What is the significance of 'participatory culture' to contemporary Essay

What is the significance of 'participatory culture' to contemporary graphic design practice - Essay Example Nonetheless, this kind of participation fails to enable the recipient to change the final appearance of the data, or to customize it according to their needs. In the recent past, however, there has been a significant concern among designers to create more interactive graphical interfaces for maximum gains. Otherwise referred to as co-creation, the future of technologies is likely to shift more in the direction of ensuring a greater level of participation by receivers in a way that will make modern technologies virtually owned by end-users. Since the beginning of the 21st century, and the rapid growth of Internet technologies around the world, there has been a need to create graphic designs that are flexible and more responsive to end-users (Barnes, 2013). Designers and instructors are working around the clock to achieve a complete integration of graphic design and other disciplines such as business. In all of these relationships, there are high chances that the technology trends will continue to evolve, as will the present-day socio-economic, cultural, environmental, and political forces into a more participatory operational context. The current world is witnessing a situation whereby graphical designs and or objects are no longer the ultimate consequence of design practice (Denning, 2013). Neuhauser et al (2009) have noted that, even though, posters, billboards, print media and navigational technologies are still commonly used among graphic designers, designers are more concerned with generating services, graphical e xperiences, and information that engage the end-user more than ever before. The rush towards a more participatory project designs based on users’ tastes and preferences is becoming more and more intensified by each passing day. Designers are increasingly seeing the need to create ‘users’ in the current technology era in order to facilitate more human-machine interactions as a way of enhancing efficiency

The five prewriting steps Essay Example for Free

The five prewriting steps Essay The five prewriting steps are brainstorming,clustering,freewriting,narrowing a topic,and outlining. There are five steps in the prewriting process that are helpful in the development of any topic. These steps are: brainstorming,clustering,freewriting,narrowing a topic,and outlining. The first step is brainstorming, in which the writer merely lists ideas on the specified topic. At this point, no idea is discarded. This step is the most basic and requires no organization. The second step is clustering. Clustering adds a little more specificity. With this idea, the writer places the main idea in a circle in the center of the organizer. The ideas are then connected with lines; this method is also commonly referred to as a spider web, bubble web, or mind map. Following clustering, the writer should move on to the freewriting stage. At this point, the writer usually has an idea about the topic and the ideas he/she would like to include. When freewriting, the writer simply lets his/her ideas flow onto the page; paying no attention to conventional errors or re-reading until complete. The ideas should be able to flow completely although, at this point, seemingly unorganized. Following the review of the prewriting, the writer is able to see what areas of the topic are well-supported, which areas need support, which areas to omit and therefore can determine how to narrow the topic. Finally, we come to the final stage of creating the outline. The outline is the most detailed and specific. The main idea of the paper is included; along with the main idea of each pragraph and the supporting details to be included within each paragraph. Following this process, the writer will find it very easy to complete a paper on a given topic.

Cross Linguistic Influence English Language Essay

Cross Linguistic Influence English Language Essay The research area of this paper is a cross-linguistic influence or as otherwise known transfer. Specifically, I propose to examine orthographic transfer and its potential effects on English native speakers pronunciation of segmentals in German as their second language. The fact that orthography can influence second language pronunciation is recognized by many foreign language teachers. Nevertheless, there is not enough evidence for such influence and more research is needed (Bassetti, 2008). Previous research on orthographic transfer has mainly looked at its effects on reading and spelling (Jarvis Pavlenko, 2008). Cook and Bassetti (2005) argue that writing system transfer is separate from language transfer maintaining that it is not so much aspects of the language that may be carried over as the attributes of a particular writing system (p. 29). Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008) concur with the above statement; however they also emphasize the importance of the connection between orthographic transfer and language use, since it relates to the orthographic effects on phonology and vice versa. According to Jarvis and Pavlenko, during the development of L1literacy skills, which uses the phonetic alphabet, important sound-letter correspondences are acquired which later can be transferred to the acquisition and use of the second language. Before proceeding any further, the discussion of two key terms that are extensively used in this paper as well as their definitions as proposed by the researchers in the field of SLA is required. The terms are writing system and orthography. The first term to define is writing system. Coulmas (1999) defines writing system (WS) as a set of visible or tactile signs to represent units of language in a systematic way (p. 560). There are various types of writing systems depending on what type of linguistic units they represent (Bassetti, 2005). Consequently, there are writing systems whose linguistic units are consonants hence the name consonantal WSs (for example, Hebrew and Arabic). Morphemic WSs are represented by morphemes (Chinese) and alphabetic WSs are represented by phonemes (English, German, and Spanish). In addition, there are also syllabic WSs whose linguistic units are syllables (Japanese). This paper will specifically focus on alphabetic writing systems of English and German languages which use the same script the Roman alphabet. The term writing system relates to orthography which is the second term and is defined as a set of rules for using script in a particular language, such as symbol- phoneme correspondences, capitalization, punctuation, etc. (Coulmas, 2003, p. 35). For example, in English orthography the letter Ë‚s˃ is read as /s/ and in German orthography as /z/ (Benware, 1986). Thus, the same script- the Roman alphabet- is used differently in the English and German orthographies. Orthographies of the same type of alphabetic writing system and script are also varied in their regularity of sound-symbol correspondences (Cook Bassetti, 2005). For instance, in English, the letter Ë‚a˃ maps to different phonemes in words such as park, bank, and ball, whereas in German the same letter Ë‚a˃ has only one pronunciation /a/ as in German nouns Park, Ball, Bank (Goswami, Ziegler, Richardson, 2005). English orthography is very inconsistent in terms of its sound-letter correspondences thus it is considered to have deep orthography. Languages such as German, Italian and Spanish have relatively consistent letter-to-sound correspondences, so their orthographies are shallow or as otherwise called phonologically transparent (Cook Bassetti, 2005). Thus, it should be easier for English native speakers to acquire German sound-letter correspondence rules than for German native speakers to acquire English sound-letter correspondence rules. Nevertheless, there has been observed a considerable number of segmental mispronunciations by English native speakers learning German as a foreign language. Therefore, the question arises whether the knowledge of L1 orthography has an effect on how English native speakers pronounce segmentals in German or are there any other factors such as cognate status or the age of acquisition that contribute to the orthographic transfer?. Literature review The focus of this paper is to explore whether the knowledge of L1 (English) orthography, namely its sound-letter correspondence rules, is transferred to L2 (German) and whether it has any positive or negative effects on L2 pronunciation of segmentals in adult language learners of different proficiency levels. The paper also aims at investigating whether there is a significant difference of orthographic transfer produced by learners at