BLOGGER TEMPLATES AND TWITTER BACKGROUNDS

Sunday, April 4, 2010

claire

Much like Sherlock Holmes, deductive methods involve beginning with a general concept or given rule and moving on to a more specific conclusion. Solving a math problem or conducting a science experiment is just like the mysteries presented by Sherlock Holmes. Clues are presented concerning the conclusion and using the information given as well as previous knowledge, you can solve the mystery!
Deductive reasoning is the process of reaching a conclusion that is guaranteed to follow, if the evidence provided is true and the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is correct. The conclusion also must be based only on the evidence previously provided; it cannot contain new information about the subject matter. Deductive reasoning was first described by the ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle. (from Wikipedia)
"drawing conclusions by applying rules or principles; logically moving from a general rule or principle to a specific solution" (Woolfolk, 2001, p. 286)

Comparison of two Reasonings
(Retrieved May 03, 2005, from Deduction and Induction)
Deductive reasoning works from the "general" to the "specific". This is also called a "top-down" approach. The deductive reasoning works as follows: think of a theory about topic and then narrow it down to specific hypothesis (hypothesis that we test or can test). Narrow down further if we would like to collect observations for hypothesis (note that we collect observations to accept or reject hypothesis and the reason we do that is to confirm or refute our original theory). In a conclusion, when we use deduction we reason from general principles to specific cases, as in applying a mathematical theorem to a particular problem or in citing a law or physics to predict the outcome of an experiment.

Inductive reasoning works the other way, it works from observation (or observations) works toward generalizations and theories. This is also called a “bottom-up�? approach. Inductive reason starts from specific observations (or measurement if you are mathematician or more precisely statistician), look for patterns (or no patterns), regularities (or irregularities), formulate hypothesis that we could work with and finally ended up developing general theories or drawing conclusion. In a conclusion, when we use Induction we observe a number of specific instances and from them infer a general principle or law. Inductive reasoning is open-ended and exploratory especially at the beginning. On the other hand, deductive reasoning is narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypothesis.

Properties of Deduction
In a valid deductive argument, all of the content of the conclusion is present, at least implicitly, in the premises. Deduction is nonampliative. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Valid deduction is necessarily truth preserving. If new premises are added to a valid deductive argument (and none of its premises are changed or deleted) the argument remains valid. Deductive validity is an all-or-nothing matter; validity does not come in degrees. An argument is totally valid, or it is invalid.

Properties of Induction
Induction is ampliative. The conclusion of an inductive argument has content that goes beyond the content of its premises. A correct inductive argument may have true premises and a false conclusion. Induction is not necessarily truth preserving. New premises may completely undermine a strong inductive argument. Inductive arguments come in different degrees of strength. In some inductions the premises support the conclusions more strongly than in others.
Intuitive Reasoning A third type of reasoning, intuitive reasoning, is what many young children use, as well as older children/adults in highly unfamiliar situations. Intuitive reasoning has to do with the way something appears to be, how something "seems" or "looks", and is based on unverified guesses. While it may seem to be very rudimentary, it is very useful in giving a starting point from which induction or deduction can proceed. It is the chief type of reasoning used by early elementary students, and students must be shown the flaws in it by the use of cognitive conflict in order to learn to move past intuition towards induction and deduction.
The project method is an educational enterprise in which children solve a practical problem over a period of several days or weeks. It may involve building a rocket, designing a playground, or publishing a class newspaper. The projects may be suggested by the teacher, but they are planned and executed as far as possible by the students themselves, individually or in groups. Project work focuses on applying, not imparting, specific knowledge or skills, and on improving student involvement and motivation in order to foster independent thinking, self-confidence, and social responsibility.
According to traditional historiography, the project idea is a genuine product of the American Progressive education movement. The idea was thought to have originally been introduced in 1908 as a new method of teaching agriculture, but educator William H. Kilpatrick elaborated the concept and popularized it worldwide in his famous article, "The Project Method" (1918). More recently, Michael Knoll has traced the project method to architectural education in sixteenth-century Italy and to engineering education in eighteenth-century France. This illustrates that the project of the architect–like the experiment of the scientist, the sandbox exercise of the staff officer, and the case study of the jurist–originated in the professionalization of an occupation.
The project method was first introduced into colleges and schools when graduating students had to apply on their own the skills and knowledge they had learned in the course of their studies to problems they had to solve as practicians of their trade. With some simplification, five phases in the history of the project method can be differentiated:
• 1590–1765: At the academies of architecture in Rome and Paris, advanced students work on a given problem, such as designing a monument, fountain, or palace.
• 1765–1880: The project becomes a regular teaching method; newly established schools of engineering in France, Germany, and Switzerland adopt the idea. In 1865, the project is introduced by William B. Rogers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology into the United States.
• 1880–1918: Calvin M. Woodward adapts the project concept to schoolwork. At his Manual Training School students actually produce the projects they designed. Gradually the idea spreads from manual training (Charles R. Richards) to vocational education (David. S. Snedden, Rufus W. Stimson) and general science (John F. Woodhull).
• 1918–1965: Kilpatrick conceives the project broadly as "whole-hearted purposeful activity proceeding in a social environment." After being criticized by Boyd H. Bode, John Dewey, and other leading American Progressive educators, Kilpatrick's approach loses its attraction in the United States, yet receives general approval in Europe, India, and the Soviet Union.
• The 1970s: Kilpatrick's project method, now taken as the only adequate method of teaching in a democratic society, is rediscovered in Germany, the Netherlands, and other European countries. Under the influence of British primary school education, U.S. educators attempt to redefine the project, viewing it as an important supplement to the traditional teacher-oriented, subject-centered curriculum.
There are two basic approaches for implementing the project method. According to the historically older approach, the students take two steps: initially, they are taught in a systematic course of study certain skills and facts, then they apply these skills and knowledge, creatively and self-directed to suitable projects. According to the second approach, the instruction by the teacher does not precede the project but is integrated in it. In other words the students first choose the project, then they discuss what they need to know for solving the problem and learn the required techniques and concepts. Finally they execute the chosen project by themselves. In both approaches, time for reflection should be provided during all phases of project learning, giving students the opportunity to evaluate their progress. Many teachers–especially vocational and industrial arts educators–use a series of small-scale projects to help students develop continuously increasing competence in practical problem solving.


