Comparing All Quiet On The Western Front, The Wars, and A...

All Quiet On The Western Front, The Wars, and A Farewell To Arms Any and all events in ones life may change a person profoundly, but the effect may not always be as expected. For instance, situations of despair may cause feelings of depression and uncertainty to develop in an individual, as would likely be expected. However, those same situations could ultimately lead to a sense of fulfilment or enlightenment. In the novels All Quiet On The Western Front by Erich Remarque, The Wars by Timothy Findley, and A Farewell To Arms by Ernest Hemmingway, the varying possibilities of the effects of war on an individual are clearly displayed. In All Quiet On The Western Front, Paul Baumer finds the war has changed not only the way he views†¦show more content†¦That aspect of his previous life seems unreal and incomprehensible, perhaps even vague because since he came to the war he feels cut off from his early life. It is as if he has lost the person he used to be. Not only does Paul feel he has lost himself as he used to be, but he also believes tha t he would not be able to recapture his past, even if given the chance: †¦these memories of former times do not awaken desire so much as sorrow†¦Once we had such desires-but they return not. They are past, they belong to another world that is gone from us. (Remarque, pg.106). From this quote it is clear that Paul feels his childhood is out of reach. He has lost his desire to recapture his memories, perhaps recognising that they may not mean all that much to him now anyway, due to the fact that he feels he has already lost the world those memories originated from. When Paul returns home on leave, he realises that it may not be him losing a previous world of memories, rather the previous world is losing him: I cannot feel at home amongst these things†¦There is a distance, a veil between us. (Remarque, Pg.139). Paul feels out of place when he returns home, reinforcing his fears that the war has changed him irreversibly. As Paul recognises this occurring change througho ut the novel, his thoughts and actions become reclusive. After killing an enemy soldier in battle, the effects of the war on his sense ofShow MoreRelatedOrganisational Theory230255 Words   |  922 Pagessituates organization theory within the scholarly debates on modernism and postmodernism, and provides an advanced introduction to the heterogeneous study of organizations, including chapters on phenomenology, critical theory and psychoanalysis. Like all good textbooks, the book is accessible, well researched and readers are encouraged to view chapters as a starting point for getting to grips with the field of organization theory. Dr Martin Brigham, Lancaster University, UK McAuley et al. provide a

Torralba and Ambrona - Lower Paleolithic Sites in Spain

Torralba and Ambrona are two open-air Lower Paleolithic (Acheulean) sites located two kilometers (about 1 mile) apart on the Ambrona River in the Soria region of Spain, 150 km (93 mi) northeast of Madrid, Spain. The sites are at ~1100-1150 meters (3600-3750 feet) above sea level on either side of the Masegar river valley. Both were thought by excavators F. Clark Howell and Leslie Freeman to contain important evidence for 300,000-year-old hunting and butchering of mammoth by Homo erectus—a pretty revolutionary idea for the 1960s. More recent investigations and developing technologies have shown that Torralba and Ambrona do not have identical stratigraphies, and were occupied at least 100,000 years apart. Further, research has rejected much of Howell and Freemans ideas of the site. Although Torralba and Ambrona turned out not at all to be what their primary excavators thought, the importance of the two sites lies in the notion of ancient butchering and how that stimulated the development of techniques to define what evidence would support that type of behavior. Recent research at Ambrona has also supported the North African origin for the Iberian Acheulean during the Middle Pleistocene. Cutmarks and Taphonomy Howell and Freeman believed that the two sites represented the mass killing and butchering of extinct elephants, deer, and cows that took place at the side of a lake approximately 300,000 years ago. Elephants were driven into the marshes by fire, they hypothesized, then dispatched with wooden spears or stones. Acheulean bifaces and other stone tools were then used to batter open the animal skulls; sharp-edged flakes were used to slice meat and disarticulate joints. American archaeologist Lewis Binford, writing about the same time, argued that although the evidence didnt support butchering or killing, it did support scavenging behavior: but even Binford didnt have the technological advances that have dissolved the previous interpretations. Howell based his argument for hunting and butchery on the presence of cutmarks—longitudinal slices evident in the surfaces of the bones. This argument was tested in a seminal article by American archaeologists Pat Shipman and Jennie Rose, whose microscopic investigations first began to define the diagnostic features of cut marks. Shipman and Rose found that there was a very small percentage of genuine cutmarks in the bone assemblages, accounting for less than 1% of the bones they looked at. In 2005, Italian archaeologist Paolo Villa