Suchergebnisse

Traditional structural engineering pedagogy has consisted of students preparing for class by reading a textbook, followed by a professor giving a lecture, followed by students doing individual homework. Students received feedback in terms of a grade from the professor, and, ideally, the student filed the graded work and possibly reviewed it again before an exam. Following the exam, the professor moved to the next topic and essentially ended any further contact time with the material, resulting in students quickly dumping a good percentage of what was learned. To make matters worse, most faculty would agree that undergraduate students often skip the reading prior to class, and studies have shown that almost half of all students do not pay attention to material presented during a lecture. Thus, it is critical for engineering educators to improve the stagnant method of traditional teaching and learning. Small mistakes in the engineering profession can lead to death or millions of dollars in repair. For the fall 2018 semester, in the Design of Steel and Wood Structures at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Civil Engineering students participated in a cooperative learning technique aimed at improving student learning. These same students tried a different version of this technique in Structural Analysis the prior semester.[1] Prior to submitting individual homework to the instructor for grade, students paired up with a peer within their class hour and checked each other's work using an instructor provided "Design Review Sheet." When a student found a mistake, or disagreed with the methodology used by their Design Review partner, the student annotated this on their sheet. The expectation was that when disagreements were discovered between students, they would discuss with each other where the error or misunderstanding existed and subsequently corrected the error prior to submission for grade. This not only required students to explain the work they completed, but it also provided additional contact time with the material. With respect to Engineering Teaching and Learning, Design Review provides the essential cooperative learning characteristic of positive interdependence because individual student learning increases as review partners improved in their Design Review. As a student incentive to complete a thorough review, the quality of review counted for 10% of each assignment. Efforts this iteration were in response to some of the student suggestions following a previous iteration.[1] This iteration, in lieu of students turning in their work in pairs to receive one grade, each student would turn in their individual work and Design Review sheet. This was done to hold all students accountable for the work they completed. In addition, the instructor provided Design Review sheet was modified for clarity and the requirement to write a memorandum summarizing the results of each Design Review was eliminated. This cooperative learning technique was used on six of seven homework assignments during the term and on seven of nine homework assignments in their pre-requisite course. Student feedback was collected from both Likert Scale questions and open-ended questions. This paper will make the case that this pedagogy benefits Engineering Teaching and Learning by: (1) getting engineering students in the practice of what engineers in practice already do (check each other's work), (2) increasing student learning of course learning objectives through repetition and through observing how others solve problems and present their work, and (3) improving the ability of future engineers to communicate their work clearly and effectively. ; Cockrell School of Engineering

According to Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan capital is not an economic quantity but a mode of power; it could be sumarized as: "Capital is power quantified in monetary terms". So, what do we do when we "quantify"? What is the nature of "money" in a capitalist society? And, indeed, what is "power" in the first place? In the following I will try to develop a concept of power as the ability of persons to create particular formations. The kind of formations persons can think of depends on the society a person lives in, which can be identified by what Cornelius Castoriadis called its social imaginary significations (SIS). The core SIS of capitalism is rational mastery operating with computational rationality. Computational rationality in turn rest on a particular understanding of how signification works: operational symbolism, as theories by Sybille Krämer (following Leibniz). When the concept of the SIS of modern rationality was developed in the 1950s and 60s, bureaucracy was seen as its main organisational mode or rational mastery. I will argue that capitalisation and bureaucratisation are the two modes of rational mastery which interact with each other. The paper concludes with deliberations on the future of rational mastery and the possibility of "ways out".

AbstractTo master the natural number system, children must understand both the concepts that number words capture and the counting procedure by which they are applied. These two types of knowledge develop in childhood, but their connection is poorly understood. Here we explore the relationship between the mastery of counting and the mastery of exact numerical equality (one central aspect of natural number) in the Tsimane', a farming‐foraging group whose children master counting at a delayed age and with higher variability than do children in industrialized societies. By taking advantage of this variation, we can better understand how counting and exact equality relate to each other, while controlling for age and education. We find that the Tsimane' come to understand exact equality at later and variable ages. This understanding correlates with their mastery of number words and counting, controlling for age and education. However, some children who have mastered counting lack an understanding of exact equality, and some children who have not mastered counting have achieved this understanding. These results suggest that understanding of counting and of natural number concepts are at least partially distinct achievements, and that both draw on inputs and resources whose distribution and availability differ across cultures.

The control-mastery theory is an attempt to integrate an understanding of how the mind works, how psychopathologies develop, and how psychotherapy can effectively help.

"By blending the real-world insights of business executive Al Bolea with tested research findings provided by leadership scholar Leanne Atwater, Becoming a Leader: Nine Elements of Leadership Mastery effectively bridges theory and practice to outline powerful leadership behaviors and teach readers how to become a leader. Based on Bolea's original "J-Curve" model of leadership, this approachable guide identifies and describes nine essential elements for leadership mastery, including skills such as setting direction, creating key processes, and nurturing behaviors. Each chapter pairs concrete narratives with succinct research synopses to show how to expand the potential of people and organizations. This unique, experiential text engages readers with self-reflection and self-assessment exercises to encourage their development as future leaders. Becoming a Leader: Nine Elements of Leadership Mastery is a must-have resource for practicing managers, consultants, and practitioners, as well as applicable to graduate and undergraduate courses on leadership"--

Following modernity's founding dream of human mastery over the natural world, scientific discoveries produced a picture of an infinite, random, and indifferent universe, thus paradoxically revealing the utter insignificance of the "master/dreamer." Recently, the convergence of a number of extreme technoscientific projects—AI, Nanotechnology, Life Extension—has activated science-based cosmological visions in which humans and their "intelligence" are given a central purpose in the unfolding of the universe. The movement formed around the event-horizon of the Singularity is the most well-known version of these re-enchantment cosmologies. Yet this re-enchantment only serves as a prelude to an obsolescence: humans are here to give rise to other, better minds, a prospect that makes Singularitarians restless with both fear and exhilaration.