Steven
Your Replies
-
April 10, 2020 at 5:33 am
Nowadays, people place more and more attention on the early education of their kids. When it comes to the question whether teachers should spend more time teaching technology or art, everyone holds his or her own opinion. Despite the existing controversy, I believe that teaching kids music and art is most imperative.
Firstly, art and music provide a vital balance to the rigid programming of primary courses. Today, in the majority of elementary subjects, such as math and science, students face strict requirements. They must figure out the only one correct answer, or they will disappoint their teachers and parents. Such a rigid restriction leaves students no place to create something beautiful or fun. In contrast, through playing instruments or making a painting, kids can express their unique feelings in many special ways. When creating a painting, children are never afraid of making mistakes. In this case, they can do whatever they want without worrying about different requirements.
Secondly, learning art and music can make an indispensable contribution to the development of students. In one aspect, playing music and drawing facilitate the physical development of children. The reason is that playing instruments requires a careful control of breath combined with a precise fingering of keys. Another reason is that both drawing and painting train kids to gain manual dexterity. Therefore, by practicing painting and the instruments, kids can learn how to control and coordinate their bodies. In another aspect, kids can develop emotionally. When trying to appreciate artworks and music, children get better at understanding the subtle messages in them. For instance, my sister learned to play flute at an early age. Now she becomes very good at interpreting subtle messages and small changes in emotions. These are the things that I cannot do. The reason is probably that I did not learn any instruments when I was a kid.
To conclude, art and music provide a balance to other courses and help kids develop better. With these facts comes up an idea that teaching art and music is more important than teaching technology.
April 6, 2020 at 4:39 amTPO39 Triassic Extinction
The reading passage and the listening material have divergent views on possible explanations for extinction at the end of the Triassic period. Although the author proposes several theories, these are all contradicted by the following lecture.Firstly, the writer claims that a gradual fall in sea levels might have caused this extinction by destroying the coastal ecosystem. However, the speaker states that even though the sea levels often went down in the Triassic period, the shallow water ecosystems were good at adapting these changes that happened so gradually. To be more specific, she gives the fact that the decline in sea levels lasted for several millions of years, and a more sudden change is required to have caused such extinction.
Secondly, the passage illustrates that volcanic activities might have released sulfur dioxide, resulting in climate cooling. This cooling might then have caused extinction. Nevertheless, the professor does not think so. According to her, sulfur dioxide can only cause climate cooling for a relative short period of time. Sulfur dioxide only has an effect when it still presents. She further presents that the sulfur dioxide combined with water in the atmosphere and fell back on Earth in rains. This means that sulfur dioxide soon got cleared out. Therefore, the sulfur dioxide did not stay long enough in the atmosphere to result in extinction.
Finally, the author says that an asteroid collision with Earth that resulted in a block of sunlight might have caused the extinction. In contrast, the lecturer views this issue from an opposite angle. She holds the opinion that the author’s explanation is not good. She presents the fact that scientists have only found one crater and dated that crater long before extinction. Since the possible collision happened too long before extinction, it cannot be the cause.
Therefore, according to the lecturer, although the author’s proposal may seem plausible, none of them is a good explanation.