different proficiency levels (beginning, intermediate and advanced). Finally, the study will examine whether a lexical factor such as cognate status has either positive or negative effect on the acquisition and use of German as a foreign language. A number of studies have examined orthographic effects on either spelling or reading. Many studies also have looked at the effects of L1 orthographic experience on L2 word learning and decoding. However, there has been little research examining the effects of orthography on phonology and vice versa. According to Hayes-Harb, Nicol, and Barker (2010) no research has examined spelling conventions of the native and second languages where both share the same script. Although there is some evidence of the relationship between orthographic and phonological representations in learning new vocabulary, more research is needed to shed light on this phenomenon (Hayes-Harb et al., 2010). As this study examines orthographic transfer from English to German, the notion of cross-linguistic similarity should be taken into consideration especially given the fact that both languages share a significant number of cross-linguistic similarities in cognate, lexical, phonological, and writing systems areas. Ringbom and Jarvis (2009) discuss the importance of cross-linguistic similarities in foreign language learning. Specifically, they maintain that learners rely on their previous linguistic knowledge and look for similarities rather than differences between the L1 and the TL. Ringbom and Jarvis also state that second language learners refer to their previous linguistic knowledge mostly at the beginning stages of second language acquisition. Another important factor such as phonetic awareness and phonetic sensitivity should not be neglected. Piske (2008) maintains that children develop phonetic sensitivity to speech contrasts specific to their L1 long before they begin read and write and at the same time their ability to perceive non-native speech contrasts (L2) weakens with age. So for adult language learners perceiving non-native speech contrast and sounds that are particular to the target language is difficult. To develop phonological awareness and sensitivity would require an extensive practice and frequent exposure to target language. Considering this fact, Piske states that adult language learners are influenced by writing systems of their L1 during L2 acquisition. Consequently this results in learners pronunciation errors which are linked to the reliance on L1 grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules. Especially this refers to the cases when sound-letter correspondences are inconsistent between the L1 and L2. Odlin (1989) also provides ample evidence compiled from different studies that demonstrate the clear effect of first language influence on L2 speech production and orthography. Odlin states that similar writing systems in L1 and L2 represent a much easier task for learners acquiring a new language. The same however, cannot be said of pronunciation, as other variables may influence decoding of written symbols in L2. Flege, Freida, Walley, and Randaza (1998) examined whether lexical factors such as frequency, familiarity, cognate status and the age of acquisition have an effect on production. The authors provide an insight into what role the cognate status of words can play and how it effects speech production. More specifically, Flege et al. state that degree of perceived relatedness can vary depending on degree of cross-linguistic similarities the L1 and L2 share. Specifically, they point to the proximity of cognate pairs in L1-L2 in their meaning and especially in sound. This paper will also examine whether cognate pairs influence L2 pronunciation of target sounds. Based on these statements it is also likely that English-speaking learners of German will rely on their knowledge of English sound-letter correspondence rules when speaking or reading in the target language. This may result in either mispronunciation of certain sound-letter correspondences that are inconsistent with English orthography or it may have facilitatory effects on L2 phonology acquisition. In terms of findings several studies particularly stand out. Young-Scholten (2002)1 provides evidence of orthographic effects on the production of German consonants by English speakers. Another study conducted by Young-Scholten, Akita, and Cross (1999)2 also shows evidence of the effects of written representations on the pronunciation of consonant clusters in learners of Polish as a second language. These findings led the researchers to conclude that there is a relationship between orthographic representations and L2 phonology. Other studies investigating the effects of orthography on second language phonology demonstrate that second language learners pronunciation can be influenced by orthographic input (Bassetti, 2007). Bassetti (2007) examined the effects of pinyin (a romanized version of the Chinese language) on pronunciation in learners of Chinese as a foreign language. The author predicted that orthographic representation of pinyin would result in learners not pronouncing the main vowel in the rhymes whose transcription does not represent that main vowel as in rhymes /iu/ which maps to [iou], /ui/ [uei] and /un/ [uÓâ„ ¢n]. The results of the study suggest strong influence of pinyin orthographic rules on the pronunciation of Chinese rhymes. Specifically, learners of Chinese as a foreign language would delete the main vowel, which is not present orthographically; however they would always pronounce the same main vowel in the rhymes /you/, /wen/, and /wei/ (Bassetti, 2006; Bassetti, 2007). One of the most recent studies conducted by Hayes-Harb et al. (2010) provides some evidence of orthographic influence on the acquisition of the phonological forms of new words. In this study, Hayes-Harb et al. recreated conditions in which subjects experienced learning new vocabulary in a new language. The aim of the study was to investigate whether the presence of the written form of the new words affected the learning of their phonological form. Thus, native speakers of English were divided into three groups. The first group was provided with the written forms of new words that were inconsistent with English spelling. The second group was presented with words that were matching the English sound-letter correspondences. The third group had only an auditory input and no written forms of the new words were provided. The results demonstrated that L1 orthography interfered with students ability to learn new words especially when new vocabulary differed from English sound-letter correspo ndences. While Hayes-Harb et al. (2010) provide some evidence of orthographic effects in the process of learning new phonological forms of words, the authors admit that the method is a novel one and in the future should be controlled by learners spelling ability. Previous studies show clear effects of a relationship between orthography and phonology in second language acquisition. Much of the research has analyzed orthographies that use different writing systems, and as Hayes-Harb et al. (2010) point out very little research has been done investigating the effects of orthographies on L2 pronunciation within the same writing system and script. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate further the notion of orthographic transfer by analyzing the relationship between orthography and phonology of two languages that share the same script and the following research questions are addressed in this paper: Is orthographic transfer statistically present in the sample? Do results vary and are they statistically significant between different proficiency levels? What is the nature of relationship between error score and students perceptions of cognate status? Method 2.1 Participants The participants of this study were 28 undergraduate American English speakers from Ohio University. The students were enrolled in the 100, 200 and 300 levels of German as a foreign language. The levels differ by proficiency. The 100 level is offered to beginners, the 200 level is an intermediate level, and the 300 level is taught to the advanced students respectively. Each proficiency level consists of a three quarter sequence meeting four hours per week with regular homework assignments. Each year sequence of German series focuses on developing all four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). 