Monday, January 27, 2020

Supporting Child Language Development

Supporting Child Language Development Hay Fielding-Barnsley (2012) believed that there are firm reciprocal connections between childrens language development, logical reasoning and their achievements at school. In order to best promote these relationships, childrens language and speech should be motived, acknowledged and respected in a social positive learning environment. Childrens academic achievement in literacy, which is multi-dimensional and interactive, depends on two periods of learning (Hay Fielding-Barnsley, 2012). Cunningham Stanovich (1997) stated that a first process is the cognitive memory development; children quickly identify the orthographic features of the word then connect this to semantic meaning of the word (Hay Fielding-Barnsley, 2012). Second, they get the meaning of the text by motivating and interacting to become independent readers (Bishop Leonard, 2000) as cited in Hay Fielding-Barnsley (2012). A key factor to a successful rate of childrens mastery language and literacy is the quality of environment; surrounding in the home and out of home settings (Hay Fielding-Barnsley, 2012). Fellows Oakley (2014, p. 71) highlights that from the moment of birth, parents and family members influence childrens speech, language acquisition and learning through daily communicative exchanges. Evidences also show that the higher socioeconomic status children are from, the better childrens language and literacy skills will be improved. For example: children of low-income and low-educated parents lack three times opportunities to communicate and interact with their parents (Hay Fielding-Barnsley, 2012). In an outside aspect, childcare setting plays significant role on nurturing secure relationship and fostering rich language experience (Fellows Oakley, 2014). For example: appropriate programs at school and designed interventions such as closing expressive and receptive language gap activitie s can help children become more fluent in their language and literacy (Hay Fielding-Barnsley, 2012). Winne and Nesbit (2009) and Vygotsky (1978), researchers of social learning theory, state that Language and literacy development has seen as an essential part of childrens cognitive development framework (Hay Fielding-Barnsley, 2012). In addition, Blank (2002) believes that interactive and self-enhancing skills are important to young childrens early language and ability to use reasoning from the social learning circumstance. When children understand the words expressed, they are able to use them in complex settings and their ability is enhanced to reason. As educators, we support childrens language and reasoning development by providing opportunities for them to make their own dialogue, questioning and talking (Blank, 2002). Any childs response should be always seen as a learning opportunity to enhance his or her confidence in conservation with others, criticizing or closing off the conversation for wrong responses of a child is not highly recommended (Hay Fielding-Barnsley, 2012). On the other hand, if childrens responses are not valued and accepted, they remain silent to talk and lack language and literacy development (Hay Fielding-Barnsley, 2012). The article shows evidence of the necessary and appropriate preparation for childrens language and cognitive development in early school years. Priority is given for educators and others to understand the strong relationship between childrens language development, cognitive thinking and their school achievement as well as supporting; valuating childrens language development in a positive environment. References: Blank, M, (2002), Classroom discourse: A key to literacy. In K, Butler E, Silliman (Eds), Speaking, reading and writing in children with learning disabilities: New paradigms in research and practice (pp. 151-173), Malwah, NJ: Erlbaum Hay, I. Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2012). Social learning, language and literacy. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(1), 24 29. Fellows, J., Oakley, G. (2014) Language, Literacy and early childhood education (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Loyalty Shown In The Odyssey Essay example -- essays research papers

Loyalty to family, community, and the gods is an important quality in the lives of ancient Greek citizens. These qualities are clear demonstrated in The Odyssey through Penelope, Telemakhos, and Odysseus.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Penelope shows her loyalty in several ways. She shows loyalty to Odysseus by waiting for his return for twenty long years. She did not choose a suitor until she knew for sure that Odysseus was dead. To delay the decision of choosing a suitor, Penelope said she would marry a suitor after she had finished weaving her shroud. She showed that she was weaving the shroud during the day, but at night, when it got dark she secretly unwove it. That is how Penelope shows her loyalty to her family.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Telemakhos also shows loyalty to his f...

