Electric and Magnetic Fields Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Electric and Magnetic Fields - Assignment Example The paper tells that the force of magnetism acts in a region around a moving electric charge or a magnet; this region is defined as a magnetic field. It is shown in Fig. 1. The magnetic field can be conceptualized in terms of magnetic field lines. The density of field lines determines the field strength, Magnetic flux is defined as the total number of lines of the magnetic field that pass through an area. Magnetic flux is measured in terms of Tesla meter squared (T †¢ m2) another name for which is Weber (Wb). A magnetic field’s intensity can be expressed in terms of the magnetic field strength. A distinction can be technically made between magnetic flux density B and magnetic field strength H. Magnetic flux density is also called teslas (T) and is measured in Newton-meters per ampere (Nm/A) whereas magnetic field strength is measured in terms of amperes per meter (A/m). The density of magnetic flux reduces as the distance is increased from a straight line that connects ma gnetic poles’ pair around which there is a stable magnetic field. There is direct proportionality between the magnetic flux density and the current in amperes at a location in a current carrying wire’s vicinity. A piece of iron or some other ferromagnetic object when brought inside a magnetic field experiences a force known as the magnetic force which is directly proportional to the magnetic field strength’s gradient with respect to the location of the object. In telecommunications, a measuring device known as field strength meter is used to measure the electric field that a transmitter causes. Magnetometers are the devices used to measure the strength of a magnetic field. Some important magnetometers’ classes comprise use of a rotating coil, NMR magnetometers, fluxgate magnetometers, SQUID magnetometers, and Hall Effect magnetometers.

Manifest Destiny Essay Example for Free

Manifest Destiny Essay In the 1840s the United States increased its territory to stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This land was acquired through treaty, war, and negotiation. The opportunities of this large area of land offered in terms of resources and trade were great. The positive of M.D. do not outweigh the negative consequences. Manifest Destiny is a historic duty, in the 1800s the Americans believed that the manifest destiny of the United States was to expand to the Pacific Ocean. The United States started as costal colonies but eventually the fulfilled their manifest destiny and expanded buy conquering and purchasing land. The Americans gained more land by buying it from France in the Louisiana Purchase and they also acquired land by cession as they did in the Mexican Cession. Other ways of expanded their land was to take it by force; many settlers killed the Indians and stole their land from them. The Americans in the 1800s believed that it was the historic duty of their nation to expand to the Pacific Ocean. They believed that the land was rightfully theirs. They ignored the fact that the land was already occupied and began to move west. They did not recognize the Indians as people; they saw them as potential slaves, so they simply killed them and took their land. Much of the land was bought from France in the Louisiana Purchase, but other lands such as Texas, California and Oregon was not theirs. Using both military strength and negotiations, the US was determined to fulfill their historic duty. The main difference between the border issues of Oregon and Texas is the way these issues were settled. The Texas issue resulted in a war with Mexico, which gained land and lost soldiers. However, this did allow the US to gain more land than just Texas. The Oregon issue, on the other hand, was more peaceful. The US negotiated and made a treaty with Britain instead of going to war with them. However, both these issues were different ways the US gained land and expanded their nation.

Review Of The Holodomor Event In Ukraine History Essay

Review Of The Holodomor Event In Ukraine History Essay The Holodomor was a catastrophic event that saw the deaths by starvation of millions of Ukrainian peasants in the early 1930s. Generally regarded as having been at least partially caused by Soviet agricultural policy, the major school of thought for years has been that crop harvests at the time were not abnormally low, and the famine was a direct result of policies implemented with the intent of causing mass starvation among the people. However, revisionist theory contends that 1932 saw a massive crop failure in many parts of Ukraine and the Soviet Union, the extent of which made widespread famine an inevitable event, instead of being purposefully engineered by the Soviet leadership. Clearly, there exists sufficient ambiguity with regards to the reasons for the deaths of the millions of peasants involved to warrant an investigation. As such, an important question to address would be To what extent was the Ukrainian famine of 1932 a deliberate act of genocide against the Ukrainian people? This essay shall argue in favor of a synthesis of the two arguments, accepting that there was indeed a catastrophic crop failure in Ukraine at the time, but also that the subsequent actions of the Stalin points to an unequivocal attempt to decimate the peasantry. This essay will attempt to do this by explaining the motivations that Stalin may have had to institute genocide against the Ukrainian people, and show how his policies and actions reflected the intent to use the crop failure to his own ends. This essay will also examine the origins, purposes, values, as well as limitations of various sources dealing with the Holodomor, in an attempt to assess their suitability for use as evidence. Introduction Despite continual denials on the part of the Soviet Union and its modern derivative, the Russian Federation, it is now generally accepted that in the years 1932 to 1933, several million peasants died as a result of Soviet agricultural policies, including collectivization and forced seizure of crops,  [1]  as well as extremely harsh laws. The famine was exacerbated by the forced deportation of millions of peasants that took place during the same time period.  [2]  This period of famine became known as the Holodomor, Ukrainian for death by starvation. The exact figures with regards to fatalities due to the famine are hard to pin down, due in no small part to the Soviet Unions suppression of census figures. 1991 saw the release of the 1937 census, which shed some light on the possible range of fatalities of the time. The figures seem to suggest that the number of victims of the famine in 1933 were in the region of 7.2-8.1 million;  [3]  this figure however, does not take int o account famine victims of 1932 and 1934. The generally held view in many historical texts is that the famine was avoidable, and it was instead the actions of the Soviet leadership that led to the widespread devastation.  [4]   The exact reasons for the famine are a subject of scholarly debate. The first major argument is that of the famine as having been deliberately engineered with the intention of committing genocide against the Ukrainian people from the very onset. This view was raised by esteemed Holodomor historian Robert Conquest in his 1987 work, Harvest of Sorrow; the primary evidence for such an argument includes the fact that official Soviet statistics suggest that the grain harvest of 1932 was not abnormally low, and would have readily fed the population if not for government intervention.  [5]  Proponents also point to the harsh laws enacted that suggested a deliberate attempt to cause widespread hunger, including the five ears law, which called for the execution or ten-year imprisonment at best, of any hungry person who stole more than a few ears of corn.  [6]   However, that view has been countered by historians who see the famine as a completely unforeseen side effect of the collectivization process, caused primarily by the drought of 1931 and poor harvest of 1932. The primary proponent of this view is Dr Mark B. Tauger, who suggests that the classification of the famine as a deliberate act of genocide is down to misinterpretations and factual inaccuracies with regards to the officially released soviet data. Tauger also cites inconsistencies in the official grain harvest statistics of the 1930s and evidence that points towards the unreliability of these statistics.  [7]   In light of the evidence raised by both camps, there remains the important question To what extent was the Ukrainian famine of 1932 a deliberate act of genocide against the Ukrainian people? It is clear that there exists room for a synthesis of the two arguments, combining the various pieces of evidence that corroborate with each other in order to piece together a picture of the true nature of events. It is thus argued that the famine was an unexpected as well as undesirable outcome of the industrialization and collectivization process.  [8]  However, while there was no conscious decision on the part of Stalin to have the Ukrainian populace intentionally starved, and the intention when enacting the collectivization policy was by no means to enact a policy of starvation, Stalin was still indeed guilty of failing to take appropriate action to stop the famine from occurring,  [9]  and sufficient evidence exists to suggest that Stalins later policy reflected his intention to use the already widespread starvation as a tool to further his own agendas.  [10]  Thus, unintentional as the famine might have been, the fact [does] not at all absolve Stalin from responsibility for the famine. His policies towards the peasants were ruthless and brutal.  [11]  This view has been proposed by historians R.W. Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft in The Years of Hunger, and supported in part by Michael Ellman,  [12]   The Accidental Famine Recent scholarship tends to disagree with the notion that Soviet policies were engineered specifically to deal a mortal blow to the Ukrainian peasantry. Ellman, as well as Davies and Wheatcroft, point to the fact that the famine was caused mainly by Stalins decision to rapidly industrialize the nation by means of tribute from the peasantry,  [13]  as well as two successive bad harvests of 1931 and 1932. They also point to the fact that foolish policy, for example, neglect of agricultural techniques such as crop rotation, as well as the decision to continue grain export and refuse the import of grain exacerbated the problem. However, it is difficult to conclude that these were intentionally designed to kill.  [14]   To begin with, it is important to remember that policy makes in the Soviet Union of the time had little knowledge of agricultural practice, and often over-optimistic about the effects of their own policies.  [15]  Furthermore, the refusal to import grain had deeply ideological roots. In a time of great anti-communist sentiment around the world, Stalin was keen to ensure that he and his nation continued to project strength and power. Stalin himself in 1934 said, The import of grain now, when abroad they are shouting about the shortage of grain in the USSR, might produce a political minus.  [16]   As such, it can be seen that both the grain procurement policies as well as refusal of foreign import are not necessarily evidence of an active plot to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry. There exists strong evidence to suggest that the starvation was not a planned event, and were instead due to the implementation of policies without proper consideration of their impact. It must be noted though, that Stalin viewed the starving as idlers and class enemies,  [17]  and in his speech delivered at the midst of the famine in 1933, Stalin quoted Lenin by saying He who does not work, neither shall he eat.  [18]  These reflect the fact that although he had not necessarily planned the famine, he did not view the dying as worthy of aid, and this lends support to the argument that the famine, although unintentional, still placed fault in the hands of Stalin due to his refusal to take action in preventing it. The Poor Harvests The view of the famine as an intentional act of genocide rests firmly on the belief that the agricultural yield of the time was not particularly bad. This view was regarded as true for many decades, but historian Dr. Mark B. Tauger, in his journal article published in the Spring 1991 issue of the Slavic Review, suggests that this argument overlooks inconsistencies between official grain harvest statistics for 1930 and the evidence of famine, as well as evidence that these sources are unreliable.  [19]   The strict control of peasant movement through the internal passport system was cited by Conquest and others as evidence of the Soviet policy-makers keeping the Ukrainian peasants attached to the land, in much the same way traditional serfdom did.  [20]  Introduced in 1932, the passport system excluded peasants, which meant that the rural agricultural population who were hit worst by the famine was unable to leave the countryside without official permission.  [21]   However, Tauger asserts that thousands of peasants fled not only from Ukraine, but also from Kuban, the Urals and the Volga basin, among others areas, and that the passport mechanism was put in place to control labor movement and prevent famine stricken areas from being further threatened by depletion of labour.  [22]   In response to Conquests assertion that the grain harvests of the early 1930s were not significantly low, Tauger cites new Soviet archival data which shows that the 1932 harvests were much smaller than assumed, and worsened the food shortages that were already widespread by 1931.  [23]  Tauger also references R.W. Davies review of Harvest of Sorrow, which questions Conquests uncritical use of evidence and bias.  [24]   This viewpoint was written with the intention of debunking the genocide myth as put forth by Conquest in Harvest of Sorrow. It does this by pointing out the questionable nature of Conquests statistical data as well as questioning the assumption that policies at the time were directed only at Ukraine in an effort to murder its people. The case for re-evaluation of the genocide theory was convincing enough that Conquest himself later wrote that he no longer held the view that Stalin deliberately engineered the famine of 1933.  [25]   However, Taugers work may not necessarily be expanded upon enough to be considered an argument on its own. Tauger himself states that the Soviet regime was responsible for the deprivation and suffering of the Soviet populace in the early 1930s. He also goes on to suggest that the data presented here should contribute to a reevaluation not only of the famine, but also of the Soviet economy,  [26]  and not necessarily as a view unto its own. The purpose of Taugers work was to serve as a counter to Conquests work. Thus, there are several points that Taugers work does not cover, which is a limitation to the source. Firstly, the comments of Stalin and various other officials are completely ignored, as is the evidence that Stalin sought to wage class war on the Kulaks. Also, the occurrence of mass deportations, as well as the planned deportation of millions of other peasants is not mentioned. Policies such as the five ears law are also ignored. These issues are important when establishing the causality of the famine, as they are vital indicators of intent on the part of the Soviet leadership to cause harm to the peasantry, whether Ukrainian or otherwise. Having been written some years after Conquests works, the source is valuable as it takes into account new information that often serves to counter Conquests arguments. Thus, it is necessary to gather evidence from both ends of the spectrum in order to establish an argument that takes into account all the various viewpoints. Stalins Motivations to Kill When addressing the motivations that Stalin may have had for inducing an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people, it is important to consider the social and political changes that were happening at the time. Early Bolshevik leaders broke down the shadow of the Tsar and Russian Imperialism by assisting the former subjects of the Russian Empire in rebuilding their own national identity and cultures.  [27]  This was by no means due to generosity of spirit or goodwill, and was instead necessitated by the political climate of the time, due to widespread dissatisfaction among the non-Russian peasants in wide areas of the Soviet Union.  [28]   This rebuilding of national identity had grown in strength especially in the Ukraine, due in no small part to the fact that the 30 million Ukrainians living there were the largest single non-Russian national group in the Soviet Union, several times larger than any other.  [29]  The policy of Ukrainisation, as it was called, thus went further in Ukraine than it had done in any other state of the Soviet Union. This outpouring of nationalism would not go unnoticed. Stalin, in a message to Kaganovich in 11th August 1932 said: If we dont make an effort now to improve the situation in Ukraine we may lose Ukraine, suggesting that he saw a danger that the growing nationalism would lead to a rise in counter-revolutionaries.  [30]   This rise in nationalism provides compelling evidence to suggest that Stalin did indeed have motivation to enact a policy of genocide against the Ukrainian populace. The policies of indigenization that had dominated the peasantry for the last few years largely went hand-in-hand with Lenins New Economic Policy, and together were designed to keep the peasantrys nationalist aspirations placated in order to satisfy Russias economic needs.  [31]  With Stalins emergence as the victor in the succession struggle however, came a radical reversal of policies. Stalin had in 1928 done away with the New Economic Policy, and thus it would not have been a great step for him to do away with the indigenization policies. One of the key objectives of this, as put forth by Mace, was economic and social transformation designed to destroy native society and substitute a social system susceptible of control by Moscow.  [32]  Further evidence comes from the fact that the time of the famine coincided with non-Russian national self-assertion being labeled as bourgeois nationalism, and suppressed.  [33]   As such, the motivation for Stalin to want to enact a policy of enforced starvation against the Ukrainian populace is clear to see. The threat that Nationalism presented was not lost on Stalin, and his need to gain control over all aspects of the peasantry certainly suggests that an act of genocide intended to enforce obedience and crush the intelligentsia would not be beyond Stalin. As Ellman puts it: There would be nothing surprising or out of character about Stalins use of starvation. Stalin explicitly stated that he was engaged in a war [with the peasantry]à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦and in a war one aims to kill or otherwise overcome ones enemies.  [34]   At the same time, Leninism, and by extension Stalinism, viewed the peasantry with distaste, seeing them as petty property owners.  [35]  Ukraine had for a long time been viewed as the breadbasket of Europe, a name earned due to its rich soil and largely peasant population.  [36]  These two factors combine to form a plausible explanation for why Stalin would instigate starvation in Ukraine. Policies Enacted Next this essay shall consider Stalins actions. Arguments for the case of genocide typically cite two key points. First, the decision to continue exporting and seizing grain even in the midst of widespread starvation, and second, preventing the movement of peasantry out of affected areas. Another major point to consider is the deportation of peasants, even during the period of famine. Many historians make the case that actual productivity during the period was not overly low. One figure cited was an overall production fall of 9%,  [37]  which although substantial, was not enough to directly cause the deaths of millions of people. So then, what was the cause? Many point to the aggressive procurement policies that were put into place at the time. In 1932, just when it was beginning to become clear that Ukraine was facing mass starvation, Stalin began to implement policies that greatly affected the Ukrainian people. Despite falling production, Stalins top assistants announced that Ukraines quotas for bread grain would remain unchanged from the previous year.  [38]  Naturally, the harvest was unable to meet the production quotas, but Ukrainian appeals for an end to the grain seizures were to no avail, and throughout the fall of 1932, bread was seized from farmers, and farms that met their quotas were given supplementary quotas to make up for shortfalls elsewhere.  [39]  Stalin even ordered the seizure of even the seed that had been put aside for spring planting.  [40]  President Mikhail Kalinin went so far as to claim that only degraded disintegrating classes can produce such cynical elements in reference to the Ukrainian Politburos pleas for contributions to the starving.  [41]   Another major piece of evidence pointing to the possible intent of the politburo to commit an act of genocide is that of the mass deportation plans. In 1933, plans were drafted for the deportation of 2 million Kulaks.  [42]  There is little doubt that such massive deportations would have severely impacted Ukraines ability to continue producing the substantial amounts of grain that were required of it. However, to suggest that the planned deportation of the Ukrainian peasantry was intended to induce widespread starvation would be a fallacy. Indeed, by 1933, the roots of famine had already taken hold.  [43]  Instead, it is likely that the deportations were instead a response to what Stalin saw as class enemies and idlers  [44]  who were attempting to sabotage the Soviet rule by inducing grain shortages.  [45]   The Complete Picture By looking at the evidence shown, and also taking into account the strengths as well as limitations of the various historical arguments concerning the nature of the Holodomor, we can argue that although the initial aim of the collectivization policy was not to starve the peasantry,  [46]  Stalin did make use of the famine in order to achieve his other objectives.  [47]   There exists significant scholarship that attests to the unforeseen and undesired  [48]  nature of the famines of 1931 and 1932. Graziosi argues that Stalin, at a certain moment decided to use hunger to break the peasants opposition to collectivisation, and that even when he did not initiate something willfully, was always very quick to take advantage, of spontaneous events, drawing parallels to the Kirov assassination.  [49]   So then, if the introduction of collectivized farming was not to blame for the deaths, what was? There are several key factors involved: Firstly, the two successive bad harvests of 1931 and 1932; secondly, the politburos general ignorance of agricultural practices, leading to the disastrous implementation of agricultural policy. Thirdly, Stalins desire to punish the peasants for what he perceived as their counter-revolutionary struggle, and finally, Stalins arguable intention to make use of the famine as a cost-effective means of decimating and exerting ultimate control over the peasantry. Thus it can be seen that this argument takes into account two stages, the first addressing the roots of the famine, and the second dealing with the reaction of the Soviet leadership to the situation. In contrast to the view that the harvests of 1931 and 1932 were more than sufficient to feed to population, it is arguable that the harvests were so poor that famine eventually became an inevitable outcome. In 1932, the Soviet leadership admitted that there had been crop failure in parts of the Volga Basin and Asiatic Russia,  [50]  and the harvest was sufficiently bad that there were insufficient stocks to cover urban and rural food supplies, seed and export.  [51]  The need for grain led to withdrawals from the state stockpiles Nepfond and Mobfond, which started out with 2 million tons in January 1932, and was left with only 0.641 million tons by July.  [52]   In order to fully understand the impact of the crop failures, the administrative policy of the time must be studied. First and foremost, one must remember that the Soviet leadership, to a substantial extent, knew very little of agricultural policy making.  [53]  This led to the implementation of practices that undoubtedly exacerbated the problem of the already poor harvests. One vital example is that of the methods by which the Soviet leadership arrived at their numerical data. The regimes calculation of grain harvests was based not on actual production values;  [54]  instead, a statistical method known as biological yield was used to calculate a pre-harvest estimate of yield, which was then taken as the actual production value.  [55]   The failure to use properly gathered statistics led to many gross miscalculations that placed enormous strain on the production process. For instance, the grain utilization plan for 1932/1933 at a time when Ukraine was already on the verge of mass starvation,  [56]  saw a planned reduction in grain export by 3 million tons. However, grain collection fell by 4 million tons, leaving a net fall in grain stocks of 1 million tons.  [57]   It can thus be seen that the extent to which the harvests of 1931-33 were in decline was arguably lost on the Soviet leadership. Efforts were made to adjust grain procurement quotas to match the fall in production, with the Politburo seen to have at least attempted to reduce quotas in response to the falling harvests.  [58]  However, the Politburo at the same time planned to in fact increase the total state stockpile of grain from 1.36 million tons in July 1932 to 2.867 million tons in July 1933,  [59]  a response to the alarming fall in the Nepfond and Mobfond stockpiles in July 1932. These counter-intuitive and contradictory policies seem to point towards the fact that the Politburo as an agricultural policy-making body was unable to properly grasp both the extent of the growing famine (caused by unfavourable weather), as well as the impact of their actions, which they implemented over-zealously and with over-optimism about the effects (which further strained the amount of harvest left for the rural populace). However, the end of 1932 began to see a shift in policy that can be deemed substantial enough to suggest that Stalin had begun to use the opportunity that the famine presented as a means to advance his own ulterior motives. There exists significant evidence to suggest that Stalin had begun to see the famine as a means by which he would exact revenge on the peasantry, as well as force their subservience through fear. Stalin, in a correspondence with Sholokhov, said: The esteemed grain growers of your region (and not only your region) carried out a sit- down strike (sabotage!) and would not have minded leaving the workers and the Red Army without bread. The fact that the sabotage was quiet and apparently harmless (bloodless) does not alter the fact that the esteemed grain growers were basically waging a quiet war against Soviet power. A war by starvation (voina na izmor), dear com. Sholokhov  [60]   Along the same lines, Stalin condemned members of the peasantry as class enemies and idlers, and felt that they were the engineers of the famine. As a primary source, it is extremely valuable as it shows how Stalin believed that the famines were the direct result of an active plot to undermine the Soviet way, which explains why he felt the need to finish off the Kulaks, who had been beaten but were still very much involved in the perceived class struggle.  [61]  However, as the correspondence was written with the purpose of pushing the blame of the starvation away from the Politburos agricultural policy and towards the peasants, it is limited as the situation described by Stalin may have been subject to exaggerations and thus, not fully representative of historical events. Still, this perceived need to take revenge on the peasants for their counter-revolutionary struggle went hand in hand with Stalins other motives, namely, the liquidation of the kulak as a class, and to render the peasantry ultimately subservient to the will of Stalin. At the beginning of 1933, plans were drawn up for the mass deportation of Ukrainian peasantry. At first 3 million, then reduced to 2 million people, with the destinations being Kazakhstan and West Siberia. However, the estimated cost of such a massive project was put at 1.4 billion roubles, a substantial sum that the Politburo was unwilling to fork out.  [62]  It was around this time that Stalin began to see the mass starvat

Classroom Management: An introduction

Classroom Management: An introduction 1.0 Introduction Classroom management is a term used by the teacher to ensure the class run smoothly through the whole lesson. According to Moskowitz Hayman (1976), once a teacher loses control of their classroom, it becomes more difficult for them to regain back the control (Moskowitz Hayman, 1976, p. 283)). Other than that, a research from Berliner (1988) and Brophy Good (1986) shows that the time that teacher has to take to correct misbehavior caused by poor classroom management skills results in a lower rate of academic engagement in the classroom (Berliner, 1988, p. 310; Brophy Good, 1986, p. 335). Several aspects such as classroom layout, classroom language and classroom climate can be looked into in order to ensure the class run smoothly through the lesson. 2.0 Classroom layout Desk orientation, bulletin board display, classroom decoration and classroom peripheral are several things that are considered as classroom layout. Around the world, there are several layout that have been seen such as traditional, restaurant, islands, horseshoe, seminar, laboratory, looking out, circle, story, chevrons and semi-circle (Wright 2005). However, among all of the classroom layout listed, restaurant and island layout two are widely use. For restaurant layout, the desks are arranged in random. It is often permanent or semi-permanent. Restaurant layout are useful for a class that doing a lot of small group activities. Island layout is a layout of regular grouping. It can be created by modifying benches so that the students on odd number can fit in. this layout are more or less the same as the restaurant layout but island layout are more carefully arranged (see appendix B (classroom layout)). The way of the student desks being organized shows the teachers teaching style. Whe n the students walk in the class, the students will immediately knows whether they will be working as a group with other student or they are required to do the work individually. In a class, different grade level of student may