Pre-assessment Stage Essay Example for Free

Pre-assessment Stage Essay The participants of the study are 40 second grade Hispanic students who are currently studying English as a second-language in one of their courses. These students lived at the Mexico-US border and are currently attending a small urban school district in the metropolitan Chicago area. Two teachers were selected from a list of teachers who were known to apply each method (Pask’s and Landa’s) in teaching mathematics. Procedure Two classes of 20 students each were compared in a month’s period of time. The classes had 90 minutes of mathematics per day. The class applied Pask’s Conversation Theory while the other applied Landa’s Algo-Heuristic Theory. The study included a pre-assessment and a final assessment stage. Before classes start, the students were first asked to fill out a form regarding their personal information. After which, each of the students were given an examination to assess their proficiency in English and knowledge in Mathematics. General Procedure For the first thirty minutes of the first day, the teachers discussed addition and subtraction of digits more than two. For the next thirty minutes, the teachers then showed some examples. Then for the last thirty minutes, each student was asked to answer addition and subtraction equations on the board. For the next day, the first fifteen minutes were devoted in reviewing the topics discussed yesterday. Then after, for the next hour, the teachers discussed word problems in which addition and subtraction of digits more than three is applied. The last thirty minutes were devoted for board work. The third day was also allotted for reviewing word problems in the first thirty minutes. The Pask teacher paired up each student and then assigned a word problem to each pair. The students then answered the problems and discuss the solutions to their partners. After which, a spokesperson for each pair went to the board and explain their solutions to the class. The class then discussed if the solution is valid and if not discuss why it is not. The Landa teacher also assigned a word problem to each student. However, in this class, the students were not paired up. Each answered the word problem according to the algorithm given by the teacher. The teacher then checked if each of the students’ answer is correct. If not, he returned the paper to the student and asked him or her to review his solution and correct it. Both classes were given a written exam on the fourth day applying what they have learned for this lesson (addition and subtraction). The next day, both classes were given another chapter examination of ten various word problems. The examinations did not instruct as to which particular type of solution will be used. That is, the students are free to choose which strategy to use. This same procedure was used in discussing multiplication and division. After their examination on multiplication and division, the teachers devoted the whole session in discussing word problems in which all of the operations are applied. The first 45 minutes of the last day was devoted to discussing word problems in which all of the mathematical operations are involved. For the last 45 minutes, both classes were given a word problem to solve. Each teacher used the same procedure as they did in their previous lessons. Final Assessment Stage After the discussions and examinations on multiplication and division, both classes were then given a final examination to assess what they have learned and understood in their class. The examination will consist of twenty word problems involving the mathematical operations discussed in their classes. These problems consisted of each type of problem discussed in Chapter 2. Again, the examinations did not instruct as to which particular type of solution will be used so that the students are free to choose which one they will utilize. The students were also free to ask their teachers for clarifications. After answering their examinations, the teachers were asked to fill out questionnaires regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the educational theories they practiced. The students were also interviewed asking them what they have learned from their lessons aside from learning mathematical operations. The questionnaires contained open questions dealing with the strengths and weaknesses of their approach to allow respondents to say what is exactly on their minds.

moralhf charhf Mark Twains The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn †Morality of Hucks Character :: Adventures Huckleberry Huck Finn Essays

Huckleberry Finn – Morality of His Character Many critics of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn fail to see the morality and support of racial equality presented in this novel. June Edwards the author of "What's Moral About Huckleberry Finn" also believes that most critics do not understand Twain's method or completely ignore the satires used throughout the novel. Twain uses a unique method to make a point, including racial equality and Huck's highly moral personality. In June Edward's opinion critics who try to censor Huckleberry Finn see Huck as a poor role model for teenagers. They pass this judgment because of his poor use of grammar and his repeated ability to lie. In Edward's article she points out many things that show Huck's morals along with the novels support of racial equality, which differs greatly with those who wish to censure Huckleberry Finn. Unlike most critics of this novel, I happen to agree with Edwards on her position on this novel. One topic of disapproval of this novel is Huck's use of bad grammar making him a poor role model for today's youth. Huck's use of poor grammar reflects the culture that Huck lived in at that time in the south. I believe that if a person uses poor grammar in their speech, that is not a reflection of that person's personality or morality in any way. Huck proves countless times that he is a young man of high morals even if he is not highly educated. Another criticism of Huck Finn is he tricks people into thinking he is something he is not. For example he posed as a girl in a town down the river to see the response to Huck and Jims disappearance. He acted in a similar manor when asked, by slave catchers who was accompanying him on his raft. Huck quickly created a story to protect his slave friend Jim from the feared slave catchers. Huck hides his identity numerous times to protect his friend Jim from danger and possibly death. It takes an extraordinary high moral person to take these kinds of personal risks to protect a slave especial during this time period in the south, but Huck is nothing of the ordinary.

