Education Essays Pupils Special Disabilities

Education Essays Pupils Special Disabilities Pupils Special Disabilities This essay critically evaluates the success of policies to promote the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities since 1997. The essay reflects critically on recent legislation in the field and the implications of this for development, showing an understanding of how to resolve conflicting viewpoints. The essay first outlines the legislation, and policy documents, that have been enacted or published since 1997 and then critically analyses these policies in terms of answering the question of how successful these policies have been in terms of meeting special educational needs and disabilities through a review of the impact of these policies on the teaching of special needs children in mainstream schools, and the impact of this on the pupils with special needs, on the ‘normal’ children being taught alongside special needs pupils and on the teaching staff involved in teaching in classrooms containing mainstreamed special needs pupils. Special education is defined, generally, as education that is modified for students with special needs, whether these be special physical needs due to a disability or special mental needs, such as mental health problems or giftedness. The Education Act 1996 defines special educational needs thus, children have special educational needs if they have a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for them, and children can be identified as having a learning difficulty if they have a significantly different ability to learn than the majority of children the same age as them and if they have a disability which prevents them from making use of facilities that would normally be used within that setting by children of a similar age. Students with special educational needs and disabilities have been catered for through a number of legislations since the late 1990s. The Education Act 1996 outlines the various roles and responsibilities of all those involved in the process of educating children within the UK: teachers and parents, for example. The Education Act 1996 contains statutes that are directly relevant to the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities, building, as it does, on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. One of the requirements of the Act is that local authorities publish ‘disability statements’ at regular intervals, detailing the facilities provided by the local authority with regards to accommodating children with special educational needs and disabilities because one of the main requirements of the Act was to identify, assess and meet children’s special educational, or physical, needs in terms of meeting these needs within a mainstream school. Part Four of the Education Act 1996 was revised and was enacted as the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. The Government launched their publication entitled Excellence for all children: Meeting Special Educational Needs in 1997, which set out a coherent strategy for dealing with students with special educational needs and disabilities. This was enhanced through the 1998 publication of the document Meeting Special Educational Needs – A Programme of Action which, when implemented in conjunction with the 1999 Disability Task Force report entitled From Exclusion to Inclusion, reinforced the necessity of considering the rights of students with special educational needs and disabilities. Essentially, the New Labour Government wanted to extend the educational provisions for students with special educational needs and disability by placing educational provision in the broader agenda of social inclusion, within the framework of rights for individuals with special educational needs and disabled individuals (MacBeath et al., 2006)n. Following these publications, and as has been seen, Part Four of the Education Act 1996 was revised and was enacted as the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is divided in to three parts, two of which are of particular relevance for those with special educational needs and disability: Part One which made changes to the existing Special Educational Needs section in the Education Act 1996; and Part Two which deals with disability discrimination in education, amending Parts Three and Four of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Part One of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 strengthens the rights of special educational needs children, in particular the right of these individuals to be schooled in mainstream schools. Part Two of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 makes it illegal for schools and Local Authorities to discriminate against disabled people for any reason that is related to their disability: schools and local authorities have a â€Å"reasonable adjustment† duty to provide for the special needs of any individuals under their care. Since the enactment of this Act, a revised Special Educational Needs Code of Practice was developed (in 2002), which provides practical help and advice to all those involved in providing education to students with special educational needs and disabilities. Then, in 2003, a Green Paper was published, entitled Every Child Matters, which outlines the Government’s commitment to partnership with all those involved in educating students with special educational needs and disabilities, under the framework of the Children’s Services proposals. In 2004 a strategy document was published by the Government, entitled Removing Barriers to Achievement – The Government’s Strategy for SEN, which focuses on providing guidelines for early intervention, and for the provision of special educational needs. In terms of the Government’s approach to the education of students with special educational needs and disabilities, as outlined in their 2004 document Removing Barriers to Achievement – The Government’s Strategy for SEN, the Government sees it as important to remove barriers to learning and to raise both expectations and achievements, all within a framework of ensuring the application of the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. In terms of the impact of all of this legislation on the education of students with special educational needs and disability, the proportion of such students being ‘mainstreamed’ (i.e., taught within the framework of a ‘mainstream’ school, not a special school) has not been significantly affected by the legislation as many parents are still choosing to send their children to special schools, although the legislation has increased the awareness and appreciation of mainstreaming (OFSTED, 2004). From 1999 to 2003, for example, the portion of students with special educational needs and disability that were schooled in a mainstream setting remained steady, although reports from the Audit Commission have reported an increase in students with behavioural disorders