result in a different desk arrangement but, the traditional layout of rows of individual desks may not provide the best learning environment for the students. In order to promote the collaboration, restaurant or island layout is the best choice since the layout group the students together. By grouping the students together, the student can shared learning experience, group discussion and small group activities. To promote the sense of unity of the whole class, arrange the class to circle layout, story layout or semi-circle layout. The displays around the class will tell the student the things that they have learned during the previous class. By displaying the students effort on the bulletin boards will inspire student and increase their motivation to learn. B esides, it will also promote learning to the students. Other than that, displaying a lot of books at the students level, a comfortable carpet and providing a reading space will encourage the students to read more often. Providing a clearly marked area for the students to place their homework will make the class more organize. It is important to create an environment that make the student feel loved, safe and excited to learn. 3.0 Classroom Language Classroom languages are used throughout the lesson in the class. From the beginning of the class until the end of the class, every teacher use classroom language to talk to the students. Classroom language is the kind of language used to communicate in the class without using the mother tongue. There are a few ways of presenting classroom language. It can be presented from the student, from the teacher, from the reading material and the real situation in class. The words used by the student such as May I come in? are one example of the classroom language. Another example is Excuse me. The language by the students ought to be more polite if they talk to the teachers. It is not the same when they talk to their peers. In the real situation in class, the teacher might face the misbehavior student in the class. The choice of word from the teacher is a part of the language in the class. For example, if a student making off-task noise in the class and the teacher want him or her to stay qui et. Instead of saying shut up, the teacher will say could you please be quiet. This way, the students are more prompt to follow the order of the teacher. The classroom language also applied when the teacher giving instruction about the task, monitoring the work of students, asking permission and also when the students ask questions to the teacher. The reason for getting the student to communicating is because it represents a necessary stage in transfer the classroom learning to the outside world. When the students are communicating to each other, they are actually enhanced the learning. The arguments between peers are making them to go through the process of sharing their idea and improve the understanding of the certain topic. 4.0 Classroom climate Maintaining a good classroom climate is importance in order to have a better learning atmosphere and maintain the focus of the student towards lesson in the class. Classroom climate is referred to learning environment, as well as the atmosphere, ambience and ecology. (Adelman Taylor 2005). In short, classroom climate can be said as the setting of the class. The setting of the class is related to the classroom behavior and learning. A research also suggests the significant relationships between classroom climate and student engagement in class, behavior, achievement, social and emotional development, and overall quality of school life (Fraser 1998; Freiberg 1999). In order to enhance the classroom climate, there are some approaches that can be taken. This includes enhancing the quality of life of the students and the staff in class. A good relationship between the teacher and students are helpful to enhance the good classroom climate. At Comptom Primary School, they have a system cal led as home schooling. It is a system where a teacher is in charge for a class. This means that, the teacher the students really well such as their names and background. This kind of relationship also helps in the participation of the staff that is the teacher and the students in decision making. They can actually discuss about what they feel and what they want thus help in enhancing the classroom climate. Maintaining and enhancing the positive classroom climate is the main focus of all staff in the school. Having the teacher assistance in the school can increase the teacher ability in the class. In addition, teacher assistance can work with the teacher to improve classroom climate by enhancing and maintaining a positive classroom climate that promote well being and deal with barrier in teaching and learning (Adelman Taylor 1997). A class consists of students that come with different abilities and it is hard for a teacher to deal with all the students alone. The students with lower ability will sometimes create problems in class thus will result in disrupting the climate of the class. When this happen, teacher assistance will assist the student and help the teacher to deal with the problem. At the same time, this will restore the positive classroom climate. From my visit to the All Saints Academy Plymouth, the teacher have difficulties in controlling the class when a few problematic students and eventually disrupted the climate of the class. There is no assistance that helps the teacher to deal with and respond to the all of the students. Classroom climate can also be controlled by the physical aspect of the class. The ideal classroom will have a good lighting for the class. This is refers to clean and tidy classroom. A classroom with the positive climate should be attractive, comfortable and well-lighted. Which means the class is not too bright and not too dark (see appendix A (pictures)). This physical aspect such as temperature and noise that are likely af fect the student concentration and focus in the class are also effect the classroom climate. The arrangement of the internal feature of the class such as desks and chair is also importance. Maybe the teacher has no control about the size of the class, but the teacher can control the arrangement of the chair and desk inside the class. A good classroom climate in term of space is where the space in the class has been adjusted so that an active interaction may occur in the class. It also permitted the student to see the board clearly and allow the teacher to be close to the student. Classroom climate can also be improved by displaying the students work on the wall. This can encourage student in their own work and motivate them. However, all the students should have the same opportunity for their work to be displayed on the wall. Was Post-War Britain Tolerant and Multicultural? Was Post-War Britain Tolerant and Multicultural? Post-war Britain is best described as a tolerant and multicultural nation. Discuss. In discussing this proposition, it is necessary to define tolerant and multicultural to intentionally confine the parameters of the discussion. Within this essay tolerant will be defined as an attitude of mind that implies non-judgemental acceptance of different lifestyles or beliefs, and multicultural as a society that contains several and distinct cultural or ethnic groups. Generally speaking, a nation has to show willingness to accept other social and ethnic groups within its society. Much literature has explored how migration shaped Britain since World War II, including both the outlooks of Authority, Establishment and the British People towards immigrants. It is widely accepted there have been four development phases since 1948: the first wave of pioneers from the Caribbean and the Asian subcontinent, who