A controversy in propaganda Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

A controversy in propaganda - Essay Example This is in addition to distributing such information to concerned citizens via their right to receive such ‘accurate’ news. Indeed as one of America’s founding fathers would portend – an informed society is essential for democracy to thrive (ODonnell and Garth 57). In order for information to have both value and meaning, it ought to be not only objective, but also reasonably complete and accurate. Hence, the ideal that both the objectivity and freedom of the press are a cornerstone of democracy. To be noted is that with freedom, as enshrined in democracies, comes both challenges and responsibilities (Chomsky and Edward 41). This necessitates correspondence that is both objective and balanced, despite prevailing personal perspectives; often in the most horrible of human conditions. In addition, when faced with the various tragedies of human misunderstandings and conflicts, it is difficult for one to remain as a detached observer. The media industry, under continuous pressure to deliver captivating and compelling news, often finds it difficult to successfully resist various temptations to sensationalize information presented (Chomsky and Edward 44). Historically, a majority of attempts made in measuring the effects of propaganda involved highly artificial techniques. However, these have not really captured the effects of propaganda because of the sleeper effect; that is, delayed reactions until the propaganda has penetrated resistance from the intended audience. Historically, the media has been on the forefront in propagating propaganda through conveyance of messages, ideals and perspectives. This has been the case from the early times newspapers, leaflets and catalogues, to the present-day society, where social media amongst other forms of electronic media, have and continue influencing society. This has been through different avenues of ‘loading’ information output in such manner, as to serve as an avenue

Creating the Guiding Coalition Essay Example for Free

Creating the Guiding Coalition Essay Major transformations are often associated with one highly visible individual. Consider Chryslers come back from near bankruptcy in the early 1980s, and we think of Lee Iacocca. Mention Wal-Marts ascension from small-fry to in ­dustry leader and Sam Walton comes to mind. Read about IBMs efforts to renew itself, and the story centers around Lou Gerstner. After a while, one might easily conclude that the kind of leadership that is so critical to any change can come only from a single larger than life person. This is a very dangerous belief. Because major change is so difficult to accomplish, a powerful force is required to sustain the process. No one individual, even a monarch-like CEO, is ever able to develop the right vision, communicate it to large numbers of people, eliminate all the key obstacles, generate short-term wins, lead and manage dozens of change projects, and anchor new approaches deep in the organizations culture. Weak committees are even worse. A strong guiding coalition is always needed-one with the right composition, level of trust, and shared objective. Building such a team is always an essential part of the early stages of any effort to restructure, reengineer, or retool a set of strategies. 1. Going It Alone: The Isolated CEO The food company in this case had an economic track record between 1975 and 1990 that was extraordinary. Then the industry changed, and the firm stumbled badly. The CEO was a remarkable individual. Being 20 percent leader, 40 percent manager, and the rest financial genius, he had guided his company successfully by making shrewd acquisitions and running a tight ship. When his industry changed in the late 1980s, he tried to transform the firm to cope with the new conditions. And he did so with the same style he had been using for fifteen years that of a monarch, with advisors. King Henry had an executive committee, but it was an information-gathering/dispensing group, not a decision-making body. The real work was done outside the meetings. Henry would think about an issue alone in his office. He would then share an idea with Charlotte and listen to her comments. He would have lunch with Frank and ask him a few questions. He would play golf with Ari and note his reaction to an idea. Eventually, the CEO would make a decision by himself. Then, depending on the nature of the decision, he would announce it at an executive committee meeting or, if the matter was somehow sensitive, tell his staff one at a time in his office. They in turn would pass the information on to others as needed. This process worked remarkably well between 1975 and 1990 for at least four reasons: (1) the pace of change in Henrys markets was not very fast, (2) he knew the industry well; (3) his company had such a strong position that being late or wrong on anyone decision was not that risky, and (4) Henry was one smart fellow. And then the industry changed. For four years, until his retirement in 1994, Henry tried to lead a transformation effort using the same process that had served him so well for so long. But this time the approach did not work because both the number and the nature of the decisions being made were different in some important ways. Prior to 1990, the issues were on average smaller, less complex, less emotionally charged, and less numerous. A smart person, using the one-on-one discussion format, could make good decisions and have them implemented. With the industry in flux and the need for major change inside the firm, the issues suddenly came faster and bigger. One person, even an exceptionally capable individual, could no longer handle this decision stream well. Choices were made and communicated too slowly. Choices were made without a full understanding of the issues. Employees were asked to make sacrifices without a clear sense of why they should do so. After two years, objective evidence suggested that Henrys approach wasnt working. Instead of changing, he became more isolated and pushed harder. One questionable acquisition and a bitter layoff later, he reluctantly retired (with more than a small push from his board). 