being mainstreamed; conversely, since 2001, in fact, there has been a 10% increase in the number of students sent to special schools (OFSTED, 2004). Whilst the Government seems to think that mainstreaming is the best possible solution for special needs children, a recent report has suggested that school inclusion can actually be a form of abuse and that the recent policies that have been enacted to cover the education of special needs children are badly failing these children (MacBeath et al. 2006). As reported by the BBC, MacBeath has been quoted as stating, â€Å"Physically sitting in a classroom is not inclusion. Children can be excluded by sitting in a classroom that is not meeting their needs†. As reported in MacBeath et al. (2006), there is massive variability across the country as to how inclusion, and mainstreaming, is accommodated, with many schools having unresolved problems regarding inclusion of students with special educational needs and disabilities. A recent (2004) OFSTED report, which looked at the issues of special educational needs and disability and inclusion in mainstream schools found that the Government’s revised inclusion framework has promoted increased awareness of the benefits of inclusion and has led to some level of improvements in practice, but that the framework of inclusion has had little effect, as yet, on the number of pupils within mainstream schools or on the range of needs for which mainstream schools can cater, even though most mainstream schools are committed to mainstreaming special educational needs and disabled students. However, the report found that only a minority of mainstream schools meet special needs well, with expectations of achievement not well enough defined with progress in learning slower, for a vast majority of pupils, than it should be (OFSTED, 2004). Few schools were found to objectively evaluate their provisions for students with special educational needs and disability with not enough use being made of the potential for adapting the curriculum so that such students have suitable opportunities for improving their education (OFSTED, 2004). In general, classroom teaching of students with special educational needs and disability was of highly variable quality, with many lessons having many shortcomings with teaching assistants, especially, contributing to a lack of organization with regards to students with special educational needs and disability (OFSTED, 2004). Shockingly, over half the schools that were visited during the course of this report had no disability access plans and few schools liaised with special schools in order to develop better educational content for the subsequently mainstreamed pupils (OFSTED, 2004). In sum, the OFSTED (2004) report recommended that the Government and local education authorities start to work together in order to ensure that the ability of mainstream schools to teach pupils with special educational needs and disability in a better way, in terms of working closely together with special schools to forge productive links for mainstreamed special educational needs and disabled pupils, such that pupils with special educational needs and disability are enabled to play a full and active part in school life, receiving a curriculum that is relevant to their needs. Whilst noble in its aim, therefore, in terms of the actual numbers of students with special educational needs and disability being mainstreamed, and the education these children are receiving when mainstreamed, inclusion remains a significant challenge for many mainstream schools, and the education received by students with special educational needs and disability within a mainstream school setting is perhaps not as optimum as it could be in many cases, with provisions for their special educational needs and disabilities also not being as adequate as they could, or should, be (Henry, 2004). MacBeath et al. (2006) identified shortcomings in the issue of inclusion, with schools admitting they often had problems with mainstreaming of special educational needs and disabled pupils, due to issues related to resourcing and financing, admissions and capacity, balance of needs, recruitment and retention and expertise and professional development. This does not mean that inclusion policies do not work, as MacBeath et al. (2006) found that inclusion policies are often seen to work when a number of essential conditions are met, namely that staff are enthusiastic and committed, with strong teamwork across staff at the school. In addition to looking at how mainstreaming affects pupils, MacBeath et al. (2006) also looked at how teaching staff are affected by the mainstreaming of students with special educational needs and disabilities. It was found that teachers, in principle, welcome mainstreaming, but that the realities of mainstreaming in practice are very different, due to the fact that the needs of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities are very different from those of ‘normal’ children, and that this can cause problems when deciding how to allocate one’s time as a teacher; that often special needs and disabled pupils are allocated to teachers who lack the necessary skills to be able to handle these pupils; that the nature and quality of support for teachers with special needs and disabled pupils is often not present, all of which impact negatively on the ability of the teacher to teach all of their pupils, i.e., those with special needs or disabilities and the ‘normal’ children (MacBeath et al., 2006). Thus not only do policies to promote the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities affect those children with special educational needs and disabilities, when such children are mainstreamed, these policies also affect the ways in teachers are able to carry out their job, in terms of being able to teach all children in their care equally and with equal attention. This has been noted to be of special concern when the pupils with special educational needs are children with behavioural problems (whom, as we have seen, have been steadily increasing in numbers in mainstream school settings), as these children are very demanding of teachers time, which, if the teacher pays a great deal of attention to managing these pupils behaviour can lead to the teacher having less time to dedicate to the ‘normal’ children in their class. This leads to the argument that special educational needs and disabled children should not be educated in mainstream classrooms. Seldom is the level of training sufficient for mainstream teachers to teach these children adequately, and to care for these children well enough, so that the basic care needed for these children is often not present. Conversely, if the teachers are well versed in teaching and managing pupils with special educational needs, and concentrate too much on these pupils within their classroom, this leads to the ‘normal’ children in the class missing out on the teacher’s time and attention. There is, thus, a delicate balance to be struck when a teacher’s classroom includes children with special educational needs or disabilities, between caring for that individual child and accommodating their needs, and also having adequate time for the other pupils in the class. For this reason, many educators, and many parents, argue against the idea of inclusion and mainstreaming, arguing that these policies serve no practical purpose, other than fulfilling the Government’s idea of how inclusion should ideally work. The MacBeath et al. (2006) report addresses this issue, when they ask ‘is inclusion working?’