A school teacher or a man affecting learning ?->(Show Answer!)

1. A school teacher or a man affecting learning

Answer: Pedagogue

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->A school teacher or a man affecting learning....

QA->A person who is too concerned with small details or rules especially when learning or teaching Or one who makes a vain display of his learning, a conceited fellow....

QA->In a class of 20 students the average age is 16 years.If the age of the class teacher is added to that of students,the average age of the class becomes 17 years.What is the age of the teacher?....

QA->The date of retirement of a high school teacher whose date of birth is 01-07-1956 will be:....

QA->Syngular or Plural of word Man teacher....

MCQ-> Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for questions that follow. The understanding that the brain has areas of specialization has brought with it the tendency to teach in ways that reflect these specialized functions. For example, research concerning the specialized functions of the left and right hemispheres has led to left and right hemisphere teaching. Recent research suggests that such an approach neither reflects how the brain learns, nor how it functions once learning has occurred. To the contrary, in most ‘higher vertebrates’ brain systems interact together as a whole brain with the external world. Learning is about making connections within the brain and between the brain and outside world. What does this mean? Until recently, the idea that the neural basis for learning resided in connections between neurons remained a speculation. Now, there is direct evidence that when learning occurs, neuro – chemical communication between neurons is facilitated, and less input is required to activate established connections over time. This evidence also indicates that learning creates connections between not only adjacent neurons but also between distant neurons, and that connections are made from simple circuits to complex ones and from complex circuits to simple ones As connections are formed among adjacent neurons to form circuits, connections also begin to form with neurons in other regions of the brain that are associated with visual, tactile, and even olfactory information related to the sound of the word. Meaning is attributed to ‘sounds of words’ because of these connections. Some of the brain sites for these other neurons are far from the neural circuits that correspond to the component sounds of the words; they include sites in other areas of the left hemisphere and even sites in the right hemisphere. The whole complex of interconnected neurons that are activated by the word is called a neural network. In early stages of learning, neural circuits are activated piecemeal, incompletely, and weakly. It is like getting a glimpse of a partially exposed and blurry picture. With more experience, practice, and exposure, the picture becomes clearer and more detailed. As the exposure is repeated, less input is needed to activate the entire network. With time, activation and recognition become relatively automatic, and the learner can direct her attention to other parts of the task. This also explains why learning takes time. Time is needed to establish new neutral networks and connections between networks. Thi suggests that the neutral mechanism for learning is essentially the same as the products of learning. Learning is a process that establishes new connections among networks. The newly acquired skills or knowledge are nothing but formation of neutral circuits and networks.It can be inferred that, for a nursery student, learning will ...
...

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Keshava, the washerman had a donkey. They worked together all day, and Keshava would pour out his heart to the donkey. One day, Keshava was walking home with the donkey when he felt tired. He tied the donkey te=a tree and sat down to rest fora while, near a school. A window was open, and through it, a teacher could be heard scolding the students. “Here I am, trying to turn you donkeys into human beings, but you just won’t study!” As soon as Keshava heard these words, his ears pricked up. A man who could actually turn, donkeys into humans! This was the answer to his prayers. Impatiently, he waited for school to be over that day. When everyone had gone home, and only the teacher remained behind to check some papers, Keshava entered the classroom. “How can I help you?” asked the teacher. Keshava scratched his head and said. “I heard what you said to the children. This donkey is my companion. If you made it human, we could have such good times together.” The teacher decided to trick Keshava. He pretended to think for a while and then said, “Give me six months and it will cost you a thousand rupees.” The washerman agreed and rushed home to get the money. He then left the donkey in the teacher’s care. After the six months were up, Keshava went to the teacher. The teacher had been using the donkey for his own work. Not wanting to give it up, he said, “Oh, your doilkey became so clever that it ran away. He is the headman of the next village. “When Keshava reached the next village he found the village elders sitting under a -tree, discussing serious problems: How surprised they were when Keshava marched up to the headman, grabbed his arm and said. “How dare you? You think you are so clever that you ran away? Come home at once!” The headman understood someone had played a trick on Keshava. “I am not your donkey!” he said. “Go find the sage in the forest. “Keshava found the sage sitting under a tree with his eyes closed, deep in meditation: He crept up and grabbed the sage’s beard.”Come back home now!” he shouted. The startled sage somehow calmed Keshava. When he heard what had happened, he had a good laugh. Then he told the washerman kindly, “The teacher made a fool of you. Your donkey must be still with him. Go and take it back from him. Try to make some real friends, who will talk with you and share your troubles. A donkey will never be able to do that!” Keshava returned home later that day with his donkey, sadder and wiser.Which of the following can be said about the teacher?
...