were mainly single men both skilled and semi-skilled, next came an unskilled labour force, followed by their wives and children, and ultimately the British-born generation. Thi s chain migration clearly affected the demographics of Britain and it is likely the indigenous population was not expecting such a large influx of migrants, and the resultant pressure and increasing competition for limited resources in housing, employment and social services. It is possible that the rowdy behaviour of the immigrant population caused frictions between distinct communities. This essay will also address the question of ethnic groups within the general Commonwealth migration that came to be targets of racism, due to the fact they were non-white and stood out in a generally white population. From the 1948 British Nationality Act, government practised a laizzez-faire approach to migration, and only following increasing public opposition did they institute controls on immigration from 1962. British identity came to be identified as tolerant, this mind-set emanated from Victorian and Imperialist values of honour, respect, justice and fair play. This was further embedded in the minds of the British population with the experiences of World War II. Nevertheless, according to Chris Waters, Britains sense of national unity started to disintegrate after 1945.[1] A possible explanation for this disintegration might be the introduction of the 1948 British Nationality Act, this created a new immigration system without restrictions: every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ or descent.[2] The resultant effect of this legislation led directly to the sailing the Empire Windrush in 1948 from Jamaica to London carrying 492 non-white passengers, and increased migration generally from the Caribbean and the Asian subcontinent. These workers flocked to the mother country to fill l abour vacancies, especially in the transport and health services. The labour government, 1945-1951, initially believed that by sharing out the new arrivals across the country they would assimilate and integrate into British society, adopting British values. However, this approach became impracticable for two likely reasons. Firstly, society at large perceived the migrants as contrary to British values,[3] and a threat to national cohesion. Secondly, the migrants wanted to stick together in the same locale. Inner cities became predominantly inhabited by immigrants who brought new religions, cultures, languages and dress. Moreover, immigration statistics highlighted the increasing impact new immigrants placed on housing and employment. It has been estimated, by the mid-1950s, persons of colour entering Britain rose to about 20,000 per year.[4] There may have been a divergence in attitude between general populace and governments policies that had an approach of non-intervention, with t he Establishment perhaps believing the problems would just go away. The 1948 Act did not distinguish immigration from any parts of the Commonwealth, and it may be the case that members of the Cabinet were unwilling to enact legislation that differentiated between white and non-white migrants. In the 1950s there was increasing hostility towards non-white immigrants culminating in the Notting Hill riots of 1958. These riots are often cited as a catalyst that led to immigration control, however, it does appear that the racial aspect was not recognised at the time. Successive legislations in 1962, 1968 and 1971 restricted immigration to the UK, and this was further constrained in 1981 when Britain closed its doors to the Commonwealth. In 1968 Enoch Powell warned of what he saw as the consequences of unregulated immigration. His incendiary Rivers of Blood[5] speech still enflames emotions. In this speech, he highlighted the dangers of unchecked immigration and advocated the cessation of immigration to Britain. In addition, he urged a policy of repatriation for all those immigrants already settled in the UK. It is interesting to note that the 1971 Act, curbing immigration, subsequently followed. Some historians argue that successive government legislations, at this time, both d efined the British National identity as white and circumscribed racist sentiments, convincing the public by stressing the dangers of uncontrolled colonial migration,[6] especially the one produced by a large-scale family reunion. This opinion is further underpinned by both Labours and Conservatives who believed that civil unrest would be avoided by imposing strict migration controls. A different stance is taken by Randall Hensen when he asserts that the State did not promote racism, on the contrary, it accepted the transformation of the UK into a multicultural society, and that it had begun in the 1950s.[7] Succeeding governments promoted anti-discriminatory legislations in the forms of the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968, gradually reducing injustice relative to housing and employment. It is thus evident that these acts were aimed at avoiding discriminations based on race and colour. It is then reasonable to assume that racism had been politically recognised for the first time . The first serious discussion and analysis of multiculturalism in Britain emerged from Bhikhu Parekhs study. His interpretation is that a multicultural society consists of several cultures that have an open and equal dialogue between them, which in turn should foster a strong sense of unity and respect amongst its citizens,[8] ultimately, minorities are less likely to assimilate if assimilation is imposed from above. To sum up, the idea of multiculturalism is tied to a concept of national identity and culture. The impact of race anti-discrimination legislation sought to modify the populations behaviour stating clearly what was, and what was not, acceptable in public life. However, it cannot be asserted that a nation is truly multicultural when it is only conforming to legislation. By the 1970s, many of the migrants had now British-born children, and there was an exponential rise in the number of births from migrants originating from the Indian subcontinent. This effect caused relocation in other parts of the United Kingdom known as spatial development[9]. It is recognised that these groups were tied closely to a distinct set of mores, often emanating from a religious context. Thus, the British community, in receipt of this translocation, may have felt a resentment towards an unfamiliar community, often not recognising an alien culture. Goulbourne asserts that to fully participate in society a person needs access to housing, jobs and education, and it is in these three areas that migrants experienced the most problems and resistance.[10] Clearly, increased competition for limited resources created an obstacle to integration and discriminatory practices started to emerge in both housing, education and the working environment. Similar discrimination occurred with in the black community whereby the police were accused of both violence and bullying. These accusations led directly to the Brixton Riots of 1981. For Nairns, racism derives from nationalism, the one that has been instilled in the minds of the British people by the right-wing politicians eager to preserve the Whites as the true bearers of the national identity. On the other hand, Anderson claims that racism stems from the ideologies of class,[11] in this case between the white working men and the migrants being excluded, to seize the available resources. Within this last construct, race could be described as only fictional.