2.2 Materials and procedures The study consisted of two phases: the screening phase and the data collection phase. During the screening phase, students enrolled in all three proficiency levels volunteered to fill out an online language background survey. The purpose of this survey was to select potential participants for the study by controlling several variables that could have had an effect on the results. It was set up in such a way that participants could be screened based on their responses to the first three questions. Thus, those who did not qualify for the study were automatically eliminated without going over all of the survey questions. First of all, it helped eliminate the students with any reading or speech disorders. It also helped exclude those students who were taking another foreign language class along with German. The survey also eliminated the students who had taken a foreign language other than German less than a year ago, which could have contributed to transfer from that language into their knowledge and use of German. In addition, information such as students motivation, number of years they have studied German and the time spent in German speaking countries was collected through this survey. As a result, out of 63 students who had volunteered to fill out the survey, 28 were qualified and participated in the data collection phase. The selected participants included nine beginners, eight intermediate-level students, and eleven advanced-level students. The data collection phase consisted of three tasks administered in the following order: an informal reading aloud task, a formal reading aloud task, and a perception task. All three tasks were performed by the students during individual single session meetings lasting fifteen minutes. Reading aloud is considered to be the best way to test the knowledge of sound-letter correspondences. It provides good control and allows for comparison of speech samples from different subjects. Reading aloud is also a technique that is widely used in a foreign language class thanks to which participants feel more comfortable during data collection (Madsen, 1983). During the informal reading task, students were asked to read aloud a German text which was adapted in order to target certain German consonants and consonant clusters as detailed in Tables 1 and 2. The inventory sets (see Table 1) include incongruent grapheme-phoneme correspondences students presumably would have had the most difficulty producing. Table 1. Incongruent grapheme-phoneme correspondences Sounds exist in both languages, but are represented with different letters German phoneme-grapheme correspondences English phoneme-grapheme correspondences 1 Ë‚w˃ / [v] e.g., Wind [vÉ ªnt] Ë‚v˃ /[v] eg.: van [và ¦n] 2 Ë‚v˃ / [f] e.g., Vogel [foË gl] Ë‚f˃ / [f] eg.: fan [fà ¦n] 3 Ë‚s˃ / [z] e.g., sinken [zÉ ªÃƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¹knÃÅ' ©] Ë‚z˃ / [z] eg.: zone [zoÊÅ  n] 4 Ë‚s˃/[ʃ] when followed by e.g., Sport [ʃpɆrt] Ë‚s˃ / [ʃ] when followed by eg.: shine [ʃaÉ ªn] 5 Ë‚s˃ /[ʃ] when followed by e.g., Student [ʃtudɆºnt] Ë‚s˃ / [ʃ] when followed by eg.: shed [ʃɆºd] Sounds are different in both languages, but are represented with the same letters 6 Ë‚t˃/ [ts] e.g., Tradition [traditsioË n] Ë‚t˃/[ʃ] e.g., tradition [trÉâ„ ¢Ãƒâ€¹Ã‹â€ dÉ ªÃƒÅ Ã†â€™http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngÉâ„ ¢n] 7 Ë‚z˃/ [ts] e.g., Zimmer [tsÉ ªmÉ ] Ë‚z˃ / [z] e.g., zone [zoÊÅ  n] 8 Ë‚ch˃/[à §] e.g., sportlich [ʃpɆrtlÉ ªÃƒ §] Ë‚ch˃/ [tʃ] e.g., rich [rÉ ªtʃ] Also is included a set of congruent phoneme-grapheme correspondences that exist in both English and German languages (see Table 3). Table 3. Congruent grapheme-phoneme correspondences Grapheme-phoneme correspondences existing in both languages German examples English examples 1 2 3 4 5 Ë‚b˃ maps to [b] Ë‚n˃ maps to [n] Ë‚l˃ maps to [l] Ë‚t˃ maps to [t] Ë‚p˃ maps to [p] Bank [baņ¹k] Nuss [nÊÅ  s] Land [lant] Tag [taË k] Park [park] Bank [bà ¦Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¹k] Nut [nÊŒt] Land [là ¦nd ] Tag [tà ¦g ] Park [pÉ‘rk ] To test students pronunciation of the targeted German segmentals in relation to potential transfer effects, each grapheme-phoneme correspondence listed in Tables 1 and 2 was encountered at least twice in the informal reading task and once in the formal reading task. Students readings in both tasks were recorded in a soundproof recording laboratory using audio recording software. During the first task, students had one minute to read the text silently before being recorded. The formal reading task followed the informal one and required the participants to read words with the targeted sounds in isolation. The words in the formal task were a subset of those used in the informal task and some of them were cognates with English. Finally, during the perception task students had to categorize a list of both cognate and non-cognate German words in terms of their similarity to any of the English words. Students had to rate the words on a three-point scale (1=same; 2= similar; 3= dissimilar) relying on their own perceptions. Table 3 below contains examples of words students rated in the perception task. Table 3 Categorization of cognate and non-cognate words Same meaning Form Same Similar Dissimilar Ger. Wind Eng. Wind Ger. Sturm Eng. storm Ger. Viel Eng. many Ger. Student Eng. Student Ger. Milch Eng. Milk Ger. Vogel Eng. bird Ger. Winter Eng. Winter Ger. Temperatur Eng. Temperature Ger. Zeit Eng. time Ger. Warm Eng. Warm Ger. Wetter Eng. Weather Ger. Zimmer Eng. room Ger. Sport Eng. Sport Ger. Naturlich Egn. Naturally Ger. traurig Eng. sad Ger. Tradition Eng. Tradition Ger. Sportlich Eng. sporty Ger. Information Eng. Information Ger. Sonne Eng. Sun Ger. Strudel Eng. Strudel Results from these tasks revealed whether the reliance on first language orthography had a positive or negative effect on students pronunciation of segmentals in German. The mispronunciations in the recordings were quantified, categorized and recorded in a data file. Their performance was then codified and entered in the data file. Finally, student survey responses and identifying information collected through the questionnaire were matched with participants reading performance results and the perception task. Once the survey information and performance results were merged, the data was de-identified to ensure the confidentiality of the participants. Data analysis and results In order to address the first research question of whether orthographic transfer is statistically present in the sample, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, the nonparametric alternative to the paired-sample t-test was used to examine whether the participants pronunciation errors were statistically more prevalent in cases of incongruent sound-letter correspondences between the L1 and L2 than in cases of congruent sound-letter correspondences. That is, we tested whether the participants distribution of errors and successes is keyed to the specific ways in which the L1 and L2 are related in terms of sound-letter correspondences. The results of the test revealed that orthographic transfer is statistically present in the sample (p=.00). Students indeed produced more errors in cases of incongruent sound-letter correspondences and there were zero number of mistakes in cases with congruent sound-letter correspondences. In order to address our second research question concerning whether there is any difference in the mean scores between proficiency level groups, The Kruskal Wallis test was performed. This test was conducted on the results of the reading tasks of the experiment to test whether the subjects from the three proficiency level groups differed significantly in producing German segmentals [à §, f, ts, ʃp, ʃt, z, v]. It was assumed that the distribution of errors would be more prevalent in the beginner level group as opposed to intermediate and advanced level groups. The results demonstrated a significant difference in mean scores between all three proficiency groups for both informal and formal reading tasks (p =.009). The results of the descriptive statistics are summarized below in Table 5.   