PLEASE KINDLY ASSESS MY WRITING TASK 2 - LOCAL VS WORLD HISTORY
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:43 am
It is more important for schoolchildren to learn about local history than world history. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
People hold different views about whether domestic history should be emphasized in the school curriculum more than global history. In my opinion, I completely agree with this notion.
To begin with, there are various reasons why students should learn more about their own country’s history. Firstly, local history is more or less certainly familiar with local residents. Therefore, apart from history lessons at school, students can learn from their parents and their own community. This will provide students with a better understanding and appreciation for their own country. Secondly, it is undoubtedly true that schoolchildren are more likely to relate the knowledge gained from lessons to the real life context. For instance, schools can hold trips to historical sites, which will enable students to absorb the knowledge more rapidly and retain for a longer time. If Vietnamese students have to learn about American history in the fifteen century, they may find it hard to understand and remember.
On the other hand, world history should not be supplemented to school curriculum for two main reasons. The current number of subjects has already put a burden on students let alone adding any other subjects. If students were forced to partake too many subjects, they would feel exhausted and stressful, even rebel against learning. Furthermore, learning about other countries’ history through the Internet can be just as effective as in class. Thanks to the growing availability of computers and the Internet, students can search for historical information of any countries which intrigue them by just a click. Also, it is evidently true that children can learn more quickly if they find the content engaging and interesting.
In conclusion, I advocate the view that it is more essential for students to learn local history then foreign one.
People hold different views about whether domestic history should be emphasized in the school curriculum more than global history. In my opinion, I completely agree with this notion.
To begin with, there are various reasons why students should learn more about their own country’s history. Firstly, local history is more or less certainly familiar with local residents. Therefore, apart from history lessons at school, students can learn from their parents and their own community. This will provide students with a better understanding and appreciation for their own country. Secondly, it is undoubtedly true that schoolchildren are more likely to relate the knowledge gained from lessons to the real life context. For instance, schools can hold trips to historical sites, which will enable students to absorb the knowledge more rapidly and retain for a longer time. If Vietnamese students have to learn about American history in the fifteen century, they may find it hard to understand and remember.
On the other hand, world history should not be supplemented to school curriculum for two main reasons. The current number of subjects has already put a burden on students let alone adding any other subjects. If students were forced to partake too many subjects, they would feel exhausted and stressful, even rebel against learning. Furthermore, learning about other countries’ history through the Internet can be just as effective as in class. Thanks to the growing availability of computers and the Internet, students can search for historical information of any countries which intrigue them by just a click. Also, it is evidently true that children can learn more quickly if they find the content engaging and interesting.
In conclusion, I advocate the view that it is more essential for students to learn local history then foreign one.