. Whilst inclusion provides social benefits for special educational needs and disabled children, in terms of them feeling more accepted by their peers, the viability of the whole concept of inclusion is brought in to question when one studies what has been happening in classrooms over the period when mainstreaming has become more commonplace. For teachers who have taught special educational needs and disabled pupils in a mainstream setting, it has been found that children with special needs often feel they have a lack of entitlement to learn and develop emotionally; that there are restrictions on learning for ‘normal’ children being educated alongside special needs children because a disproportionate amount of a teacher’s time is given to special needs children; that mainstreaming special needs children can generate feelings of inadequacy in teachers without specialized expertise in dealing with such children; that there is a great increase in the workload of teachers dealing with special needs children within their classroom and that there are massive pressures on teachers in terms of inadequate funding and resourcing by local authorities (MacBeath et al., 2006). The MacBeath et al. (2006) also addressed the impact on pupils of inclusive policies, finding that mainstreamed special needs children can benefit from interactions with their peers, but that, in the majority of cases, lack of training of teachers, and lack of resources mean that special needs pupils are not adequately dealt with and end up struggling in mainstream schools because there is a general and significant lack of expertise on the part of teachers as to how to properly and adequately deal with special needs children in a mainstream school setting. Following these conclusions, the MacBeath et al. (2006) report recommended that the implementation of policies of inclusion should not rely on individual schools to handle all the responsibility of teaching these children, rather that this should be based on a collaborative effort between special schools, mainstream schools and local authorities, and that this enhanced collaboration should ensure the best service for all children, i.e., those with special needs who are being mainstreamed and ‘normal’ children in classrooms containing pupil(s) with special needs who are being mainstreamed. It is clear that policies of inclusion, and mainstreaming, will only work, and will only continue to be suggested and developed, if this collaborative effort is strengthened and if teachers involved in teaching mainstreamed special needs children receive adequate training, allowing them to handle their special needs pupils in a way that is advantageous to those individuals, and also to simultaneously manage their ‘normal’ pupils, so that accommodating pupils with special needs does not come at the detriment of ‘normal’ pupils. For fear of a lack of adequate training and understanding, perhaps, many parents of special needs children still choose to send their children to special schools: as we have seen, the proportion of special needs students being ‘mainstreamed’ (i.e., taught within the framework of a ‘mainstream’ school, not a special school) has not been significantly affected by recent legislation, as the vast majority of parents of special needs children are still choosing to send their children to special schools and not to send them to mainstream schools (OFSTED, 2004). In terms of the success of policies to promote the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities since 1997, then, as has been seen, these policies were introduced as a way in which to further the New Labour Government’s ideas about social inclusion, but have, in practice, been ill thought out, in terms of the actual provision of support and training for teachers and teaching assistants who are actually involved, on a day-to-day basis, with teaching mainstreamed special needs pupils. Thus, whilst there is a case to be made for inclusion with regards to special educational needs and disabled pupils, particularly in terms of the social benefits of this practice for the special needs children, there have been insufficient resources devoted to making these policies work in practice, in terms of generating a collaborative atmosphere which would foster sharing of resources and expertise, between mainstream and special schools, for example. Both MacBeath et al. (2006) and OFSTED (2004) found that when mainstreaming does works, it works only because of the extreme dedication of the individual teachers involved, not because there is a framework in place to ensure that inclusion works in practice. Such was the gravity of the situation as recorded by MacBeath et al. (2006) that their report concluded with an urgent need for inclusive practice, including a â€Å"radical re-appraisal of†¦the contradictions inherent in the interface of standards and inclusion agendas†. References BBC (2006). School inclusion ‘can be abuse’. Tuesday 16th May 2006. DfES (1997). Excellence for All Children – Meeting Special Educational Needs. DfES (1998). Meeting Special Educational Needs – A Programme of Action. DfES (2001). Inclusive Schooling. DfES (2002). Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. DfES (2003a). Every Child Matters. DfES (2003b). Together from the start: practical guidance for professionals working with disabled children and their families (birth to 3 years). DfES (2004). Removing Barriers to Achievement – The Government’s Strategy for SEN. Disability Rights Task Force (1999). From Exclusion to Inclusion. Dyson, A. (2003). Special needs, disability and social inclusion – the end of a beautiful friendship? In Norwich, B. (ed.) (2003). Disability, disadvantage, inclusion and social inclusion. Henry, J. (2004). Inclusion policy fails children with special needs. The Telegraph 25th September 2004. HMSO (1995). Disability Discrimination Act HMSO (1996). Education Act HMSO (2001). Special Educational Needs and Disability Act HMSO (2005). Disability Discrimination Act MacBeath, J. et al. (2006). The Costs of Inclusion. University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. Norwich, B. (ed.) (2003). Disability, disadvantage, inclusion and social inclusion. OFSTED (2004). Special educational needs and disability: towards inclusive schools.

