Thursday, October 31, 2019

Should the Outside World Intervene to Help the Victims of Violence In Research Paper

Should the Outside World Intervene to Help the Victims of Violence In Syria - Research Paper Example This report declsres that in Assad’s absence the major players who can decide Syria’s fate will be divided along sectarian lines. Iran with the Shiite majority and the rebels with a Sunni majority are already at clashes over the deep sectarian divide. But the overall opinion is that Assad has to go because his regime will not be able to hang in for very long. This paper makes a conclusion that the international discourse regarding whether or whether not outside intervention will actually be beneficial for Syria is an ongoing debate that has garnered varying opinions of people who are against it and people who propagate the move. Based upon the secondary research on the topic it seems that for Syria, the better option is to go with outside intervention. This is because the internal situation in Syria is worsening regardless and internal measures to resolve the situation have already failed. The cost that the Syrian people have borne in the wake of this civil war is catastrophic in its sheer degree and as time passes, this only gets worse. Outside intervention represents to Syria a way out of this mess, a resolution of sorts and eventual freedom from Assad’s regime. While many analysts are of the opinion that outside intervention will make things worse, it seems that this will only be the case initially if so. In the longer run, outs ide intervention will be beneficial for Syria and its people.

Monday, October 28, 2019

Reflection on Teaching Essay Example for Free

Reflection on Teaching Essay In order to challenge my theory of teaching I first need very briefly to define it. When I was taught science it was mostly through direct teaching. Any experiments performed were deductive in nature with very little input from me. When I got to college and I started performing experiments then I suddenly started having little epiphanies where facts I had learned off by heart were unexpectedly connected in ways I hadn’t understood before. So I came to think that this was what was lacking at secondary level, the experimental experience that allowed people to physically test the ‘how’ of the world around them. To put it simply people are innately curious and that exploiting this curiosity is the way to teach. From the moment they learn to talk, children constantly ask questions about everything, from â€Å"where eyebrows come from?† to â€Å"what do worms eat?† Asking questions is the way they find things out and this really is just one small step away from learning. From personal experience of teaching I think that Arnstine (1967) was correct when he said â€Å"the arousal of curiosity can lead to learning†¦for learning to occur, curiosity must be guided†. Designing lessons in such a way as to tap into the natural curiosity of students and to connect the topics on the curriculum with their everyday experiences is surely the best way to teach science. I find enquiry / constructivism extremely interesting as it encapsulates the whole get their attention approach but I think it’s misused by an awful lot of people. I think that analogies and real world examples need to be reflective of the scientific concept yet simple enough that the student can grasp it. Also it requires that the student be actively involved, activities must provide the opportunity to demonstrate learning.  Ã¢â‚¬Å"To instruct someone is not a matter of getting him to commit results to mind. Rather, it is to teach him to participate in the process that makes po ssible the establishment of knowledge. We teach a subject not to produce little living libraries on that subject, but rather to get a student to think mathematically for himself, to consider matters as an historian does, to take part in the process of knowledge-getting. Knowing is a process not a product.† (Bruner. J, The Process of Education: Towards a theory of instruction 1966: 72) So in approaching this assignment I realise that I am an ardent supporter of teaching through enquiry. I agree with Bruners theoretical framework of building on pre-existing knowledge by presenting new material in a logical manner at a level the student can understand, revisiting topic in stages and building layers of ever increasing complexity. I find the concept of a spiral curriculum to be a sensible one, but also to be at odds with the way in which individual schools plan the teaching of science. There is far too much relience on the text book, with strict adherence to the material inside. I prefer to leave the text book at home, for the student to be assigned reading and questions from it for homework so that it is new and different and provides a slightly different aspect to the same topic. At the very least it will provide the same information as was covered in class in a slightly different manner and provoke recall instead of boredom. A consequence of supporting enquiry is an aversion to direct teaching. Those who support direct teaching say that it is a highly effective method of teaching. The basic components are careful content analysis, sequencing of information and use of appropriate examples, specific instructional formats where both teacher and student responses are scripted and testing to mastery. The part that receives the most criticism is the scripted responses. Here is an example I found at Brainsarefun.com http://brainsarefun.com/Teachtk.html EXAMPLE 1. All: Teacher and students touch the answer to be learned. 2. Teacher: The answer to this question is, 1492. 3. Teacher: When I signal I want you to answer, 1492. 4. Teacher: The answer is 1492. 5. Teacher: What year did Columbus discover America? 6. Teacher: Get ready. Watch the students to make sure all participate. 7. Teacher: Signal by pointing or snapping fingers. 8. All: 1492. 9. Teacher: Thats right, Columbus discovered America in 1492. 10. Teacher: Reward. Good job saying 1492. Make eye contact with individuals. Smile. 