Collaborative Learning Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Collaborative Learning - Essay Example Each individual within this Collaborative Learning regime is reliant on the tasks of the other people within the group and is accountable to everyone for his respective actions in entirety (Vincent 2007). These students work together in order to find out a common platform which has a meaningful, understandable and deep rendering solution for the problem that has thus arisen. The end product of learning is indeed the very product that is being tried to achieve, right from the very beginning. Collaborative Learning is somewhat in close comparison to what Cooperative Learning is all about. In fact there are a number of similarities between the two. Collaborative Learning includes writing in a collaborative fashion, completion of projects that are of a group nature as well as a host of similar activities. A Collaborative Learning community would most often vouch the presence of students within its folds bringing the much needed benefits all around. This is because such a community is dep endent on the activities of the students themselves (Goff 2003). There are also organizations that generally appreciate the presence of Collaborative Learning cultures within their entireties. This is because such organizations derive the best results out of such working domains. The team members work alongside each other and give their best shot. The Collaborative Learning mechanisms are deemed as successful as these build upon the premise of a positive change happening within the workplace realms. The organizations that usually support such initiatives are proactive in their approach and are generally very inclined towards the employees working alongside each other so that the strengths could be exponentially doubled and even tripled at times (Mitchell 2004). One must decipher the development basis of Collaborative Learning doing its best to inculcate feelings of team formation and eventual results in the aftermath of the completion phase of

Management Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Management - Research Paper Example If keeping a dog soothes him to the extent that he can overcome his daily anxiety at work, it will not only improve his performance manifolds, but will also encourage him to work harder since he would realize that I, being the employer, respected his feelings. Furthermore, I do not think it would be a matter of big concern for Karla since she works at the top floor while Poochey Pie will remain in the basement of the building. However, I shall tell Harry to be specially cautious about not bringing the dog ever in front of Karla. Unions, today, are majorly facing a decline all over the world. (Kochan and Verma, 2010). This concept basically strengthens as more workers are moving to the foreign countries for job. (Weisenthal, 2007). Despite the fact that the role of union has somewhat recessed as more organized management has been emphasized upon globally to lead the organizations, unions today can play an important role in solving workers’ issues. They can practically develop a better link with workers in the present age by making use of the information

