Do you want to improve your writing? Try our new evaluation service and get detailed feedback.
Check Your Text it's free

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?

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. N2nm
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? People have different views about the teaching of national versus global literature and history in schools. Personally, I support the idea that children should study first and foremost the great books and historical events of their own countries. There are several reasons why I believe that schools should focus on teaching national literature and history. Firstly, children enjoy learning about where they live, and by studying the ideas, culture and history of their own countries they begin to develop a sense of identity. At the same time, this approach is appealing to parents, who studied the same books and historical events and can therefore help their children with school work. English children, for example, read Shakespeare and learn about the Battle of Hastings just as their parents did, and there is educational continuity across the generations. Finally, an emphasis on national literature and history gives educators a narrower teaching scope, making curriculum design an easier task. By contrast, the study of global events and foreign novels could cause unnecessary difficulty and confusion for school pupils. For example, I do not see the point in presenting Russian or Chinese history to a British child who has not yet studied the history of his or her own country in detail. Surely the child would be more able to comprehend historical events that took place in London than those that happened in Moscow or Beijing. Similarly, any exposure to international literature is likely to require the teaching of a foreign language or the use of translations. Young people at primary or secondary school age are simply not ready for such complications. In conclusion, I would argue that it is undesirable for schools to cover aspects of foreign history and literature; they should ground their pupils in the local culture instead.
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?

People
have
different
views about the
teaching
of national versus global
literature
and
history
in
schools
.
Personally
, I support the
idea
that
children
should study
first
and foremost the great books and historical
events
of their
own
countries.

There are several reasons why I believe that
schools
should focus on
teaching
national
literature
and
history
.
Firstly
,
children
enjoy learning about where they
live
, and by studying the
ideas
, culture and
history
of their
own
countries
they
begin
to develop a sense of identity. At the same time, this approach is appealing to parents, who studied the same books and historical
events
and can
therefore
help
their
children
with
school
work. English
children
,
for example
, read Shakespeare and learn about the Battle of Hastings
just
as their parents did, and there is educational continuity across the generations.
Finally
, an emphasis on national
literature
and
history
gives educators a narrower
teaching
scope, making curriculum design an easier task.

By contrast, the study of global
events
and foreign novels could cause unnecessary difficulty and confusion for
school
pupils.
For example
, I do not
see
the point in presenting Russian or Chinese
history
to a British child who has not
yet
studied the
history
of
his or her
own
country
in detail.
Surely
the child would be more able to comprehend historical
events
that took place in London than those that happened in Moscow or Beijing.
Similarly
, any exposure to international
literature
is likely to require the
teaching
of a foreign language or the
use
of translations. Young
people
at primary or secondary
school
age are
simply
not ready for such complications.

In conclusion
, I would argue that it is undesirable for
schools
to cover aspects of foreign
history
and
literature
; they should ground their pupils in the local culture
instead
.
What do you think?
  • This is funny writingFunny
  • I love this writingLove
  • This writing has blown my mindWow
  • It made me angryAngry
  • It made me sadSad

IELTS essay 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.

Essay
  American English
5 paragraphs
333 words
6.5
Overall Band Score
Coherence and Cohesion: 7.0
  • Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
  • ?
    One main idea per paragraph
  • Include an introduction and conclusion
  • Support main points with an explanation and then an example
  • Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
  • Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
Lexical Resource: 5.5
  • Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
  • Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
  • Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
Grammatical Range: 6.0
  • Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
  • Check your writing for errors
Task Achievement: 7.0
  • Answer all parts of the question
  • ?
    Present relevant ideas
  • Fully explain these ideas
  • Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
Labels Descriptions
  • ?
    Currently is not available
  • Meet the criteria
  • Doesn't meet the criteria
Recent posts