11. Teacher: Next answer, or repeat until everyone is participating and firm. If any student is unable to participate or answer correctly, start at the top of the sequence again. Most teachers believe that this type of teaching is too restrictive and prevents the students from developing critical thinking skills. I have to say that on my first reading of this example of direct teaching I was horrified at the way the students were indoctrinated. I knew that this method of teaching was not for me and I continued to develop my lesson plans along the constructivist enquiry model. I researched guided discovery and found that discovery learning is described as an inquiry-based, constructivist learning theory that occurs in situations where the learner draws on their existing knowledge to discover facts and comprehend relationships. Students interact with the world by manipulating objects, wrestling with questions or performing experiments. As a result, students are more likely to remember concepts and knowledge discovered on their own (in contrast to a transmission / direct teaching model). Proponents of discovery learning say it has many advantages, including encouraging active engagement, promoting motivation, autonomy, responsibility, independence, aiding the development of creativity and problem solving skills and is a tailored learning experience that helps minimize classroom management problems. Detractors point out the amount of time needed to teach a topic and that students do not always achieve the intended outcome of the lesson. That is they may draw erroneous conclusions about the investigation they are engaged in. My action research Now that I have explored my theories on teaching I need to test those theories by comparing the outcomes of direct versus enquiry teaching. Ideally in order to compare the two methods I should keep the conditions of the lessons the same and only change the method of instruction. Rigor would  dictate that I teach two groups of students that have been randomly segregated. The students would be in the same year of secondary school and assumed to be at the same academic level. Ability within each group would be expected to mimic normal distribution with some students excelling and some struggling with the curriculum content. Unfortunately in my teaching practice placement I have one class of first years and one class of second years. I am also following a subject plan laid down by the science department in the placement school, which further restricts my research topic. Hence rather than directly compare and contrast two sets of lesson plans that differ in instruction but not content, I shall attempt to make my methods of instruction the subject of the action research. My intention is to design a number of lesson plans along the guidelines of both approaches and to deliver these lessons as independent of personal bias as possible. I shall assess the success of each lesson plan as a measure of student value and under a number of points such as participation, motivation to learn, interest of students, as well as proficiency in summative tests. Bearing in mind my own learning, I will also be critically examining something about my ability to deliver a constructivist lesson; do I do as I say? In assessing participation of students I will make reference to number, frequency and relevance of questions asked. Time spent on-task will be used to measure motivation and interest as will content of questions asked. In line with standard research methods I established a baseline of knowledge on the topic of energy by giving the students a questionnaire which was designed to probe existing conceptions. (more here on the results of the questionnaire) From my understanding of enquiry teaching there seems to be a number of activities that should feature in my lesson plans and I have tried to incorporate these in the enquiry based lesson plans. I have included a list of these activities here and have also identified them in the appropriate lesson plans. Enquiry activities †¢ Think about scientifically orientated questions that are at an appropriate level and ask ‘how’ rather than ‘why’ (teacher provides questions at first) †¢ Gather and consider evidence using the tools of science †¢ Make explanations based on prior gain fact and ‘new’ knowledge gained through the process of enquiry / evidence gathering †¢ Compare  conclusions to currently scientific understanding and account for differences †¢ Communicate and negotiate their findings and explanations with others After the brainstorming session I jotted down as many of the words and phrases as I could during class. Light, wave, geothermal, heat, renewable, sun, plants, photosynthesis, comes from food, plants make it, atomic bombs, it keeps you moving, you are tired without it, it can change, there’s energy in batteries, joules, oil. Then I asked a series of questions designed to clarify facts that they needed to know (3A6 Energy, 3A7 Energy conversion: Junior Certificate Science Syllabus). From the answers it was clear to me that the students could not distinguish between forms of energy and sources of energy. Because the discussion section of the enquiry lesson plan is open-ended I was able to direct questions and highlight information on the board that students could use to ‘discover facts’. I tried to give minimum guidance but I found that the students were floundering and unsure of what they were trying to accomplish. This was a recurring theme during the discovery lesson plans and it seems to me from my readings that this is the main detracting feature of enquiry instruction. Those who oppose constructivist / enquiry instruction such as Kisherner, Sweller and Clark (2006) argue that minimum guidance during instruction does not work and Clark (1989) goes further to suggest that his data shows that ‘lower aptitude students’ show a loss of learning on post instructional testing. My Conclusion It is essential that the teacher do research work, i.e., he should comb the subject of chemistry from end to end for facts and for methods of exposition that will make such facts live and real to his students. (Patrick, W. A. (1924) What kind of research is essential to good teaching? J. Chemical Education, Volume 1, Issue 1, p16.) I have come to the conclusion that there is a need for direct teaching in the classroom in order to build up foundation of facts in long term memory to provide wellspring of knowledge which can be used to provide data when needed. Enquiry or discovery learning encourages the use of this knowledge so that students can put facts together to think critically. Dewey supported inductive teaching as the way to improve scientific teaching for a better educated society and said science lessons should include learning the process of science not just the facts, (Dewey, 1903). By this I believe he meant that the two methods complement each other and need to be used in tandem. But direct teaching cannot be taken as an excuse for unimaginative lessons recycled every year with minimal input from the teacher needed in the delivery. If investigatory activities are designed deductively, ie have only one conclusion, need more here about factors to consider when designing lesson activities.

