现在有一些学校require children(5-11岁) to work together instead of working on their own during most of their learning process， do you agree or disagree that is the best way to teach children?
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Many schools require young children (aged 5-11) to work together in a small group instead of working alone to learn man activities.
Educators and researchers have never stopped the examination of the importance and relevance of collaborative learning that are encouraged by middle schools. When compared with studying alone, I, personally, believe that it is far more beneficial to students when working in groups for the following reasons.
First off, working in a group can be very conducive for students since they can help students to study more effectively and thus tackle real-world issues. A recent study conducted by University of Minnesota backed up the claim that study teams, collaborative learning and group projects are far more effective in helping students to develop useful skills than traditional teacher-led teaching approach. In fact, when learning in groups, students have to do some research about the topic they are expected to discuss beforehand, which helps them to clear up some misunderstandings and boast their enthusiasm in academic exploration. Clearly, working in a group can help students to retain information for a much longer time and have a much deeper understanding of some concepts and ideas. Consequently, if teachers categorize students and organize them in small study groups, chances are that they would solve complex issues together, like researching the history of the city, examining the water quality of the local town, so on and so forth. Students can develop critical thinking skills as well as learn to collect and analyze information from multiple sources.
Additionally, working in groups has much deeper implications beyond students’ academic experience. As the saying goes: “many hands make light work”. Actually it remains as relevant today as it did a century ago. To be more specific, working together helps to develop skills like cooperation, organization and leadership. When learning in a group, every single student gets a chance to contribute their knowledge to the group, and they can learn to appreciate the work of other students simultaneously as well. What’s more, they have to work closely with others for the same goal otherwise they might not be able to compete with other study groups. More importantly, students will get exposure to distinctive perspectives and at the same time learn how to accept different points of view and find common ground in this process. Such an educational experience will not only be helpful for their future study but also beneficial to them when they have to deal with coworkers, clients, and teammates in a professional setting in the future. Numerous studies have shown that students who have prior experience working with others enjoy a better chance to be successful in their future career.
In conclusion, working together in a group has far more meaningful implications than working alone since collaborative learning helps students to learn much more effectively and develop important skills that are vital for their future study and career.
As the leader of a city, what would you doto ensure the prosperity and success of the city?
A. creating job opportunities for theunemployed;
B. lowering food price;
C. providing affordable housing
In a society changing amazingly, that how to gurantee the prosperity and success of a city， the common target of all citizens，has always been brought under the spotlight of the massive media. When talking about which factor plays the most crucial role in ensuring city's smooth development, among creating job vacancy, lowering food price or adjusting housing price, people’s notion varies from one to another. From my perspective, providing job opportunities for the unemployed is the best choice.
In the first instance, offering job vacancies to the laid-offs will not only guarantee the social security and safety but also strengthen the purchasing power of the public. For one thing, given the indisputable fact that the unemployed without any income are likely to commit crimes such as theft of wallets or burglaries due to lack of daily necessities, it is self-evident that the greater the number of laid-offs is, the more unstable our society will become. Therefore, after satisfying their basic needs of life with the income from the job offered by the government, they will no longer be a threat to the stability of the whole society, which is the solid foundation for social progress and prosperity. For another, as long as citizens with jobs have more free disposable money and thus possess stronger purchasing monitory power, the various industries will be stimulated and propelled to a large extent. To be specific, with the accruing wealth, an increasing number of people will purchase a private car to commute to their office, with the result that the whole industry of automobiles will experience a booming period. The same logic can also be true of other industries and fields.
Furthermore, there are obvious disadvantages of the other two policies, lowering the food price and making the price of house affordable. Despite the fact that keeping the food price low and providing affordable housing will lessen the financial burden of the dwellers in the city in a short term, these two practices would hinder the future success of the whole society. To illustrate, the low price of food will definitely decrease the income of food producers, especially the farmers who support their family by selling what they plant and raise. As a result, they are likely to have great difficulty in making their ends meet, thus ending up becoming homeless or jobless. Also, in a long run, increasing housing affordability will put a damper on the citizens’ passion for creating wealth and thus decrease the dynamics of the whole society. Specifically speaking, when the price is so cheap that nearly everyone can afford it with ease, no one will work hard any more.
In a nutshell, I am convinced that the most effective and efficient way to boom a city is to create more job opportunities for the jobless.
All governments on the planet engage in finding the best methods to develop their country into a more powerful nation with abundant resources. These methods are supposed to cover as many people as possible and with no doubt, be effective enough to bring about profits as soon as possible. Among all the approaches that are aiming at advancing a country, I firmly believe that the issues associated with food is more important and should be paid more attention to by countries.
First of all, under no circumstances can human live without food supply, which is the premise of all human activities. As a result, solving the problems in agriculture and the availability of food to all people is an essential factor in the development of a country. When people have rice to eat, they have more energy to work in the fields; when people are supplied with meat, they are more passionate in manufacturing crafts and tools; when people have cheaper fruits on the markets, they become more willing to serve his customers at work; when people have easier access to clothes, they are more inspired in doing researches and experiments. No progress can be made with hungry stomachs.
Second, it is easier to advance agriculture than to create more job positions for unemployed workers. Increasing agricultural production depend largely on good command of planting or farming knowledge and technology. For the knowledge aspect, information can be obtained through diverse channels like books, magazines and the internet, where information is not only authorized but also comprehensive. For the technology aspect, the governments can either invest in researches in crop properties or genetic modification or purchase equipment or technology from those few highly developed countries who fulfill the responsibility to help more other countries. Nonetheless, creating work opportunities is not that easy, since companies, either state owned or privately owned, have certain precise requirement for the number of workers according to the types of business they undertake and current situation of the market.
Finally, promoting the food industry benefit more people than affordable housing can do. As we have discussed above, food is needed by everybody and better agricultural conditions make a so great difference that it extends how far a government can go. In contrast, few people need houses, especially in this modernized society, as a direct consequence of building more housing apartments, most individuals already possess a house to live in, where means whether the houses are affordable or not has little or no influence on the overall development of the country.
To sum up, I believe what we eat means more than what we do and where we live. The leaders of all countries should focus more on the improvement of food availability and more and more people will live a happier life.