Camping writing fr. laura

laura88sUID: 2777004

1月22日的T，写作上总觉得自己的逻辑不够清晰，希望诸位帮忙

08.2.23NA: A/DA a serious and strict teacher is more effective than a teacher with humor and is easy-going.


When we start to portray an ideal picture of an influential instructor, wisdom, humor, mildness and patience might be the first thing for us to take into account. Educators with sense of humor and accessible personality, perhaps, leave their students with amiable impression, inject the academic atmosphere with more flexible and relaxable air. All these features seems to me to link them with achieving effectiveness in instructive practice, and hence the idea a serious and strict teacher works less effectively than the humorous and easy-going one.

Teachers, in a sense, are also regarded as performers: they represent myriad notions and words, convert those into a more approachable form for the class. Sometimes, telling anecdotes, amusing experiences related to the subjects not merely give students' minds an appropriate break, but also help them to memorize the mainpoint in a easier way. For instance, a astronomy teacher who is going to conduct a class centered on the size, diameters, and attributes of the planets from solar system, if he associate these the complex term of the planets to the Ancient Greek myths, and incorporate the relevant points into the story, then it would create an impressive and unique experience for the whole class.



Given the role that a favorable and healthy tearcher-and-student interaction plays in the field of education, qualities of being amusing and relaxed are indispensable ingredients: they function like glue, stick the two parts together. Granted, a strictly-required teacher capable of, handle the teaching quite well, but we cannot deny that he, meanwhile, generate sense of indifference and distance, which keeps further touches from students, let alone getting familiar with the students' outlooks from within.
Students, afterall, are not passive receptacles for predigestive knowledge: they need someone to motivate them, to cheer them up, or even, to deliever up their keepings of frustration. Hence, as for student, they would more willingly to talk with and ask queationes to teachers who exud air of humor and easy-going. Frequent communications strengthen the bond, and add educators a new dimension on recognizing the students' potential.

Concerning the norm that has been extensively championed in the realms of pedagogy—i.e. "think out side the box", the call for the individuals creativity boosted than ever before.
Obedient means of teaching, obviously, is not suitable for the situation anymore. To seek out solutions to this transformation, schools and universities need to construct a more flexible ambience to revitalize students' curiosities and enthusiasms. Instructors who used to be funny and accessible are more possibly to achieve that, not simply for the methods they applied in into educational practice, or popularity they received from students, but for the strong feelings of equality, innovativeness, positveness that they bring to the students. These features equip students with courage to question the authorities, to find their own voice, and to think in a much different way. I believe all those works can not be done if we expose students to a stressful and rigid circumstance.


In sum, there is nothing wrong with a highly-required and formal teacher. For the sake of efficiency, however, a humorous and easy-going teacher might be more favorable since their images and teaching styles are more acceptable to most students.

great与众不同UID: 2558121

我改是改了，不过囧啊，同学，你写的不是综合啊，而且也不是咱们留的题目啊......:L

JJohnnyyUID: 2991341

When we start to portray an ideal picture of an influential instructor, wisdom, humor, mildness and patience might be the first thing for us to take into account. Educators with a sense of humor and accessible personality, perhaps, leave their students with an amiable impression, inject the academic atmosphere with more flexible and relaxable(relaxing) air. All these features seem to link them with achieving effectiveness in instructive practice, and hence the idea a serious and strict teacher works less effectively than the humorous and easy-going one is reasonable.

Teachers, in a sense, are also regarded as performers: they represent myriad notions and words, convert those into a more approachable form for the class. Sometimes, telling anecdotes, amusing experiences related to the subjects not merely give students' minds an appropriate break, but also help them to memorize the main point in an easier way. For instance, an astronomy teacher who is going to conduct a class centered on the size, diameters, and attributes of the planets from solar system, if he associate these the complex term of the planets to the Ancient Greek myths, and incorporate the relevant points into the story, then it would create an impressive and unique experience for the whole class.
Given the role that a favorable and healthy teacher-and-student interaction plays in the field of education, qualities of being amusing and relaxed are indispensable ingredients: their function like glue, stick the two parts together. Granted, a strictly-required teacher capable of, handle the teaching quite well, but we cannot deny that he, meanwhile, generate sense of indifference and distance, which keeps further touches from students, let alone getting familiar with the students' outlooks from within. 有点乱。。。。
Students, afterall, are not passive receptacles（receiver） for predigestive什么意思？ knowledge: they need someone to motivate them, to cheer them up, or even, to deliever（deliver） up their keepings of frustration. Hence, as for student, they would more willingly to talk with and ask questions to teachers who exude air（a sense of） of humor and easy-going. Frequent communications strengthen the bond, and add educators a new dimension on recognizing the students' potential.
Concerning the norm that has been extensively championed？ in the realms of pedagogy—i.e. "think out side（of） the box", the call for the individuals creativity boosted than ever before.
Obedient means of teaching, obviously, is not suitable for the situation anymore. To seek out solutions to this transformation, schools and universities need to construct a more flexible ambience to revitalize students' curiosities and enthusiasms. Instructors who used to be funny and accessible are more possibly to achieve that, not simply for the methods they applied in into educational practice, or popularity they received from students, but for the strong feelings of equality, innovativeness, positveness？ that they bring to the students. These features equip students with courage to question the authorities, to find their own voice, and to think in a much different way. I believe all those works cannot be done if we expose students to a stressful and rigid circumstance.


In sum, there is nothing wrong with a highly-required and formal teacher. For the sake of efficiency, however, a humorous and easy-going teacher might be more favorable since their images and teaching styles are more acceptable to most students.* B'
这个。用word粘贴的 颜色都没有出来，不好意思
用词蛮不错的，句子简洁点就好了

laura88sUID: 2777004

《高分新托福写作120》第一篇：
     The reading passage examines the extinction of Anasazi. The lecture concerns with the same issue. However, the lecturer thinks that the disappearance of Anasazi is not necessarily associated with the disastrous weather condition, which contradicts what the reading stated. And in the lecture, he uses three specific point to buttress his idea.
     First, eventhough the reading passage implies the plausible cause-and-affect relationship between the long-lasting droughts and the Anasazi migration, the professor argues in the lecture that the simultaneously occurred events are not necessarily related. Granted, it is a fact that various places in the world suffered from a extremely serious drought at that time, but the existences of tree proved that the village has not been exposed to the threats of natural disaster, if there existed any, the tree would have rare chance to survive. Obviously, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
     In addition, opposite to the statement in the reading that the systematic irrigation construction proved the insufficiences of water supply, the professor contends that the irrigation system— which has been set roughly 150 years ago— confirms the Anasazi's capability to deal with the severe natural conditions. Then he supports this point with the fact that the irrigation system, actually, allowed the village to foster various crops, such as corns and squashes, and thus, to gather enough food in case of coming unfortunate situations.
     Finally, the professor asserts that the possible correlations between dry circumstance Anasazi are merely an assumption that requires further confirmation. The professor verifies that by providing the related information explored by recent studies, which claimed that the extent of droughts are not as intensive as the author claimed, in other words, the droughts can barely lead the Anasazi to perish from the world. Moreover, other reasonable scenarios—like invasions from other tribes, proliferation of disease and so forth—are also account for the extinction of Anasazi, and hence shake the ground of reading material based.
     In conclusion, the professor clearly indentifies the weaknesses in the reading passage and convincingly show that the central argument in the reading,—that is, the droughts should be a reliable explanation for the mysterious extinction of Anasazi, is incorrect.