Saturday, October 26, 2019

Frankfurt Schools Contribution To Popular Culture Cultural Studies Essay

Frankfurt Schools Contribution To Popular Culture Cultural Studies Essay The idea that culture is mass produced came from two German academics named Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer. These two intellectuals, who would later begin a cultural enquiry, were members of The Frankfurt School. This institute was established in 1923 and consisted of many other German left-winged intellectuals. It was very much interested in the ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud and therefore endeavoured to study the emergence of capitalist societies through the exploration of Marxism and psychoanalysis. This is what The Frankfurt School referred to as critical theory. The Frankfurt School, Adorno and Horkheimer in particular, were interested in studying popular culture and the mass production of cultural artefacts which they later referred to as the culture industry. In order to explore The Frankfurt Schools contribution to our understanding of popular culture, firstly we need to ask; what is culture? The word culture suggests a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period or a group. (Storey, 2006.1) It can also refer to the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activities. (Storey, 2006.1) The word cultivate was used to refer to the cultivation of land but now it can refer to the cultivation of the mind. Culture plays an important part in how human societies communicate with each other and how the new technological developments which contribute to this create a new type of culture known as popular culture. An obvious starting point in any attempt to define popular culture is to say that popular culture is simply culture which is widely favoured or well liked by many people. (Storey, 2006.4) Popular culture is centred on consumerism and is dominated by money; there is no part of popular culture that one doesnt have to pay for. Popular culture produces products known as commodities which have a use value and an exchange value. A commodity is only a commodity if it can be replaced by something else. Commodity fetishism was an idea that came out of popular culture. Capitalist organisations fetishize commodities and invest them with power that they do not really have. They discourage us from asking where the things we consume actually come from. These companies do not want us to think about this process. The idea that capitalist companies are manipulating the thoughts of the masses about what they consume and the great power that they have leads us to the term mass culture. In a mass culture, industrialised society there are no longer the same traditional values. The idea of an organic community no longer exists. The individual is left more and more to his or her own devices, has fewer and fewer communities or institutions in which to find identity or values by which to live, and has less and less idea of the morally appropriate ways to live.(Strinati, 2004.6) The Frankfurt School argue that the culture industry is killing the desire that might let us imagine a better world. They have an ideal notion of what human beings are capable of. The institute believes that we could never create a better world as long as we are part of this commodity culture. Adorno stated that the culture industry does not give the mass any responsibility for the culture that they are consuming, yet the masses are unaware of this which explains their passivity in accepting it. Although the culture industry undeniably speculates on the conscious and unconscious state of the millions towards which it is directed, the masses are not primary but secondary. . . The customer is not king, as the culture industry would have us believe, not its subject but its object. (Strinati, 2004.55) This point further emphasises the power that the culture industry has on the masses. With living in a culturally industrialised society comes conformity. Conformity replaces the consciousness of the masses according to The Frankfurt School. They believed that the masses are dependent on the culture industry and that the masses themselves are no longer producing culture. Through researching the works of The Frankfurt School, we can understand that the masses are oblivious to the mass controlled culture in which they live due to the face that everything is pseudo-individualised. Products that were being produced by the culture