Table 5 Mean error scores for each proficiency level Beginners group mean score Intermediate group mean score Advanced group mean score Group Mean Informal reading task 22.50 15.58 8.00 14.83 Formal reading task 20.42 13.85 5.41 12.64 Cumulative error mean 43.37 30.43 13.41 27.90 Valid N 9 8 11 28 Finally, in our last research question we examined the relationship between students performance results in both reading tasks and their perceptions regarding cognate status of the words. For this purpose a correlation analysis was conducted to examine what kind of relationship there exist between the number of errors produced in the target sounds and the number of students rating the words as same or dissimilar. As a result, correlation coefficient between error score and a number of students rating the words as same revealed a weak negative relationship between these two variables, with correlation coefficient r = -.47. On the other hand, correlation analysis between error score and a number of students rating the words as dissimilar showed a moderate positive relationship between the variables with r = .57. Discussion The present study is exploratory in its nature yet the results show evidence of orthographic transfer in the sample. By that we mean that students do tend to rely on their L1 knowledge of sound-letter correspondence rules specifically in the cases of incongruent sound-letter correspondences between the L1 and L2. The results also indicate a significant difference in mean error scores at different proficiency levels. Thus, the beginner level students produced the highest number of errors in targeted segmentals than students from intermediate and advanced levels. These findings support the idea Ringbom and Jarviss (2009) stated that the second language learners rely more on their previous linguistic knowledge at an early stages of second language acquisition. This especially applies to the languages that share a significant number of cross-linguistic features in cognate, lexical, phonological and writing systems, as in case of English and German. The results of this study are also in line with previous findings of Piske (2008), which suggested that adult learners are influenced by the writing systems of their L1. A considerable number of errors were observed in producing in seven out of eight German segmentals [à §, f, ts, ʃp, ʃt, z, ts] with the exception of [v] which maps to Ë‚w˃ in German. For example, the highest number of errors students produced was the German consonant Ë‚g˃ in word final which maps to palatal fricative [à §] when preceded by front vowels as in traurig and consonantal cluster Ë‚ch˃ in word final which also maps to palatal [à §] in words such as Milch, natà ¼rlich, sportlich. Students produced these two sounds as [k]. They also confused German Ë‚v˃ which maps to [f] with its English counterpart [v]. The same was observed with the other two German consonants Ë‚s,z˃ which map to [z,ts] respect ively and were pronounced as English phonemes [s, z]. This can be explained by the fact that all German consonants mentioned above are represented by the same graphemes in English, which resulted in students mispronunciations. Interesting results were obtained from the words that contained labio-dental [v] which in German maps to Ë‚w˃ grapheme. None of the students had errors producing this sound despite the fact that the same grapheme /w/ maps to an approximant [w] in English. This could be interpreted as following: it appears easier for students to produce sounds that are far apart in terms of their place of articulation than for instance, the sounds that vary only in their voicing. Thus students in this study had difficulty to devoice fricative [f] in German because it is represented by grapheme Ë‚v˃, which in English maps to voiced fricative [v]. Participants of this study also struggled producing consonantal clusters Ë‚ st, sp Ã⠀¹Ã†â€™ which in German language map to [ʃt, ʃp]. Although English has phoneme [ʃ], it exists in different phonetic environment and is never followed by [p,t] phonemes in onset. Therefore students confused these two consonantal clusters with their English counterparts and produced them as [sp] for example English sport or [st] as in English student. Lastly, the perception task yielded somewhat ambiguous results. It appears that there might be a relationship between the error score and a number of students rating the words as dissimilar. Nonetheless, this needs to be investigated in the future research using a larger sample as there was insufficient amount of data to strongly support the findings. For more details regarding error score and the students perceptions see Table 6 in Appendix A. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to find out to what extent English-speaking learners of German rely on the English orthography and whether the presence of cognate words results in mispronunciation in the target language or vice versa helps learners to acquire L2 phonology. Given what was found (a) evidence that English orthography, namely its grapheme-phoneme rules interferes with learners pronunciation of German segmentals, (b) evidence that learners were influenced by L1 writing system mostly at the beginning stages of second language acquisition, and (c) some evidence of potential relationship between the errors produced and students perceptions of cognate status, we might consider some practical implications for foreign language classroom as well as future research implications. As Hayes-Herb et al. (2010) suggested language teachers might find it beneficial presenting new vocabulary using initially auditory input only. This may particularly refer to the non-cognates words as students in this study made more errors in words that they rated as dissimilar with English. At the same time, it may be helpful for learners to receive written input of the words that contain German Ë‚w˃ in word initial, as students produced zero errors, which might suggest that in this particular case written input positively influenced learners pronunciation. Therefore it is important for language instructors to be aware of orthographic transfer and its positive and negative effects so that they can address this information accordingly in their classroom. On the other hand more research is needed to support these findings. For this purpose a more comprehensive study with a larger sample would help to expand the current analysis of data and make the findings general izable for a larger population of students studying German as a foreign language. Teacher surveys might reveal whether language instructors focus on orthographic transfer or is it something new to them as well as to what extent they focus on pronunciation of those specific sounds that might be problematic due to the reliance on L1 sound-letter correspondence rules in their classroom. The results can provide valuable insights that can be applied to the teaching of German as a foreign language. Furthermore, given the scope of this study only eight German segmentals were investigated. Examining other segmentals whose orthographic representations exist only in German (for example, Ë‚Â Ã‚ ¢Ãƒâ€¹Ã†â€™, Ë‚Ã ¼, à ¶, à ¤ ˃) or segmentals whose sounds exist only in German but are represented by the same graphemes (for example German Ë‚r˃ which maps to several phonemes [Êâ‚ ¬, Ê , r] depending on the in word position) would clearly provide better results on the way English and German orthographies interact with German as a foreign language phonology. To conclude, while the this study attempted to address questions on how orthography of L1 and its sound-letter correspondence rules can be transferred to L2 phonology resulting in mispronunciation of certain segmentals still more research on this topic is needed.

The Rocking-Horse Winner by D.H. Lawerence :: The Rocking-Horse Winner, D.H. Lawerence

"The Rocking-Horse Winner" by D.H. Lawerence talks about a family who lived in style, but always had anxiety in their house. There was never enough money. The parents knew the children were growing up and they would need money to send their children to school. The house came to be haunted with the phrase: There must be more money! There must be more money! The children could here it aloud but never dared to say it. The mother believed they were poor due to the fact her husband had no luck. One day the boy asked his mother what luck really was. She replied,"It's what causes you to have money. If you are lucky you have money. That's why it it's better to be rich. If you're rich you may lose your money. But if your lucky, you will always get more money." The boy told his mother he had luck. The boy knew she did not beleive him and this started the boy on his journey with the rocking horse.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The rocking horse gave luck, which is exactly what the boy, Paul, needed. Only Paul at first could hear the real truth from his rocking horse. The rocking horse would tell Paul who the winner of the race would be. Paul and his uncle Oscar used this information to gamble on horss and were able to win piles of money. This money he gave anomously to his mother to use for anything that was needed.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It was one night that Paul was riding his horse at full speed when suddenly a blaze of light hit him up. He screamed, "Malabar!" Then he fell off with a crash that would put him into unconsciousness; he never did recover from that fall. He died later that night. Paul needed his rocking horse, without it he would never have felt that luck.