samsung in china :: essays research papers

Environmental Analysis External Environment Chinese Market -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  still socialist economy „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  huge gap between the stated plans and the actual ability of government to manage and control the economy „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  tremendous amount of economic interaction took place outside the government ¡Ã‚ ¦s formal economic plan -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  many smugglings and piracies -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  regional blockades -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  over-employment problem Chinese color TV Market -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  full production capacity in demand „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  principal battleground -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  high competition „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Japanese firms: high-end market. Increasing production bases „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Domestic Firms: low-end market. But they were less competitive in large screen TV. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  small color TV market was shrinking „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  large market size of these product lines facilitated the fast achievement of cost reduction(economy of the scale, learning effect) Consumer analysis -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  only 41% of households had color TV „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  80% of urban, 28% of rural „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Low-end market is not a viable long-term. But overall market was still expanding. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Buying power: expanding both high-ends and low-ends -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Tendency that first image of a product lasted long in the eyes of the consumer. „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  the reason for differentiation needed focusing on high-ends -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  consumer preference „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Urban- brand name, functionality were important factors. „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Rural- reasonable quality and low price were preferred. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  High protected market: too much tariff cost „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  localization needed Domestic (Korean) Market -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Deteriorating of competitive advantage: rising the labor cost -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Korean government policy: supportive of big business „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  getting worse of Korean market „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Losing the M/S in the U.S. and no longer competitive in the low-end product „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  need to change the strategy focusing on high-end, high-tech -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Liberalization of Korean market „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Foreign firms were permitted to sell their product directly „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  More competitive in Domestic market, losing the domestic M/S „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Samsung had to expand the foreign market. Internal Environment Experience in the U.S. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Set up the subsidiary there in 1979 -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Focusing on the low-end market segment based on competitive labor cost in Korea because of large demand and low competition base, and low barrier in the U.S. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Samsung produced a few of the most popular sizes TV for cost reduction through economies of scale and the experience curve. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Dual brand policy: adopting  ¡Ã‚ §buyer brand name(large retailers or OEM) ¡Ã‚ ¨ mostly but trying to build its own brand image -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Establishing a production subsidiary in the U.S. because of trade barrier -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Policy of Japanese firms: targeting high-ends for differentiation through brand name recognition „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Matsushita: 4% of M/S in 1995 but could be high-price, higher profit -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Policy of Samsung: still pricing strategy even though it had good quality of product „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  3% of M/S, but much less profit than Matsushita and facing intense competition -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Importance of TV industry to Samsung: second proportion of Samsung electronics „ »Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It was getting worse in situation of Samsung electronics, so needed some way to solve these problems Market participation in China -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  later market entering than Japanese firms -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The establishment of SCH would enhance its image in China and speed up the accumulation of local knowledge of the market.

Crowd Behaviour Essay

People are likely to act in bizarre ways in a crowd compared to as an individual. A crowd can be defined as a set of individuals who share a common social identification of themselves in terms of that crowd. Crowd members should also share common goals and act in a coherent member (Reicher, 2008). There have been extensive amounts of research into crowd psychology, investigating the apparent causes and reasons for such behaviour to occur. Many different theories exist to attempt to explain why people fall into this interesting state of social influence when they are in crowds. This essay will attempt to investigate how we might best explain crowd behaviour. Le Bon’s (1896) early attempt to explain this phenomenon suggested that crowd behaviours are pathological and abnormal, where people are reduced to a primitive or instinctive mode of behaviour. This theory proposes that feelings of anonymity cause people in a crowd to lose their sense of self and responsibility and act in ways that stem from a ‘group mind’. Through this group mind people are freed from social norms and natural animal