
写的不错呢!!继续加油~还来学习了不少~~ |
|