The Banning of Capital Punishment Essay examples -- Papers Death Penal

The Banning of Capital Punishment Capital punishment is a brutal, antiquated concept that must be abolished in the name of civilized society. A humane culture cannot abide the organized extermination of human beings in the name of justice. In the United States, dozens of people are put to death every year like stray animals, only perhaps in less humane ways. The methods of capital punishment vary greatly, but none are publicly accepted as humane. Society's support for the death penalty is waning, but there is still enough support in the United States to keep it legal in many states. The death penalty exercises only the most primal instincts to kill and extract revenge in an organized fashion. This is why the death penalty must be abolished entirely: to allow society to function in a civilized manner in which every person has the right to live. Capital punishment is hypocritical, selection is arbitrary and biased, and the practice itself is cruel and inhumane. By allowing the organized extermination of living human beings the government is telling the public that they have the right to extinguish anyone they think is a murderer. The very idea of killing another for killing is inherently hypocritical. By enforcing capital punishment, the government is telling the public that it is okay to kill as long as you have more power than the person you are killing. This is of course a very cut-and-dried interpretation, but it is what the message boils down to. The problem with such a hypocritical notion as an eye for eye, is its fundamental inconsistency. In order to practice; what they preach, the courts would have to find a way to steal from thieves, betray traitors, and rape rapists. This is obviously ludicrous. Besides the cen... ... government to kill those deemed "deserving". Consequently, there are laws in place that allow the punishment of murder, by murder. Society's integrity is diminished every time a criminal is executed. The very tenets of modern organization are opposed to the notion of capital punishment, yet this is constantly defied and ignored by the American legal system. If no changes are made and the death penalty remains an acceptable form of punishment, it is inevitable that this correctional method will bleed throughout the American legal system and be utilized for "potential murderers" and small-time thieves. The mentality that encourages organized murder in the name of justice is doomed to devour the society that supports it, creating a totalitarian culture governed by paranoia. Society must voice its opposition to capital punishment before it pays dearly for a for it.

How Diversity of Faith is Effectively Used in Nursing Care Essay

Even though medical healing is mainly based upon scientific beliefs, one cannot discount the effect of religious beliefs in the healing of a patient. For many people with a strong religious conviction, the simple belief in the power of prayer is enough to create signs of healing even in the most critical of patients. Even though the effects of prayer are undocumented, there is a growing belief among many that faith plays a significant role in healing a patient when science has given him up for dead. In the medical field, nurses are slowly realizing that a diversity of faith among their patients has them in a bind. Not all nurses are religious, nor do they share the same religious traditions as the patient. In such instances, it is up to the nurse to find a middle ground where they can honor the religious beliefs of individual patients without losing sight of their own religion. Nursing is a highly technical occupation. This is why even though nurses realize that each patient has a spiritual need, the nurse may not always be trained to respond to it. So this job is usually relegated to the hospital’s pastoral care workers even though nurses would be better placed to deliver such patient needs. It is not for a nurse to question the religious beliefs of her patients, but it is her job to insure that these beliefs are fully utilized in the process of helping a patient to heal both physically, mentally, and spiritually. Unfortunately, the nursing shortage in the country does not leave the nurses with much to connect on a personal basis with their patients. Patient care and comfort are forgone in lieu of time management and getting the job done. Though nurses have traditionally been viewed as both medical and spiritual healers because of the personal connection they have with their wards, the lack of time and instruction as to how to combine patient care and religion are sending our nurses off the original objectives of why they became nurses. Roberta Bube, RN, PHN currently works part time as nurse at the Marion Medical Center in Santa Maria, Calif. According to her interview in Nurseweek for the article â€Å"You Gotta Have Fait†, she realized that â€Å"You have to address mind, body and spirit, I always found time to do it [in a hospital]. I did have to be cautious. I’d have to do it quietly. Everybody’s beliefs are different.† So, how can a nurse integrate the religious aspect and its various differences in their daily dealings with their individual patients? Firstly, a nurse can typically start by incorporating the patient’s religious belief into her basic daily care routine for the patient. At the Saint Francis Medical Center in Santa Barbara, California, clinical coordinator Jan Ingram, RN, explains in the same article that â€Å"Whether you’re giving them a sponge bath or putting them on the commode, if you’re really there with them-mindfully present-that is a spiritual action.† Nurses have to realize that listening and communicating with their patient is of vital importance in helping a patient heal. This includes developing ways and means for the patient to be able to effectively practice their beliefs and be able to assist in the patient’s personal spiritual care. Once a nurse learns to approach a person holistically, the nurse will now be in a very good position to accept the various faiths of their patients and convert the same or varied belief amongst the patients she is in charge of. Secondly, the nurse must be willing to set aside her own personal spiritual beliefs and instead be open minded and willing to accept the faith of the patient while she is caring for him or her. A patient may request for a bible reading, a short prayer, or simply letting the patient talk with the nurse listening and prepared to reassure her at the end that God has not abandoned him or her. If need be, a nurse must not hesitate to accommodate a patients request to join him in a religious activity. Such activities tend to reassure a patient and keep him calm throughout the healing process. Lastly, it is highly imperative that nurses know and understand the religious beliefs of their patients as these beliefs can affect their medical decisions pertaining to procedures such as operations or end of life decisions. So, a nurse is encouraged to discuss and explore their patients religious beliefs if a patient is comfortable doing so with the nurse. This will allow a nurse to develop and gain the trust of the patient because the patient will be comfortable in the knowledge that the nurse in charge of her care understands her religious belief and will always respect its role in their lives. Such support systems between patient and nurse usually prove vital in the therapeutic alliance of the two parties.   