Did Government Violate Laissez-Faire Essay

After the Civil War, many businessmen endorsed the Laissez-Faire concept of government in order to promote industry. In this concept, government did not interfere with industry. But what came with this concept was unlimited freedom for businessmen and high prices for consumers. While many businessmen supported a Laissez-Faire concept of government between 1865 and 1900, the people did not benefit from it, which led government to violate this concept with their policies, but only to a moderate extent overall. They violated laissez-faire to a moderate extent by issuing Railroad Land Grants before 1870 and eliminating them after, to a great extent by Regulating Interstate Commerce with the Interstate Commerce Act in 1886, and only to a limited extent by attempting to control trust activities with the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, producing a moderate government involvement overall. Government began to violate the concept of Laissez-Faire with its Railroad Land Grants. Laissez-Faire promoters believed that â€Å"†¦the government is best which governs least. † While industrialists promoted this concept, it was already being violated when the Federal Government gave thousands of acres of land to Railroad companies in return for building railroads. These subsidies, in the form of loans and land grants, totaled over 130 million acres of public land. (Doc D. ) The federal government issued these grants in hope that the railroad would increase the value of the land and provide better rates for carrying mail and transporting troops. More railroads continued to be built, including four other transcontinental railroads. Of these four, James Hill’s Great Northern Railroad was the only one to be built without federal subsidies. These grants benefited the Railroad financiers greatly, especially Jay Gould who went into the business to make quick profit by selling off the assets and watering stocks. The grants were justified by financiers by saying that the railroads provided for settlement of the west and attracted immigrants, giving the land more credit, which was the government’s main purpose to begin with. However, as more competition entered the industry, the railroad system began to fail, and, in the 1870’s the Federal government recognized this problem and terminated their policy of grants to railroads. This policy prohibited the issuing of subsidies to associations or corporations engaged in public or private enterprises. (Doc F) By issuing this resolution, Congress eliminated itself from the railroad industry, promoting the concept of Laissez-Faire. So while congress was a large part of industry before 1870, violating Laissez-Faire, they eliminated themselves from it, and promoted Laissez-Faire from that point on. This shows that congress violated Laissez to a moderate extent, because they violated it before 1870 but not after. Later, government violated Laissez-Faire in another way, by regulating interstate commerce. Before 1886, many states had Granges, social and educational organizations for farmers and their families who aimed to defend its members against the middlemen, trusts, and railroads. Grangers in many states successfully lobbied their state legislatures to pass laws regulating railroad rates. In the case of Munn v Illinois in 1877, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a state to regulate businesses of a public nature, like railroads. But these laws, called Granger laws, could only regulate local and short-haul rates within their states. In the case of Wabash v. Illinois in 1886, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not regulate interstate commerce: that was left up to the federal government. Because many railroad companied raised their long-haul rates after the granger laws were adopted, the federal government needed to respond to the outcry of farmers and shippers. It recognized that the railroad industry’s benefits had been attained to, in effect, â€Å"†¦ build up the strong at the expense of the weak†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Doc J. ) The federal government worked to fix this problem by passing the Interstate Commerce Act in 1886. This Act required railroad rates to be â€Å"reasonable and just,† and set up the first federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC. ) This law affected the railroad industry greatly, and the results were astounding. In effect, it increased railroad earnings, and put an end to rebates and drawbacks. (Doc L. ) This act was huge in government intervention in industry. By issuing this act, the federal government aimed to help the cries of the farmers and shippers, and in effect violated laissez faire by involving itself directly in the railroad industry from state to state, and also nullified previous laws regulating the railroad industry passed in individual states. This shows that the government did violate industry to a great extent when it came to regulating Interstate Commerce. As a select few became very wealthy by forming trusts in their particular industries, the government violated Laissez-Faire by trying to control trust activities. In the 1880s, many middle class citizens feared the power that trusts gave industrialists, and urban elites resented the increasing influence of the new rich men in America. Because so many businessmen were developing trusts and were the only ones benefiting from business, John Sherman, a Senator from Ohio, was inspired to pass the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 by reformers who failed to curb trusts on the state level. The Act prohibited any â€Å"contract, combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce. Sherman believed the act would provide every man with his â€Å"†¦right to work, labor, and produce†¦Ã¢â‚¬  and to transport his production on equal terms. (Doc N. ) The Act, however, hardly did that. It was purposely written vaguely in order to promote loose interpretation. This was partly because those holding the