and colleagues described further taphonomic studies of the faunal assemblage from Ambrona and concluded that while bone and stone artifacts show varying degrees of mechanical abrasion, there is no clear evidence of either hunting or butchery. Animal Bone and Tool Assemblages Animal bone from the Lower Complex levels from Ambrona (dated to 311,000-366,000 based on Uranium Series-Electron Spin Resonance U/ESR) are dominated by extinct elephant bone (Elephas (Palaeoloxodon) antiquus), deer (Dama cf. dama and Cervus elaphus), horse (Equus caballus torralbae) and cattle (Bos primigenius). Stone tools from both sites are associated with the Acheulean tradition, although there are very few of them. According to Howell and Freemans two sets of excavations, ivory points were found at both sites: Torralbas assemblages included 10 and Ambrona 45, all made from elephant tusks. However, Villa and DErricos 2001 investigations of those points revealed a broad variability in length, width, and stem length, inconsistent with patterned tool production. Based on the presence of eroded surfaces, Villa and DErrico concluded that none of the points are indeed points at all, but rather are natural remnants of elephant tusk breakage. Stratigraphy and Dating A close examination of the assemblages indicates that they were likely disturbed. Torralba assemblages, in particular, appear disturbed, with up to one-third of the bones exhibiting edge-rounding, a characteristic thought to be the result of the erosive effects of having been rolled in water. Both occupations are large in area, but with a low density of artifacts, suggesting that the smaller and lighter elements have been removed, again suggesting dispersal by water, and surely by a combination of displacement, redeposition, and perhaps mixing between adjacent levels. Research at Torralba and Ambrona Torralba was discovered during installation of a railway in 1888 and first excavated by the Marques de Cerralbo in 1907–1911; he also discovered the Ambrona site. The two sites were first systematically excavated by F. Clark Howell and Leslie Freeman in 1961–1963 and again in 1980–1981. A Spanish team led by Santonja and Perez-Gonzalez ran an interdisciplinary research project at Ambrona between 1993–2000, and again between 2013–2015. The most recent excavations at Ambrona have been part of work identifying evidence for an African origin of the Acheulean stone tool industry in the Iberian peninsula between MIS 12-16. Ambronas levels dated to MIS 11 included characteristic Acheulean handaxes and cleavers; other sites supporting an African Acheulean include Gran Dolina and Cuesta de la Bajada among others. This represents, say Santonja and colleagues, evidence of an influx of African hominids across the straits of Gibraltar approximately 660,000-524,000 years ago. Sources Falguà ¨res C, Bahain J-J, Pà ©rez-Gonzà ¡lez A, Mercier N, Santonja M, and Dolo J-M. 2006. The Lower Acheulian site of Ambrona, Soria (Spain): ages derived from a combined ESR/U-series model. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:149–157.Postigo-Mijarra JM, Gà ³mez-Manzaneque F, and Morla C. 2017. Woody macroremains from the Acheulian site of Torralba: Occurrence and palaeoecology of Pinus cf. sylvestris in the Middle Pleistocene of the Iberian Peninsula. Comptes Rendus Palevol 16(3):225–234.Shipman P, and Rose J. 1983. Evidence of butchery and hominid activities at Torralba and Ambrona; an evaluation using microscopic techniques. Journal of Archaeological Science 10(5):465–474.Santonja M, Pà ©rez-Gonzà ¡lez A, Panera J, Rubio-Jara S, and Mà ©ndez-Quintas E. 2016. The coexistence of Acheulean and Ancient Middle Palaeolithic techno-complexes in the Middle Pleistocene of the Iberian Peninsula. Quaternary International 411(Part B):367-377.Santonja M, Rubio-Ja ra S, Panera J, Sà ¡nchez-Romero L, Tarrià ±o A, and Pà ©rez-Gonzà ¡lez A. 2017. Ambrona revisited: The Acheulean lithic industry in the Lower Stratigraphic Complex. Quaternary International: In press.Villa P, Soto E, Santonja M, Pà ©rez-Gonzà ¡lez A, Mora R, Parcerisas J, and Sesà © C. 2005. New data from Ambrona: closing the hunting versus scavenging debate. Quaternary International 126–128:223–250. doi:

Coopertaive Learning Free Essays

string(27) " of three to four members\." Cooperative learning is a teaching method used by educators in all grade levels, in all areas of curriculum, and there are many different ways that cooperative learning can be applied in the classroom. The use of cooperative learning centralizes on the goal of getting students to understand the material presented. Cooperative learning allows students to communicate their ideas with each other, brainstorm responses or ideas, and work together to solve problems. We will write a custom essay sample on Coopertaive Learning or any similar topic only for you Order Now The importance of students becoming more involved with the learning process has been emphasized and needs to be implemented in classrooms around the globe (Ross, Seaborn, Wilson, 2002). Multiple studies have been conducted on student-lead learning groups and the results are supportive of cooperative learning. â€Å"Research on cooperative learning is one of the greatest success stories in the history of educational research† (Slavin R. E. , Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning, 