It is also highly important that a nurse, even though not a devout practitioner of her religion, believes in God and knows how to pray. Even though a nurse is taught how to compartmentalize her feelings and not be affected by the events of the day at the hospital, one cannot help but be affected. There will be times in the course of performing her duty that she will call science into question and why it failed certain patients, or why it cannot seem to heal a patient who has no reason to be ill. During those situations, when science seems to fail her, the only thing she will find herself clinging to is her belief in god or her religion. It is this faith that she will take with her as she tries to heal her patient and help him cope with his medical situation. This will be the common denominator binding them. Faith in religion regardless of what the religion is commonly called. At the end of the day, nurses will have to learn to accept and integrate the diversified cultures and religious beliefs of their patients. The nurse will have to turn to her own personal faith for support as well. All of this because healing a patient is not all a matter of science. It is also a matter of spiritual belief in a Supreme Being who can heal us all of our aches and pains in any form or guise. Work Cited Hebert Randy S. ; Jenckes., Mollie W. ; Ford, Daniel E.; O’Connor, Debra R. $ Cooper, Lisa A. (2001). Patient Perspectives on Spirituality and the Patient-Physician Relationship. Journal of Internal General Medicine. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1495274 Hemilla, Donna. (2002). You Gotta Have Faith. Nurseweek. Retrieved May 20, 2007 from http://www.nurseweek.com/news/features/02-09/faith.asp Mitchell, Joyce & Haroun, Lee. (2005). Healthcare. Singapore. Thomson Delmar. Wensley, Michelle. Spirituality in Nursing. Retrieved May 21, 2007 from http://www.ciap.health.nsw.gov.au/hospolic/stvincents/1995/a04.html   

Pyramids and Ziggurats

Pyramids and ziggurats both provide archeologists with a great deal of information about the ancient cultures that constructed them. When comparing The Great Pyramids of Egypt with The Ziggurats of Mesopotamia and the Mesoamerican Pyramids, the differences between them are more apparent than the similarities that they share. The structures only appear to be similar. Both have the general form of a pyramid. Some other similarities shared by these structures can be interpreted from a religious context of those who had them erected and what role they served for the society.Among the differences are their usage, how they were decorated, their designs, and the materials used in their construction. The Egyptian pyramids were built as the final resting place for the pharaoh. It was also where the Pharaohs possessions were kept for him to enjoy in the afterlife. What has been found inside of these tremendous pyramids are precise layouts. For example, page 51 in our first book shows a diagram of the pyramid and inside each of them is a narrow shaft that extends from the deepest chamber to the outside. Coincidentally it is aligned with the North Star.The Great Pyramids are quite interesting. The stones are so tight that you cannot even put a knife in between the stones. It makes you think how could this be possible? It makes you think how did these pyramids get built? Some might say that they were moved on wooden sleds, but it is quite hard to imagine how they constructed something on this scale. While it is true that the forced labor of war prisoners was a common practice at the time, most people agree that the humongous labor force used in building the pyramids consisted of workers from throughout Egypt as it states in our book.Another interesting fact is that they are also perfectly square and they are aligned almost precisely with a compass. So really the main purposes of these pyramids were to have a resting place for their Pharaohs as they entered the afterlife. Th e pyramids of Mesoamerica also had their dead buried inside just as the Maya had done as mentioned in Book III on page 105. Unlike the Ancient Egyptian pyramids, these pyramids are better known for serving as altars or bearers of sacrificial offerings. Like the ancientEgyptians, the early civilizations of Mesoamerica were involved in agriculture and their lives depended on how successful the harvest is. Because of this, both the Mayans and the Aztecs preformed human sacrifice as part of agricultural renewal. The temples had a long stair-stepped design that shows their purpose. The stepped design isn’t the only difference from the pyramids of ancient Egypt, but it was also the function they served in the society. These were temples to gods, and each one had a staircase topped with a temple.The Mesoamerican pyramids were the heart and center of the city and community. Its main focus was to serve as religious ceremonies and civic ceremonies unlike the Egyptians which had their p yramids away from the villages. The Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan was designed to represent certain astronomical events providing a link between the culture and the universe. If you look at the Pyramid of the Sun compared to the pyramids in Egypt, it is exactly the same size in terms of base as the great pyramid, but its height is roughly half the size of the great pyramids.It is actually more similar to the Mesopotamian Ziggurats than the Ancient Egyptians Pyramids. Ziggurats are a lot like the Mesoamerican pyramids, with their stair-stepped shape and temple tops. But ziggurats were not places of worship to the Sumerians, Assyrians, and Babylonians that built them, they were the gods’ actual homes. In fact, only the priests could enter. And while South American pyramids have long staircases, ziggurats have ramps and steps. Many ziggurats also had seven tiers, representing the seven known planets or the seven heavens.For the most part, the ziggurats that still exist can b e found mainly in Iran and Iraq. Ziggurats and pyramids do greatly differ with function and purpose. As I had stated, Pyramids were thought to be the final resting places of the pharaohs. Ziggurats, however, were built to house the gods. Because of this, only special priests were allowed to go inside the ziggurats. Ziggurats also function as a retreat spot for the priest in case of a flood at the ground level. It also is a complete temple with dwelling places, storages, and courtyards.Zigguratss have steps and ramps with its sides receding. They pyramids have a long stretch of staircases as the Mesoamerican pyramids demonstrated and smoother sides, as the Ancient Egyptian Pyramids showed. The Ziggurats do lack internal chambers unlike the Egyptian Pyramids. The Ziggurats have seven layers that represent the seven planets of heaven. Studying these ancient structures gives us a chance to take a look at the past. It is amazing how these feats of engineering survived this long.Because o f this, we are able to look at the civilizations that built them and how they incorporated these structures into their society. For Ancient Egyptians, it was for the deceased pharaohs as they made their journey to the afterlife. For the Mesoamericans, it was for religious purposes and agricultural renewal. And last for the Mesopotamians, it served as a house where the gods lived. These structures were a representation of the whole universe to these people. It is hard to compare with anything that we have now.

Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in 2010 Essay

Read and Apply: Michael E. Porter (2008), â€Å"The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy†, Harvard Business Review, (January 2008), pp. 2-17 Assignment Questions (AQ) (a) Why has the soft drink industry been so profitable for concentrate producers? Compare the economics of the concentrate business to the bottling business: why is the profitability so different? [50% points] The soft drink industry has been extremely profitable for Concentrate producers. When we study the 5 forces analysis, we come to a conclusion that almost all the forces have contributed significantly in this massive profit generating mechanism. Threat of new entrants is low and there are multiple high barriers to entry. Despite the low cost of establishing a concentrate production plant, the producers have to develop exclusive relations with bottling plants and support them in marketing research, advertising and setting up distribution channels which is difficult for new entrants and require huge capital infusion. Bargaining power of Buyers used to be negligible as concentrate producers used to make bottlers abide by fixed price contracts which made them operate on razor thin margins. After adoption of incidence pricing, the bottling plants renegotiated for different distribution channels and different product ranges as the bargaining power shifted and the prices were increased based on consumer price index and inflation. But this bargaining power was kept in check since concentrate producers did not allow a bottling plant to gain significant market influence and they regularly bought out bottling plants to maintain their control.(Exhibit 3b) Bargaining power of suppliers was minuscule since all products are basic commodities like sweetener, caffeine and color with multiple suppliers who do not hold much bargaining power with a large corporation. Threat of substitute product is suppose to be high since there are a variety of substitutes available which meet the end purpose of quenching the thirst and consumer being open to healthy or low calorie substitutes like tea, juice or energy drink. But the conventional concentrate producer has diversified its product portfolio to meet all demands and keep its consumer base loyal. Also strengthening distribution networks and creating advertisement campaign has led to consumer retention.(Exhibit 8) Competition is high since major brands competing are Coca cola and pepsi who compete at every level, from product range and bottling plants to retailer selection and advertisement. Both concentrate producers are have deep pockets to execute swift decisions and they have adopted similar strategies to gain market share and consolidate. They have a staggering market presence controlling nearly 3/4th of the market and they have surgically acquired or contained all other competitors.(Exhibit 2) By the 5 force analysis, it is visible that the immense market experience and availability of funds had led concentrate producers to use almost all the forces in their advantage to maintain high profitability. In contrast to the concentrate producer, the bottling plants operate on one-third of the profit margin percent, this can be explained by the contrasts in the economics using the 5 force analysis for bottling plants. Threat of new entrants was traditionally low since high capital requirement acts as as high barrier of entry but the threat from the concentrate producer entity emerging as a bottler is high ever since they have started vertical integrations by providing concentration at lower rates for better margins to self-owned entities. Bargaining power of buyers is high since bottling plants have no unique value proposition and they compete with identical competitors for a vastly segmented market. They conduct extensive negotiations with different channels on stock, pricing and space. They develop complex price strategies for maintaining exclusive contracts with nation wide restaurant chains. They have to bid for higher presence among mass merchandisers and retail stores. They also have to provide low-margin fountains and vending machines services to sustain market presence. Threat of substitute is low among bottling plants since they have invested a huge capital on set-up, operational efficiency and R&D. They have a established ground of operations which cannot be easily substituted and they enjoy massive support from concentrate producers in supplier contracts, marketing research and advertisements Bargaining power of suppliers is average where commodities like packaging material and sugar can be obtained easily while concentrate producers control prices due to high dependency on them. But due to the reciprocity nature of dependency, concentrate producers extend advertising support, marketing surveys and strategic integration to loyal bottling plants to focus on volume and carry a wider range of products. The variation of business economics where bottling plants face price constraints, negotiations with every supplier at an individual level, cut-throat competition, high operating costs and an increasing threat of being acquired by the concentrate producer hits the profitability of the bottlers and gives a huge edge to the concentrate producers. (b) How would you characterize the nature of the competition between Coke and Pepsi and how has it impacted the profits of the US carbonated soft drinks (CSD) industry as a whole? [20% points] Coca-cola had maintained high profitability acting as a monopoly since its inception since it did not face any competition. When Pepsi entered the market as a prominent player, it struggled to gather market traction but after the â€Å"Blind taste test† it became a real competitor. The nature of competition has been fierce ranging from better positioning at a single store, to going beyond international borders. Although both the companies have adopted similar strategies, the timing and focus has led to significant success and more significant failures. Some major initiatives by Coca-Cola were developing infrastructure in European countries and Asia which paid heavy returns. It was also a pioneer in introducing new flavors and brands(Exhibit 2) which sharply increased its market share and vertical integration by acquiring bottling plants for better margins(Exhibit 3a) which resulted in stellar financial performances. Pepsi on the other hand gained significant domestic US market when Coca-cola focussed internationally, it was first to get exclusive contracts with restaurant chains and introduce bigger family-size bottles. It also led diversification by transforming into a beverage and food giant by acquiring Frito-Lay, Gatorade and Lipton. Pepsi Bottling Group optimized its operations and maintains a higher % profit/sales over CCE till date(Exhibit 3b). Both companies have also made big mistakes like Coca-cola introducing â€Å"New Coke† and Pepsi giving first-movers advantage to Coke in international markets. Also engaging in a bitter price wars saw their balance sheets in red(Exhibit 5). But they have also worked excellently in rectifying their mistakes like Coke diversifying by acquiring Minute-Maid and Vitamin water drinks. Since over half of Pepsi’s sales were domestic and Coke already had a lead in the International market, Pepsi focussed on markets still up-for-grabs like China, India, Africa and Middle-east. It has since gained significant market share in emerging economies after learning its lesson. Recently, both the companies have undergone significant media bashing with environmental concerns of the PET bottle, health and obesity uproars and sugary