GRE写作：怎样培养模仿能力

GRE写作如何拟定提纲呢?今天小编给大家带来GRE写作如何拟定提纲，希望能够帮助到大家，下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE写作：如何拟定提纲

1、什么时候开始练习在模考时加入新GRE作文提纲?

比较适合的是在最后10天到一周的样子。因为这首先需要在一定高强度的写作练习之后，再者，需要对题目已经有了一定的把握。很多的提纲在之前都大体列过。然后在限时中加入提纲的写作。

2、用多长时间列GRE作文提纲?

我的经验是ISSUE总体比ARGU短。ISSUE大体要2-3分钟，ARGU怎么都要3分钟。可能要5分钟。

3、新GRE作文提纲里都要包含些什么?

对ISSUE来说，读第一遍题目时把关键词提出来，接着将核心话题列出来，根据这个话题开始一条一条列出你要写的东西;ARGU来说，因为题目比较长，所以读题的时间就要比前者长。

第一遍建议先把每一个意群讲的是什么简要提出来，排上序号;第二从这些小短句分析其文章结构和主要错误;第三把自己对错误的阐述顺序列出来。这样差不多是可以的了。

4、列GRE作文提纲的一些技巧

需要在练习中找到自己的记录法，哪种缩写是自己看得明了的。要记出来的摘要最后自己还要辨析几分钟。建议在平时列提纲的时候就有意识的做一下限定时间练习，看2-3分钟能不能把大体的框架列出来。

其他：我觉得如果正确掌握提纲的写法和时间分配问题，将是对于AW的核心实力的一种提高。对比于其他人，无论如何都是要略胜一筹的。

鼓励大家去积极尝试，发掘自己最适合的一套方法。我主要就是告诉大家，在45和30分钟内写两个提纲+ISSUE650和ARGU550+还剩平均3分钟时间检查，是绝对可以实现的。因为我自己就是例子。

GRE写作满分范文赏析

"It is unfortunate that today's educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them.  It is the educators' duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them." 

The above quotation a concrete example of a major problem in our society today. While probably stated with good intentions, the quotation misses the mark on the path education needs to follow.  As our society changes, so do our educational needs, and thus our educational curriculum needs to change also. 

I find fault  with the quotation on two fronts.  First, the quotation does not acknowledge that curriculum must change.  It seems to say the educator should decide when to change the curriculum.  This does not lead to optimal learning conditions, ask anyone who studied high school history out of outdated textbooks.  One can also infer some students won't be taught up-to-date informationin a wide variety of areas.  This can become ideologically dangerous.   What happens when students are not given full teachings of such vital movements as the Equal Rights Amendment or the Constitution of their country?  An unenlightened society is a grave society with little hope.  Curriculum must change, and should not be left to input from a single voice. 

The second argument answers who should make curriculum adjustments.  Obviously the educator still plays alarge role in this matter.  The students also need to be part of the decision process.  The two groups need a give and take relationship when deciding topics for the classroom.  If the students could benefit from learning material that is presently not taught in the classroom, it should be entered.  Sex education and AIDS education classes needed to be part of the curriculum to inform young people.  Those classes were added and have worked well. 

A third party that has a role in curriculum development is private business, including research labs, goods and service providers, and financial businesses.  By hiring employees with certain capabilities they have indirectly influenced curriculum for years. As time passes they will have more input by demanding subpar schools raise the level of student test scores in certain areas, either by stating so or by not hiring unqualified students 

The quotation echoes of a time when school learning consisted of the three "R"'s and little else.

better or worse our society is much more complex now than then.

For our schools to keep pace with our society we need to adjust our curriclum to what it should be, what we want it to be, and what it needs to be. The above quotation a concrete example of a major problem in our society today. While probably stated with good intentions, the quotation misses the mark on the path education needs to follow.  As our society changes, so do our educational needs, and thus our educational curriculum needs to change also. 

I find fault  with the quotation on two fronts.  First, the quotation does not acknowledge that curriculum must change.  It seems to say the educator should decide when to change the curriculum.  This does not lead to optimal learning conditions, ask anyone who studied high school history out of outdated textbooks.  One can also infer some students won't be taught up-to-date informationin a wide variety of areas.  This can become ideologically dangerous.   What happens when students are not given full teachings of such vital movements as the Equal Rights Amendment or the Constitution of their country?  An unenlightened society is a grave society with little hope.  Curriculum must change, and should not be left to input from a single voice.

The second argument answers who should make curriculum adjustments.  Obviously the educator still plays alarge role in this matter.  The students also need to be part of the decision process.  The two groups need a give and take relationship when deciding topics for the classroom.  If the students could benefit from learning material that is presently not taught in the classroom, it should be entered.  Sex education and AIDS education classes needed to be part of the curriculum to inform young people.  Those classes were added and have worked well.  