The Value Of Small Group Interaction In Teaching Education Essay

Collaborative acquisition, synergism acquisition, small-group acquisition, and concerted acquisition seem to be the new cants used by faculty members. This is due to the intensifying involvement over the past few old ages, with respect to the different attacks to learning and larning. Particularly the passage from individualistic to collaborative acquisition manners has been under huge examination as university module members and decision makers are rediscovering the construct of ‘two caputs being better than one ‘ . The involvement is been chiefly incited at a graduate student degree, where the key purposes are to develop the ability of pupils to believe critically, enhance mutuality and arrive at a socially constructed apprehension of the stuff provided. In add-on, alterations in organisational substructure have resulted in an increased accent on squad work within the work force. Consequently, the acquisition manner implemented at postgraduate degree is critical as it i s the stepping rock into the universe of work. This reappraisal aims to measure the value of little group interaction in the instruction and acquisition procedure. Specifically, this reappraisal will measure how this method impacts learning and larning at a postgraduate degree. More specifically, in this reappraisal little group interaction includes collaborative acquisition, concerted acquisition, every bit good as equal acquisition. The history of this method of acquisition will be looked at first to give a clearer image of how it has evolved since its origin. Cardinal footings will so be defined, as they are applicable in this reappraisal, to guarantee apprehension of the most of import constructs occurs from the start. This will be followed by the theories that have developed, the advantages, and so the restrictions on the subject, so that a clear statement can be developed. Therefore, it will be determined whether collaborative methods consequence in the enhanced value of learning and larning at postgraduate degree. This pro be is greatly needed at a higher instruction level- as it is a topographic point where the competition is rife, clip force per unit areas are high and there is a great trade of external force per unit area to develop the leaders of tomorrow.2. History of collaborative acquisitionAlthough the history of collaborative acquisition is really unelaborated, it is non a comparatively new method of larning. It appears likely that people have been larning informally in groups for 1000s of old ages ( McInnerney & A ; Roberts, 2004 ) . Kimber ( 1994 ) states that collaborative acquisition was foremost instituted in Greek and Roman schools and coincides with the doctrine of Socratic larning – when pupils ‘ inquiring and discourse were emphasized. Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec ( 1993 ) stated the Roman philosopher, Seneca showed support for concerted acquisition through statements such as: Qui Docet Discet ( when you teach, you learn twice ) . Kimber ( 1996 ) and Johnson et Al ( 1993 ) province that concerted acquisition came into prominence in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in Europe and England. During this period Joseph Lancaster and Andrew Bell made extended usage of `monitorial ‘ systems which were devised to enable big Numberss of pupils gain simple instruction at post-industrial revolution schools which were missing in trained instructors. Student ‘monitors ‘ were used to learn other disadvantaged or younger students. Similarly, in the early 19th century concerted acquisition gained popularity among pedagogues across a spectrum of didactic Fieldss. In the late 1930 ‘s, nevertheless, interpersonal competition began to be emphasized in schools and in the late sixtiess, individualistic acquisition began to be used extensively. In the 1980s, schools one time once more began to utilize concerted acquisition. The work of Johnson, Johnson and Smith ( 1991 ) transferred the value of active acquisition to the university degree and argued that big schoolrooms could besides be transformed to go student-centered learning environments. In 1989, a workshop was held in Maratea, Italy. This workshop is considered by many to hold marked the birth of the field of computer-supported collaborative acquisition ( Bereiter, 2002 ; Stahl, Koschmann, & A ; Suthers, 2006 ; Lipponen, 2002 ) . Additionally in 1996, Koschmann ( 1996 ) suggested computer-supported collaborative acquisition ( CSCL ) as an emerging theoretical account of educational engineering and CSCL has been progressing of all time since.3. Definition of footingsCollaborative acquisition has been established in a assortment of ways over clip in a spectrum of academic Fieldss. In the broadest sense, collaborative acquisition is defined by Dillenbourg ( 1999, p.1 ) as â€Å" a state of affairs in which two or more people learn or attempt to larn something together. † The ‘two or more people ‘ referred to in the definition above, is applicable in equal acquisition as â€Å" person of the same societal standing † ( Falchikov, 2001, p.1 ) , which in an educational context implies person â€Å" within the same category or cohort † ( Falchikov, p.3 ) . For illustration, pupils presently finishing their Masters Degree in Human Resource Management who web and addition cognition from interaction with each other are prosecuting in equal acquisition. Common to the assorted definitions of collaborative acquisition is that accent is placed on the thought of joint building of cognition and common battle of participants ( Lipponen, 2002 ) . In this reappraisal the footings collaborative acquisition and concerted acquisition are used interchangeably. However, a differentiation between the two must be noted. The former involves the joint battle of pupils, at assorted public presentation degrees, in a co-ordinated attempt to work out the job together ( Panitz, 1996 ) . The latter is accomplished by agencies of the division of labour, pupils work together in little groups to carry through a common end, whereby each individual is responsible for a fraction of the job resolution ( Roschelle & A ; Teasly, in imperativeness ; Cooper, McKinney, and Robinson ( 1991 ) ; Gokhale 1995 ) . In add-on, Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye and O'Malley ( 1996 ) indicate that basically the two differ by virtuousness of the manner the undertaking is divided: in concerted acquisition, the undertaking is split hierarchically into independent subtasks ; in collaborative acquisition, the cognitive patterned advance may be heterarchially divided into int ertwined beds. When utilizing the footings collaborative or cooperative larning interchangeably, the definition applicable, as stated by ( Yazici, 2005, p.217 ) is: â€Å" the instructional usage of little groups or squads where equal interaction plays a cardinal function in larning † . Additionally, Dillenbourgh ( 1999 ) contends that collaborative acquisition can be understood as a pedagogical method or a psychological procedure. Collaborative acquisition in a pedagogical sense is normative: one asks two or more people to join forces because it is expected they will in this mode learn expeditiously. In the psychological sense it is descriptive: one observes that two or more people have gained cognition and coaction is viewed as the mechanism which caused the acquisition. In this reappraisal, collaborative acquisition will be applied in the pedagogical sense with respect to postgraduate degree acquisition.4. Learning at graduate student degreeThere are considerable differences in the purposes and methods of instruction and acquisition at undergraduate and postgraduate degree of instruction ( Lave & A ; Wenger, 1991 ; Barnacle, 2005 ; Donnelly, 2008 ; Butler,1993 ) . The cardinal purpose at postgraduate degree is to come on the ability of pupils to believe criticall y ( Jones, Michael, Gear, & A ; Read, 2006 ) . The procedure referred to as ‘post-conventional believing ‘ by Ashley ( 1973 as cited in Jones et al 2006 ) is critical in carry throughing this purpose. He defines it as a procedure â€Å" during which the pupil is able to travel from a place of noncritical credence of the orthodox to one of originative dissent, a procedure that stretches the mind and encourages the outgrowth of new or revised ways of thought † ( Ashley, as cited in Jones et Al, p.379 ) . Collaborative larning Fosters this procedure as it stretches the mind and encourages the outgrowth of advanced or revised ways of thought ( Ladyshewsky, 2006 ; Jones et Al, 2006 ) . Similarly, Machemer and Crawford ( 2007 ) argue that the traditional talk method of learning has two important failings at postgraduate degree. First, it promotes pupil passiveness which does non heighten or prolong the pupils ‘ acquisition. Second, the extremist alterations and elaborateness of the information makes it hard to draw-up talks that cover the necessary deepness, comprehensiveness and advanced cognition required. Conversely, a survey conducted in graduate student medical instruction resulted in both collaborative acquisition and the traditional talk method being every bit effectual in bettering the cognition degrees of pupils ( Smits, De Buisonje , Verbeek, Van Dijk, Metz, and Cate, 2003 ) . Therefore, when sing execution of collaborative acquisition methods, the context which it is to be applied every bit good as the construct of battle should be taken into history. The construct of battle is cardinal to successful acquisition at postgraduate degree ( Jungst, Licklider, and Wiersma, 2003 ) . Consequently as cited by Jungst et Al. it is in the active acquisition environment that a deeper degree of understanding and true acquisition occurs, larning that can be transferred to the universe outside of the schoolroom. In add-on, at postgraduate degree, pupils transform as societal agents and signifier individualities as scholars, professionals and, more widely, as members of society ( Havness, 2008 ) . However, antecedently O'Donell, Tobell, and Zammit ( 2007 ) argued that the nature of passage from undergraduate to postgraduate survey is less ambitious and there is small to get the better of because, in kernel, the environment remains the same. After farther survey, O'Donell et Al ( 2009 ) concluded that there should be greater independent survey by pupils at postgraduate degree and farther synergistic workshop-style instruction, taking to knowledge and understanding which is socially constructed instead than passively received.