Some people believe that it is more important to teach children the literature and history of their own country, rather than the literature and history of other countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree? v.4
Some people believe that it is more important to teach children the literature and history of their own country, rather than the literature and history of other countries. v. 4
Some people claim that children should be taught literature and history of their own nation instead of foreign literature and history. From my perspective, I agree with this idea.
The study of literature and the history of other countries are not necessary. Most literature and history might be written in a foreign language. This means that young people at primary or elementary school age are likely to study foreign languages first before finding out literature and history, which makes them stressful due to a hard school program. In addition, it is said that history is written by the winner so there might be a difference between countries. That is to say, young children do not seem to be able to discern what the truth is.
However, there are several reasons why I believe that schools should concentrate on teaching national literature and history. First, children would gain more knowledge in light of enjoyment of what they are learning, leading to developing a sense of identity. For example, there are some schools in my city hold history tours for their pupils, once children have a chance to see in reality of what happened in the past, they could have interesting and proud of their culture. Moreover, young children could approach more knowledge through experiences from their parents on account of same study books or participating in history events. For example, in the Vietnam education system, children would learn about the history of the independence in which their grandparents might a witness, hence children could get more information from eyewitnesses.
In conclusion, I would convince that it is unnecessary for children to learn foreign literature and history, school ground their pupils in the local culture instead.
Some
people
claim that
children
should
be taught
literature
and
history
of their
own
nation
instead
of
foreign
literature
and
history
. From my perspective, I
agree
with this
idea
.
The study of
literature
and the
history
of other countries are not necessary. Most
literature
and
history
might
be written
in a
foreign
language. This means that young
people
at primary or elementary
school
age are likely to study
foreign
languages
first
before
finding out
literature
and
history
, which
makes
them stressful due to a
hard
school
program.
In addition
, it
is said
that
history
is written
by the winner
so
there might be a difference between countries.
That is
to say, young
children
do not seem to be able to discern what the truth is.
However
, there are several reasons why I believe that
schools
should concentrate on teaching national
literature
and
history
.
First
,
children
would gain more knowledge in light of enjoyment of what they are learning, leading to developing a sense of identity.
For example
, there are
some
schools
in my city hold
history
tours for their pupils, once
children
have a chance to
see
in reality of what happened in the past, they could have interesting and proud of their culture.
Moreover
, young
children
could approach more knowledge through experiences from their parents on account of same study books or participating in
history
events
.
For example
, in the Vietnam education system,
children
would learn about the
history
of the independence in which their grandparents might a witness,
hence
children
could
get
more information from eyewitnesses.
In conclusion
, I would convince that it is unnecessary for
children
to learn
foreign
literature
and
history
,
school
ground their pupils in the local culture
instead
.
7.5Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
7.5Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
7.5Mistakes