A third party that has a role in curriculum development is private business, including research labs, goods and service providers, and financial businesses.  By hiring employees with certain capabilities they have indirectly influenced curriculum for years. As time passes they will have more input by demanding subpar schools raise the level of student test scores in certain areas, either by stating so or by not hiring unqualified students 

The quotation echoes of a time when school learning consisted of the three "R"'s and little else.  For better or worse our society is much more complex now than then.   For our schools to keep pace with our society we need to adjust our curriclum to what it should be, what we want it to be, and what it needs to be. 

COMMENTARY 

This essay presents a competent discussion of the issue.  The essay's argument -- that curriculum should be determined by many voices, including that of private business -- is clearly expressed and adequately developed.  The writer supports this position with relevant reasons, including an analysis of the need for private business to become involved in education.  Examples are clearly relevant (e.g., sex education and AIDS education are cited as examples of how schools are offering new classes to meet the contemporary needs), and the writer uses details to help develop and illustrate important points.  While the essay presents several ideas that are thought provoking --  e.g., "An unenlightened society is a grave society with little hope" -- those ideas are not expressed precisely or persuasively enough to merit a score of 5. 

The conclusion is appropriate; it reinforces the main idea of the essay, that schools need to keep pace with society and adjust curricula to meet the needs of both students and employers. 

The essay consistently displays adequate control over the conventions of academic writing.  Sentence structure is generally adequate, although many of the sentences would benefit from restructuring and the use of transitions to more effectively communicate the writer's ideas. 

For all of these reasons -- competent analysis and adequate control of the elements of writing -- this essay received a score of 4. 

GRE写作满分范文赏析

"It is unfortunate that today's educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them.  It is the educator's duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them." 

As an elementary educator, I believe this stance is extremist.  Educators and the public must come to a middle road.  The high road and the low road are intimated in this statement.  I believe the high road on this topic (from whence should curriculum come) represents a nouveau approach.  Ask the students what they want to learn and study for the year; then meander, research and branch off of their interests.  The low road on this topic (directly endorsed by this statement) is old fashioned and outdated.  The assumptions behind this view include a magical ability by teachers to infuse reams of information, data and knowledge into students' brains that then become internalized and applied by the students. 

In a complex and frightening society, we must look to the middle road.  We must infuse the best of the high and the low roads.  Current research has had a lot to say on curriculum development.  Overreaching arguments defend the quality of students' self-directed learning.  However, in order to prepare our students for this society, we must have developed the backbone and anchor for curriculum.  Content and performance standards (i.e. curricula) need to be developed by the district's educators as a map for teachers. When educators provide students with choices WITHIN the map of curriculum, students relish in the freedom and take ownership for their learning. 

Were we to provide students the ultimate authority in curriculum development, we would be doing an injustice not only to our students but to society as a whole.  There are specific skills and abilities that need to be developed and taught -- regardless of students' (or for that matter,  teachers') interest.  In my profession as an elementary educator and as a parent, I value the abilities to read, write and be mathematically proficient.  Those students not mastering those critical skills are at a disadvantage.  We see those students become destructive or depressed.  I have observed students struggling with the basics become outcasts in their own little worlds.  Very young outcasts grow into adult outcasts. 

I do NOT think it is unfortunate that today's educators emphasize students' interests.  It IS our duty, however, to provide the parameters for their education.  We can not simply state that educators determine curriculum and students follow.  This is just not reality in the classrooms.  When standards and curricular maps have been developed, teachers of today's children have the responsibility (yes, the duty!) to bring life to those maps.  One crucial and successful way, is to provide students variety and choices within the context of "what needs to be covered."  The educator who brings curricula to life for her students and gives her students the responsibility to make choices helps to prepare our children for thriving -- not just surviving. 

COMMENTARY 

This response presents a well-developed analysis of the issue and displays strong control of the elements of writing.  The essay argues in favor of a "middle road" position on the issue by analyzing the pros and cons of both teacher-determined and student-driven curricula.  The argument is clear and well focused, supported with first-hand experience and the results of educational research. 

The writer endorses a curriculum that emphasizes strong basic skills (reading, writing, and math) and reminds the reader that the teachers' ultimate responsibility should be to bring curricula to life in order to "prepare our children for thriving -- not just surviving." 

This essay displays a strong facility with written English language; the careful choice of words and carefully structured paragraphs help unify the structure of the argument.  Overall, this response displays a strong command of academic writing skills and thus received a score of 5.