2. Running on Empty: The Low-Credibility Committee This second scenario I have probably seen two dozen times. The biggest champion of change is the human resource executive, the quality officer, or the head of strategic planning. Someone talks the boss into putting this staff officer in charge of a task force that includes people from a number of departments and an outside consultant or two. The group may include an up-and-coming leader in the organization, but it does not have the top three or four individuals in the executive pecking order. And out of the top fifteen officers, only two to four are members. Because the group has an enthusiastic head, the task force makes progress for a while. But all of the political animals both on and off this committee figure out quickly that it has little chance of long-term success, and thus limit their assistance, involvement, and commitment. Because everyone on the task force is busy, and because some are not convinced this is the best use of their time, scheduling enough meetings to create a shared diagnosis of the firms problems and to build trust among the groups members becomes impossible. Nevertheless, the leader of the committee refuses to give up and struggles to make visible progress, of ­ten because of an enormous sense of dedication to the firm or its employees. After a while, the work is done by a subgroup of three or four mostly the chair, a consultant, and a Young Turk. The rest of the members rubber-stamp the ideas this small group produces, but they neither contribute much nor feel any commitment to the process. Sooner or later the problem becomes visible: when the group cant get a consensus on key recommendations, when its committee recommendations fall on deaf ears, or when it tries to implement an idea and runs into a wall of passive resistance. With much hard work, the committee does make a few contributions, but they come only slowly and incrementally. A post-mortem of the affair shows that the task force never had a chance of becoming a functioning team of powerful people who shared a sense of problems, opportunities, and commitment to change. From the outset, the group never had the credibility necessary to provide strong leadership. Without that credibility, you have the equivalent of an eighteen-wheeler truck being propelled by a lawn mower engine. Meanwhile, as this approach fails, the companys competitive position gets a little weaker and the industry leader gets a little farther ahead. 3. Keeping Pace with Change: The Team The central issue in both of these scenarios is that neither firm is taking into account the speed of market and technological change. In a less competitive and slower-moving world, weak committees can help organizations adapt at an acceptable rate. A committee makes recommendations. Key line managers reject most of the ideas. The group offers additional suggestions. The line moves another inch. The committee tries again. When both competition and technological change are limited, this approach can work. But in a faster-moving world, the weak committee always fails. In a slow-moving world, a lone-ranger boss can make needed changes by talking to Charlotte, then Frank, then Ari and reflecting on what they say. He can go back to each of them for more information. After making a decision, he can communicate it to Charlotte, Frank, and Ari. Information processing is sequential and orderly. As long as the boss is capable and time is available, the process can work well. In a faster- moving world, this ponderous linear activity breaks down. It is too slow. It is not well enough informed with real time information. And it makes implementation more difficult. Todays business environment clearly demands a new process of decision making (see figure 4-1). In a rapidly moving world, individuals and weak committees rarely have all the information needed to make good non routine decisions. Nor do they seem to have the credibility or the time required to convince others to make the personal sacrifices called for in implementing changes. Only teams with the right composition and sufficient trust among members can be highly effective under these new circumstances. Decision making in todays business environment This new truism applies equally well to a guiding change coalition on the factory floor, in the new-product development process, or at the very top of an organization during a major transformation effort. A guiding coalition that operates as an effective team can process more information, more quickly. It can also speed the implementation of new approaches because powerful people are truly informed and committed to key decisions. So why dont managers use teams more often to help produce change? To some degree, a conflict of interest is involved. Teams arent promoted, individuals are, and individuals need unambiguous track records to advance their careers. The argument I was on a team that doesnt sell well in most places today. But to an even greater degree, the problem is related to history. Most senior-level executives were raised managerially in an era when teamwork was not essential. They may have talked team and used sports metaphors, but the reality was hierarchical-typically, a boss and his eight direct reports. Having seen many examples of poorly functioning committees, where everything moves slower instead of faster, they are often much more comfortable in sticking with the old format, even if it is working less and less well over time. The net result: In a lot of reengineering and re strategizing efforts, people simply skip this step or give it minimum attention. Then they race ahead to try to create the vision, or to downsize the organization, or whatever. But sooner or later, the lack of a strong team to guide the effort proves fatal. 