( Beginning: Stahl, 2000, p.71 )In add-on to knowledge being socially constructed, Stahl ( 2000 ) states that cognition should be personally constructed every bit good. Stahl farther explains that the diagram aims to associate the person and the societal facets in the knowledge-building procedure. This procedure begins with the rhythm of personal apprehension. The staying parts of the diagram exemplify how the person ‘s personal beliefs and civilization are influenced by other people ‘s values, beliefs and point of views ( societal procedure ) . A shared civilization is so formed, which impacts on the personal apprehension, as it takes form through act uponing the ways of thought, diverseness influences, every bit good as motivational concerns. The procedure is initiated once more when the new civilization adopted by the single influences others as he / she interacts with different groups of people. However, to guarantee that a knowledge-building procedure does in fact occur, the pros and cons of collaborative acquisition should be weighed up.5. Advantages of collaborative acquisitionFor the successful passage to take topographic point, a great trade of research sing the result of collaborative acquisition in contrast to traditional instructional patterns has been conducted ( Kimber, 1994 ) . Instructor-centered methods of learning can non adequately impact the complex results ( job work outing accomplishments ; higher order believing accomplishments ; the ability to hold a diverse positions view ; ethical logical thinking ; and life-long acquisition ) that a postgraduate pupil requires ( Jungst et al, 2003 ) . Numerous surveies look intoing higher instruction conclude that pupils who follow in-class collaborative acquisition processs and actively collaborate with each other are more satisfied with their acquisition experience and consequence in greater positive results when compared to pupils who are exposed to the traditional talk method ( Kimber, 1994 ; Alavi, 1994 ) . Consequently, this satisfaction consequences from interpersonal relationships which are developed and enhanced through group acquisition ( Johnson et al, 1991 ) . Another factor lending to the satisfaction of collaborative acquisition methods is that it is per se motivative, as each single member is critical to procuring a productive, concerted acquisition pattern ( Havness, 2008 ) . Andrews ‘ ( 1992 ) work with larning squads confirms the position that greater satisfaction is experienced as collaborative larning improves assurance and supports the acquisition procedure. Additionally, Johnson & A ; Johnson ( 1994 ) concluded that concerted larning systematically produced higher tonss of self-efficiency than did individualistic conditions. Besides greater satisfaction is achieved since equals are at an equal degree and therefore can be more unfastened and explore to the full the countries of cognitive struggle ( Ladyshewsky, 2006 ) . This satisfaction experienced consequences in avidity to larn ( Kimber, 1994 ) . In add-on, the degree of equality with equals encourages greater dynamic battle in the acquisition procedure and building of cognition with deeper apprehension ( Alavi, 1994 ) . Attainment of greater understanding consequences in longer keeping of information and turning away of abrasion ( Cooper, 1990 ) . As a consequence, job resolution accomplishments are enhanced and it consequences in higher order thought ( Jaarsma, De Graves, and Muijtjens, 2008 ) . Likewise, Mazen, Jones, and Sergenian ( 2000 ) further supports the importance of group acquisition by indicating out that by working hand in glove, pupils can heighten accomplishments and advanced ways of believing which will ensue in group procedure additions. When working hand in glove, the issue of diverseness must non be forgotten. Escalating Numberss of postgraduate pupils from diverse backgrounds with changing positions and readings are holding a profound consequence on concerted acquisition ( Booth, Bowie, Jordan, and Rippin, 2000 ) . Wyss-Flamm ( 2002 ) points out that the outgrowth of ‘difference ‘ is indispensable to larning. Exposure to the differences can elicit the demand to try to come in each other ‘s heads and therefore larning something for which the tool of conversation is priceless ( Argyris & A ; Schion, 1996 ) . Similarly, Stein and Hurd ( 2000 ) acknowledge that collaborative acquisition transforms the acquisition environment into a student-centered one, which capitalizes on the diverseness of the pupils, and lessens dependance on the professor as the individual conveyor of cognition. This can ensue in interpersonal every bit good as intrapersonal procedures interacting with each other, making chances for larning to happen within the established modus operandis ( single-loop acquisition ) or larning that requires advanced modus operandis be created ( double-loop acquisition ) ( Argyris, 1999 ) . In contrast, Foldy ( 2004 ) states that persons who are portion of diverse groups will be characterized by feelings of misgiving or non experiencing safe as they are non grouped with those similar to them. Consequently, there will be greater intra-group struggle originating. Therefore, Booth et Al. bespeak that diverseness can merely be valuable to the acquisition if the differences are recognized and appreciated. Similarly, Milliken & A ; Martins ( 1996, p. 403 ) province that diverseness in concerted larning groups can be seen as a â€Å" double-edged blade † , intending that it possesses the possible to be of great advantage, but this will merely happen if it is managed efficaciously. Extra benefits of collaborative acquisition, adapted from Nunamaker, Dennis, Valacich, Vogel, and George, ( 1991 ) , include: the group generates more information and options as compared to the mean single group member ; group larning motivates the person to execute better ; groups are more effectual and nonsubjective in rating, and in conclusion, interactions amongst group members lead to synergisms. Similarly, Boud, Cohen, and Sampson ( 2001, cited in Havnes, 2008 ) highlight five results that can peculiarly be advanced by equal acquisition schemes, these include: working with others ; critical question and contemplation ; communicating and articulation of cognition, understanding and accomplishments ; pull offing acquisition and how to larn ; self and peer appraisal. In add-on, collaborative acquisition has been found to back up greater productiveness, coevals of originative thoughts or advanced solutions, and heighten the pupils ‘ ability of societal position pickings ( Cus eo, 1992 ; Lord, 2001 ) . However it must be noted that these positive results do non predominate with all groups and in all contexts as the outlooks of group members may non conform to each other ( Felder & A ; Brent, 2001 ) or societal idleness of free equitation may happen within the group ( Mello, 1993 ) . These jobs, if experienced, can finally ensue in the devastation of the group. However, when the positive results of collaborative acquisition do transpire, it supports the constructive impact that this method of acquisition has on academic-related accomplishment ( Alavi, 1994 ) . This is farther supported by empirical grounds of improved accomplishment at postgraduate degree ( DaRos- Voseles, Onwuegbuzie, and Qun, 2008 ; Collins, Cao, and Robidoux, 2004 ) . The degrees of academic accomplishment attained are fostered by the collaborative acquisition environment as it gives pupils an chance to prosecute in treatment, take duty for their single acquisition every bit good as accomplishment of the group ‘s ends, and therefore go critical minds ( Totten, Sills, Digby, and Russ, 1991 ) . This was farther proven in a survey conducted by Gokhale ( 1995 ) .5.1 Study to find effectivity of collaborative acquisition: Gokhale 1995The intent of this survey was to find the effectivity of collaborative larning versus single acquisition as