trusts were bribing state legislatures. Since the state legislatures appointed senators, and senators were all represented equally in each state, monopolists would bribe the state legislatures in order to get the candidate they wanted in the senate, who in turn would affect the passage of anti-trust laws. There were very few federal prosecutions issued under the act between its passing in 1890 and 1901, a total of 17 in 11 years. (Doc Q. ) In one particular case of United States v E. C. Knight Co in 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act could be applied only to commerce, not to manufacturing. (Doc P. ) Because of this case, the US Department of Justice secured few convictions until the law was changed during the Progressive Era. So while the federal government attempted to regulate the industry and prevent trusts, it barely did so. Because of the weak wording of the act, trusts failed to stop developing. The federal government involved itself in the industry because of the complaints and fears of the powers that those who held trusts had, and though it involved itself in the industry by issuing a law and enforcing it slightly, the supreme court rulings and loose interpretation of the law allowed little alterations to the industry, showing that the federal government only violated laissez-faire to a limited extent. As it can be assumed, the businessmen of industrial era promoted laissez-faire only when it benefited their business. They manipulated people in order to gain what they wanted-a monopoly. As economic problems began to surface with the laissez-faire system, government began to intervene. Though they were involved to a great extent in the railroad system initially, they eliminated themselves from it after 1870, only violating the laissez-faire system to a moderate extent overall. When it came to interstate commerce, the government violated laissez-faire to a great extent by issuing the interstate Commerce Act. And with this issue of trust activities, the government only intervened to a limited extent by passing the Sherman Antitrust Act and then failing to execute it. All of these things show that government violated laissez-faire to a moderate extent, and this was because the laissez-faire system did not benefit society as a whole and government needed to fix economic and social problems.

The General Average Act from the York Antwerp Rules - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1373 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Essay any type Did you like this example? GENERAL AVERAGE General Average Act from the York Antwerp Rules is defined as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Any extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure intentionally and reasonable in time of peril for the purpose of preserving the property imperilled in common maritime adventureà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Terms to be considered Extraordinary Sacrifice or Expenditure Intentional Reasonable Peril Common maritime adventure EXTRAORDINARY This can be seen as something very unusual or remarkable, something that normally doesnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t happen. Now a loss must be à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"extraordinaryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ before it can be considered under general average. This is declared in York Antwerp Rules rule A and in the Marine Insurance Act section 66(2). This been said, losses made from ordinary voyage incidents cannot therefore bring about general average. It isnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t always easy to draw a line between extraordinary and ordinary, it all depends on the facts of the case. Example of cases: SociÃÆ' ©tÃÆ' © Nouvelle dà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢Armement v. Spillers Baker In 9171, the French barque Ernest Legouve was towed from Ireland to England across the Irish Sea during the First World War in order to reduce the danger of enemy submarines. The extra cost on towage wasnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t allowed as general average after taking the case to court because the risk of attack from the U-boats isnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t something extraordinary for a time of war. Robinson v. Price A ship had a leak and would sink without constant pumping out of the water. The ship used up all the fuel (coal) supplies she had because of this situation. On a usual voyage, this wouldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t have been the case. So the shipà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s spars and cargo had to be used as fuel in order to complete this voyage. This incident wasnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t a usual on the voyage therefore the cost of the spars and cargo used was allowed in general average. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The General Average Act from the York Antwerp Rules" essay for you Create order SACRIFICE OR EXPENDITURE Sacrifice can be defined as the act of letting something valued go for the sake of something considered as more important or worthy. Also, expenditure can simple be seen as money spent. Sacrifice in the context of general average revolves around cargo being jettisoned or used (most times used as fuel) in the voyage and expenditures on services or supplies. For this to be allowed as general average, this must happen in time of real danger (peril) or imminent risk of danger. Example of cases: The case Robinson v. Price previously discussed were the cargo was used as fuel in time of peril to keep water out of the ship to avoid sinking will definitely allow general average claims. Watson v. Firemanà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Fund Sophie Frankel in 1922, had a cracked steam pipe. Steam escaped from the fracture overheating the cargo (rosin) which gave off a vapour. The master confused the vapour for smoke and concluded