1991). The enthusiasm for cooperative learning is widespread and this paper will explore the history and methods of cooperative learning. The strategy of cooperative learning was developed to reduce competition in American schools (Knowles, 1971). Knowles explains that in 1959 James Coleman sought to reduce competition in American schools, which he deemed to be a negative component to the education system (1971). Coleman conducted a two-year study of students at nine Midwest high schools and developed what he called a â€Å"climate of values† for the â€Å"adolescent society† in which he conducted his study. Based on his findings and research, Coleman suggested that instead of encouraging competition in a classroom setting, which he stated he felt impedes the process of education, schools should introduce a more cooperative approach to instruction (Knowles, 1971). Many researchers have since elaborated on the work of James Coleman. Currently, some of the most published researchers in the field are as follows: Dr. Robert Slavin, Dr. Spencer Kagan, David and Roger Johnson. Each of these researchers has developed theories and strategies that can be used to effective implement cooperative learning. Dr. Robert Slavin suggests cooperative learning for enhancing student achievement focuses on two important elements: group goals and individual accountability (Slavin R. E. , Synthesis of research on cooperative learning, 1991). Dr. Slavin reported that when group goals and individual accountability are used, achievement effects of cooperative learning are consistently positive (Slavin R. E. , Synthesis of research on cooperative learning, 1991). Dr. Slavin noted that positive results from the implementation of cooperative learning could be found at all grade levels, in all major subjects, and in rural, urban and suburban schools (Slavin R. E. , Synthesis of research on cooperative learning, 1991). Dr. Slavin goes on to state that the effects of cooperative education are equally positive for all levels of achievers (Slavin R. E. , Synthesis of research on cooperative learning, 1991). It is also important to mention that Dr. Slavin has found that the positive effects of cooperative learning have been found in areas such as the following: self-esteem, intergroup relations, acceptance of accountability, handicapped students, attitudes toward school and the ability to work cooperatively (Slavin R. E. , Synthesis of research on cooperative learning, 1991). Dr. Spencer Kagan’s model of cooperative learning advocates for two basic principles. Dr. Kagan states, â€Å"The world is not just competitive and in some important respects is becoming less so; I do not advocate exclusive use of cooperative learning methods, but rather a healthy balance of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic classroom structures to prepare students for the full range of social situations† (Kagan, 1999). Dr. Kagan’s structures stress positive interpersonal peer relationships, equality, self-esteem and achievement. Dr. Kagan reported that cooperative learning teaches empathy and an understanding of those who are different from oneself by building ethnic relation between students. In addition, Dr. Kagan has credited cooperative learning with increasing students’ higher level thinking skills (Kagan, 1999). Dr. Kagan stresses his ideas by stating, â€Å"At an accelerating rate we move into a rapidly changing information-based, high -technology, and interdependent economy. Along with the traditional role of providing students with basic skills and information, increasingly schools must produce students capable of higher-level thinking skills, communication skills, and social skills† (Kagan, 1999). David and Roger Johnson have identified five basic elements of cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson state these pillars of cooperative learning to be the following: individual accountability, positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, social skills and group processing (Johnson Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, 1999). Johnson and Johnson have reported that it is critical for teachers to understand the five basic elements of cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson state that understanding and developing the five elements, â€Å"†¦allows teachers to (a) adapt cooperative learning to their unique circumstances, needs, and students, (b) fine tune their use of cooperative learning, and (c) prevent and solve problems students have in working together (Johnson Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, 1999). Johnson and Johnson also stress that cooperative learning ensures all students are meaningfully and actively involved in learning, which will limit disruptive, off-task behaviors in the classroom. Cooperative learning is thought of as a versatile method of instruction that can be used in a variety of ways. Cooperative learning groups can be implemented to teach specific topic, to ensure knowledge and comprehension of information presented, or to provide long-term support for academic proces s (Slavin Madden, 2001). Formal cooperative learning groups are created to achieve a specific purpose, have fixed members and can have duration of one class period or several weeks. Johnson and Johnson describe formal cooperative learning