Students who are noisy and disobedient should be grouped together and taught separately. Do you agree or disagree? There is no doubt that some students in schools behave badly and their behaviour causes difficulty for others either because it has a negative effect on the group or because ordinary students find it difficult to study with them.
One solution is to take these students away and teach them on their own. However, if we simply have them removed after one or two warnings, we are limiting their educational opportunities because it seems to me that a school which caters for difficult students is a sort of "prison" whatever name you give it and the people who go there may never recover from the experience. This can then cause problems for the wider society.
Perhaps we need to look at why the disruptive students behave badly before we separate them. Disruptive students may be very intelligent and find the classes boring because the work is too easy. Perhaps these students need extra lessons rather than separate lessons. Or perhaps the teachers are uninspiring and this results in behavioural problems so we need better teachers. On the other hand, most students put up with this situation rather than cause trouble, and some people argue that we have to learn to suffer bad teachers and boring situations and that students who can't learn this lesson need to be taught separately.
So before we condemn the students to a special school, we should look at factors such as the teaching, because once the children have been separated, it is very unlikely that they will be brought back.
Some people think that universities should not provide so much theoretical knowledge but give more practical training throughout their courses. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
In the past, a majority of academics have held the opinion that universities should only offer a theoretically-based approach to teaching throughout their courses, as opposed to the more recent trend towards empirical acquisition of knowledge involving more “hands on” experience. Is this the most effective way for students to learn vital academic information while undertaking their degrees? Undoubtedly, advantages and disadvantages of both academic learning styles have to be evaluated.
Firstly, on the one hand, despite being the more traditional educational approach, learning from theory in relevant academic discourses to identify established knowledge allows us to gain a professional insight. For example, students can easily identify facts and opinions from past discourses. In addition, students acquire knowledge more easily when given relative theoretical examples to build upon. For instance, in subjects such as history or sociology, studying textbook examples allows students to unravel complex academic theories which they could expand on. Alternatively, there are some disadvantages for students.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that students could find themselves reading tedious and monotonous academic papers. For instance, university degrees involving the evaluation of numerous ‘long-winded’ academic discourses provide little inspiration for students, discouraging enthusiasm. Obviously, interest can be stimulated through empirical research in class. By this I mean that ‘the human brain learns best by doing’. Although time-consuming, there is no substitute for learning from making mistakes.
In conclusion, while both approaches have benefits and drawbacks in our ever-changing academic world, I honestly believe that a more practical approach promotes a stronger acquisition of academic knowledge. In spite of the comprehensive nature which theoretical teaching can possibly provide, practical learning equals more positive learning for future generations.
(280 words)
People attend college or university for many defferent reasons (for example, new experiences, career preparation, increased knowledge).