instincts are released causing riots and irrational violence. However, since the initial suggestion of the ‘group mind’, this theory has been largely rejected. The main reasoning for this being that the theory does not acknowledge the importance of power in crowd behaviours, which appears to be a key factor in collective behaviour. One speculation that remains important from Le Bon’s group mind theory is that the feeling of crowd anonymity appears to be influential in creating various subsequent theories to explain crowd behaviour, such as the theory of deindividuation. However, the rejection of the group mind does not mean that we should then reject the study of group processes as groups have distinctive properties from individual behaviour. Instead, we should begin to look at group processes with a different perspective. Tajfel (1970) claims that all social behaviour falls on a continuum that spans from interpersonal to intergroup behaviour. Intergroup behaviour is defined with these three criteria: the presence of two distinct groups, low variability in attitudes and behaviour of group members, and low variability in one person’s attitudes to group members.  This helps to explain this readiness in which a person can switch from one view of someone to another (e.g. saying all catholics are bad people, and then going on to say the neighbor (who is a catholic) is such a lovely person). This can arise because when you become part of a group you start to see people as a category not as individuals. The theory of Deindividuation (Deiner, 1976; and Zimbardo, 2007) followed on to these early speculations. The model states that when surrounded by others in a crowd people lose self-awareness. Consequently, people become more susceptible to external cues and to the groups motives and emotions. Ultimately, these factors may lead group members to engage in unsocial and possibly antisocial behaviours. According to Zimbardo, being part of a large group can create a sense of anonymity and diffuses personal responsibility throughout the group for the consequences of one’s actions. This can lead to the loss of identity and a reduced concern for social evaluation. Behaviour resulting can then be impulsive and irrational as there are different set ‘normal’ social and personal norms. Zimbardo’s electric shock experiment gives support to the deindividuation theory, providing evidence that the mean duration of the shock administered by deindividuated participants (they were wearing a coat and a hood to increase anonymity) was nearly twice as long than that of the people who retained their individual identities. Further research also suggests that this sense of anonymity is increased as the size of the group increases and also increases in darker conditions. For example: the violent crowd in the Bristol riots, as darkness fell, violence escalated thus increasing the anonymity of the crowd members. Research by Jaffe and Yinon (1979) compared the mean intensity of shock administered by individuals with that administered by participants in groups of three. As they predicted, those who participated in groups consistently gave much stronger ‘shocks’ than those acting on their own giving evidence for the idea that the sense of anonymity increases with the size of the group. However, some research disagrees that increased anonymity leads to increases antisocial and aggressive behaviour. Some argue that deindividuation and anonymity may in fact result in decreased aggression and improved group relations, indicating that these antisocial behaviours may not be automatic or inevitable consequences of anonymity. Despite much of the early literature proposing that deindividuation factors such as anonymity, loss of self-awareness and group size are associated with antisocial and aggressive behaviours, some more recent findings suggest that deindividuation influences are often sometimes related to increases in pro-social normative behaviour. Zimbardo (1969) provides support for this criticism of the deindividuation theory, having participants either dress in KKK cloaks, or a nurse uniform in an electric shock learning experiment. Results showed that those wearing the nurse uniform chose to reduce the level of shocks administered, and especially in the deindividuated conditions – the person wearing no name tag. In fact, deindividuation by itself did not increase aggression significantly, even for those wearing the KKK outfit. These findings have an influential effect on the understanding of group behaviour as they show that being in a group does not necessarily lead to destructive, antiso cial behaviour as Zimbardo implied. It seems that crowd behaviour often tends to depend on the situation and how salient the norms are. Given the previous literature, Diener (1980) argues that the main factor in crowd behaviour is determined by a loss of self-awareness. He then suggests that factors present in crowd situations such as cohesion and anonymity, can lead people to focus their attention outwards and less on themselves and on personal standards. As a result, people’s behaviour becomes less self-regulated and more determined by immediate cues and norms present in groups around them. Subsequently, these cues will not always direct violence, but will vary across different situations. The literature also fails to consider the context of behaviour or to distinguish anonymity when someone is in a group from anonymity when they are alone. In addition, members of a crowd are barely ever truly anonymous; as individuals identities are often known to other members of the crowd, and they therefore only will appear anonymous to outsiders of the crowd. People often gain a sense of pride rioting together in a group, such as supporters of the same team at a football match, which is far from losing their identities. All of the previous models focus on what is lost when part of a crowd – loss of identity, loss of individuality, and loss of self-awareness. This perspective of understanding group behaviour is a negative and highly  unproductive way to think about collective behaviour; it would be much more productive to think about change (Reicher et al., 1995). Reicher’s research into crowd behaviour has come up with three important features of crowd situations. Firstly, crowds nearly always involve more than one group. This intergroup factor has been essentially ignored in the previous literature for crowd behaviour since the group mind fallacy. Secondly, he suggests that people do not become anonymous, but take on a new identity in a crowd. Reicher (1984) studied vivosection attitudes in Science and Social Science students, with science students generally being more PRO and social sciences students more ANTI. In each category, half