industry were all standardised. This meant that they all had certain characteristics that made them significantly similar. The Frankfurt School, Theodore Adorno in particular, realised that the industry knew that standardised products would sell and therefore they needed to be given a supposed uniqueness to provoke the masses to continue buying them. This was referred to as pseudo-individualism. The Frankfurt School stated that the culture industry created false needs in the pursuit of profit while ignoring the true needs of humans. According to The Frankfurt School the cultural industry and mass culture, . . . shapes the tastes and preferences of the masses, thereby moulding their consciousness by instilling the desire for false needs. (Strinati, 2004.55) They point out that the capitalist industries bring in a lot of profit through what they called waste production. They generated products that, in the opinion of The Frankfurt School, the masses did not need. Masses become so enthralled in the culture industry that their consciousness is overridden. The masses become too interested in the falsehoods that the industry has created and tend to forget about satisfying their true human needs. The school argues that it is due to all of this that the culture industry maintains its stability. With regards to true and false needs, Theodore Adorno once wrote, The indistinguishability of true and false needs is an essential part of the present phase one day it will be readily apparent that men do not need the trash provided them by the culture industry. (Adorno, Theodore W, The Culture Industry revisited at http://books.google.co.uk.p.156 accessed on 27/10/10) Another point that The Frankfurt School has highlighted to us in order to contribute to our understanding of popular culture is that a lot of culture is very homogeneous. They believed that all aspects of popular culture were generic and predictable. They could not fathom the fact that the masses were accepting this constant reproduction of the same thing. They believed that people should want something more; something different and challenging. The culture industry followed a formula. The reason for the formulaic structure of the industry and the way in which its products were produces was because it was successful. This particular formula and method of mass producing standardised products generated profit. When referring to this great power that the culture industry has, Adorno says, Today anyone who is incapable of talking in the prescribed fashion, that is of effortlessly reproducing the formulas, conventions and judgements of mass culture as if they were his own, is threatened in his very existence, suspected of being an idiot or an intellectual. (Adorno, 1991. 79) Critics of The Frankfurt School say that they do not appreciate just how diverse and hybrid popular culture is. They also say that The Frankfurt School invest too much power in the culture industry and that they consider capitalism as being more stable than it actually is. Critics believe that the culture industry has a lot more potential than The Frankfurt School gives it credit for. The term culture has been described by Richard Williams as, One of the two or three most complicated words in the English language. (Storey, 2006.1) Although some agree with this statement, The Frankfurt School has contributed greatly to our understanding of popular culture by highlighting how culture has become commercialised in the pursuit of profit. It points out to us that in a culturally industrialised society, no one thinks for themselves and that they consume this culture because it has been imposed onto them. The authenticity and traditional aspects of culture are no longer present and we can now come to the realisation that we will always live in a culture that is controlled by capitalism and consumerism. Everything that is presented to us, including the false needs that the industry provides is all in the interests of capital and profit. Our ability to understand how the culture industry works is aided greatly by the work of The Frankfurt School. References Storey, John (2006) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction Strinati, Dominic (2004) An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture (Second Edition) Adorno, Theodore W (1991) The Culture Industry

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Love in A Midsummer Nights Dream :: A Midsummer Nights Dream, William Shakespeare