it relates to larning results achieved. The population for the survey comprised of pupils in industrial engineering, enrolled at Western Illinois University. The intervention comprised of two parts: talk and worksheet. First, a common talk was delivered to both intervention groups. Next, one subdivision was indiscriminately assigned to the â€Å" single acquisition group † while the other subdivision was assigned to the â€Å" collaborative acquisition group † . The same worksheet was given to both intervention groups. It was comprised of both drill-and-practice points ( factual cognition and comprehension ) and critical- thought points ( analysis, synthesis and rating of constructs ) . Subsequent to a statistical analysis of the trial tonss, the consequences depicted that pupils who participated in collaborative acquisition had performed significantly better on the critical-thinking trial than pupils who studied separately. It was besides found that both groups performed every bit good on the drill-and-practice trial. The collaborative acquisition medium provided pupils with chances to analyse, synthesise and measure thoughts hand in glove. Therefore, the positive results of this survey on collaborative acquisition can be applied at a graduate student degree where the cardinal purpose is for pupils to believe critically and heighten cognition and apprehension which is socially constructed ( Jones et al 2006 ) . The consequences of this survey conform to the developmental positions ( Slavin, 1995 ) of collaborative acquisition proposed by the advocates of collaborative acquisition such as Vygotsky and Piaget.5.2 Piaget ‘s Constructivist PerspectiveValidation o f concerted acquisition stems, in portion, from theories of societal mutuality ( Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1998 ) . Piaget ‘s socio-cognitive struggle theory provinces that kids ( or grownups ) on different degrees of cognitive development, or those persons on the same degree of cognitive development with differing positions, can prosecute in societal interaction that leads to a cognitive struggle. Through treatment with other equals, the ‘shock of our idea coming into contact with others ‘ ( Piaget, 1928 ) leads to a disequilibrium within participants. This consequences in the building of new conceptual constructions and understanding in order to reconstruct equilibrium. ( Ladyshewsky, 2006 ; Slavin, 1987 ; Lipponen, 2002 ) . The importance of collaborative acquisition can be farther understood by Vygotsky ‘s theoretical model.5.3 Vygotsky zone of proximal developmentParallel to Piaget ‘s constructivist position ( Piaget,1969 ) , Vygotsky ‘s t heoretical concept of the zone of proximal development provides strong support for the inclusion of concerted acquisition as a method of instructional scheme as it consequences in the sweetening of the acquisition that occurs. Vygotsky ( 1978 ) defines the zone of proximal development as â€Å" The distance between the existent developmental degree as determined by independent job resolution and the degree of possible development as determined through job work outing under grownup counsel or in coaction with more capable equals. † ( See figure 2 )Figure 2: Zone of Proximal DevelopmentBeginning: Harnum ( 2009 )5.4 Theory of concerted acquisitionSupporting the theory of societal mutuality, Slavin ( 1995 ) proposed a two-element theory of concerted larning comprising of positive mutuality and single answerability. Likewise, Johnson et Al. ( 1991a, 1991b ) advocated a five-component theory of concerted acquisition. Harmonizing to the theoretical account, the following five elemen ts are indispensable for maximising the long-run success of the concerted learning venture:Figure 3: Pillars of concerted acquisitionPillars of Cooperative LearningFace-to-face interactionPositive mutualityGroupprocessingIndividual AccountabilitySocialaccomplishmentsAdapted: www.foundationcoalition.orgThe presence of the five basic constituents of concerted acquisition may all be accounted for within the theoretical model provided by Vygotsky ‘s zone of proximal development. Positive Mutuality: It is the connecting of pupils reciprocally so that the person can non win unless all group members win ( Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1998 ) . Vygotskys ‘s theory rests upon the rule that a kid ‘s development is dependent upon interactions with other kids and grownups. Therefore, kids and grownups are developmentally dependent, and hence interdependent ( Doolittle, 1995 ) . Face-to-face interaction: Within concerted acquisition, face-to-face interaction involves pupils need to make existent work jointly in which they promote each other ‘s success by sharing resources and helping, back uping, encouraging, and acknowledging each other ‘s attempts to accomplish the group ‘s ends ( Johnson et al 1998 ) . It is interpreted in the Vygotskian system as societal mediation and encultration. Encultration refers to what is learnt, while societal mediation refers to how it is learnt. Individual answerability: It is the belief held by each person that he/she will be held responsible for his/her ain public presentation and acquisition ( Johnson et al 1998 ) . For Vygotsky, single answerability would be reflected in each group member being responsible for developing within their ain alone zone of proximal development ( Doolittle, 1995 ) . Group Processing: Group treating exists when group members discuss how good they are accomplishing their ends and measuring ways to better the productivity of all group member in accomplishing the group ends ( Johnson et al 1998 ; Doolittle, 1995 ) . Within the model of Vygotsky ‘s theory, portion of direction entails the changeless monitoring of each pupil ‘s growing within their zone of proximal development ( Doolittle, 1995 ) . This survey was inconclusive in demoing that graduate squads perform better with collaborative acquisition manners. However, the consequences for graduate pupils indicate that collaborative acquisition manner is influential in public presentation, along with competitory and participant acquisition manners. Johnson and Johnson ( 1998 ) besides conclude that alumnus pupils portray the traits of independent scholars and are enthusiastic to obtain some enterprise and lament to accept duties for their ain acquisition. Therefore, professors should be more interested to ease independent larning. Furthermore, Johnson and Johnson province that the function of facilitator or delegator ensures working with pupils in a advisory manner and sweetening of the pupils ‘ capacity to larn independently, this is similar to what is required in organisational squads.6.2 Problems with collaborative acquisition mannerDespite the positive results that have been stated, there are many jobs that exist as good ( Machemer & A ; Crawford, 2007 ) . These jobs have resulted in some professors defying to prosecute in alternate theoretical accounts for learning and larning despite holding academic freedom in their instruction manners ( Moore, 2005 ) . The jobs experienced foremost include, a slow passage from traditional to collaborative signifiers of acquisition may happen particularly with pupils who can non accommodate easy or those who are extremely immune to alter ( Kimber, 1994 ) . Second, the degree of psychological safety in the colloquial infinite is a major determiner in results achieved ( Jones et al. , 2006 ) . Anxiety may originate as a consequence of the strangeness of the stuff being studied, or by the strain of lending to the conversation in a ambitious manner and could motivate a negative response and turning away of acquisition ( Vince & A ; Martin, 1993 ) . Third, unconstructive discourse may originate when consensus can non be reached with respects to the stuff, ends o r values ( Bruffee, 1984 ) . The increasing heterogeneousness ( Baer, 1996 ) and diverseness amongst graduate student pupils ( Booth et al. , 2000 ) escalates the happening of dysfunctional discourse in the acquisition procedure. Students may show farther hurdlings for collaborative acquisition which include: deficiency of engagement, backdown due to fear of negative rating, fright of some pupils ruling the session, troubles in maintaining the treatment focused, information overload for single members and measuring the degree of understanding ( Anderson, 1995 ; Nunamaker et al. , 1991 ) . The jobs experienced have caused certain lectors to give up on concerted larning techniques on the whole ( Cohen, 1994 ) . In the same manner, Machemer and Crawford ( 2007 ) point out that lectors give up on concerted larning methods as it has limited schoolroom ( talk ) application. In add-on, the design and testing of collaborative activities and lessons can be time-consuming on presently overloaded module agendas ( Cooper, 1995 ) . This consequences in concerns from a learning position, such as: the course of study non being completed as the activities take up a great trade of clip ; perceived loss of control in the schoolroom ; and trouble in measuring the pupils ‘ engagement and effectivity of the collaborative acquisition manners ( Gerlach, 1994 ) . Similarly, extra concerns include: the insufficiency of collaborative larning techniques in