4. Putting Together the Guiding Coalition The first step in putting together the kind of team that can direct a change effort is to find the right membership. Four key characteristics seem to be essential to effective guiding coalitions. They are: I. POSITION POWER: Are enough key players on board, especially the main line managers, so that those left out cannot easily block progress? II. EXPERTISE: Are the various points of view-in terms of discipline, work experience, nationality, etc.-relevant to the task at hand adequately represented so that informed, intelligent decisions will be made? III. CREDIBILITY: Does the group have enough people with good reputations in the firm so that its pronouncements will be taken seriously by other employees? IV. LEADERSHIP: Does the group include enough proven lead ­ers to be able to drive the change process? This last concern, about leadership, is particularly important. You need both management and leadership skills on the guiding coalition, and they must work in tandem, teamwork style. The former keeps the whole process under control, while the latter drives the change. (The grids in figure 4- 2 depict various combinations of leadership and management that may or may not work.) Profiles of four different guiding coalitions A guiding coalition with good managers but poor leaders will not succeed. A managerial mind-set will develop plans, not vision; it will vastly under communicate the need for and direction of change; and it will control rather than empower people. Yet companies with much historical success are often left with corporate cultures that create just that mind-set that rejects both leaders and leadership. Ironically, great success creates a momentum that demands more and more managers to keep the growing enterprise under control while requiring little if any leadership. In such firms, much care needs to be exercised or the guiding coalition will lack this critical element. Missing leadership is generally addressed in three ways: (1) people are brought in from outside the firm, (2) employees who know how to lead are promoted from within, or (3) employees who hold positions requiring leadership, but who rarely lead, are encouraged to accept the challenge. Whatever the method chosen to get there, the end result-a team with leadership skills-must be the same. Never forget: A guiding coalition made up only of managers ­ even superb managers who are wonderful people-will cause major change efforts to fail. The size of an effective coalition seems to be related to the size of the organization. Change often starts with just two or three people. The group in successful transformations then grows to half a dozen in relatively small firms or in small units of larger firms. In bigger enterprises, twenty to fifty may eventually need to be signed up. 5. Qualities to Avoid-or Manage Carefully Two types of individuals should be avoided at all costs when putting together a guiding coalition. The first have egos that fill up a room, leaving no space for anybody else. The second are what I call snakes, people who create enough mistrust to kill teamwork. At senior levels in most organizations, people have large egos. But unless they also have a realistic sense of their weaknesses and limitations, unless they can appreciate complementary strengths in others, and unless they can subjugate their immediate interests to some greater goal, they will probably contribute about as much to a guiding coalition as does nuclear waste. If such a person is the central player in the coalition, you can usually kiss teamwork and a dramatic transformation good bye. Snakes are equally disastrous, although in a different way. They damage the trust that is always an essential ingredient in team ­work. A snake is an expert at telling Sally something about Fred and Fred something about Sally that undermines Sally and Freds relationship. Snakes and big egos can be extremely intelligent, motivated, and productive in certain ways. As such, they can get promoted to senior management positions and be logical candidates for a guiding coalition. Smart change agents seem to be skilled at spotting these people and keeping them off the team. If thats impossible, capable leaders watch and manage these folks very carefully. Another type of individual to at least be wary of is the reluctant player. In organizations with extremely high urgency rates, getting people to sign on to a change coalition is easy. But since high urgency is rare, more effort is often required, especially for a few key people who have no interest in signing on. Jerry is an overworked division-level CFO in a major oil company. Conservative by nature, he is more manager than leader and is naturally suspicious of calls for significant change because of the potential disruption and risk. But after having performed well at his corporation for thirty-five years, Jerry is too powerful and too respected to be ignored. Consequently, his division head has devoted hours over a period of two months attempting to convince him that major change is necessary and that Jerrys active involvement is essential. Halfway through the courtship, the CFO still makes excuses, citing his lack of both time and qualifications to help. But persistence pays off, and Jerry eventually signs up. It can be tempting to write off people like Jerry and try to work around them. But if such individuals are central players with a lot of authority or credibility, this tactic rarely works well. Very of ­ten the problem with signing up a Jerry goes back to urgency. He doesnt see the problems and opportunities very clearly, and the same holds for the people with whom he interacts on a daily basis. With complacency high, youll never convince him to give the time and effort needed to create a winning coalition. When people like Jerry have the qualities of a snake or big ego, a negotiated resignation or retirement is often the only sensible option. You dont want them on the guiding coalition, but you also cant afford to have them outside the meeting room causing prob ­lems. Organizations are often reluctant to confront this issue, usu ­ally because these people have either special skills or political sup ­port. But the alternative is usually worse-having them undermine a new strategy or a cultural renewal effort. Afraid to confront the problem, we convince ourselves that Jerry isnt so bad or that we can manoeuvre around him. So we move on, only to curse ourselves later for not dealing with the issue. In this kind of situation, remember the following: Personnel problems that can be ignored during easy times can cause serious trouble in a tougher faster-moving, globalizing economy. 