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  True love never runs a smooth coarse. And this is quit evident in A Midsummer Night's Dream. The young love of two people is far more powerful than one thinks. And at the end true love will prevail no matter what gets in the way. Hermia and Lysander are the two lovers where nothing goes their way. Their love is so strong that nothing shall get in the way of true love. Hermia is faced with a decision to marry Demetrius, the man she doesn’t love, or be faced with death. The father of Hermia is the one setting up the marriage between the two. There love is so strong that they will let nothing stop them, so they run away together into the woods. This truly is a sign of true love. And that the coarse of true love never did run smooth. These two young lovers are willing to risk everything for love. The we have Helena, the sort of crazy girl will stop at nothing to win the heart of Demetrius. Even if it means hurting the others around her. The only problem is that Demetrius is supposed to marry Hermia. And this starts the endless struggle of love. So off into the woods Lysander and Hermia, but Helena tricks Demetrius into going to the woods to hoping he would see Hermia and Lysander together, then Demetrius w ould want Helena. The only thing that Helena didn’t know that it would make him mad when he saw them together. Now if there hasn’t been enough trouble among the young lovers; Oberon the fairy king decides to do something about the trouble. The only problem is that appoints his sidekick, if you call him, Puck to help out. Now Oberon knows the trouble between the young lovers so he calls on Puck to retrieve this love poison. And when that poison is put into the eyes of someone, they will fall in love with the first person they see when they awake. So this even makes everything else more complicated. Puck messes up and puts the poison in the wrong eyes. He was suppose to put it in the eyes of Demetrius, but he puts it in the eyes of Lysander. And guess what happens, Helena is the first person Lysander sees. So now everything is crazy.

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Summary and Response on Growing Up in America

Amanda Stivala Composition 1030-72 Summary and Response 9/24/12 Growing up in America one doesn’t really question our customs or the daily lives of the people here. Everyone kind of has a precedent for our everyday live and no one really tries to break the mold on that. Poranee Natadecha- Sonsel argues that Americans are unlike many other countries because they have a certain individualism about everything they do in their culture.In her article, â€Å"The Young, the Rich, and the Famous: Individualism as American Cultural Value†, the author reiterates over and over again that the way Americans value their individualism really impresses her. She names a few examples of American individualism such as conversational topics, privacy, and family life. Ms. Sponsel further evaluates each subtopic thus shedding more light on her argument. One of the author’s many arguments about American individualism is how they converse with other people. Associated essay: †On Compassion†She notes that when asked the time old question of, â€Å"How are you? † , Americans most of the time have one set response only and don’t reveal much information about how they really are that day. Ms. Sponsel seems taken back by how Americans don’t really appear to care about how the other person is feeling and just blurt out the automated response of, â€Å"I’m good, how are you? ’. She often references the customs of her culture back in Thailand and how very different it is from American culture.She notes how open they are with everyone they talk to and pretty much tell their whole life story to everyone they meet. America’s individualism set’s them apart from many other countries, not just Thailand and every country has their own way of doing things. Ms. Sponsel is a well educated anthropologist, so it is her job to study a culture and watch how it operates which is why America’ s such individual culture really shocks her. America has a culture unlike any other where privacy is a main component. She emphasizes that even from a young age privacy is introduced into our lives.She points out that unlike other more traditional countries, America is one of the few countries where an infant is given their own room separate from their parents and are progressively taught to become independent emotionally and economically from their families. She once again references Thailand and their family cultures by saying that in Thai families all of the members of the family stick together and take care of each other and the children of the family really aren’t given independency until they get married and move out.Ms. Sponsel tries to show the extreme differences between the two cultures to emphasize America’s individualism. In response to Ms. Sponsel’s article about American individualism, I do agree for the most part with that she has to prove when sh e says that America is very different from the other cultures throughout the world especially the Thai culture she constantly compared America to. What she fails to recognize however, is that America is a cultural melting pot.Most Asian countries are homogenous and really haven’t become integrated, so sure it’s easy to have one steady flow of the same culture there. However, in America we have so many different cultures so it’s really difficult to conform to one specific race’s cultural norms. Some of her sub arguments in relation to her main point are a little far fetched to me though.. One of Ms. Sponsel’s big issue is that Americans are very private especially in the home and with their own families. I don’t understand why she is stunned that American children are taught to become independent at such a young age.The younger you learn that, the better equipped you will be for the real world once you become an adult and then you won’ t have to rely on your parents to help you with everything. The Thai culture that Ms. Sponsel always refers back to seems to not want their children to be independent at all, let alone leave the house and move out when they married adults. Americans have such a busy and fast paced life, being sheltered from that type of individualism would affect their lives in very negative ways.One really prime example of how her culture can show evidence of being overprotective of their children unlike Americans can be is, when Ms. Sponsel said that when she was working at an East-West summer camp one of the supervisors brought their 10 month old child and when the baby tried to walk it fell right down. Naturally the baby started crying, but it wasn’t the baby’s parents that went to go help the baby, it was all the Asian students. The parents knew that the baby would be fine so they left it alone and eventually he got up and started walking again.It’s a perfect example of how American’s individualistic culture norms are just totally opposite of other cultures, we know that one day that baby is going to have to get up and get over it so why not start at a young age so they get used to it instead of coddling them like the Asian culture or any other culture different than our would have done. Overall, I do see some very valid points provided by Ms. Sponsel about Americans and their odd sense of individualism, but also on the contrary she does have some faults where she overlooks some key aspects in her argument.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Free Essays on The Story Of An Hour-character Analysis