making high knowledge-attainment degrees with complex stuff, every bit good as pupils missing the critical features for working in effectual squads ( Cooper, 1995 ; Lord, 2001 ) . These critical features are what the ideal squad member should possess, which leads to the issue that the collaborative theoretical account assumes how professors are supposed to learn, how pupils are supposed to larn, and how cognition is created ( Moore, 2005 ) . However, Bruffee ( 1993 ) argues that cognition is non something transferred from one person ‘s caput to the following. â€Å" Collaborative acquisition assumes alternatively that cognition is a consensus among the members of a community of knowing peers-something people concept by speaking together and making understanding † ( Bruffee, 1993, p. 3 ) . Furthermore, Nias ( 1987 ) argues, that it is evident that non all pupils take an active function in the analysis of instances through argument. As affirmed by Jones et al 2006, a figure of factors may lend to this, including: Lack of assurance: pupils may grok the instance but do non set across their sentiment. Lack of involvement: the capable country may non be of involvement to each pupil. Lack of engagement: there are identifiable barriers to involvement ; e.g. domination of some pupils or linguistic communication barriers. Lack of readying: a deficiency of clip, committedness or motive. These factors should be mitigated every bit far as possible so as to make positive groups which help people to do positive alterations ( Goleman, Boyatzis, and Mckee, 2002 ) . Positive groups emerge where there are high degrees of single answerability, group coherence, seasonably and effectual feedback and expressed wagess for high degrees of group public presentation ( Michaelson, Fink, and Knight, 1997 ) . In contrast, unsatisfactory groups appear where free equitation or societal idleness ( doing less attempt to accomplish a end ) occurs ( Brooks & A ; Ammons, 2003 ; Mello, 1993 ) . This may give rise to interpersonal struggles and finally group devastation ( Jehn & A ; Mannix 2001 ; Miller, 2003 ) . Conversely, a longitudinal survey conducted ; found that a peculiar form of struggle resulted in higher group public presentation. This form was created as â€Å" squads executing good were characterized by low but increasing degrees of procedure struggle ; low degrees of relationship struggle, with a rise near undertaking deadlines ; and moderate degrees of undertaking struggle at the center of group interaction † ( Jehn & A ; Mannix, p.238 ) . The persons ‘ dissatisfaction will most likely influence squad public presentation, squad stableness, the size and construction of the group, and temporal range ( Alge, Wiethoff, and Klein, 2003 ; Johnson et al. , 1991 ; Jaques, 2000 ) . In add-on, diverseness ( Koppenhaver & A ; Shrader, 2003 ) and the squad members ‘ personal features, such as psychological profile, corporate orientation, and larning penchants are likely to act upon public presentation ( Kunkel & A ; Shafer, 1997 ; Lancaster & A ; Strand, 2001 ; Mennecke, Hoffer, and Wynne, 1992 ; Robbins, 1994 ) . These restrictions therefore pose a major menace to full development of the positive facets associated with collaborative acquisition and to the success of this method on the whole.7. DecisionFrom the reappraisal it is evident that there are assorted consequences sing the value of collaborative instruction and acquisition at postgraduate degree. It is evident that the benefits of this method outweigh the negative facets. However it must be noted, that the benefits do non use to all involved and if the restrictions are non adequately taken into history, the effects are bound to be black. In add-on, the diverseness amongst pupils particularly at postgraduate degree is intensifying. The heterogeneousness of pupils must be considered and hence, a ‘one method fits all ‘ attack should non be applied. Supervisors should change learning manners to suit for the diverseness of larning penchants amongst pupils. However, future research should be conducted to find the consequence of jointly using the different larning methods on pupils, their perceptual experiences or value placed on these techniques, and whether these methods will guarantee that optimum larning takes topographic point. Professors need to switch from the impression that â€Å" instruction is stating, acquisition is absorbing, and cognition is subject-matter content † ( Spence, 2001, p.12 ) . This is important as employers in current organisations are demanding more than merely proficient cognition of university alumnuss ( Jungst, Licklider, and Wiersma, 2003 ) . They require alumnuss who can believe under force per unit area, guarantee effectivity in team-work, communicate efficaciously, and build new cognition and thoughts that will give their employers the border in the current fast-paced universe. ( Gardiner, 1994 ; Brown & A ; Lassoie, 1998 ) . Therefore, by altering the patterns of instruction and acquisition in the schoolroom, there is greater possible for the happening of transmutations -for the persons, organisations, and systems ( Moore, 2005 ) . The possibility to restructure and rethink instruction and acquisition at postgraduate degree is exciting, exciting, disputing, hazardous, and ripe with possibility.

Introduction to Functions in C#

Introduction to Functions in C# In C#, a function is a way of packaging code that does something and then returns the value.  Unlike in C, C and some other languages, functions do not exist by themselves. They are part of an object-oriented approach to programming. A program to manage spreadsheets might include a sum() function as part of an object, for example. In C#, a function can be called a member function- it is a member of a class- but that terminology is left over from C. The usual name for it is a method. The Instance Method There are two types of methods: instance method and static method. This introduction covers the instance method. The example below defines a simple class and calls it Test. This example is a simple console program, so this is allowed. Usually, the first class defined in the C# file must be the form class. Its possible to have an empty class like this class Test { }, but it isnt useful. Although it looks empty, it- like all C# classes- inherits from the Object that contains it and includes a default constructor  in the main program. var t new Test(); This code works, but it wont do anything when run except create an instance t of the empty test class. The code below adds a function, a method that outputs the word Hello. using System;namespace funcex1{class Test{public void SayHello(){Console.WriteLine(Hello) ;}}class Program{static void Main(string[] args){var t new Test() ;t.SayHello() ;Console.ReadKey() ;}}} This code example includes Console.ReadKey(), so when it runs, it displays the console window and awaits a key entry such as Enter, Space or Return (not the shift, Alt or Ctrl keys). Without it, it would open the console Window, output Hello and then close all in the blink of an eye. The function SayHello is about as simple a function as you can have. Its a public function, which means the function is visible from outside  the class. If you remove the word public and try to compile the code, it fails with a compilation error funcex1.test.SayHello() is inaccessible due to its protection level. If you add the word private where the word public was and recompile, you get the same compile error. Just change it back to public. The word void in the function means that the function does not return any values. Typical Function Definition Characteristics Access level: public, private plus some othersReturn value: void or any type such as intMethod Name: SayHelloAny method parameters: none for now. These are defined in the brackets () after the method name The code for the definition of another function, MyAge(), is: public int MyAge(){return 53;} Add that right after the SayHello() method in the first example and add these two lines before Console.ReadKey(). var age t.MyAge();Console.WriteLine(David is {0} years old,age); Running the program now outputs this: Hello David is 53 years old, The var age t.MyAge(); call to the method returned the value 53. Its not the most useful function. A more useful example is the spreadsheet Sum function with an array of ints, the start index and the number of values to sum. This is the function: public float Sum(int[] values, int startindex, int endindex){var total 0;for (var indexstartindex; indexendindex; index){total values[index];}return total;} Here are three use cases. This is the code to add in Main() and call to test the Sum function. var values new int[10] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10};Console.WriteLine(t.Sum(values,0,2)); // Should be 6Console.WriteLine(t.Sum(values,0,9)); // should be 55Console.WriteLine(t.Sum(values,9,9)); // should be 10 as 9th value is 10 The For loop adds up the values in the range startindex to endindex, so for startindex 0 and endindex2, this is the sum of 1 2 3 6. Whereas for 9,9, it just adds the one values[9] 10. Within the function, the local variable total is initialized to 0 and then has the relevant parts of the array values added.