Read more: Project Method http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2337/Project-Method.html#ixzz0k7b2ju1m
Problem solving methods (PSMs) describe domain-independent reasoning components, which specify patterns of behavior which can be reused across applications. For instance, Propose&Revise (Marcus et al., 1988; Zdrahal and Motta, 1995) provides a generic reasoning pattern, characterized by iterative sequences of model 'extension' and 'revision', which can be reused quite easily to solve scheduling (Stout et al., 1988) and design (Marcus et al., 1988) problems. PSMs provide an important technology for supporting structured development approaches in knowledge engineering: they can be used i) to provide strong, model-based frameworks in which to carry out knowledge acquisition (Marcus, 1988; van Heijst et al., 1992) and ii) to support the rapid development of robust and maintainable applications through component reuse (Runkel et al., 1996; Motta, 1997; Motta and Zdrahal, 1997). More in general, the study of PSMs can be seen as a way to move beyond the notion of knowledge engineering as an 'art' (Feigenbaum, 1977), to formulate a task-oriented systematization of the field, which will make it possible to produce rigorous handbooks similar to those available for other engineering fields. From a philosophical perspective, such a systematization could be used as the source for experimenting with "functional theories of intelligence" (Chandrasekaran, 1987).
Thus, the study of PSMs is important for both practical and theoretical reasons. So far, most of the research effort has focused on identifying and specifying PSMs. As a result, several PSM libraries are now available (Marcus, 1988; Breuker et al., 1987; Benjamins, 1993; Puppe, 1993; O'Hara, 1995; Breuker and van de Velde, 1994; Motta, 1997) and a number of PSM specification languages have been proposed, ranging from informal notations (Benjamins, 1993; Schreiber at al., 1994) to formal modeling languages (Fensel and van Harmelen, 1994). The latter area of research is now well established, to such an extent that two projects, one in Europe, IBROW3 (Benjamins et al., 1998), and one in the US, High Performance Knowledge Bases (HPKB, 1997), have been set up with the aim (among other ones) of producing standard formalisms for PSM specification.
While the availability of extensive PSM libraries and the emerging consensus on PSM specification languages indicate the maturity and the 'healthy state' of the field, a number of important research issues are still open. In particular, very little progress has been achieved on foundational and methodological issues. Existing libraries of PSMs lack a clear theoretical basis (typically, they are just associations of problem solving components to tasks) and only provide weak support for the method development process, usually in the form of informal guidelines (Benjamins, 1993; O'Hara, 1995). As a result, practitioners have encountered problems when trying to reuse these libraries. An interesting case study is reported by Orsvarn (1996), who discusses the problems he experienced when attempting to reuse Benjamins' library. For example, he found that in some cases not all assumptions associated with a method were made explicit in the method specification. He also found "tacit dependencies" between different parts of the library (more precisely, different branches of the task-method structure - see section 2.1). As a consequence of these problems, he had to modify the structure of the library quite extensively, despite the fact that his target application was relatively straightforward.
In our view these difficulties stem from three aspects of published libraries of problem solving methods: they lack a clear theoretical basis, the components are only informally specified and the method refinement operators are not explicitly represented. As a result, i) it is difficult to characterize the coverage of a particular library (i.e. what is the space of problem solving behaviors covered by a library); ii) it is difficult to compare and contrast PSMs associated with different tasks; iii) it is difficult to understand how a PSM was developed (and what alternative specifications are feasible); iv) it is difficult to support automatic method selection and configuration, as envisaged in the IBROW3 project; and v) it is difficult to verify the properties of a library formally. For instance, it is impossible to check whether or not a library satisfies the requirements of method correctness and method generality postulated by Orsvarn.