6. Building an Effective Team Based on Trust and a Common Goal Teamwork on a guiding change coalition can be created in many different ways. But regardless of the process used, one component is necessary: trust. When trust is present, you will usually be able to create teamwork. When it is missing, you wont. Trust is absent in many organizations. People who have spent their careers in a single department or division are often taught loyalty to their immediate group and distrust of the motives of others, even if they are in the same firm. Lack of communication and many other factors heighten misplaced rivalry. So the engineers view the salespeople with great suspicion, the German subsidiary looks at the American parent with disdain, and so on. When employees promoted up from these groups are asked to work together on a guiding coalition during a change effort, teamwork rarely comes easily because of the residual lack of trust. The resulting parochial game playing can prevent a needed transformation from taking place. This single insight about trust can be most helpful in judging whether a particular set of activities will produce the kind of team that is needed. If the activities create the mutual understanding, respect, and caring associated with trust, then youre on the right road. If they dont, youre not. Forty years ago, firms that tried to build teams used mostly in ­formal social activity. All the executives met one anothers families. Over golf, Christmas parties, and dinners, they developed relationships based on mutual understanding and trust. Family-oriented social activity is still used to build teams, but it has a number of serious drawbacks today. First, it is a slow process. Occasional activity that is not aimed primarily at team building can take a decade or more. Second, it works best in families with only one working spouse. In the world of dual careers, few of us have enough time for frequent social obligations in two different organizations. Third, this kind of group development process tends to exert strong pressures to conform. Political ideas, lifestyles, and hobbies are all pushed toward the mean. Someone who is different has to conform or leave. Groupthink, in the negative sense of the term, can be a consequence. Team building today usually has to move faster, allow for more diversity, and do without at-home spouses. To accommodate this reality, by far the most common vehicle used now is some form of carefully planned off-site set of meetings. A group of eight or twelve or twenty-four go somewhere for two to five days with the explicit objective of becoming more of a team. They talk, analyse, climb mountains, and play games, all for the purpose of increasing mutual understanding and trust. The first attempts at this sort of activity, about thirty years ago, were so much like a kind of quick-and-dirty group therapy that they often did not work. More recently, the emphasis has shifted to both more intellectual tasks aimed at the head and bonding activities aimed at the heart. People look long and hard at some data about the industry and then go sailing together. A typical off-site retreat involves ten to fifty people for three to six days. Internal staff or external consultants help plan the meeting. Much of the time is spent encouraging honest discussions about how individuals think and feel with regard to the organization, its problems and opportunities. Communication channels between people are opened or strengthened. Mutual understanding is enlarged. Intellectual and social activities are designed to encourage the growth of trust. Such team building outings much too often still fail to achieve results. Expectations are sometimes set too high for a single three day event, or the meeting is not planned with enough care or expertise. But the trend is clear. We are getting better at this sort of activity. For example: Division president Sam Johnson is trying to pull together a group of ten people into an effective change coalition for his consumer electronics business. They include his seven direct reports, the head of the one department in the division that will probably be at the center of the change effort, the executive VP at headquarters, and himself. With great difficulty, he schedules a Week-long meeting for all ten of them , start with a two-day Outward Bound type of activity, in which the group lives together outdoors for forty-eight hours and undertakes strenuous physical tasks like sailing and mountain climbing. During these two days, they get to know one another better and are reminded why team ­work is important. On days three to five, they check into a hotel, are given a great deal of data about the divisions competitors and customers, and are asked to produce a series of discussion papers on a tight time schedule. They work from 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., mostly in ever-shifting, but not randomly chosen, subgroups. From 7:00 to 9:30 each evening they have dinner and talk about their careers, their aspirations, and other more personal topics. In the process, they get to know one another even better and begin to develop shared