An Improvement Over Classical Realism Politics Essay

An Improvement Over Classical Realism Politics Essay The neorealist theory of international relations has dominated world politics in the past century. It depicts an anarchic world where states are compelled to act in a certain manner because they are part of an anarchic international system. Although neorealism provides an appealing exposà © for the study of international relations and perceives itself to be an improvement over classical realism, it raises more questions than the answers it provides as I will show throughout this essay. Classical Realists believe that states are the main actors in international relations and they are power maximizers. As Hans Morgenthau, explains in Politics Among Nations, in a world where anarchy is the abiding principle, states will struggle for power because they are managed by policy makers and such is the nature of men. Other institutions and organizations are considered to play a small role but only within a state centric framework. States define international order as anarchic because there is no central government to quell mens search for power and their thirst to dominate others. In this eternal struggle peace is achieved through the balance of power, where states try to prevent one state from dominating all the others.  [1]   During the Cold War a new variant of Morgenthaus theory appeared under the name of neorealism. The theoretical approach to international politics proposed by Waltz stresses the importance of structure and draws its arguments by applying an economic perspective to international relations. An approach Waltz claims to be more scientific than the one of Morgenthau and classical realism,which he considers to be reductionist. He argues so because it focuses on the subjective decisions of policy makers, and their search for power, as key in shaping the international system. A perspective that excludes the possibility of a structural analysis where the system is perceived to be independent and therefore plays an active role in determining state behaviour.  [2]   In a world still perceived to be anarchic, Waltz separates the internal circumstances of states from the external ones and claims that the international system is autonomous and acts as a whole. International order is shaped by a global structure, which is created by the interaction of states and then forces them into a certain modus operandi.  [3]  Whereas in Morgenthau the analysis of world politics focused on his negative view of human nature that compelled statesmen in an eternal search for power  [4]  , Waltz emphasizes the importance of the system in directing their actions. The introduction of the third image systemic analysis as the most important perspective to look at international politics is defined by three ordering principles: anarchy, the function of units and the distribution of capabilities.  [5]  Anarchy for neorealists is slightly different than for classical realists. As Shimko notes it, if for Morgenthau anarchy was important but merely circumstantial, for Waltz it is one of the defining elements of the system and acts as a causal force.  [6]  The concept of anarchy also differs in the sense that classical realists believe states search for power and most neorealists tend to advocate that states fight to survive. The outcome in both cases is an anarchic world but their origin is fundamentally different. The units that compose this anarchic system are deemed to be similar a perform similar actions in the international sphere and internal politics have no place in differentiating states. Although states perform the same functions they are distinguished from each other by their capabilities. The distribution of capabilities, seen mainly as military power, has the capacity to change the systemic order. As states military power changes so does the international system.  [7]   The ideas put forward by neorealists seem to provide an edge over classical realism, not only in the sense that they accommodate a more full fledged theory that, as Waltz points out, was not possible for classical realism;  [8]  but also because there is an evolution from the apparent subjective, intuitive and traditional views of Morgenthau to a more objective and scientific theorisation put forward by Waltz  [9]   Thus far it seems that neorealism was able to provide an answer to the flawed reasoning of classical realists but, a more thorough analysis shows something different. One of the key points where this stands out is in the concept of power. For Morgenthau statesmen act in terms of interest defined as power  [10]  . This idea of politics should not be seen as a limited short-term objective for states and policy makers but, as Rosenberg explains, that the actions and interactions of states need to be perceived as a response to a certain balance in the distribution of power.  [11]  As we have also seen, under Morgenthaus perspective, states strive for power a condition which, inevitably, generates a competition environment between the multiple actors. The only way to maintain international order in such an environment is through a balance of power where no one state or coalition is in position to dominate all the others.  [12]  However, this assumption implies, as Rosenberg ar gues, that we look at the international scene as nothing more than a collectivity of states and that the internal political sphere produces no effects in how states interact with each other. It is at this point that Morgenthaus argument becomes circular and loses some of its strength. If world politics deals only with security issues and power is seen only in terms of military capacity, the idea of politics as interest defined as power becomes undeniable.  [13]   Neorealism tries to answer this problematic with the introduction of the international system as the prime director of state behaviour. However, the mechanical structure introduced by Waltz only sees power as military capacity and fails to account for transnational power: the system continues to be a mere group of interacting states. Since for neorealists international politics only has to deal security issues, the argument becomes circular again in a sense that Waltzs structure is only applicable to a system that only regards power as military.  [14]   Despite the many proposed advances on classical realism, Neorealism also provides few changes as far as the concept of anarchy is concerned. It is true that it assumes a conducive role, in the international system, instead of a permissive one but no greater development is introduced in this area. Waltz sees the concept of anarchy in the international realm as the lack of a central power that can exercise force, the same way states exercise it inside their own internal sphere, which leads to a competitive environment among equal sovereign actors.  [15]  The problem with Waltzs concept of anarchy, as Milner argues, is that it collides with one of the ordering principles of his theory for the international system: the idea that a states capabilities are a differentiating factor.  [16]  If states have different capacities they do not compete on equal grounds and do not assume the same posture towards each other. Waltzs third ordering principle leads us to conclude that states per form different functions and that there is a separation between small powers and great powers, with the latter assuming a more important role. These differences suggest that the world cannot be seen as a perfect market where there is a competition between similar players but more like a monopolistic or oligopolistic one, where one or more units have risen above the rest.  [17]  As Milner concludes, these types of markets are characterized by instability, balance between the dominant actors and strategic interdependence, which seem to function more like the international system than perfect markets.  [18]  This different perspective provides a less narrow view of the international system and one that can provide additional areas of investigation. The idea of strategic interdependence suggests a more intricate network of communication between actors and is invariably dependent on norms and practices that need to be established not only in the international sphere but also at a national level. The excessive importance given to the ambiguous concept of anarchy leads neorealists to the radical separation between domestic and international politics  [19]  , which can be dangerous in such a state-centric theoretical approach to international relations. The idea of the state as an uncontested actor in international politics is one other that stands out in neorealist thought. Theory is centred on the state and it offers no reasoning for its formation. As Ashley puts it, for neorealists: The state must be treated as an unproblematic unity: an entity whose existence, boundaries, identifying structures, constituencies, legitimations, interests, and capacities to make self-regarding decisions can be treated as given, independent of transnational class and human interests, and undisputed (except perhaps by other states).  [20]   In this paradigm, states simply exist in the world of international relations, with no theoretical explanation for how or why they are formed; or why they are the sole actors of the international system. An assumption that for neorealists requires no defence but that is problematic because it draws away from their proposed objectivity. Despite criticising classical realisms traditional and conservative approach, neorealists seem not to mind the metaphysical commitment they make to the state-as-actor assumption that exempts it from scientific criticism  [21]   If in classical realism the notion of the state as the main actor in world politics was already problematic because it excludes the possibility of domestic and transnational institutions taking on a role in international relations (one need only to look at the September 11 attacks in the USA and the Arab Spring in the Middle East to recognize their importance) seen through the scope of neorealism the problematic extends even further. According to classical realism, raison detat is the guiding principle for state behaviour and the interests of statesmen, in international relations, are those that maximize the states power and influence, in order to preserve its health and strength  [22]  . Statesmen are encouraged to pursue their interest with respect towards the international order and with ethics and morals always under consideration. The reasoning of Meneicke suggests that the preservation of the state and its political structure ergo its identity play a role in defining it s behaviour, even if it is a slight one. In neorealism, the identity of the state is not taken into account in the proposed structuralist analysis. As Ruggie mentions, change at a unit level is unaccounted for.  [23]  Differentiation between states is only understood in relative terms states capabilities are only seen in relation to those of other states and, as we have seen before, power is measured in military capacity. Ashley picks up on Ruggies work and explains that his argument is not recognized by neorealists because the identity of the state is taken for granted and seen as unproblematic.  [24]  As Ruggie concludes: only structural change can produce systemic change  [25]  . In sum, even though units define the system, only an alteration in their relative capabilities can generate a change in the reigning structure. Internal change continues to play no role in this analysis. The state-as-actor problematic was one that was most emphasized with the failure of neorealism to predict and explain the end of the Cold War, one of the most important events in world politics of the last century. The work of Friedrich Kratochwil is very helpful in understanding this failure as he points to three different areas where neorealism was embarrassed, mainly due to its incapacity to account for changes within the state, other than those that concern military capabilities.  [26]  If we look at the Soviet Unions military capacity before, during and one year after the events of the perestroika and the glasnost, we find that there was no decrease in the USSRs capabilities that could account for such a systemic change in the international realm as advocated by the structural analysis of neorealism. Defence spending did not increase in the 1980s and even if we accept the argument of economic pressure on the Soviet Union, there is no explanation in Waltzs theory for why and when such transformation occurred.  [27]  The dissolution of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany had all derived from a turning point in the Kremlins domestic politics, with change coming from inside the USSR rather than as the outcome of structural pressures on the country, as neorealists would suggest.  [28]  The third and last argument made by Kratochwil is that realist US foreign policy makers had already predicted that a change in the international system, that was in place during the Cold War, would only occur through domestic change.  [29]  Although neorealism portrayed itself as as more scientific perspective of international relations it failed where practice and experience were successful. The issue is also referred to by Ashley when he argues that neorealism denies the importance of practice, adding that people are reduced to some idealized homo oeconomicus, able only to carry out, but never to reflect critically on, the limited rational logic that the system demands of them.  [30]  Kratochwil argues that the events that took place in 1989/1990 are better explained by a legitimization crisis communism that made the Soviet Union look at Western Europe success in maintaining peace. The fall of the Berlin Wall and consequent reunification of Germany can, therefore, be perceived as a move that the USSR saw would serve its own security interests better than a Germany wandering between East and West.  [31]  Although these events cannot be comprehended through the systemic scope of neorealism, the interest approach of classical realists could have been able to predict such a move. I conclude that the neorealist systemic approach to international relations does indeed provide an additional analytical edge over classical realism in the sense that it introduces the systemic influence on state actors. However it focuses too much of its attention on the third image and disregards the actions of states and statesmen. Although classical realism cannot be seen as a credible theoretical alternative to neorealism because of the many flaws it contains, it does provide some insight in the first and second image analysis. As I have also demonstrated, neorealism chose not answer some of the more problematic issues in realist thought, such as the concepts of power and anarchy, and is still unable to provide a theoretical explanation for the state as the main actor approach. It is a small improvement over classical realism but one that needs further development in order not to repeat failures such as the incapacity to predict or explain the end of the Cold War.

