An effective teacher is one who can ?->(Show Answer!)

1. An effective teacher is one who can

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

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->One of the least effective ways of storing information is learning…………it.....

QA->The most effective pesticide for general use against most garden pests is?....

QA->Right to Information Act became effective in India on:....

QA->Medicines are more effective; if they are used in which state?....

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 passage carefully and answer the questions givenWill a day come when India’s poor can access government services as easily as drawing cash from an ATM? . . . [N]o country in the world has made accessing education or health or policing or dispute resolution as easy as an ATM, because the nature of these activities requires individuals to use their discretion in a positive way. Technology can certainly facilitate this in a variety of ways if it is seen as one part of an overall approach, but the evidence so far in education, for instance, is that just adding computers alone doesn’t make education any better. . . . The dangerous illusion of technology is that it can create stronger, top down accountability of service providers in implementation-intensive services within existing public sector organisations. One notion is that electronic management information systems (EMIS) keep better track of inputs and those aspects of personnel that are ‘EMIS visible’ can lead to better services. A recent study examined attempts to increase attendance of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANMs) at clinics in Rajasthan, which involved high-tech time clocks to monitor attendance. The study’s title says it all: Band-Aids on a Corpse . . . e-governance can be just as bad as any other governance when the real issue is people and their motivation. For services to improve, the people providing the services have to want to do a better job with the skills they have. A study of medical care in Delhi found that even though providers, in the public sector had much better skills than private sector providers their provision of care in actual practice was much worse. In implementation-intensive services the key to success is face-to-face interactions between a teacher, a nurse, a policeman, an extension agent and a citizen. This relationship is about power. Amartya Sen’s . . . report on education in West Bengal had a supremely telling anecdote in which the villagers forced the teacher to attend school, but then, when the parents went off to work, the teacher did not teach, but forced the children to massage his feet. . . . As long as the system empowers providers over citizens, technology is irrelevant. The answer to successfully providing basic services is to create systems that provide both autonomy and accountability. In basic education for instance, the answer to poor teaching is not controlling teachers more . . . The key . . . is to hire teachers who want to teach and let them teach, expressing their professionalism and vocation as a teacher through autonomy in the classroom. This autonomy has to be matched with accountability for results—not just narrowly measured through test scores, but broadly for the quality of the education they provide. A recent study in Uttar Pradesh showed that if, somehow, all civil service teachers could be replaced with contract teachers, the state could save a billion dollars a year in revenue and double student learning. Just the additional autonomy and accountability of contracts through local groups—even without complementary system changes in information and empowerment—led to that much improvement. The first step to being part of the solution is to create performance information accessible to those outside of the government. . . .According to the author, service delivery in Indian education can be improved in all of the following ways EXCEPT through:
....

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-> YOU HAVE ONE BRIEF PASSAGE WITH LIVE QUESTIONS. READ THE PASSAGE CAREFULLY AND CHOOSE THE BEST ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION OUT OF THE FOUR ALTERNATIVES. A reason why people at school read books is to please their teacher. The teacher has said that this that or the other is a good book and that it is a sign of good taste to enjoy it. So a number of boys and girls anxious to please their teacher get the book and read it. Two or three of them may genuinely like it for their own sake and be grateful to the teacher for putting it in their way. But many will not honestly like it or will persuade themselves that they like it. And that does a great deal of harm. The people who cannot like the book run the risk of two things happening to them either they are put off the idea of the book-let us suppose the book was David Copperfield-either they are put off the idea of classical novels or they take a dislike to Dickens and decide firmly never to waste their time on anything of the sort again or they get a guilty conscience about the whole thing they feel that they do not like what they ought to like and that therefore there is something wrong with them. They are quite mistaken of course. There is nothing wrong with them. The mistake has all been on the teacher s side. What has happened is that they have been shoved up against a book before they were ready for it. It is like giving a young child food only suitable for an adult Result indigestion violent stomach-ache and a rooted dislike of that article of food evermore.The passage is about what ?
....

MCQ-> The second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
....