that the hold was on fire. Steam was now put into the hold da maging the cargo and the cargo was damaged. General average wasnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t allowed on the sacrifice because there wasnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t any real danger. INTENTIONAL Something intentional can be seen as something deliberate, consciously done on purpose or something done voluntarily. The sacrifice or expenditure made must be voluntarily, and not a situation one couldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t control. Taking an illustration of a fire incident on board. Any damage caused from the water used to extinguish the fire will be allowed under general arrange because the act of using the water was voluntary. The damage caused from the fire will be considered as partial average as the fire was an accident. But any damage caused from the smoke will not be allowed as general average since the smoke cannot be extinguished. Any voluntary act must be that of the master or authorised by him. Losses that come from an act forced on the master wonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t be allowed as general average Example of cases: Athel Line v. London and Liverpool Insurance In 1944 during the war, the Athelbeach and the Athelqueen were to take molasses from West Indies to the United Kingdom. Because of the fear of attack, they joined other vessels to form a convoy. The convoy commodore received a signal from the Admiralty that another convoy had been attached earlier, so he ordered the convoy back to Bermuda. Athel line vessels later made the voyage without the convoy. The cost incurred from the delay and deviation werenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t allowed as general average because from the defence regulations, the Admiralty and commodore has authority over the masters of the vessels and even the ship owners. Their acts werenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t voluntary but forced. It was a legal duty to obey the commodore. REASONABLE Something reasonable can also be seen as something sensible, having sound judgement or logical. Sacrifice or expenditure must also be reasonably made to be covered under general average. And unreasonably expensive way of solving a problem will certainly not be allowed as general average. If the masterà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s act is done in the interest of all on the voyage, first considering life (crew and passengers), and then the vessel and cargo, then losses incurred will be allowed as general average even if the act is hazardous From The Seapool a ship at anchor was suddenly attacked by a gale and was faced with the risk of breaking her back and losing her propellers. The master engage in a very risky manoeuvre which was actually designed to get the ship out to sea and not exactly for a situation like this. All to avoid the gale. Though master was successful, the ship and pier were damaged. The decision the master made was reasonable enough and the losses made was allowed as gene ral average. PERIL Peril can be seen as serious danger, or an immediate risk or hazard. Every intentional and reasonable sacrifice must only be made in time of real danger for losses to be allowed as general average. If the master is wrong about a peril and takes an action, any losses generated from this act will not be considered under general average. Example of cases: Looking at a previously discussed case of Watson v. Firemanà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Fund in 1922, ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s clear that the reason why the losses made from the damaged cargo were not allowed as general average was because the danger which prompted the master to act didnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t exist. No real danger. The danger doesnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t really have to be immediate but it has to be real enough and also the possibility of it happening, very high. Like in this next case Vlassopoulos v. British and Foreign MI Co The vessel involved was taken to port to fix a fouled propeller. If that propeller wasnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t brought in for repair, it would have caused a problem or failed during a voyage. And the possibility of that happening was very high. A potential danger was avoided so therefore, the resulting expenses for the repair is allowable as general average. COMMON MARITIME ADVENTURE Any expenditure or sacrifice must be made for the safety of a common maritime adventure before it can amount to general average. Looking at the common maritime adventure, two conditions are considered. Firstly, sacrifices or expenditures made after an interest has been brought to safety cannot be allowed as general average. Case: Royal Mail Steam Packet v. English Bank of Rio de Janeiro A ship ran aground and a valuable but light weighted cargo of specie was removed into a lighter all for the purpose of preserving the cargo. Taking it that the cargo of specie got damaged. It was concluded that that specific cargo couldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t come under general average because it didnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t contribute in any way to the refloating of the ship. Secondly, the ultimate success of the adventure is very important when considering general average. Case: Chellew v. Royal Commission for Sugar Supply A ship incurred port refuge expenses. And both the ship and ca rgo were lost, never making it to the discharge port. In this situation where no form of success was made, no claim in general average can be made in respect to those expenses made. REFERENCE Simon Baughen (2012) Shipping Law, 5th edition, Oxon: Routledge. Robert Grime (1991) Shipping Law, 2nd edition, London: Sweet Maxwell Limited https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instantion=1espv=2ie=UTF-8#q=sacrifice+meaning [12 Aug 2014].