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Heroes or Antiheroes: A Character of a True Identity

Literature has always been part of our daily lives. Authors from different parts of the world make each composition part of the civilization or the whole society. In whatever story that we read, we try to understand its social perspectives and the ideologies of the characters. Some of the fictitious narratives talks about the ignorance, immoralities, and illogical thinking of the society towards good and evil. Because of power, some of us tend become irrational with our actions just to prove that we are the authority.This is what the two stories entitled â€Å"Harrison Bergeron† by Kurt Vonnegut and â€Å"Saboteur† by Ha Jin wants to impose to sits readers. From these two stories, it can be said that even if we wants to make our lives equal and perfect, there are still certain situations that will tests our individuality – to become heroes or antiheroes of the society. The main character in Vonnegut’s story is George Bergeron. His family lives a normal lif e before but because they were imprisoned by the military for a special case, their lives were ruined.George dreams of his son every night but it’s all a dream. He wants to see Harrison but he knows he could not. George as the protagonist in the story is a depiction of social imprisonment and injustices. He is a combination of a concept of hero and anti-hero. He is a hero of his family but an antihero of his enemies or the antagonists of his life. Harrison rebels against the government and the system. He escapes from the jail in order to turn down the government. It can be said as a form of individualism because Harrison thinks of his own resolution and not on the idea of fixing an issue.He wants to turndown the government for personal interest and to create his own monarchy. Through this, he became an antihero because he choose to become his own personality and not for the betterment of his society. However, the readers could not blame the characters for they are hopeless an d helpless. â€Å"They were burdened with sash weights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in (Vonnegut).† They struggle in a immoral society just because they are good citizens and having a normal life. That is why even if they strive hard to become peaceful and work for their community, they still suffer. The equality did not exist right through their environment. On the other way around, Ha Jin’s story is a depiction of social immorality. The authority made irrational attacks towards other people to prove their power and strength; to show that they are right – even if not. Mr.Chui, the main character of the story is a lecturer in a University in his community. He works hard and opens the eyes of many people for the betterment of their country and to prove their rights against immorality and social injustices. Mr. Chui is doing his jobs an d responsibilities as citizen of his state. However, because it is not right for the authority who is implementing the ‘immoral policy,’ they are seeing him as a convict of a crime, which he did not. â€Å"On the glass desktop was a folder containing information on his case.He felt it bizarre that in just a matter of hours they had accumulates a small pile of writing about him. On second thought he began to wonder whether they had kept a file on him all the time (Ha). † Mr. Chui’s characterization in the first part is heroic but as the story reveals the main point of his character, it starts to work to become antihero because he needs to sacrifice his ideologies and beliefs for his friend and own identity. At the end of the story, he chooses to accept his ‘crime’ just to be free.He turns down his beliefs and signs the confession in order to help his ex-student lawyer Fenjinto be stopped from being tortured by the police officers. In connection of the two characters in the story, both Harrison and Mr. Chui, their selfish egos win. Mr. Chui spreads the hepatitis in Muji. He becomes the Saboteur; they accuse him at the very beginning. They both rebel against the system but then pursue their own interests. At the end of it all, the two stories leave the readers some initiatives and learning about the real situation of the society.The two stories are created in different form of culture but they are somehow identical to one another. The authorities are immoral and unjustified with their actions. They want happiness and ego without serving their people. The characters who suffer from all the threats and violence remain hopeless and helpless. What they have to do is to surrender. They were heroes of their own cause but they became antiheroes of their own dignity. The authors of the stories made a significant attack against the authority of the society.They must know their limitations to make their society a better one for they are the implementers of law and they are treated as respectful individuals who make their people secured and free from harm – so they must also bring back the respect for they are the authority. In conclusion to this, it can be said that the two characters in the stories are antiheroes. In the beginning of the narratives, they were imprisoned and they sacrifice more than what they expected because they have their own ideologies and beliefs.However, as they experience the threats and sacrifices within their path, they started to think for revenge against the system who tortured their character. If we look at the lighter perspective, we could not blame them from all the experiences that they have gone through. However, if we try to seek the deeper perspective of case, they will remain as antiheroes of the society because they work for their own monarchy and satisfaction and not for the betterment of their whole society. Works Cited Ha, Jin. Saboteur. Vonnegut, Kurt. Harrison Be rgeron.