There is a school of thought that young students should learn about the past of their own agrarian first rather than the international past. I completely agree with this opinion.
The most compelling argument for putting the local past above international one in school is that it would be easier for pupils to learn. They have been unconsciously familiar with and strongly connected to the language and culture of their own provincial during early childhood, which help sets a solid foundation to learn national history. Memorizing historical names typify that, in which students would find it easier to remember the terms they can already write down and pronounce more than doing the same with what's coming from other languages.
Another more pragmatic reason for prioritizing local past is that it is usually easier to teach. Generally, history educators are more knowledgeable about the past of their own country than other civilizations. In addition, materials and facilities for teaching local history are often more available than for foreign ones. Therefore, it would be difficult to reverse the condition to put more weight on the history of the world.
Finally, global history should not be learnt by young scholars because of its complexity. Most learners at early ages are not capable of connecting different historical events on the world stage, which could only be accomplished by those who are more grown-up. As many pedagogical studies have suggested, only students from secondary levels should learn main events throughout human history related to their country.
In conclusion, I absolutely believe that history lessons delivered at school should be more about the past of the nation than that of the world.
There is a school of
thought
that young students should
learn
about the
past
of their
own
agrarian
first
rather
than the international
past
. I completely
agree
with this opinion.
The most compelling argument for putting the local
past
above international one in school is that it would be easier for pupils to
learn
. They have been
unconsciously
familiar with and
strongly
connected to the language and culture of their
own
provincial during early childhood, which
help
sets a solid foundation to
learn
national
history
. Memorizing historical names typify that, in which students would find it easier to remember the terms they can already write down and pronounce more than doing the same with what's coming from other languages.
Another more pragmatic reason for prioritizing local
past
is that it is
usually
easier to teach.
Generally
,
history
educators are more knowledgeable about the
past
of their
own
country than other civilizations.
In addition
, materials and facilities for teaching local
history
are
often
more available than for foreign ones.
Therefore
, it would be difficult to reverse the condition to put more weight on the
history
of the world.
Finally
, global
history
should not be
learnt
by young scholars
because
of its complexity. Most learners at early ages are not capable of connecting
different
historical
events
on the world stage, which could
only
be accomplished
by those who are more grown-up. As
many
pedagogical studies have suggested,
only
students from secondary levels should
learn
main
events
throughout human
history
related to their country.
In conclusion
, I
absolutely
believe that
history
lessons delivered at school should be more about the
past
of the nation than that of the world.