perspectives on their industry. The increased understanding, the relationships built on actual task achievement and the common perspectives all foster trust. Recognizing that this successful week-long activity is just the beginning of a process, Sam hosts another three-day event for the group a few months later. Two years after that, with turnover and promotions changing the makeup of his group, he puts together yet another carefully planned retreat. Just as important, in between these very visible activities, he takes dozens of actions designed to help build the trust necessary for teamwork. Rumours that might erode goodwill are confronted with lightning speed and accurate information. People who know each other least well are put together on other task forces. All ten are included as often as is prac ­tical in social activities. Q: Was this easy to do? A: Hardly. Two of the ten in this case were very independent individuals who couldnt fathom why they should all go climb mountains together. One was so busy that scheduling group activities seemed at times impossibility. One had a borderline big ego problem. Because of past events, two didnt get along well. Yet Sam managed to overcome all of this and develop an effective guiding coalition. I think he succeeded because he wanted very much for the division to do well, because he was convinced that major change was necessary to make the business a winner, and because he believed that that change couldnt happen without an effective guiding coalition. So in a sense, Sam felt he had no choice. He had to create the trust and teamwork. And he did. When people fail to develop the coalition needed to guide change, the most common reason is that down deep they really dont think a transformation is necessary or they dont think a strong team is needed to direct the change. Skill at team building is rarely the central problem. When executives truly believe they must create a team oriented guiding coalition, they always seem to find competent advisors who have the skills. Without that belief, even if they have the ability or good counsel, they dont take needed actions. Beyond trust, the element crucial to teamwork seems to be a common goal. Only when all the members of a guiding coalition deeply want to achieve the same objective does real teamwork become feasible. The typical goal that binds individuals together on guiding change coalitions is a commitment to excellence, a real desire to make their organizations perform to the very highest levels possible. Reengineering, acquisitions, and cultural change efforts often fail because that desire is missing. Instead, one finds people committed to their own departments, divisions, friends, or careers. Trust helps enormously in creating a shared objective. One of the main reasons people are not committed to overall excellence is that they dont really trust other departments, divisions, or even fellow executives. They fear, sometimes quite rationally, that if they obsessively focus their actions on improving customer satisfaction or reducing expenses, other departments wont do their fair share and the personal costs will skyrocket. When trust is raised, creating a common goal becomes much easier. Leadership also helps. Leaders know how to encourage people to transcend short-term parochial interests.

Methods Of Personality Research ? Clinical Vs. Experimental :: essays research papers

The development of personality has long been an area of extreme interest to psychologists and psychoanalysts alike and many different theories of personality have developed over the years. From Sigmund Freud to B.F. Skinner, everyone seems to have not only an opinion of what personality is and how it develops but also an idea as to what is the best way to measure and report their findings. In order to test their theories, it was necessary to formulate methods of research that were effective, ethical and would provide a solid foundation for future personality research.Although both the clinical and experimental methods of personality research have lent themselves to our present day understanding of the human psyche and personality, each has done so in vastly different ways. Freud and his colleagues, who pioneered the clinical research method, chose to observe their clients in an up close and personal fashion. A great deal of their research findings came from interviews with psychologically disturbed patients. Personality psychologists who opt for the clinical method of research regard their work as both a method of gathering information and testing hypothesis as well as an opportunity to provide therapy and encourage healing. Therefore, the clinical method is very person oriented and allows for a more intimate study of the individual personality.Proponents of the experimental method are equally as dedicated to their methods of research. Not unlike clinical researchers, experimental researchers regard their methods as the best way of gathering information to support hypothesis regarding personality. Although their methods are not as up close and personal as those who study using the clinical method, they are certainly valuable. Experimental research is often regarded as the best form of research, due to its strict adherence to rigid research guidelines. Although neither of these two methods are infallible, each has its own merits and downfalls. In order to be best able to critique these methods one must have a general knowledge of each method, and an understanding of what has allowed them their staying power in the field of psychological research. The Clinical Research MethodThe clinical method of personality research developed literally at the patient’s bedside. During this time in the life of psychoanalytic research, the subjects were usually afflicted with one type of psychotic disorder or another. This bedside approach to analysis allowed for the psychiatrist or psychologist to observe the patient in their most natural surroundings.

