The Academic Performance of the Student: the Revising the Pattern of the Tests.

/in /by

I will pay for the following article The Academic Performance of the Student: the Revising the Pattern of the Tests. The work is to be 4 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page. To start with, the very nature of the tests is controversial and debatable. Scholars now believe that these tests depend heavily on memorizing the data in the curriculum (Brown et al., 2000), and therefore are based on the recalling of information (Brown et al., 2000) rather than application and conceptual learning. The students are subjected to undue and unnecessary pressure (Brown et al., 2000) due to this nature of the tests, in that they have to cram the information instead of developing knowledge and the practice of that knowledge (Brown et al., 2000). Whereas some of the information is imperatively required to be memorized, the very design of the tests should not be as such. This system of testing, hence, means that the tests are not diverse in nature (Brown et al., 2000). They do not cater to or even take into account the different mindsets of the students (Brown et al., 2000). Every student is not good at memorizing and cramming, and therefore, many students are left at a disadvantage due to the nature of the tests (Brown et al., 2000). Another problem can be the area of emphasis on the tests. For instance, many university admission tests require the students to be good at mathematics (Elford, 2002), which is unfair and disadvantageous for those students who do not have a mathematical mind and who are opting for the arts or social sciences (Elford, 2002). Not addressing such issues means that the tests have a restricted scope (Elford, 2002). Another issue with the tests is their approach to the curriculum.

 

prepare and submit a paper on four questions.

/in /by

Your assignment is to prepare and submit a paper on four questions. In much of the considerations and analysis of the international system, experts would always make reference to World War I, World War II and the cold war. Occurrences that resulted in these three wars can be used to explain the basis of international world order and the establishment of the international system. O’rourke & Williamson, (2004) gives a broader look at the History of Diplomacy inn their work When did globalization begin? In submissions made in this piece, the authors assert that three great wars a reflection of how the international system considered a state-centric. The treaties signed and alliances formed during the three great wars were attempts by nations of the world in taking control of world affairs. In the history of diplomacy and international relations, states have remained to be a key force in determination of world politics. Just before the First World War, the concept of realism was borne, bringing to the fore an objective and critical analysis on the need for world order. In this respect, the international system was analyzed on the basis of both collective interests and the interests of certain states. Realists are of the opinion that state actors in the international world system can be identified on the basis of sovereignty, recognition of statehood, and the control of territory and population. From this perspective, countries cannot be ignored when defining the international system. From a realist perspective, the international system is a product of various historical occurrences, most on which took place in the twentieth century. The First World War was a major factor that brought out the need for a global or international-based system. As many countries in the European continue began fighting for colonies during the imperial era in Europe, conflic5ts between and amongst these countries emerged. Most of the countries started looking beyond national influence to influence within a wider geographical area. The consequence of such rivalry was the development of the First World War. The development of two groups, the Central Powers and the Allies, during the war was pegged on superiority fight between nations that believed they could command or have great influence in world affairs. The end of the First World War was major milestone in the development of the international system as the allies went forth to instill heavy punishment to the Central Powers, led by Germany. The effects of the war were so serious that the League of Nations was formed so as to help avert such magnitude of conflict and war. The Second World War had also its share on development of the state centric International system. After the League of Nations failed, World War I was inevitable. The United States, Britain and France as the winners of World War II played a bigger role than other nations in the preparation of background for the formation of the modern day United Nations. By the United Nations and Russia awarding their selves with veto power in the world body, they had an edge over other countries. The state-centric nature of the world’s system would not be stopped here as even after the formation of the United Nations, the United States and the Soviet Union would still engage in supremacy tactics that is famously regarded as the cold war.

 

Write a 8 pages paper on crisis intervention: rationales in solving societal crisis. There is no single person who would love seeing another person suffering because of his or her activity. However, in certain circumstances, causing others to suffer is essentials for the overall good of others. This drives us into defining punishment. Generally, punishment constitutes causing pain, and, many people tend to ask themselves whether punishing other people with the intention of either correcting their behaviors or without a causative reason is wrong.

/in /by

Write a 8 pages paper on crisis intervention: rationales in solving societal crisis. There is no single person who would love seeing another person suffering because of his or her activity. However, in certain circumstances, causing others to suffer is essentials for the overall good of others. This drives us into defining punishment. Generally, punishment constitutes causing pain, and, many people tend to ask themselves whether punishing other people with the intention of either correcting their behaviors or without a causative reason is wrong.

Most philosophers have different opinions concerning these issues. One group maintains that causing pain on others in the form of punishing them is significantly different from causing pain to innocent persons. The latter is inherently right. On the other hand, some philosophers believe that punishment becomes wrong and it is only justifiable if the outcome is positive. Philosophers believe that the first view is unnecessary in justifying punishment beyond the fact that people deserve it. This form of punishment intended for the overall good of others falls under the retributive approach. The second approach in which punishment is unjustifiable falls under the utilitarian approach. Retributive and utilitarian approaches are the two rationales that philosophers use in describing the aspect of punishment.

Retributive rationale – The first philosophical approach or rather rationale considers punishment as significant and not evil. In this approach, the form of punishment instilled balances the wrongs committed. However, some circumstances may challenge this rationale. For instance, revenge is personal and not essentially proportional to the injuries caused but retribution is impersonal and proportional to the injuries inflicted. This, therefore, challenges the policymakers in defining punishment.

Philosophers even after facing challenges in defining punishment, comes with another definition of punishment.

Imaginative thinking is very important to literature.

/in /by

Your assignment is to prepare and submit a paper on the hamlet. Imaginative thinking is very important to literature. Of course, the film medium is a form of literature, so, imagination also comes in handy. When William Shakespeare wrote “Hamlet”, it is very certain that he put a whole lot of imaginative thought into it (Shakespeare & Constance). In both versions of Hamlet’s adaptation—Franco Zeffirellis 1990 film starring Mel Gibson and Michael Almereydas 2000 version, the directors, as well as the actors, have been very creative as far as interpreting the play is concerned. Michael Almereyda’s version is the ‘marriage’ of the past and the contemporary. The question that this version probably raises in the mind of many viewers is whether this ‘marriage’ was worth it after all. whether this union has yielded any positive fruit. Like Shakespeare does in most of his plays, Michael Almereyda makes an attempt to make use of, not only a story that viewers are familiar, but he adopts a setting – in terms of place and time – that they are familiar with. He makes use of the present day New York. Unlike what obtains in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Michael Almereyda prefers to make

Denmark a high profile media corporation, rather than interpreting it to be a country. If he (the director) had not intended to change anything in the play, he would certainly have left Denmark as a country that it is in Shakespeare’s version. Perhaps the only feature of this version by Almereyda that has not changed particularly is the language. The original Shakespearian language that was used by William Shakespeare himself is maintained. The choice of Shakespearian English for a screenplay set in the twenty first century seems to be an anomaly. As with some other features of the screenplay, the author seems to be pleading to the viewers that they suspend every sense of verisimilitude they possess.