of the students were made aware of group membership (e.g. seated together, reffered to as groups, wore KKK membership clothing, etc). Attitudes of Science students became more pro-vivosection and social science students become more anti-vivosection. These findings oppose Deiners theory that deindividuation leads to a loss of self-regulation and gives support to Reicher’s view that you don’t lose your identity in a group based situation, but your identity changes to fall in line with group norms. This follows on from Turners (1983) suggestion of the distinction between personal and social aspects of the self. There is a shift along the interpersonal group continuum from personal identity to social identity. There is then a change in what is seen as the appropriate standard of behaviour. These standards of behaviour and norms are now determined by the group’s social identity rather than by personal or environmental factors. This can help to understand why the behaviour of rioters and police can be so different, when they are exposed to the same stimuli, for when they adopt their respective identities they become influenced by very different goals and social norms. This shows that when a person becomes part of a crowd or group, their social identity as a group member becomes more important and their individual identity becomes less important. Although people may sometimes lose some sense of their identity at times, they will often adopt a stronger sense of their social identity as a member of that particular group. Crowd behaviour, according to Reicher, therefore involves a change rather than a loss of identity. Reicher’s new theory of  crowd behaviour raised four issues that do not fall in line with Deiner’s deindividuation theory. 1. Although crowd behaviour is violent, it is often under control at the same time. 2. Crowds are not always anonymous. 3. Though people are previously suggested to lose self-awareness in crowds and thus respond to cues in particular situations, how come people will respond differently? 4. If crowd behaviour leads to a loss in identity, how come a sense of pride often results from crowd interaction? When Reicher (1987) interviewed people who were part of the St Paul’s riots he received some interesting feedback such as â€Å"we feel great, we feel confident it was a vic tory† and â€Å"You were grinning at everybody, because everyone was from St Paul’s†. These statements provide evidence that those feelings of anonymity and a suggested loss of identity in groups are not present when people are successful in their groups perhaps gaining a sense of pride in their group and coming together to celebrate. To conclude, there are three important points that I would like to reiterate. Firstly, Zimbardo’s pessimism about groups is seemingly unjustified with much evidence pointing in the opposite direction. Depending on each particular situation and the norms that are important in each, behaviour can become either pro-social or anti-social in crowd environments. Though where Zimbardo does seem to be right is that people’s behaviour in a group situation can become much more extreme than how they would behave on their own. The second point is that people’s behaviour in crowds does not always worsen. Support from both Zimbardo and Deiner suggest that in groups people are subjected to a loss of identity and loss of control. However, Reicher’s more recent research into crowd behaviour suggests that this idea is mistaken. It has been shown that people’s behaviour is still in control, yet by different psychological processes. Groups seem to have a common goal in mind in acting as they do, and also that their actions are often motivated by identification with some group. Finally, when viewing group behaviour from an intergroup perspective, the goal and identity directed aspects of collective behaviour are more evident. In almost every situation of crowd behaviour, it is possible to determine an out-group, which will play an important role in the actions of the crowd. Overall, there are many different crowd psychology theories, some of which explain different aspects of crowd behaviour. However, research gives much support to the use of intergroup perspective rather than interpersonal theories to explain this phenomenon. References Diener, E. (1976). Effects of prior destructive behavior, anonymity, an group presence on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 497-507. Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160-1171. Le Bon, G. (1947). The Crowd: a study of the popular mind. London: Ernest Benn. Reicher, S. D., Spears, R. and Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161-198. Reicher, S. D. (1984b). The St. Pauls’ Riot: An explanation of the limits of crowd action in terms of a social identity model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 1-21. Reicher, S. D. (2008). The Psychology of Crowd Dynamics. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processess, 9, 151-168 Tafjel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientijic American, 223, 96102. Turner, J. C. (1983). Some comments on ‘the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 351-368 Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The Human Choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus Deindividuation, impulse and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237-307

Seven events that shaped the New Testament world Essay

The conviction of the group that Jesus comes in contact with when at Matthew’s is that â€Å"one who claims to be holy should not have dinner with tax collectors and sinners.† In those ancient times, tax collectors were perceived a bad lot that was made up of sinners. To the Pharisees who thought of themselves as the holy lot, associating or even talking to tax collectors was an abomination. They identified themselves as the only holy people and the most clean spiritually and thus could not associate with sinners. Their group was made of the Pharisees and anybody who did contrary to their beliefs was considered unholy (Carter, 2013). Some of the people whom they did not associate with were the sick, prostitutes and the tax collectors. The sick were considered unholy because the Pharisees believed that sickness was caused by sins, prostitution was a condemnation because it was a sin and the tax collectors were considered sinners because of their couth ways of collecting taxes. Jesus came to make the wrongs right, He thus does complete opposite of what the Pharisees believed in. This brings a lot of misunderstandings between Jesus and the Pharisees because they care most about maintaining their religious holiness than reaching out to those in need of being whole again, that is, without