A Suffering God :: Essays Papers

A Suffering God Most people in this world have an idea of who or what God is. Whether they believe in God or not, they have certain conceptions that they use to define God. Traditionally, due in large part to classical theism, people define God mostly by His omnipotence. A lot of people have an image of God being an all-powerful ruler over the entire universe. These ideas come out of a mindset that affirms the greatest being must be the one with all the power. They imagine a being that is so far above the world, that He cannot be affected by what humans do. They want to continually affirm that He is completely unchanged, unmoving, and compassionless. To uphold this belief denies a good portion of Scripture as well as liturgical tradition within the church. For example, Hosea 11 describes God’s compassion and concern growing for the Israelites in a way that assumes God’s changing emotions (Inbody 145). This power-based concept of God essentially leads to some of the biggest problems in accepting faith. For example, if God is all-powerful, why does he allow evil to exist in the world? Furthermore, if God is all-powerful, then how can humans or any creatures have real freedom (Placher xiii)? It seems impossible to answer these questions by denying that evil and freedom exist. It can be clearly seen and argued that bad things occur in this world, just as every person can understand they have freedom when they act. Classical theism puts an extreme emphasis on God’s omnipotence and seems to make God responsible for the pain and suffering in the world. As a result, God ends up getting the blame for the mistakes found in His creation. It becomes necessary, then, to propose a scheme in which God is not so powerful that He is incapable of relating and in which He also remains God. The best way to do this is to change the way one perceives God. This does not mean people are forced to abandon the biblical witness of God, but instead to come up with a better way to understand the Bible’s language concerning God. Too often people, especially Christians, jump to conclusions in defining God in terms of power. They overlook one of the main themes of the Bible that is summed up in 1 John 4:8: God is love. Once people understand that love is the key characteristic of God’s nature, it becomes much easier to produce meaningful conceptions of God.

Misuse of Cell Phones

Misuse of Cell Phones Apart from the plenteous advantages of cell phones, it has become a nerve-wracking part of everyone’s life. In 21st century, we ought to get rid of its unnecessary, undue uses. â€Å"It's easier for a rich man to ride that camel through the eye of a needle directly into the Kingdom of Heaven, than for some of us to give up our cell phone. †Ã‚  Cell phone has reduced the distances, but wasting money and time on its needless use cannot be justified. Is it not imprudent?Elimination of our healthy activities and hobbies from our lives can impart a stern and austere effect on our health, attitude and social behaviour. In the past calming and relaxing in fresh environment and enjoying the nature was a good use of time. Cyber criminals are increasingly targeting mobile devices as they look to exploit consumer ignorance of potential security risks associated with smartphones. These criminals are diverting the youth- future of a country. Cell phone provider s are also distracting the youth-future of a country.Providing them with attractive packages they are making money and youth is confined to messaging and chatting only. Although using smartphones navigation system has improved very much but in England every year hundreds of causalities are reported which occur when someone is driving while using the cell phones. Misapplication of any technology is detrimental so everyone should be prudent and vigilant while using it. Technology is refining day by day but purchasing a new and precious cell phone with only few additional or surplus features in it can influence negative effects on your friends.One who cannot afford it would be distressed and distraught. So it leads to unbalancing in society. Overall technology and science have very much advantages, computer and internet are providing information in simplest way also it has changed way of communication. The level of our technology keeps on improving. Over the years, there have been many advancements and improvements that technology offers us. But need is to take the responsibility to get benefit of it. Cell phone providers should also take some steps to eradicate these critical things from the society.

Journal Entry of to Kill a Mockingbird

Dear Diary, Damn I hate school! T o be honest â€Å"I never looked forward more to anything in my life† (Lee 15), but everything went wrong. My teacher is Ms. Caroline Fisher. I don’t think she’s more than twenty-two. â€Å"She †¦ wore a red-and-white-striped dress. She looked and smelled like a peppermint drop. † (Lee 16). She began reading a very funny story about cats that wore clothes. When she was done, she wrote the alphabet on the blackboard ant asked me what they were. I read the letters to her and she got mad at me and told me to tell Atticus that he was teaching me wrong! Atticus never taught me how to read, Jem said I was born reading but Ms. Caroline must’ve thought I was lying. It would be so hard not ready, â€Å"reading was something that just came to me †¦ Until I feared I would lose it, I never loved to read. † (Lee 18). After that everyone laughed at me because Ms. Caroline whipped me. Why? Because she tried to give Walter Cunningham a quarter so he could buy lunch. EVERYONE knows the Cunninghams never take anything from anyone because they can’t pay back. I was so mad at him so I beat him up. I told Jem but he invited him to have lunch at our house. At first Walter doubted but Jem told him I was crazy. Who does he think he is? When we were eating Walter drowned his food in syrup. â€Å"I †¦ asked what the sam hill he was doing. † (Lee 24). Atticus shook his head and Calpurnia called me to the kitchen. â€Å"She was furious, and when she was furious Calpurnia’s grammar became erratic. † (Lee 24). She gave me a lesson about what tolerance was but I’m still kinda confused. When we went back to school Ms. Caroline started complaining ‘cause she saw a cootie on Burris Ewell’s head. She made such a fuss about it! When she told him to go home and wash his hair so no one else would catch’em (although I think most of the other kids had some too) â€Å"[Burris] stood up. He was the filthiest human I had ever seen. His neck was dark gray, the backs of his hands were rusty, and his fingernails were black deep into the quick† (Lee 27) and started sayin’ that no one was sending him home, that he was about to leave because he only went the first days of school and never went back ‘till the next year. Then he got real mad and insulted Ms. Caroline and made her cry. We were tryin’ to cheer her up again but all we got from her was a â€Å"Thank you, darlings† (Lee 28). â€Å"Had her conduct been more friendly toward me, I would have felt sorry for her. † (Lee 22). When we finally got home, I told Atticus I didn’t want to go to school anymore. He must’ve been surprised because all I ever wanted was to start school. â€Å"[W]hat’s the matter? † (Lee 29) he said. And â€Å"[b]it by bit, I told him the day’s misfortunes. † (Lee 29). He solved my reading problem by making a compromise, which is an agreement. He said that if â€Å"[I] concede[d] the necessity of going to school, we’[d] go on reading every night just as we always ha[d]. I was so happy! Thanks to him I can be writing right now and will be a secret me and Atticus will keep. I hope nobody at school ever finds my diary or I’ll be in big trouble! Scout. http://www.allgreatquotes.com/to_kill_a_mockingbird_quotes.shtml http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/mocking/quotes.html#explanation3