content in CSDs, so they have realized the shift in market focus to non-CSDs and diet soft drinks(Exhibit 7). New strategies include more focus on these drinks and both companies are looking to leverage their existing market domination to gain a better market shares and higher profits since margins on these drinks are much higher than CSDs. (c) Compare and contrast the structure and profitability of the emerging non-CSD industry with the key aspects of the traditional CSD industry structure that you covered in part (a). Can Coke and Pepsi repeat their success they had with CSDs in the non-CSDs industry, or will a new competitive landscape & dynamic emerge? [30% points] In late 1990s the soft-drink industry showed signs of permanent shift as the demand for carbonated soft drinks began to fizzle out(Exhibit 7) due to the rising health concern with obesity, high sugar content and perceived risks of high-fructose corn syrup. Diet sodas had already caught a lot of attention and they were quickly replacing conventional sodas, Coke and Pepsi broadened their product range by offering more Diet and herbal drinks. Pepsi was more aggressive in this transformation by acquiring Gatorade and Lipton which outsold Coke products in these categories, Coke followed suit by acquiring EnergyBrands, its largest acquisition ever, but Pepsi maintained a commanding lead in non-carb segment. Both companies also launched bottled water which is the largest sector in non-CSD market by volume(Exhibit 9) The structure and profitability in an emerging non-CSD industry has dynamics very different from the conventional CSD industry which has been played out and matured. The stark contrasts that the structure of this industry lies in the fact that this market is very young and entry of new products changes its dynamics rapidly. The threat of new entrants in this market is very high as concentrate production does not require a lot of investment and innovative products attract a lot of clientele which have led to a stronger position among competitors like Nestle, Unilever and DPS. The bottling plants have strengthened their position in this sector as they have not led Coke and Pepsi influence this market completely. They have been reluctant in introducing non-CSD products as they have no brand loyalty and their existing infrastructure does not support new products. Setting up new infrastructure and pressure from concentrate producers to increase non-CSD turnovers require higher operation costs and lesser profit margins. Concentrate producers are building better relationships with independent bottlers to push non-CSD and alternate drinks since they have much higher margins than CSD(Exhibit 10), concentrate producers are willing to assist bottling plants and they started selling finished goods to bottlers. They have also leveraged the company owned bottling plants by purchasing at lower prices and even marketing directly to retail chains to gain higher profit margin and gain market penetration It is most likely that Coke and Pepsi will repeat their success with this new industry like they did in CSDs for the first and foremost reason that these companies are financially very strong and they have the ability to acquire or contain an emerging competitor. Also they have invested and will continue to invest in understanding the market, so they have established a market trend analysis and they are prepared to tackle upcoming threats by taking the appropriate action. That is the reason that Coke and Pepsi are directly competing with every new product launched in this category and gaining popularity like tea, water or energy drinks. Early diversification in products has strengthened their brand equity which they can leverage in gaining further control in the non-CSD market. Another reason that these companies are likely to succeed is because of vertically integrated network that they have established from manufacturing concentrate to marketing to retailers, they have exclusive contracts with bottling plants and they have spent decades perfecting the distribution network. They can introduce new products in this chain with much more ease and effect rather than new players developing an entire new network. Lastly, since the market in US is moving faster towards non-CSDs than the rest of the world, Coke and Pepsi have gained experience in tackling this change and then they can apply it to the international markets and be the driving force in influencing emerging economies due to their vast strategic global presence.

Explore the extent to which personality traits explain student preferences for specific learning approaches and teaching modalities

Review of the Literature 1.1 IntroductionTo learn more about education and to be able to improve the system to best provide for the individual needs of its learners, this study aims to investigate the link between an individual’s personality and their preferred learning style and teaching modality. There is a shortage of current research on how a student’s personality influences their learning style and preferred teaching modality. There is however, a large body of research that analyses the relationship between personality and learning. Curry (1983) describes learning as a future focused process that involves adaptation of constructs to bring about a change in an individual’s cognitive, practical, affective, social or moral skills which can be observable as a change in behaviour. The learning approach of an individual reflects the way in which they go about the process of learning with regard to their chosen setting, their internal goals, treatment of information, and desire to succeed. Understanding the motives for these individual differences in ways of learning and how this may apply to disparities in achievement has always been a concern for those studying educational practice. Teaching modalities refer to the way in which information is delivered to the student, and the learning environment that is created by the teacher. Higher Education employs several teaching modalities, including traditional lectures, small tutorial groups and one-to-one mentoring. Teaching modalities can vary as a product of the subject being taught, assessment criteria, and the individual preferences of lecturers, who may emphasise more theoretical or more practical approaches, or a combination of the two (Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham & Lewis, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnam, Dissout & Heaven, 2005). Despite this large scope for variability, there is little research into students’ preferences for different teaching modalities, especially into what factors contribute to these preferences. Fielder (1993) suggested that for the most effective teaching, a variety of approaches to teaching should be recruited in order to appeal to the different learning styles and personalities of the students. This hypothesis is supported by a study showing that a variety of teaching modalities was beneficial in engaging more individual learning styles (Dunn & Dunn, 1979). Whilst there has been debate surrounding whether there is a scientific basis for learning styles (Curry, 1983; Pashler et al., 2009), this evidence appears to highlight their relevance to teaching. The large variation in teaching style, learning approach and academic performance poses several questions. Does student personality and their preferred learning approach account for preference of certain teaching modalitiesWhat is the relationship between personality and an individual’s learning approachIt is therefore important to ask, are certain learning approaches suited to specific teaching