sins or diseases as a result of their preaching and works of mercy to those in need (Holy Bible, 2007). In the text, at its most basic, the conflict between Jesus and the leaders is about doing against the set religious rules. The rule that Jesus breaks in this context is that a holy person should not eat from the same table with sinners. In this case, Jesus was eating together with Matthew in his place and Matthew is a tax collector. This is so because tax collectors were not only disreputable sinners but also were considered as spies of the Romans against their associated Jews. Nobody loved any man who worked at the levy office. Thus, they lived a secluded life like outcasts in their own community. Matthew sought to bring his old acquaintances to hear the Christ. After his calling, he now understands how powerful the grace of Christ was and would like his fellow tax collectors to experience the same. This portrays that the ones who have an experience with the Christ develops a desire that others be brought to him to have the same experience. As Jesus points out, those who think that their souls are not ailing do not long for a spiritual physician (Holy Bible, 2007). This was a direct hit to the Jews since they could not understand that Jesus, as John the Baptist said, was coming to heal the sick, to cleanse the sinners and to give hope to those who were in despair. Jesus demonstrated that he came for all by incorporating all in His teachings and day to day encounters but the Jewish despised Him because they held a view that they are whole. The that the poor publicans and sinners felt that they were in need of amendment and instruction but could not get it from the Pharisees and that is why Jesus kept them close to make them whole against. This was a regular cause of misunderstanding between him and the Jews (Holy Bible, 2007). There are several things we need to know about the historical world to understand the conflict between Jesus and the leaders at the Matthew’s. First, the Jewish people out rightly regarded tax collectors as conspirators because they worked for the Roman regime, and had the power of Roman militaries behind them so as to brutally compel people to pay levies. They were most eminent traitors with Roman regime (Carter, 2013). Secondly, Jewish regarded tax collectors to be extortionists because they kept everything they collected. Since tax collectors bid for a contractor to collect taxes in particular areas, the Romans gave the contracts to the person with the highest bid. The bidder would collect levies, give the Roman Empire what he had promised and would keep the rest. Therefore, there were many instances where the tax collectors levied high taxes and cheating with any opportunity they found so as to amass as much money as they could. For them, this was a business with wholesome profit making as they deemed necessary (Holy Bible, 2007). Thirdly, when a Jew got into the duties’ service, he was considered a cast away from the society. He was banned as a judge or an eye witness in a law court hearing, was barred from the synagogue and in the face of the public, his discredit prolonged to his kinfolks. This shows how bad the Jews hated the tax-leviers to an extent of considering them sinners, an abomination in the society and this hatred protracted to their family. Their grounds on which this kind of hate was based were genuine no wonder they were so bitter on Jesus when he associated with sinners and even went to an extent of dinning with them (Kraybill, 2003). The bone of contention here is the cause of misunderstanding between Jesus and the Jewish. What the Jewish do not seem to understand is that Jesus had come to make right that which is wrong. The knowing of the above past practices informs me in several ways in the process of reading the Matthew gospel. First, I now understand that the Jews were real fanatics of their religious dogmas. They highly valued conformation to their religious practices with an aim of staying clean and straight. Secondly, I now understand that every misunderstanding between Jesus and the Jews had a cause and it had something to do with a contradiction of the Jewish existing religious doctrines. Lastly, the misunderstandings were always eminent between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders because the Jews were not ready to accept the purpose for the coming of Christ. If only they understood, they would have compromised to accommodate His teachings (Carter, 2013). References Carter, W. (2013).Seven events that shaped the New Testament world. Holy Bible: NRSV, New Revised Standard Version. (2007). New York: Harper Bibles. Kraybill, D. (2003). The upside-down kingdom.Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press. Source document

The highest branch on the tree essays

The highest branch on the tree essays In adolescence, life can seem like a popularity contest. Therefore, teasing, bullying, and victimization are among the biggest problems for teenagers in school. For the most part the victims develop social and emotional problems, and as a result, limit their happiness and success. However, in the American short story The Highest Branch on the Tree, author Ray Bradbury tells a rather different and amusing story about victimization. In Bradburys story, the victim gets his revenge, and is the one who has the last laugh. Instead of becoming a withdrawn person, he becomes successful in the business world. However, he is still suffering from the bullying in his past. Or perhaps the bullies are the ones who are suffering as a result of the past. The victim and the main character, Harry Hands, is a very bigheaded and smart person, who was vastly superior to his classmates. Thus, everyone in his class disliked him, especially because of his infuriating arrogant attitude and success. However, Harry did not care at all, since the teachers liked him, and therefore he knew that he had nothing to fear. In fact, he was indeed aware of the fact that he was the one who had the upper hand, which this paragraph clearly states: looking down his nose at us dumb peasants, as he called us. (Line 5-6). Peasant is a humiliating word, which in former times was used about a person who is from the lowest part of society. Nevertheless, Harry was a victim of bullying and teasing throughout his short period in junior high. Even forty years later, Harry does not live a single day without remembering the day the envious narrator of the story, Douglas Spaulding, together with the other classmates, threw Harrys pants up on the highest branch of a tree in the schoolyard. He was victimized, and victimization is one the main themes in Bradburys story. However, Harry simply climbed up and thereafter peed on everyone be...