[12] Nevertheless, not all Blacks and Asians were targeted, and the State promoted a series of legislations to avoid a collision, introducing laws aiming at discouraging intolerant practices in the work place and the education environment. It can be therefore stated that, whoever showed a positive commitment to Britain, and to the English way of life, received app reciation from the local and national communities: it was a two-way relationship. On these grounds, it is likely that multiculturalism was not a failure, rather it was implemented, by the means of the Race Relations Acts, and was a positive influence for Britain promoting equality. Whilst this essay supports the premise that post-war Britain is best described as a tolerant and multicultural nation, there have been many different events that have happened since the free-for-all in 1948 British Nationality Act. The laissez-faire approach of various governments to immigration from 1948 stoked intolerant attitudes to non-white immigrants, which resulted in the Rivers of Blood speech and the 1981 Brixton Riots, that eventually led to the effective closing the doors as legislated in the 1981 Immigration Act. The failure to support immigrants to assimilate and integrate into British society, combined with legislation to prohibit acts of racism, led to the 1965 and 1968 Race Relations Acts that forced a more multicultural approach to diversity. Hence, the State has been instrumental to protect racial ethnic diversity and to promote difference. On the other hand, it has also been demonstrated that British society was less inclined to accept minority groups due to the pr ejudice that they would taint the very essence of their identity. This was at a time when the loss of the Imperial pre-eminence and the experiences of the WWII were being nostalgically reconstructed, making still further frictions between white and non-white communities. Competition for resources, i.e. housing, jobs and education, exacerbated public sentiment leading to further tensions. At the same time, propaganda from various right-wing politicians juxtaposed Britishness as being white, hence these ideologies might have played an important part in shaping peoples attitudes towards those of a different race. Thereby, the argument shifted, in the late 1950s, towards race relations with some parts of British society campaigning against racial discrimination and migration controls. With regards to multiculturalism, this paper has also attempted to show that both British and newcomers were not willing to accept each other customs. For the former it was an aggression to their values, a nd for the latter a feeling of social exclusion in terms of low pay, unemployment and bad housing. Tolerance and multiculturalism in Britain have received much attention in the past fifty years, but as Paul Gilroy claims, there is still no understanding why Britain was unable to come to terms with its minority groups,[13] and many questions remain unanswered. Eventually, in response to Gilroys challenge, it could be alleged that if the State had implemented clear integration policies sooner, then tolerance and multiculturalism would have been a constant since 1948 due to the self-declared openness of the British society. In conclusion, it can be suggested that multiculturalism was implemented not via assimilation, but by the means of legislation and that they are still at the core of a tolerant and multicultural Britain in the twenty-first century. [1] Chris, Waters, Dark Strangers in our midst: discourses of race and nation in Britain, 1947-1963, Journal of British Studies, vol. 36, No. 2, Twentieth British studies, (April, 1997), p.208 [2] British Nationality Act 1948, Part II, sections 4 and 5, [accessed 9th March 1017] [3] Chris, Waters, Dark Strangers, p.217 [4] Ibid., p.209 [5] Enoch Powells Rivers Of Blood Speech, [accessed 9th March 2017] [6] Paul Kathleen cited in Randall, Hansen, Citizenship and immigration in Post-War Britain : the institutional origins of a multicultural nation, (Oxford University Press, 2000), p.13 [7] Randall, Hansen, Citizenship and immigration, p.17 [8] Parekh, Bhikhu, C., Rethinking multiculturalism: cultural diversity and political theory, (Palgrave, 2000), pp. 13, 196-197 [9] Colin, Holmes, A tolerant country?: immigrants, refugees, and minorities in Britain, (London, 1991), p.4 [10] Goulbourne, Harry, Race relations in Britain since 1945, (Palgrave, 1998), p.76 [11] Nairns and Anderson cited in Paul, Gilroy, There aint no black in the Union Jack the cultural politics of race and nation, (New ed. London, 2002), p.43 [12] Stuart, Hall, Race, Articulation, and Societies Structured in Dominance Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism, (Paris: UNESCO, 1980), p.338 [13] Gilroy, Paul, There aint no black in the Union Jack the cultural politics of race and nation, (New ed. London, 2002), p.37

The ‘Glutamate Theory’ of the Pathogenesis of Schizophrenia Essay

Introduction: There is immense study on the role of glutamate in Schizophrenia. Even so to date the current antipsychotics do not control major glutamatergic action albeit a study at the NMDA receptor location such as the glycine transport inhibitors may give new novel evidence for the discovery of future antipsychotics (Olney et al., 1999) The Dopamine hypothesis of Schizophrenia The dopamine (DA) theory of schizophrenia has subjugated the effort to justify the behaviours Schizophrenia is a psychiatric bedlam relating to the messing up of routine thinking, sentiment and every day activities. Egan & Weinberger (1979) described schizophrenia as when a subject or an individual is unable to differentiate what is genuine and unreal. The clinical characteristics of the various disarray of schizophrenia commonly come into view in the late adolescence or the early adulthood. Schizophrenia can exhibit either positive or negative or both signs. Whereas the positive sign is characterised by paranoia, false principles or hallucination, the negative aspect is marked by depression, withdrawal from communal connections. But pleasing of social responses shortfall in attention and memory are ascribed to cognitive effect. Generally, schizophrenia is considered to be neurodevelopment unrest rather than neurogenerative disorder (Harrison et al., 2003). There are several divi sions in the brain that can be affected by schizophrenia. The atypical function of the basal ganglia is considered to play a role in paranoia and hallucination. The frontal lobe of the brain plays a role in problem solving and reasoning. Conversely a schizophrenic will have a deficiency in the lobe and as result, having difficulty in forecast and coordinating. Adjustment... ...ts. Neuroscience, 90(3), 823-32. Kim,J.S.,Kornhuber,H.H.,Schmid-Burgk,W.,Hlozmuller,B.(1980) Low cerebrospinal fluid glutamate in schizophrenic patients and a new hypothesis on schizophrenia. Neuorocience Letters 20:379-382 Kotter, H. (1994) Postsynaptic integration of gluamatergic and dopamine signals in the striatum. Progression in Neurobiology. 44:163-196 Olney, J. W., Newcomer, J. W., & Farber, B. B. (1999). NMDA receptor hypofunction model of schizophrenia. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 33: 523-533. Stanley, J. A., Williamson, P. C., Drost, D. J., Carr, T. J., Rylett, R. J., Malla, A., Thompson R. T. (1996). An in vivo proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy study of schizophrenia patiens. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 22(4), 597-609. Weinberger, D.A (1993) Connection approach to the prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuropsychiatry. 5:241-253

The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman Essay -- Thomas Friedman