groups as consisting of students working together to achieve a shared learning goal (Johnson Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, 1999). Informal cooperative learning groups are typically temporary and do not have fixed members. Johnson and Johnson state that, â€Å"During a lecture, demonstration, or film, informal cooperative learning can be used to (a) focus student attention on the material being learned, (b) set a mood conductive to learning, (c) help set expectations as to what will be covered in a class session, (d) ensure that students cognitively process material being taught, and (e) provide closure to an instructional session. † (Johnson Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, 1999). Cooperative based groups are long term, heterogeneous, and consist of three to four members. You read "Coopertaive Learning" in category "Papers" Johnson and Johnson describe cooperative based groups as base groups. Johnson and Johnson state, â€Å"Base groups give the support, encouragement, and assistance each member needs to make academic progress and develop cognitively and socially in healthy ways. Base groups meet daily in elementary school and twice a week in secondary school. They are permanent and provide the long-term caring peer relationships necessary to influence members consistently to work hard in school (Johnson Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, 1999). In order for these types of cooperative learning group to be successful, it is essential for the five basic elements identified by Johnson and Johnson to be included. The basic elements are often referenced by the acronym â€Å"PIGS FACE†. If these elements are not incorporated then cooperative learning is not taking place. The five basic elements are outlined below with a description following each term. Positive interdependence is the percepti on gains that of individuals or groups are linked, so that one cannot succeed unless everyone is successful (Kagan, 1999) (Johnson Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, 1999). Individual accountability exists when each individual group member is assessed and results are given back to the student and the group. Individual accountability tests for understanding from individuals and prevents one member of the group from performing all the work (Johnson Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, 1999). Group processing exists when group members converse on the group achievement and individual achievement of goals. Group processing allows students to work through and difficulties relating to each other or the achievement of the group (Johnson Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, 1999). Social skills are the skills cooperative education groups need to develop to effectively work together and maintain the group (Slavin Madden, 2001). It fosters the growth of social skills that are needed to succeed in the classroom, workplace and community in individuals that are socially unskilled (Orlich, Harder, Callahan, Trevisan, Brown, 2010). Face-to-face promotive interaction promotes each group member’s success through helping, assisting, supporting, and encouraging each member to be successful (Johnson Johnson, Making cooperative learning work, 1999). Once the five basic elements of cooperative learning have been addressed, the teacher can implement cooperative learning strategies in the classroom. There are wide varieties of cooperative learning strategies and a few are described below. Think-Pair-Share as described by Dr. Slavin, â€Å"This is a four-step discussion strategy that incorporates wait time and aspects of cooperative learning. Students and teachers learn to listen while a question is posed, think of a response, pair with a neighbor to discuss responses, and share their responses with the whole class. (Slavin R. E. , Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning, 1991). Jigsaw as described by Dr. Kagan, â€Å"Students are divided into competency groups of four to six students, each of which is given a list of subtopics to research. Individual members of each group then break off to work with the â€Å"experts† from other groups, researching a part of the material being studied, after which they return to their starting body in the role of instructor for their subcategory. (Kagan, 1999) Student Team Achievement Divisions is a teaching method that is made up of five major components including a whole group presentation, student practice teams, quizzes on the presented information, setting goals for improved achievement levels, and team recognition based on performance (Slavin R. E. , Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning, 1991). Roundtable is a strategy that can be used for brainstorming, reviewing or practicing while fostering teambuilding. There are two variations of roundtable that a teacher and use in the classroom. In sequential form, students are in groups of three or more with one-piece of paper and one writing instrument. The teacher poses a question that can have multiple answers. Students take turns writing their answer on the paper and passing the paper around the group. When time is called, the group with the most answers listed is recognized. In simultaneous form each student starts with a piece of paper, writes an answer and passes the paper, so multiple papers