Free Essays on Deviance In Organazations

Social Deviance Deviance and Organizations Corporate deviance is a wide variety of mostly â€Å"white collar crimes† such as embezzlement, fraud, computer fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and stock market fraud. This is just a short list of ways organizations may try to bend the laws. White color crimes tend to be treated with a less severe punishment by our government. They do not usually physically hurt people but may con them out of their money and could ruin their lives. Most of the time it is the upper class more educated people who commit these types of crimes and therefore can afford the expensive lawyers to defend them. Judges do not look at these well-maintained people as a threat to society and therefore lets them off with a smack on the wrist. The organizational deviance I found to be very interesting was the Martha Stewart case. Stewart is an established millionaire. She has more money then you or I could ever dream of. However, she is accused of insider trading. A fellow friend in the market tipped her off when a stock, which she had a large amount of money in, was going to plummet. She quickly sold her stock and saved herself a large amount of money the day before the stock dropped. Stewart is now undergoing trial and could be sentenced to time in jail. This type of corporate deviance may often go undetected. I feel â€Å"white collar crimes† need to be looked at more seriously even though nobody becomes physically hurt they still affect the hard working class people and our economy. I believe the laws should be stiffened to threaten the well educated and possibly make them think twice before they commit the act.... Free Essays on Deviance In Organazations Free Essays on Deviance In Organazations Social Deviance Deviance and Organizations Corporate deviance is a wide variety of mostly â€Å"white collar crimes† such as embezzlement, fraud, computer fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and stock market fraud. This is just a short list of ways organizations may try to bend the laws. White color crimes tend to be treated with a less severe punishment by our government. They do not usually physically hurt people but may con them out of their money and could ruin their lives. Most of the time it is the upper class more educated people who commit these types of crimes and therefore can afford the expensive lawyers to defend them. Judges do not look at these well-maintained people as a threat to society and therefore lets them off with a smack on the wrist. The organizational deviance I found to be very interesting was the Martha Stewart case. Stewart is an established millionaire. She has more money then you or I could ever dream of. However, she is accused of insider trading. A fellow friend in the market tipped her off when a stock, which she had a large amount of money in, was going to plummet. She quickly sold her stock and saved herself a large amount of money the day before the stock dropped. Stewart is now undergoing trial and could be sentenced to time in jail. This type of corporate deviance may often go undetected. I feel â€Å"white collar crimes† need to be looked at more seriously even though nobody becomes physically hurt they still affect the hard working class people and our economy. I believe the laws should be stiffened to threaten the well educated and possibly make them think twice before they commit the act....

Soft Skills in the Workplace Boost Your Freelance Career

Soft Skills in the Workplace Boost Your Freelance Career Hard skills- like software certifications, degrees, work experience- are quantifiable; you either have them, or you don’t. But soft skills, like these rounded up by Brie Weiler Reynolds at Flexjobs.com, are qualities  you can work to develop on your own. By the time you’re ready to send your resume and cover letter out, you can boast your proficiency with each and every one of these skills. Self-EfficacyAre you proactive? Can you perform under pressure? A lot of this is a head game- do you feel a sense of  control over your work and life? Are you confident in your abilities? A roster of freelance clients (even if you know some of them socially) can help demonstrate your ability to time-manage and hustle under your own steam.Outcome ExpectancyThis is what Valerie Ward of EmploymentReadiness.info calls â€Å"the belief that one’s efforts will result in positive outcomes.† Basically, it’s glass-half-full thinking, accompanied by a dose of pragmatis m. Set yourself up for success by not biting off more than you can chew and executing the tasks you take on in a timely, professional manner. Start small if you need to!Maintenance of a Solid NetworkOne of the hardest things about freelancing is the lack of a cube-mate to kvetch to or brainstorm with. Make sure your support network extends beyond the office (or former office!)- find people who will listen to your issues, help you solve problems, pitch in for childcare, extend your professional network, and are generous with their time. Make sure the support goes both ways if you really want a network that performs for you.Constant Self-EvaluationThese are the daily skills that usually come with sharing 4 walls and oxygen with a team of other employees: communication, being proactive, triaging a to-do list, work-life boundaries, learning from mistakes and accurate self-review. Be responsive, be generous, and do it every day, even when you don’t feel like you’re at your best.Assessment of Past ExperiencesFlexJobs calls this â€Å"work history,† but even more important than your actual background is the way you perceive and represent your experience. How can you put the best possible spin on even the least rewarding jobs? Assess the skills you acquired and responsibilities you held, and be able to talk about them cheerfully and confidently.These soft skills will enable you to present a poised, professional attitude to prospective employers- and you can start honing them without even leaving your desk.  5 Soft Skills for Long-Term Career Success  Read More at Flex Jobs