modalities? The following hypotheses will be tested to investigate the relationship between student personality, preferred learning approach and preferred teaching modality (a) There is a significant relationship between certain personality characteristics and learning approaches. OR Is there a relationship between student personality traits and preferred learning approach? (b) There is a significant relationship between student personality traits and their preferred teaching modality. OR Is there a relationship between student personality traits and their preferred teaching modality? (c) There is a significant relationship between students’ preferred learning approaches and their preferences for teaching modalities OR Is there a relationship between students’ preferred learning approaches and their preferred teaching modality?1.2 Learning ApproachesRecent research has emphasised the important contribution of students’ learning approaches as determinants of how much knowledge they acquire, and how this translates into academic performance (Duff, 2003; Duff, Boyle, & Dunleavy, 2004). In a series of investigations, Biggs (1987, 1992) conceptualised three major learning approaches to classify the way students approach their learning. These were classified as ‘deep’ surface’ and ‘achieving’. A deep approach to learning is characterised by intrinsic motivation, engagement with subject matter, and the desire to learn more detail and thoroughly understand the subject. Deep learners will aim to make the content of a le sson meaningful and develop a thorough understanding. Conversely, students who adopt a surface approach to learning show less interest in the task, avoid any challenging activities, and aim to pass exams rather than enhance their understanding. These students tend to receive information superficially and memorise isolated and unrelated facts (Biggs & Tang, 2007). The achieving approach to learning is characterised by goal-oriented study strategies; based on competition between other students and ego enhancement. This approach lends to students that are motivated by the desire to achieve the top grades regardless of whether they find interest in the task at hand (Biggs, 1987; 1988). Biggs (1987) further divided each of the ‘deep’, ‘surface’ and ‘achieving’ approaches into ‘motive ‘ and ‘strategy’ as student goals may differ from the ways that these students go about achieving them. Previous research shows support for a direct relationship between student personality characteristics and student’s learning approaches (Zhang, 2003; Disth, 2003;). Zhang (2003) indicated that there are positive relationships between extraversion and surface learning, and between agreeableness and surface learning. This finding is supported in a study by Duff et al. (2004), who demonstrated a positive relationship between extraversion and a deep learning approach. Additionally, individuals with conscientious and open personalities have been shown desire to develop deep learning strategies (Zhang, 2003) and those showing strong openness to experience have shown less propensity to being surface learners. Literature has examined several models of learning styles and proposed criticisms of such tools that purport to measure learning styles. One such tool is the Kolb Experiential Learning Model (ELM) (Kolb, 1976). Kolb’s ELM has received criticism that it is neither valid nor reliable, which has detrimental implications for education that could be if employed (Bergsteiner, Avery & Neumann, 2010; Geiger, Boyle & Pinto, 1993). However, an alternative model, the Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) (Honey & Mumford, 1992) has shown good test-retest reliability. Critics have suggested limitations to the LSQ, suggesting that the tool is useful for those students already interested in a particular career choice and would not be reliable enough for students attending non-vocational courses (Reynolds, 1997). Although there has been a debate as to the scientific basis of learning styles (Curry, 1983, Pashler et al., 2009), studies in the literature have provided irrefutable evidence that learning approaches and personality traits are strongly related. It may also be possible to infer that learning approaches have a distinctive value in explaining human behaviour, as learning is such a pervasive feature of being. This is supported by research from Busato, Prins, Elshout and Hamaker (2000), who assert that a learning styles inventory has a diagnostic value for identifying both strengths and weaknesses in the individual study behaviour of students. The present study will explore the extent to which personality and learning styles influence preferred teaching modalities.1.3 Personality The discovery of the â€Å"big five personality traits† can be interpreted as one of the major accomplishments of psychology in the twentieth century. These traits are agreeableness, conscientiousness, culture, emotional stability (versus neuroticism) and extraversion (Goldberg, 1990). Tokar (1995) proposed that the five-factor model is the one of the most â€Å"prominent and heuristic models of personality structure†. Several studies support Tokar’s view finding that the personality traits of the big five model accounts for a large amount of the variability in personality (Goldberg, 1993; Taylor & McDonald, 1999). McCrae and Costa (1995a) acknowledge that personality has many other dimensions, proposing their ‘Model of Person,’ which uses the term ‘characteristic adaptation’ to explain personality traits that are not fundamental characteristics described by the big factor five. These characteristics adaptations are proposed to develop over time and are influenced by environment and experience, yet mediated by personality traits. These include characteristics such as habits and attitudes. The learning approach construct may well be one of such characteristic adaptation. This has been emphasised by a large research base into personality and how it is influences by a variety of variables. These include intellectual satisfaction, student self-esteem, teachers’ perceptions of their control over their students, teaching effectiveness and course type (Lieberman, Stroup-Bernham, & Peel, 1998; McCaffrey, 1996; Parker, 1997; Rimmer, 1997). Additionally the role and influence of thinking styles has been addressed (Zhang & Huang, 2001; Zhang, 2000a; Zhang 2000b). This emphasises the many possible influences that may be at work on the development of one’s learning approach. The work of Costa & McCrae (1985-1992) has been successful in accommodating the big five personality constructs already assessed by Biggs (1987) and Eysenck (1975). They investigated the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and found that it was able to reliably assess the five personality dimensions. Other research into this inventory showed that it provided both good internal validity (Holden; 1994; Furnham 1996) and external validity using Holland’s (1994) Self Directed Search (Tokar & Swanson, 1995; Fuller, Holland & Johnson, 1999). This is all suggestive that these five predominant characteristics are reliable, replicable and representative of distinct traits. Neuroticism (N) at the extreme end of the scale may be characterised by anxiety nervousness and emotional lability. Individuals high on the N scale tend to have a pessimistic outlook and experience negative feelings that include emotional instability, guilt, embarrassment, and low self-esteem. The extraversion (E) subscale tends to be associated with the sociable and assertive individuals who prefer to work in a team with other people. Openness to Experience (O) is characterised