The book, The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman draws attention to some very good points concerning globalization and the world economy today. Friedman emphasizes the status of America today in relation to the other countries of the world. As I looked at the things in which he warned about or highlighted, I realized the importance of this issue. He talks about a few aspects in which need to be kept competitive in order for America to retain their current standing in the world market. First of all, Friedman talks about the different levels of globalization. There are 3 different time periods in which the society has differed and changed, bringing us to where we are today. Globalization 1.0, which took place from 1492 to 1800, was the first step to making the world flatter. The coming to America, and the industrial drive that came along with this is what most characterized globalization 1.0. The industry drive was about things such as manpower and horsepower, and how well we could utilize these in the world market. This caused the world to â€Å"shrink† a little bit, and become flatter. With the discovery of a new world, it broadened the area in which business was conducted, but the commonality of rule and trade caused the distance to be spanned more frequently. I think Friedman’s notions regarding globalization 1.0 is very accurate. The world in our terms began in 1492 with the discovery of North America. Once the area began to be inhabited and set tled, there was much more worldwide interaction. Communications and trade between the American colonies and England increased, and this began a more stable business of worldwide association. I believe that Friedman’s theory is true, because the discovery of a land across the ocean for th... ...prevent this. This can be done through increasing importance on aspects such as the arts, or things that cannot be reproduced by computers or technology. Friedman stresses the importance of fine-tuning right-brained activities and applications. Also, a passion for what one is doing and having good people skills can greatly increase one’s desirability. Friedman’s theories have actually caused me to think a little bit differently about how the world job market is evolving. He seemed to make very valid points about being culturally and internationally aware, and the stressing the importance of keeping up with the level of expectation today. Through being introduced to these important issues, I feel as if I can be more aware and competitive as I live in a flatter world. Work Cited Friedman, Thomas L. (1996). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

My Hobby

My Hobby My hobby Everybody has different hobbies that we enjoy and do it for fun or relaxation. They can be either physical activities like jogging, playing football, swimming, †¦ or mental activities like reading, watching movies, playing computers†¦ and it depend on    personality. My bobby is football because it’s part of my life and I cannot live without it and I have playing this sport since I was a litle boy. Nowdays looks like everibody is playing football and it most popular sport in the world, many of the boys like me who is dreaming to be a good football player one day. My childrenhood has grown up with the ball and nothing has changed. My parents    told me that I liked kicking the ball around when I was only    two years old and had so much fun. Since then playing football is my favorite thing to do and I go everiday to traning so I can enjoy myself. It is interestingMy Hobby My hobby Everybody has different hobbies that we enjoy and do it for fun or relaxation. They can be either physical activities like jogging, playing football, swimming, †¦ or mental activities like reading, watching movies, playing computers†¦ and it depend on    personality. My bobby is football because it’s part of my life and I cannot live without it and I have playing this sport since I was a litle boy. Nowdays looks like everibody is playing football and it most popular sport in the world, many of the boys like me who is dreaming to be a good football player one day. My childrenhood has grown up with the ball and nothing has changed. My parents    told me that I liked kicking the ball around when I was only    two years old and had so much fun. Since then playing football is my favorite thing to do and I go everiday to traning so I can enjoy myself. It is interestingand amazing especially when I have a ball under my feets or score a goal. I like to go myself and sooting on a goal when I‘m not on traning than helps me to relax and clear my mind I have stress or other problems. For instant after school or studying I feel boring or tired however having fun whith the ball shooting it on goal or trying to do some tricks, all of my tirenes die out. Football is not only about passing and kicking the ball but also required a lot of thoughts, and some basic skills. Ioftenpractice and I feel healthy and stronger. Besite that football have also taught me very much like be teamplayer, athletes, healthy and much more. I don‘t only playing a football I also enjoy watching    football games on TV. My favorite team is Internazionale from Milano. I am so happy when Inter wins but I will get angry when they lose, and I love to watch them playing. My Hobby My Hobby My hobby Everybody has different hobbies that we enjoy and do it for fun or relaxation. They can be either physical activities like jogging, playing football, swimming, †¦ or mental activities like reading, watching movies, playing computers†¦ and it depend on    personality. My bobby is football because it’s part of my life and I cannot live without it and I have playing this sport since I was a litle boy. Nowdays looks like everibody is playing football and it most popular sport in the world, many of the boys like me who is dreaming to be a good football player one day. My childrenhood has grown up with the ball and nothing has changed. My parents    told me that I liked kicking the ball around when I was only    two years old and had so much fun. Since then playing football is my favorite thing to do and I go everiday to traning so I can enjoy myself. It is interestingMy Hobby My hobby Everybody has different hobbies that we enjoy and do it for fun or relaxation. They can be either physical activities like jogging, playing football, swimming, †¦ or mental activities like reading, watching movies, playing computers†¦ and it depend on    personality. My bobby is football because it’s part of my life and I cannot live without it and I have playing this sport since I was a litle boy. Nowdays looks like everibody is playing football and it most popular sport in the world, many of the boys like me who is dreaming to be a good football player one day. My childrenhood has grown up with the ball and nothing has changed. My parents    told me that I liked kicking the ball around when I was only    two years old and had so much fun. Since then playing football is my favorite thing to do and I go everiday to traning so I can enjoy myself. It is interestingand amazing especially when I have a ball under my feets or score a goal. I like to go myself and sooting on a goal when I‘m not on traning than helps me to relax and clear my mind I have stress or other problems. For instant after school or studying I feel boring or tired however having fun whith the ball shooting it on goal or trying to do some tricks, all of my tirenes die out. Football is not only about passing and kicking the ball but also required a lot of thoughts, and some basic skills. Ioftenpractice and I feel healthy and stronger. Besite that football have also taught me very much like be teamplayer, athletes, healthy and much more. I don‘t only playing a football I also enjoy watching    football games on TV. My favorite team is Internazionale from Milano. I am so happy when Inter wins but I will get angry when they lose, and I love to watch them playing.