Future of Our Education

Future of Our Education An average tablet filled with thousands of e-books weighs a billionth of a billionth of a gram more than if it were empty of data, rather than a single book that's manually read, cannot be updated, and contains only a specific published topic. Manufacturing a single tablet requires extraction of 33 pounds of mineral, 79 gallons of water, and 100 kilowatt hours of fossil fuels resulting in 66 pounds of carbon dioxide while a single tree cut only produces an average of 17 books.Proponents of tablets say that these are supported by teachers and students alike, because they re lighter and convenient to use than print textbooks. It can hold as many books as the owner wishes to have, plus homework, quizzes and other files, and actually improve one's ability to understand and learn. They say that tablets can save the environment by lowering the amount of printing and increase not only students' learning abilities but also their creativity. If there are Pros to tablet s, there are also Cons.Opponents say that these advanced technological necessities are far too expensive and can be a distraction for students. It can easily break and is time, energy and money consuming to fix. They say that these cause various health problems and other things that increase students' excuses for not doing their homework. Above all, it requires mostly of Wi-Fi connection to be able to update its data, since it becomes quickly outdated as new kinds of technology are released in the market.Some opponents of tablet may even use their practicality to counter the rapid escalation of the technologys popularity. But let's face it: who wouldn't want to use one? Generally speaking, it is obvious that there a lots of things a tablet has to offer than a plain old textbook. Using it is so intuitive that it makes learning more fun and easy. At the same time, it enables students to cut on corners instead of patiently browsing a textbook for meanings. Just one click and Voila!Ther e's your homework, your project, etc. Using a tablet has advantages and disadvantages. For an instance, it is slowly wiping out the textbooks existence since the world is on its way down the lane of modernization. But do we really need to have one in order to study? Replacing the use of textbooks in order to improve the quality of learning is a dire need but let's not forget what we did in the past and where we came from, for it is where we will predict the future of our education. By mynameismacey

Aim in becoming an engineer and your Career

When we are young, one of those questions that we hear from almost every adult that we encounter, especially from those who work, is â€Å"What do you like to be when you grow up?† Remember that most may say, â€Å"I want to be this or that or like my mother or like my father and many other else†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Though we were young then, we are all starting to know the value of dream or career.If you’re asking for my plan or the same question as the adults ask in my first paragraph, I would answer you that I am now aiming to be an engineer or I want engineering to be my career. You may have different reactions when I say that but it is just a matter of choice and all of us are have that right.To be an engineer, I must study the prerequisites of entering college. First, I should finish my high school and then enroll in a university or college and acquire an engineering course, a mechanical, industrial or civil engineering may do.Anyway, engineers abide by a simple law and the only thing that makes each of them distinct from one another is the nature of the results. For example, chemical engineers end products are chemical products, electrical engineering are for electricity-related machines or equipments which work hand-in-hand with the mechanical engineers.Today, the engineering sector has many branches and each of them have their own expertise. After passing the course, I must take the licensure exam to be an engineer if it is needed. Otherwise, I will not be professionally called as engineer by my name or don’t have a title before my first name.What’s really special about being an engineer is having a wide knowledge and expertise on one specific thing I want. Knowing the in and out of that thing is really amazing. If a have a computer, as an engineer I will know its components, the materials used, software available for the unit and even the appropriate price so that the public will buy the computer.In short, engineers usually know every detail of something he or she is really interested about.Well, the knowledge I will gain is only one of the reasons why I aim to be an engineer. Another thing is really on their purpose in fulfilling their job. For me, engineers also are public servant and are not only confined with their commercial purposes.Though some may think that I want to be an engineer because it is well paid, well, think again. I know that we, in our career, always want to help others. Take a civil engineer for example. Most civil engineers are government employees.They are imparting their knowledge in construction to build hospitals, schools, bridges, gate arcs, government buildings and many other infrastructures that are of great use for us. If not for them, we cannot be assure that we are safe when crossing bridges or walking by parks or towers. If not for them, community development is not possible.Lastly, I believe that without them, each of them, every kind of them, society will be more of a bore . Basically, they give foundations of everything, almost everything that we saw in a society or a city in particular are works of science and art – or simply work of engineers. I may say that they are the builders of a civilization.Dreams are made mostly to guide us in our way of pursuing our life. The question, â€Å"What do I like to be when I grow up?† is a big start in shaping the life we want someday.Having a career in mind is really important so that we will now what all of our sufferings in life will bring us to. All we need to do is to focus our eyes in our aim – in my case, I should focus my eyes on my aim to become an engineer and do my best to make that my career.ReferencesReally†¦what IS an engineer? Retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/ academics/ub/news/learning/engineer05.phpEngineer, is it you? Retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://www.micron.com/ students/engineer/what.html