by preference for variety, openness to change and variety, active imagination and independence of judgement. Additionally, people who score high on the O scale tend to be less conservative and traditional, however they also value and respect other people’s beliefs and conventions. Individuals scoring high on the culture (C) scale are characterised as being strong-willed, responsive and trustworthy with a strong sense of purpose. They also tend to be focused on task and goal outcome and are achievement oriented (Goldberg, 1990). Murray-Harvey (1994) observed that some descriptions of learning approaches are best formulated in terms of individual personality. For example, Shabolt (1978) demonstrated that those showing introverted or neurotic personality traits performed in conditions of structured teaching than when exposed to unstructured teaching methods. Eysenck (1978) also noted that personality and learning are closely linked, finding that extroverts tend to socialise during learning periods, are easily distracted from academic work and find concentration more difficult. Eysenck (1978) also postulated that those showing the neuroticism trait tend to let nerves interfere with their work. Furnham (1992) expanded this work, using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975; 1991) and the Learning Styles Questionnaire (Honey & Mumford, 1992). Findings revealed that all elements of learning style were related to at least one of the elements of the personality traits, suggesting an ine xtricable link between the two. Furthering this hypothesis, Jackson and Lawtey-Jones (1996) found evidence for a reversal of the relationship, finding that whilst learning styles could be fully explained by personality scales, additionally, all learning styles correlated significantly with at least one personality trait. Furnham (1992) however, suggested that an individual’s learning approach may be interpreted as a derivative of personality rather than a separate entity. Findings from Zhang (2003) strongly suggest reason for further research into the field of personality and learning, finding that the two are related, but are individual constructs (reporting a quarter overlap), whereas Duff et. al. (2004) report an even greater relationship between learning approaches and personality traits. Duff (2004) and Zhang (2003) reported similar associations between openness and a deep approach to learning and neuroticism and surface approach. Extroverts were proposed to adopt a surface approach (Zhang, 2003), however Duff et al. (2004) found that agreeableness purported a surface approach. Furthering this, one may deduce that learning approaches act as indirect influences of personality traits on learning success. This may be highlighted by some personality traits being more strongly related to some learning approaches than others. These mediating factors may be identified through the consideration of how an individual may adapt their behaviour to suit their personality. For example, the surface approach, which accounts for a potential of failure and comparison with others, is related to neuroticism, and openness, which is associated with curiosity, imagination, and intellectual values, is related to the deep approach. Again, the personality trait of conscientiousness is reflected in the thorough nature of the deep approach. Other research highlights that it is a variety of personality traits that are associated with each learning approach and that there is not a single distinct contributing trait per approach (Diseth, 2003). There are arguments to suggest a dubious link between personality traits and learning approaches, with belief that it cannot be modelled (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006) due to the dubious nature of learning approaches. Despite this resistance, others authors have found evidence and argument that the learning approach concept is associated strongly with personality (Furnham, 1992; Gelade 2002; Jackson and Lawty-Jones, 1996). Messick (1994) proposed that learning approaches, when in conjunction with other influence and constructs can be seen to provide a metaphorical bridge between cognition and personality. This implies that learning approaches can act as mediators in bringing learning material to the individual and making it relevant. The connection between personality and learning approach has been under investigation for many years (Jung 1921; Myers & Briggs, 1962), which highlights the importance that has been placed on the understanding of this construct. Information on the relationship between personality and learning approaches allows for insight into the motivations and strategies that may be used by individuals when learning from a very young age. This will be especially useful for those personality traits that show persist throughout life, and will enable tailoring of education and learning advice appropriately. Additionally, it is important to know if personality and learning approaches are distinct psychological constructs and if so whether these can account for students’ teaching preferences. This is important as teaching methods are a strong influence on students’ learning and, in turn, their academic performance.Teaching ModalitiesFischer & Fischer (1979) define teaching style as a â€Å"pervasive way of approaching learners that might be consistent with several methods of teaching†. Conversely, Conti (1989) argued that teaching style is less pervasive, suggesting that it a construct of the personal char acteristics and qualities of the teacher and remains consistent in various situations. Knowles (1970) emphasised the importance of teaching style on the learning experience, asserting that â€Å"the behaviour of the teacher influences the character of the learning climate more than any other single factor†. Teaching itself has been suggested to consist of an instructor’s personal behaviour and the media used to transmit or retrieve data to or from the learner (Gregorc, 1982). The success of teaching style and the accomplishment this data transmission and retrieval may depend largely on matching. Matching is defined in terms of a compatibility of the environment and the interactive effects of the person (Hunt 1979). Early studies carried in the US such as that by Simon (1987) aimed to determine the relationship between students’ preferred learning approaches and their preferred teaching styles of college tutors. He administered the Cranfield Learning styles inventory to 4,000 students. His studies revealed that students indicated a preference for fewer lectures and a more hands on experience. Students showed preference for less faculty directed learning and more student independence, also preferring peer and instructor affiliation. Implications from this study were that instructors should decrease the number of lectures in favour for an increase direct experience where students become more involved in the course and programme direction. One of the strongest measures of learning success is academic achievement (Zimmerman, 1990), therefore the success of learning approaches and teaching modalities may be assessed through individual performance. Personality type has been shown to be a predictor of academic performance, with those with conscientious personality types achieving academic success across a range of subjects (Busato et al. 2000). Additionally, Lieberman, Stroup-Benham and Peel (1998) found that conscientiousness, agreeableness and extraversion correlated with intellectual satisfaction at medical school. When considering this relationship, it is important to consider the influences that personality type has on learning