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. The wisdom of learning from failure is incontrovertible. Yet organisations that do it well are extraordinarily rare. This gap is not due to a lack of commitment to learning. Managers in the vast majority of enterprises that I have studied over the past 20 years —pharmaceutical. financial services, product design, telecommunications, and construction companies: hospitals; and NASA’s space shuttle program, among others— genuinely wanted to help their organisations learn from failures to improve future performance. In some cases they and their teams had devoted many hours to afteraction reviews, postmortems, and the like. But time after time I saw that these painstaking efforts led to no real change. The reason: Those managers were thinking about failure the wrong way. Most executives I’ve talked to believe that failure is bad (of course!). They also believe that learning from it is pretty straightforward: Ask people to reflect on what they did wrong and exhort them to avoid similar mistakes in the future—or, better yet, assign a team to review and write a report on what happened and then distribute it throughout the organisation. These widely held beliefs are misguided. First, failure is not always bad. In organisational life it is sometimes bad, sometimes inevitable, and sometimes even good. Second, learning from organisational failures is anything but straightforward. The attitudes and activities required to effectively detect and analyze failures are in short supply in most companies, and the need for context-specific learning strategies is underappreciated. Or – ganisations need new and better ways to go beyond lessons that are superficial (“Procedures weren’t followed”) or self-serving (“The market just wasn’t ready for our great new product”). That means jettisoning old cultural beliefs and stereotypical notions of success and embracing failure’s lessons. Leaders can begin by understanding how the blame game gets in the way. The Blame Game Failure and fault are virtually inseparable in most households. organisations, and cultures. Every child learns at some point that admitting failure means taking the blame. That is why so few organisations have shifted to a culture of psychological safety in which the rewards of learning from failure can be fully realised. Executives I’ve interviewed in organisations as different as hospitals and investment banks admit to being torn: How can they respond constructively to failures without giving rise to an anything-goes attitude? If people aren’t blamed for failures, what will ensure that they try as hard as possible to do their best work? This concern is based on a false dichotomy. In actuality, a culture that makes it safe to admit and report on failure can—and in some organisational contexts must–coexist with high standards for performance. To understand why, look at the exhibit “A Spectrum of Reasons for Failure,” which lists causes ranging from deliberate deviation to thoughtful experimentation. Which of these causes involve blameworthy actions? Deliberate deviance, first on the list, obviously warrants blame. But inattention might not. If it results from a lack of effort, perhaps it’s blameworthy. But if it results from fatigue near the end of an overly long shift, the manager who assigned the shift is more at fault than the employee. As we go down the list, it gets more and more difficult to find blameworthy acts. In fact, a failure resulting from thoughtful experimentation that generates valuable information may actually be praiseworthy. When I ask executives to consider this spectrum and then to estimate how many of the failures in their organisations are truly blameworthy, their answers are usually in single digits—perhaps 2% to 5%. But when I ask how many are treated as blameworthy, they say (after a pause or a laugh) 70% to 90%. The unfortunate consequence is that many failures go unreported and their lessons are lost. Question : sophisticated understanding of failure’s causes and contexts will help to avoid the blame game and institute an effective strategy for learning from failure. Although an infinite number of things can go wrong in organisations, mistakes fall into three broad categories: preventable, complexity-related, and intelligent.Which of the following statement (s) is/are true in the context of the given passage ? I. Most executives believe that failure is bad and learning from it is pretty straightforward. II. The wisdom of learning from failure is disputable. III. Deliberate deviance, first on the list of the exhibit, “A Spectrum of Reasons for Failure” obviously warrants blame....

MCQ-> Keshava, the washerman had a donkey. They worked together all day, and Keshava would pour out his heart to the donkey. One day, Keshava was walking home with thedonkey when he felt tired. He tied the donkey to a tree and sat down to rest for a while, near a school. A window was open, and through it, a teacher could be heard scolding the students. “Here I am, trying to turn you donkeys into human beings, but you just won’t study! As soon as Keshava heard these words, his ears pricked up. A man who could actually turn donkeys into humans! This was the answer to his prayers. Impatiently, he waited for school to be over that day. When everyone had gone home, and only the teacher remained behind to check some papers, Keshava entered the classroom. “How can I help you?” asked the teacher. Keshava scratched his head and said, “I heard what you said to the children. This donkey is my companion. If you made it human, we could have such good times together.” The teacher decided to trick Keshava. He pretended to think for a while and then said, “Give me six months and it will cost you a thousand rupees.” The washerman agreed and rushed home to get the money. He then left the donkey in the teacher’s care....

MCQ-> Every age has its pet contradictions. A few decades back, we used to accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon on the turkey carpet, why life was so confusing. Today there is similar trouble over the question whether there is, or is not, something called Human Nature. On the one hand, there has been an explosion of animal behavior studies, and comparisons between animals and men have become immensely popular. People use evidence from animals to decide whether man is naturally aggressive, or naturally territorial; even whether he has an aggressive or territorial instinct. Moreover, we are still much influenced by Freudian psychology, which depends on the notion of instinct. On the other hand, many still hold what may be called the Blank Paper view, that man is a creature entirely without instincts. So do Existentialist philosophers. If man has no instincts, all comparison with animals must be irrelevant. (Both these simple party lines have been somewhat eroded over time, but both are still extremely influential.)According to the Blank Paper view, man is entirely the product of his culture. He starts off infinitely plastic, and is formed completely by the society in which he grows up. There is then no end to the possible variations among cultures; what we take to be human instincts are just the deep-dug prejudices of our own society. Forming families, fearing the dark, and jumping at the sight of a spider are just results of our conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man’s freedom and will not let him call himself a product of anything. But Existentialism too denies that man has a nature; if he had, his freedom would not be complete. Thus Sartre insisted that “there is no human nature …. Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world, and defines himself afterwards. If man as the Existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes himself.” For Existentialism there is only the human condition, which is what happens to man and not what he is born like. If we are afraid of the dark, it is because we choose to be cowards; if we care more for our own children than for other people’s, it is because we choose to be partial. We must never talk about human nature or human instincts. This implicit moral notion is still very influential, not at all confined to those who use the metaphysic of essence and existence. So I shall sometimes speak of it, not as Existentialist, but as Libertarian ― meaning that those holding it do not just (like all of us) think liberty important, but think it supremely important and believe that our having a nature would infringe it.Philosophers have not yet made much use of informed comparison with other species as a help in the understanding of man. One reason they have not is undoubtedly the fear of fatalism. Another is the appalling way terms such as instinct and human nature have been misused in the past. A third is the absurdity of some ethological propaganda.A business school led by an existentialist director, wanted to decide on admission policy for its executive MBA program, which requires candidates to possess minimum five years of managerial experience.With respect to the selection process, which of the following statements will be closest to the director’s belief:
...