Is Richards more than a concerned friend? In Chopin’s â€Å"Story of an Hour† I have decided to analyze Richards and Mrs. Mallard. I believe that the story may have led the reader to assume there might be a relationship between them. Although I may not be able to prove this I feel that can raise certain questions that might arouse suspicion. I feel that there is more of a relationship than a friendship between the two. When Richrds heard the news of Bently Mallard’s death, he double-checked the telegram. Was this to ensure himself it was true? Or perhaps to make sure before he went to Mrs. Mallard? I feel like he was excited or anxious about the news that his lover’s husband was now out of the picture. Richards wanted to get to her before anyone else. Did he want to let her know that they could finally be together, or as the story told â€Å"he hastened to forestall any less careful, less tender friend in bearing sad message.†(Chopin 33)? Either way, it seemed odd that he would not want her family to be with her for support, rather than to let her receive the news alone. A family member seems better suited to attend to a widow who has just found out her husband died, rather than a â€Å"friend of the family†, which the author made Richards out to be. Mrs. Mallard’s emotions or lack of proper emotions, to the news of her husband’s demise seemed to support the idea of an extramarital relationship. â€Å". . . she went away to her room alone. She would have no one follow her.†(Chopin 33) Was this so no one could witness her excitement over Mr. Mallards death, so they did not see her rejoice at the possibility of being released from the bonds of matrimony that had kept her prisoner? I felt that her chanting â€Å"free, free, free† (Chopin 34) said to the reader that she was free to be with Richards. She admits â€Å"And yet she had loved him . . . sometimes.†(Chopin 34), did she love him when she was not with Richar... Free Essays on The Story Of An Hour-character Analysis Free Essays on The Story Of An Hour-character Analysis Is Richards more than a concerned friend? In Chopin’s â€Å"Story of an Hour† I have decided to analyze Richards and Mrs. Mallard. I believe that the story may have led the reader to assume there might be a relationship between them. Although I may not be able to prove this I feel that can raise certain questions that might arouse suspicion. I feel that there is more of a relationship than a friendship between the two. When Richrds heard the news of Bently Mallard’s death, he double-checked the telegram. Was this to ensure himself it was true? Or perhaps to make sure before he went to Mrs. Mallard? I feel like he was excited or anxious about the news that his lover’s husband was now out of the picture. Richards wanted to get to her before anyone else. Did he want to let her know that they could finally be together, or as the story told â€Å"he hastened to forestall any less careful, less tender friend in bearing sad message.†(Chopin 33)? Either way, it seemed odd that he would not want her family to be with her for support, rather than to let her receive the news alone. A family member seems better suited to attend to a widow who has just found out her husband died, rather than a â€Å"friend of the family†, which the author made Richards out to be. Mrs. Mallard’s emotions or lack of proper emotions, to the news of her husband’s demise seemed to support the idea of an extramarital relationship. â€Å". . . she went away to her room alone. She would have no one follow her.†(Chopin 33) Was this so no one could witness her excitement over Mr. Mallards death, so they did not see her rejoice at the possibility of being released from the bonds of matrimony that had kept her prisoner? I felt that her chanting â€Å"free, free, free† (Chopin 34) said to the reader that she was free to be with Richards. She admits â€Å"And yet she had loved him . . . sometimes.†(Chopin 34), did she love him when she was not with Richar...