approach and how much this may contribute to the outcome of academic success. There have been many further studies relating to personality and academic achievement, which as discussed above is likely mediated through learning style, however there is an absence of research investigating the infl uence of teaching modalities. Current studies pertaining to academic achievement, learning approaches and teaching modalities found that students whose preferred learning approaches matched with their teacher’s preferred teaching modality received higher grades than those whose did not match (Mathews 1995; Rains, 1978; Hunter 1979). This highlights the importance of matching and concordance between student and teacher. This is supported by research suggesting that teaching modalities and students’ learning approaches interact to affect student learning (Saracho, 1990; Saracho & Spodek, 1994; Taylor, 1994; Wentura, 1985). The current research base would be greatly improved by further investigation into the relationship between learning approaches and students’ preferred teaching styles, especially how these are both mediated by the individual student’s personality. Recent research carried out by Furnham (1996) begins to explore this avenue. 221 students took the Neo Five-Factor Personality Inventory, were assessed on their learning approaches and also their preferred teaching modalities. Personality trait correlated with learning approach, and both of these individually had an effect on preference for certain teaching modalities. The study employed Marton and Saljo’s (1976) strategy to assess teaching modalities and covered students’ approaches, styles, motivations and study methods (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Entwistle, 1997). Conclusions were that emotional stability, agreeableness, and deep learning approaches were associated with preference for interactive teaching and lessons. These personality traits were also negatively related learning via a surface approach. Findings showed that those with a preference for interactive teaching were likely to have a personality which combined emotional stability and agreeableness, and thes e students would prefer a deep learning approach. Bibliography Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C., & Neuman, R. (2010) Kolb’s experiential learning model: critique from a modelling perspective. Studies in Continuing Education, 32 (1), 29-46. Biggs, J. B. (1988) Assessing students approach to learning. Australian Psychologist, 23 (2), 197-206. Biggs, J. B. (1987) student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn. Australian Council for Educational research. Busato, V.V., Prins, F J., Elshout, J.J., & Haymaker, C. (2000) Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1057-1068. Chamorro-Premuzic, T.,Furnahm A., & Lewis, M. (2007)Personality and approaches to learning predict preferences for different teaching methods. Learning and individual differences, 17, 241-250. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., Dissout, G., & Heaven. P. (2005) Personality and preference for academic assessment. A study with Australian university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 15 (4), 247-256. Conti, G. J. (1989) Assessing Teaching Style in Continuing Education. New Directions For Continuing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992) Revised EO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc., Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992) The NEO PI/EO-FFI manual. Odessa, FL: psychological Assessment Resources. Curry, L. (1983) An Organisation of learning styles theory and constructs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Quebec. Diseth, A. (2003) Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement. European Journal of Psychology, 17, 143-155. Duff, A. (2004) The role of cognitive learning styles in accounting education. Journal of Accounting Education. 22, 29-52. Duff, A. (2003) Quality of Learning on a MBA programme. The Impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences. Educational psychology, 23 (2), 123-139. Duff, A. Boyle, E., & Dunleavy, J. F. (2004) The relationship between personality, approach to learning on academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1907-1920. Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979) Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they : : : can they : : : be matchedEducational Leadership, 36, 238–244. Entwistle, N. (1981) Styles of teaching and learning; an integrated outline of educational psychology for students. Teachers and lecturers. New York. NY: John Wiley & Sons. Entwistle, N. J. (1997) The Approaches to Study skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST). Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction. Eysenck, H. J. (1978) The development of personality and its relation to learning. In S. Murray-Smith (Ed). Melbourne studies in education. Australia: Melbourne University Press. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S.B. (1975) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S.B. (1991) Manual of the Personality Scales. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Fischer, B. B., & Fischer, L. (1979) Styles in teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 36, 245-254. Furnam, A. (1996) The FIRO-B the learning style Questionnaire and the Five Factor Model. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 11, 285-299. Furnham, A. (1992) Personality and learning Style; a study of three instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 429-438. Geiger, M. A., Boyle, E. J., & Pinto, J. (1993) An examination of ipsative and normative versions of Kolb’s revised Learning Styles Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 53, 717-726. Gelade, G. A. (2002) Creative style, personality and artistic endeavour. Social and general Psychology Monograph, 128(3), 213-234. Goldberg, L. R. (1990) An alternative description to personality: The big five structure. Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology. Gregorc, A. F. (1982) Gregorc style delineator: Development technical and administrative manual. Columbia: Gregorc Associates. Holland, J. L. (1994) Self-directed search. Odessa, FL; psychological Assessment Resources. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992) the manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey. Hunt, D. E. (1979) Learning style and student needs: An introduction to conceptual level. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs. 27-38. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Hunter, W. E. (1979) Relationships between learning styles, grades, and student rating of instruction. Columbia, MO: Department of Higher and Adult Education. Jackson, C., & Lawtey-Jones, M. (1996) Explaining the overlap between personality and learning styles. Personality and Individual differences, 20 (3) 293-300. Jung, C, G. (1921) Psychological Types. NJ: Princeton University Press. Knowles, M. (1970) Andragogy: An emerging technology for adult learning. The Modern Practice of Adult Education. Association Press: New York. Kolb, D. A. (1976) Learning style inventory: technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer 7 Company. Lieberman, S. A., Stroup-Bernham. C. A., & Peel, J. L. (1998) Predictors of intellectual satisfaction in medical school: sociodemographic, cognitive and personality. Academic Medicine, 73 (10), S44-S46. Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976) on qualative differences in learning 11: Outcome as a function of the learners conception of the task. British Journal of Educational psychology, 46, 115-127. Matthews, D. B. (1995) An investigation of the learning styles of students at selected postsecondary and secondary institutions in South Carolina. Research Bulletin, 60, 1-151. Mccaffrey, J. D. Jr. (1996) Instructor personality, course type and teaching effectiveness in Higher Education. Humanities and social Sciences, 56(9A), 3472. McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1995) Trait explanations in personality psychology. European Journal of Psychology, 9, 231-252. Myers, I. B., & Briggs, K. C. (1962) Myers-Briggs indicator. C.A: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. Parker, W.D. (1997) a validation of the five-factor model of personality in academically talented youth across observers and instruments. Personality and Individual Differences. 25(6), 1005-1025. Raines, R. H. (1978) A comparative analysis of learning styles and teaching styles of mathematics students and instructors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Reynolds, M. (1997) Learning Styles: a critique. Management Learning, 28, 115-133. Rimmer, R. J. (1997) Personality and teachers’ student control ideology. Dissertation Abstracts International- Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 57 (11A), 4617. Steinberg, R. J. (1997) thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press. Saracho, O. N. (1990) The match and mismatch of teachers and students’ cognitive styles. Early Child Development and Care, 54, 99-109. Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1994) Matching preschool children’s and teachers’ cognitive styles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 683-689. Simon, W. (1987) Public school teaching: an alternative. Science 235 (4786), 267. Taylor, A. L. (1994) The relationship between graduate students’ growth in learning (self-perceived) and the match between their preferred and experienced methods of teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International (Section A): Humanities and Social Sciences, 54 (7A): 2423. Tokar, D. (1995) Evaluation and correspondence between Holland’s vocational personality typology and the five-factor model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55 (9B) 4217. Tokar, D, M., & Swanson, J. L. (1995) Evaluation of the correspondence between Holland’s vocational personality typology and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 46 91) 89-108. Wentura, D. F. (1985) The effects of matching teaching styles and learning styles on student performance in university classes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (3A): 605. Witcher, A. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. C. (2001). Characteristics of effective teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the Schools, 8, 45-57. Zhang, L. F. (2003) Does the big five predict learning approachesPersonality and Individual differences, 34, 1431-1445. Zhang, L. F. (2000a) University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: an investigation of the Bigg’s 3P model. The Journal of psychology, 134 (1), 37-55. Zhang, L. F. (2000b) are thinking styles and personalities relatedEducational Psychology, 20 (3), 271283. Zhang, L. F. & Steinberg, R. (2006) the nature of intellectual styles. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Zhang, L. F. (2002) Thinking styles and the Big Five Personality Traits. Educational psychology, 22 (1), 17-31. Zimmerman, B. J. (1996) Enhancing student academic and health functioning: A self regulatory perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 11 (1), 47.

Doesnt fit her ( wrote it in the other instruction box) Assignment - 1

Doesnt fit her ( wrote it in the other instruction box) - Assignment Example Consequently, the church cannot significantly influence or prevent the state from continuing its policies, statutes, and laws (Stearns, 2011). Likewise, the secularism concept correctly affirms all religions have the same or equal level in society. One religious group should not be above or superior to another religious group. For example, the Buddhism religion should be superior to the Christian religion. Likewise, the Islam religion must not be superior to the Christian religion (Stearns, 2011). Further, James Wood rightfully uses the Atheist example to prove Christianity can be reconciled with secularism. The atheist (secular) questions the theory of the big_bang explosion concept, creating the possibility of Christianity’s creation concept within a secular environment. The explosion concept disavows God’s creating the universe. By questioning the concept of the Big Bang theory, it is like a Democrat Party person questioning whether he or she is truly a Democrat. In another article, James Wood correctly explains the issue of secularism to Gopnik. The discussion focused on current day society (The New Yorker, 2014). Gopnik’s growing up years includes having a secular family. Gopnik grew up in a deeply religious environment. Wood grew up in a Christian family environment. Both Gopnik and Wood accept the Atheism concept. Atheism disavows the presence of a God who created the universe. Both Wood and Gopnik espouse the unbridled democratic exercise of different religious beliefs and the same beliefs’ related experiences, indicating Christianity concepts can thrive well in a secular atheist environment. Furthermore, Christianity rightfully dictates that religious leaders can advice the people on how to act or not act on certain political issues. The Christian religious leaders may lead the people to rally against the passage of certain laws that run against certain religious teachings. Such teachings

Monitoring Internal Training Load using perception based measures - Essay

Monitoring Internal Training Load using perception based measures - RPE's - Essay Example Training loads are always adjusted at various times during the cycle of training to either increase or decrease the levels of fatigue depending on the training phase. Fatigue is a phenomenon that is complex and multifaceted having several mechanisms that are possible. Monitoring the training load of individuals is seen by many people as an important factor in the determination of whether an individual is adapting to the program of training or not. It is also important to minimise having the risk of non-functional overreaching, illness and injury. Today, monitoring training load has become a common thing, and several reasons lie behind the practice. Inexperience and knowledge on the use of monitoring load techniques may lead to an inability to implement a sustainable and practical system and inability to interpreting the collected information. In order to gaining the knowledge and understanding of the training load and its general effect on an athlete, several markers are available for the coaches, scientists and athletes to use. Nonetheless, few of these markers do have scientific evidence that is strong in support of their usage, and there is yet to have a single one in practice (Viveiros et al. 2011). When monitoring training load, the units of the load are thought of as either internal or external. In the past, external training load was frequently used as the foundation of a several system of monitoring. Whereas the external load is important in knowing the completed work, capabilities, and the athletes capacities, the internal load forms the critical part in determine the training load and the after that adaptation. The training load is influenced in most cases by the volume and intensity of training. A precise knowledge of the training loads that is completed during training is beneficial to the coach as well as the athlete. The coach can use