allignment of academic standards with ELL proficiency standards essay Essay Example

allignment of academic standards with ELL proficiency standards essay Essay Example allignment of academic standards with ELL proficiency standards essay Essay allignment of academic standards with ELL proficiency standards essay Essay Essay Topic: Academic Academic Standards with ELL Proficiency Standards Assignment The Arizona or TESOL English learner standards use a guide for differentiating instruction for various levels of ELLS by the teachers making the lessons have a content objective meaning on what the teacher wants all their students to learn in the classrooms. Also, each lesson needs to have a language objective as well which means that are specifically for each individual ELL student and base it in their TESOL standards in the classroom. An example, is for the teacher to try to use both the content objective ike making the ELL students write down important facts about learning the English language and the language objective that need to be used by the ELL students will correctly use words or verbs to describe their feelings on the reason why these facts are so important to them. When teachers are making their lessons whether it be for the ELL students on level one which are known as beginners or on level five which are known as advanced students in the English language skills it should always provide precise visual support and guided reading until students master the grade-level aterials or instructions (Zehr, M. 2010). Teachers should do a little bit of research while preparing their lessons of the ELLS for the language levels that pertain to the content of the students language being taught, give the ELL students the opportunity to interact with the English speakers in the classroom, teachers should target corrections where the students have specific errors, and teachers should be using appropriate level language aspects of the ELL students when assigning assessments, classwork, tests, homework, etc. Teachers in the field of educating ELLS of different English proficiency levels because all students do not learn at the same pace or same time (Zehr, 2010). By the teachers having some type of assistance when planning the lessons or activities that will positively support appropriate content for the ELL students benefits their levels will increase to a successful education with the English language. The data from a various different sources relating to each of the learners progress in the classroom should be used as a tool that will drive the standards-based instruction by using the information to aim for the different learners and use the ifferent styles that the ELL students need to make sure they learn as much knowledge as they can in a high level classroom environment. Teachers have to have differentiated standards when it comes to their students and their teaching abilities like to ensure that it is going to be successful as long as they have reliable and understanding different sources in the classroom, having ideas that make sure the ELL students understand what they are being taught by the teacher, and the teacher making sure their ELL students are not going to be confused on the different teaching ethods of the assignments that need to be learned and gone over for the students benefit needs in the classroom (Sephton, C. 013). Teachers need to use different learning skills or teaching styles for their ELL students to meet and become successful in learning the English language correctly. Standards are made to make student. Also, so that complications do not happen and it makes room for more clear understanding for teaching the ELL students in the classrooms on a daily basis. The varieties of all differentiated standards available to the teachers in a lassroom provide the focus on all high expectations and the motivation that are needed to tailor instruction so that it meets all the needs of all the individual learners by help with differentiated instruction and a dedicated teacher, so that the standards and proficiency standards all will eventually line up more clearly for the ELL students benefits with their education process in the classrooms. ELLs have the more pressure of adding difficulty of trying to master a whole new language in the classroom but with from a dedicated teacher and team the individual student will ain the knowledge from the instruction or materials being used correctly to get the ELL students to have high expectations to want to learn more and motivate them to come to schools classroom to learn the English language daily. The varieties of standards provided to educators are extremely diverse to maximize the potential of students as well as educators and the standards do exemplify high expectations of ELL students and on teachers, specifically as it relates to how to ensure students master the objection (Sunderman, G. 2008). These standards will become to help rain the teachers to stay focus on the goal at hand and it will also motivate the ELL students to head for success as well. All students learn differently so when teachers plan a differentiated lesson plan they need to keep in mind to allow the ELL students an positive ideal learning structure, the more flexible ease of learning centered on the students level, as well as assignments that provide scaffolding from the teacher for comprehensive learning for the ELL student (Sunderman, 2008). Teachers can have the standards as a challenging task for the ELL students to accomplish their ell-rounded education that has a high goal level for differentiated instruction and motivation for the ELL students needs throughout the school year. Reference Arizona Department of Education. (2003). Reading standards articulated by grade level Kindergarten. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from ade. state. az. us/standards/language-arts/bygradelevel/RdgGrK. pdf Sephton, C. (2013). ELL standards of learning instruction, ELL Education Learners. 3(4), 7-15. Zehr, M. A. (2010). Guide tells how to differentiate instruction for ELLS, Learning the Language. Editorial Projects in Education. 6(9), 3-5.

