Furthermore, the masculine dominance is established through compulsive heterosexuality when boys engage in specific patterns of opposite-sex touching. Whereas as same-sex touching is acceptable only in certain situations, such as the male-dominated world of sports or in the assertion of masculinity through mocking “fag” touch, opposite-sex touch takes on the role of normalizing heterosexuality as a predatory and sometimes violent social relation between boys and girls. In the same way that a superior is able to touch a subordinate, invade their space, and assert their control, so to are boys able to touch girls in this high school setting. Often played off as flirting by teachers who might otherwise
In terms of Brennan’s locus of control, she has highly internal control. She greatly believes that you control what happens in your life; you control your own destiny. Internals are said to achieve more in school, become more independent, less depressed, and to cope well with stress. Clearly, this is the case of Dr. Brennan. She achieved highly in school, thus earning her a stellar education.
He discusses a common belief that students are incapable of self-regulation and thus need constant positive or negative reinforcement. "A common assumption in the discourse of classroom management/control is that young people require behavioral control through active adult surveillance, regulation, and intervention" (Wegwert 2014, p. 139). Wegwert then cites the use of rewards and punishments is ineffective, despite its prevalence. The sources and research he references aids the argument against the assumption of classroom control. Wegwert concludes the section with personal advice: “Words matter and it can be very powerful to use language as a strategy to re-frame unquestioned assumptions and introduce new strategies” (Wegwert, 2014, p 139).
Modelling the Coaching Process Background Conventional learning theory (Dewey, 1938) explains that observation and judgement are crucial to the learning process, encouraging incorporation of such thinking in standardised models. Initially, simplistic cyclical models were proposed, reactive in nature (Stratton et al., 2004) and of 3 stage ‘experience-reflection-plan’ or 4 stage ‘experience-reflection-conclude-plan’ (Kolb, 1984; Gibbs, 1998). Coaching theorists initially adopted rudimentary models (Crisfield et al., 1996; Fairs, 1987; Sherman et al., 1997) – see Appendix A, Figure 1 (Franks et al., 1986) and Figure 3 (Jones, 2002), though contemporary thinking has developed once scale, complexity and understanding of coaching began to mature
One of the greatest aspects to how a male is taught to conduct himself is through his personality. Planned Parenthood explains the basic structure that can trap some males through hypermasculinity, “They believe they’re supposed to compete with other men and dominate feminine folks by being aggressive, worldly, sexually experienced, insensitive, physically imposing, ambitious, and demanding”(Planned Parenthood). With more detail, when men are shifted towards this exaggerated way there are many more problems beyond not being themselves. When hypermasculinity takes places there is an increased chance of abuse emotionally and physically towards a women. On the other hand men have a one in six chance of being sexually abused themselves.
Such standardization can be helpful for the sake of study; yet such universality can be wrongfully applied to childhood studies, particularly when equally applying them to minority and majority worlds; portions of Woodhead’s chapter (2013: 134-145) address this criticism. Yet it is much more difficult to apply such a standardization of values when applying an anthropological approach to childhood. For this reason, Montgomery (2013) emphasizes that “social scientists try to suspend judgement in order to understand the nature and causes of [child-rearing] practices concerned” (174). Perhaps the key word in this statement is “try” as Montgomery continues: “judgements can be both implicit and explicit, and cultural relativism is sometimes a difficult position to maintain”
Structural Integrity of Bethel University: College of Professional Studies Throughout this essay, I will be presenting detailed information regarding my position on Bethel University: College of Professional Studies’ organizational structure and the function it has within the higher education industry. Additionally, I will provide historical background information, as well as, compare Bethel University’s current organizational structure to modern management theory and applicable frameworks. With the assistance of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) “Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (6th ed. ), I will have the opportunity to present and identify current structural strengths and weaknesses, in comparison to Bethel University’s overall mission and productivity. Moreover, with the additional support of Gareth Morgan’s (2006) “Images of Organization,” I will be able to utilize metaphorical terminology to increase my overall perspective on organizational life and the need for multi-dimensional management mentalities.
The five pedagogic tools are: cogenerative dialogue (cogens), coteaching, cosmopolitanism, context and content (Emdin, 2011). To execute reality pedagogy, together students and teachers engage in the five steps of reality pedagogy. These steps can be enacted in any particular order and according to Emdin (2011) these approaches if implemented consistently have the potential to positively transform the education of marginalized
Organization Culture and Leadership Analysis Using Sociology Paradigm Introduction This study has described the organizational culture and leadership of my company. I analysis my company adopt the?functionalism Paradigm, which is one of the major theoretical perspectives in sociology. See below is sociological paradigm. This paradigm developed by Burrell and Morgan classifies sociological theories along the two orthogonal dimensions of regulation vs. change and subjectivity vs. objectivity (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). This divides sociology into four fairly distinct paradigm clusters.
Luhmann’s epistemology is founded on input frome both the autopoietic turn and difference-theoretical turn. Luhmann makes resource to the system/environment distinction to answer the question “How is knowledge?”. He argues that the knowledge of the social world is possible only through distinctions made by systems that separate themselves from their environment. Knowledge is only possible because the system has no direct access to its environment. A system needs the boundary to its environment in order to be able to observe