are being passed at once (Kagan, 1999). The three-step interview is a structured group activity. Students take turns being the interviewer and interviewee. Pairs then join to form groups of four. Students take turns introducing their partners and share what they learned from their partners (Kagan, 1999). Although aforementioned strategies are imperially based, there is a discussion-taking place about the value of cooperative learning. Most educators agree that cooperative learning celebrates diversity by allowing students to work with all types of people and allows students to acknowledge individual differences (Ross, Seaborn, Wilson, 2002). Research has shown that cooperative learning can benefit student’s interpersonal development and provide more opportunities for personal feedback (Ross, Seaborn, Wilson, 2002). In addition, researchers have found that cooperative learning actively engages students in learning and there is a variety of methods available for teachers to use (Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis, 2000). Some critics of cooperative learning suggest that group work is an avoidance of teaching. They stress that cooperative learning places the burden of being responsible for each other’s learning on group members (Ross, Seaborn, Wilson, 2002). Some research has shown that lower achieving students could potentially fall behind due to a passive nature or lack of self-confidence in the group. If high achieving students dominate group activities and discussions, lower achieving students might feel uncomfortable and isolated from the group, which could lead to the learning opportunity passing by them (Ross, Seaborn, Wilson, 2002). Johnson, Johnson and Stanne summarize the research on cooperative learning in this way, â€Å"Knowing that cooperative learning can significantly increase student achievement when properly implemented does not mean, however, that all operationalizations of cooperative will be effective or that all operationalizations will be equally effective. † (Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis, 2000) In conclusion, cooperative learning is an instructional approach that has been shown to promote a variety of positive cognitive, affective, and social outcomes. The intent of cooperative learning is to foster academic achievement through student discussions, learning from each other and dividing tasks to align with student strengths. I feel that cooperative learning gives students an opportunity to establish a group culture and work within the constraints of that culture. I believe that students will carry this cultural paradigm into adulthood. I also believe that cooperative learning promotes diversity and cross-cultural friendships. Through cooperative learning, I believe schools can play a significant role in reducing racism, prejudice and discrimination in the larger society. How to cite Coopertaive Learning, Papers

Disability and Community Life-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Choose one form of disability and community life and highlight the barriers and solutions mainly in Australia and some problems widely. Answer: Disability Employment Disability The employment barriers in Australia are quite significant factors for the service professionals. The most significant employment barriers are: Discriminative behaviour at the workplace. Lack of knowledge regarding the workplace rights. Lack of proper flexibility. Mismanagement of the superannuation process (Morris et al., 2014). Issues with the workplace conditions and environments. The issues with these areas are the major considerable factors in managing the employment factors in Australia. However, it can be inferred that the employees require gathering the adequate knowledge regarding the workplace rights and policies. The elimination of the discriminative attitudes would be much helpful in mitigating the issues with the employment barriers. Community Life Education life in Community It is notable Australia is one of the most developed and wealthiest countries in world. People received the adequate supports for their education from the community. In spite of such benefits received for the educational life, some of the significant barriers or disadvantages in Australian community still exist. The most recognizable barriers to the education life in Australia are: The level of the remoteness is the significant barrier since the students in the remote areas are consistently outperformed due to proper guidance. The diverse socio-economic class is also a considerable reason for the barriers to the education process (Mtebe Raisamo, 2014). It is noticed that the indigenous group of students consistently scoring lower grades that is quite important factor to be taken into account. Gathering the proper knowledge about the educational rights and providing the proper government supports can be beneficial in mitigating the issues with the educational factor. References Morris, A., Waghorn, G., Robson, E., Moore, L., Edwards, E. (2014). Implementation of evidence-based supported employment in regional Australia.Psychiatric rehabilitation journal,37(2), 144. Mtebe, J. S., Raisamo, R. (2014). Investigating perceived barriers to the use of open educational resources in higher education in Tanzania.The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,15(2).