Comparative Correlative - Definition and Examples

Comparative Correlative s In grammar, a comparative correlative is a minor sentence pattern containing two corresponding phrases or clauses, each one headed by the and expressing a comparative: the X-er . . . the X-er or the X-er . . . the Y-er. The comparative correlative is also known as the correlative construction, the conditional comparative, or the the . . . the construction. Grammatically, the comparative correlative is a type of paired construction; rhetorically, the comparative correlative is often (but not always) a type of parison. Common Comparative Correlative Expressions The greater the risk, the greater the return.The harder you work, the harder it is to surrender.(American football coach Vince Lombardi)The deeper our sorrows, the louder well singLife is pure adventure, and the sooner we realize that, the quicker we will be able to treat life as art.(Maya Angelou, Wouldnt Take Nothing for My Journey Now. Random House, 1993)The more we do, the more we can do; the more busy we are, the more leisure we have.(William Hazlitt, The Spirit of the Age, 1825)The older the men are here, the more likely it is that they are wearing suits and ties.(John McPhee, Giving Good Weight. Giving Good Weight. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1979)The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.(Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa in Star Wars, 1977)The less we deserve good fortune, the more we hope for it.(Seneca)The greater your achievements, the less satisfactory your personal and domestic life will be.(Saul Bellow, More Die of Heartbreak. William Morrow, 1987) The more you pay attention to the richness of the world, the more you allow your interest to be absorbed by things outside of you, the more interesting a person you will become. And the more you pay attention to the world outside you, the more it gives back: by a kind of miracle, it will become a more interesting place.(Barbara Baig, How to Be a Writer: Building Your Creative Skills Through Practice and Play. Writers Digest Books, 2010) 'The More the Merrier' This construction - schematically [the X-er the Y-er] - is commonly referred to as the correlative construction (Culicover 1999: 83-5); Culicover and Jackendoff 1999; Fillmore, Kay, and OConnor 1988). It conveys that any increase (or decrease) in the value of X is associated with, and may even be construed as the cause of, an increase (or decrease) in the value of Y. A notable feature of the construction is the fact that the word the which features in it is not a determiner and is therefore not to be identified with the definite article the. Some instantiations of the construction: (16a) The more I know the more I worry.(16b) The less they have to say the more they talk.(16c) The bigger they are the harder they fall.(16d) The earlier you start the more you chance you have of being successful.(16e) The bigger the risk the bigger the payout.(16f) The less said the better. It is also worth noting that although the correlative construction is highly unusual, given the general principles of English syntax, it is not totally isolated from the rest of the language. There are, in fact, quite a few bipartite expressions in which the first element is presented as the cause, precondition, or explanation for the second. Like the correlative construction, these expressions lack a finite verb. Here are some examples: (17a) Garbage in, garbage out.(17b) Out of the frying pan (and) into the fire.(17c) Easy come, easy go.(17d) Cold hands, warm heart.(17e) Once bitten, twice shy.(17f) Out of sight, out of mind.(17g) Once a whinger, always a whinger.*(17h) One for me (and) one for you.(17i) First come, first served.(17j) Nothing ventured, nothing gained. * This expression instantiates the construction [ONCE A N, ALWAYS A N]. Examples from the BNC [British National Corpus] include once a Catholic, always a Catholic; once a Russian, always a Russian; once a misfit, always a misfit; once a dealer, always a dealer. The construction conveys that a person is not able to change their personality or their entrenched behaviour.(John R. Taylor, The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford University Press, 2012) The . . . the (129) The more John eats the less he wants.This construction . . . is composed of two phrases, each of which expresses a comparative. Both may be of the form the more XP... , in which case the first is interpreted as a subordinate clause and the second as a main clause. Or, the first clause can simply contain a comparative, e.g. John wants less, in which case the first clause is interpreted as the main clause and the second is interpreted as a subordinate clause.Of particular relevance to the present discussion is the fact that the internal structure of the more . . . is sui generis, in the sense that the learner must simply acquire the knowledge that an expression of this form can be used in the way that we have described. As shown by Culicover and Jackendoff (1998), the more functions as an operator that binds a variable, and the chain that is formed is subject to the usual locality constraints. The form the more . . . must be initial in the clause, and cannot pied pipe a preposit ion...(Peter W. Culicover, Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, 1999) The Little Word 'the' (6) The more a student studies, the better grades she will receive.In English, both the first phrase and the second phrase obligatorily begin with the little word the. The unacceptability of (7a) is due to the absence of the in the first clause, in (7b) in the second clause, in (7c), the absence of the in both clauses unsurprisingly also results in unacceptability. (7a) * More a student studies, the better grades she will receive.(7b) * The more a student studies, better grades she will receive.(7c) * More a student studies, better grades she will receive. (Ronald P. Leow, Little Words: Their History, Phonology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Acquisition. Georgetown University Press, 2009)