Radical Book Review Essay

Radical Book Review Essay Radical Book Review Essay 2/17/2015 Ruth Russell Intro to Christian Missions: Book Review: Radical by David Platt I have read this 90% of this book. Section one Platt starts out his book with speaking of his fast growing mega church in Alabama. However as he points out, Jesus only choose twelve men to follow him closely. Thought Jesus often had huge crowds following him around when they got to big, as Plat pointed out, He would start preaching some of the more radical, abstract ideas of His word. This had the effect of separating the goats from the sheep. Only those with radical obedience to Him stayed. After setting this foundation, Platt says that he is convinced that American churches have embraced values and ideas that actually contradict the gospel we claim to believe. What would happen if we really believed and obeyed the true Jesus of the Bible? Our God calls to leave everything we have, to pick up our cross and follow Him. In America we have our cushioned, temperature-controlled churches with all that we could want and then some. But normal church services only meet for an hour or two on ce or twice a week. Platt contrasts our â€Å"normal† church scenario with his experience in Asia, secret church with barely enough to read by with a starving hunger for the word. The Bible is where God talks to us about being His disciple. We live in our cushioned lives while more than twenty-six thousands children die today from malnutrition or preventable diseases. We live in luxury. We avoid beggars on the street as we shop for things we don’t need. How different would our world look if all who believed spread to those who had never even heard? We could put caps on our lives, as John Wesley did, living simply no matter what earthly gifts God blesses us with and sending this rest to those who are in dire need. Could we eradicate poverty and those number of people who haven’t heard? Our question for ourselves should be what will take and not what we can spare. This is a radical way of life, and it’s not easy. Jesus says that while to die is to gain, tha t we are called to live for now. We face many challenges. Our human nature is a constant battle with our Christian walk. It can be, and often, is a lonely walk. Yet believing in and obeying Christ leads to true happiness and treasure in heaven. It means freedom instead of holding on to things of this life and hoarding, we help others and release to God’s control. Ultimately He is our only satisfaction. He lasts forever and ever. To close the book Platt addresses specific ways we might live radically. He calls it an experiment, testing how God wants us to live our lives. He challenges us to try it for a least a year. We need to start praying for the whole world. Prayer is how we communicate with God, â€Å"Ask and it shall be given.† Next God often communicates to us using his word, we need to study it fervently and completely. Then we need to start giving, both our time and our money. This is best done specifically, to a specific purpose and a specific place outside of our comfort zone. Finally we can commit our lives to multiplying God’s kingdom. The Great Commissions is to go into all the world to make disciples. This is a radical life style. Section 2 I thought this book was very well written and a thought provoking book. Have we really gotten away from the biblical dream and replaced it with the â€Å"American dream†? I think Platt was right about how as American’s we have been blessed. How we have let our blessings becoming stumbling blocks to what we need to be doing for the Kingdom. However all good things come from God. So the blessings themselves are not bad things, it’s what we’re doing with them. I don’t think Platt doesn’t stress this enough. He does a good job on what we’re supposed to be doing, but I almost felt guilty for the padded seat I sit