In this paper we will address these issues by illustrating a framework which characterizes PSMs in terms of problem commitments, problem-solving paradigms and domain assumptions. This framework provides i) a theoretical foundation for situating PSM research and individual PSMs, as well as ii) an organization which allows us to characterize method development and selection as a process of navigating through a three-dimensional space (defined by the three components of our framework). Individual moves through this space are formally specified by means of adapters (Fensel and Groenboom, 1997; Fensel, 1997). In the rest of the paper we will illustrate these ideas in detail, with examples taken from parametric design problem solving (Wielinga et al., 1995; Motta and Zdrahal, 1996)
THE IN-HOUSE TRAINING METHOD Up
Military Requirements for Petty Officer 2nd Class Next
DISCUSSION METHOD
INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS AND TECHNIQUES All methods of instruction can be classified as telling, lecturing, or discussing; showing or demonstrating; or any combination of these. Often the best method of teaching combines the various methods. You must decide which methods to combine and the emphasis to place on each unless the curriculum itself dictates the com- bination needed. In making that decision, consider (1) the nature of the trainees, (2) the subject matter, and (3) the limitations of time. LECTURE METHOD The lecture is still the most frequently used method of instruction. However, presenting a lecture without pausing for interaction with trainees can be ineffective regardless of your skill as a speaker. The use of pauses during the lecture for direct oral questioning creates interaction between instructor and trainee. Unfortunately, when classes are large, the instructor cannot possibly interact with all trainees on each point. The learning effectiveness of the lecture method has been questioned because of the lack of interac- tion; but it continues as a means of reaching a large group at one time with a condensed, organized body of information. Providing trainees with lesson objectives before the lecture will enable them to listen more effectively. It will help them to take concise, brief notes concerning the objectives rather than writing feverishly through- out the lecture. We discuss the lecture method first because the techniques involved serve as the basis for other methods of training. Those techniques apply not only to lectures, but to many other kinds of presentations in which oral explanations play a secondary, but important, role. Every method depends on oral instruction to give information, to arouse attention and interest, and to develop receptive attitudes on the part of the trainees. Therefore, as an instructor, organize your oral presentations with the following techniques in mind: 1. Maintain good eye contact. 2. Maintain a high degree of enthusiasm. 3. Speak in a natural, conversational voice.’ Enunciate your words clearly. Make certain the trainees can hear every spoken word. 4. Emphasize important points by the use of gestures, repetition, and variation in voice inflection. 5. Check trainee comprehension carefully throughout the presentation by watching the faces of the trainees and by questioning. 6. Instruct on the class level. Use words, explanations, visual illustrations, questions, and the like, directed to the needs of the average trainee in the class. 7. Stimulate trainees to think. Think, as used here, refers to creative thinking rather than to a mere recall of facts previously learned. Use a number of instructional devices for stimulating trainee thinking. Among those devices are thought-provoking questions, class discussions,

DISCUSSION METHOD
The discussion method is one in which the students and the instructor exchange
their ideas in order to get a better understanding of a topic. It can be a whole
period or be a part of a lesson.
The discussion method, when used properly, is a good way to stimulate thinking on
the part of the student. It can be used to advantage when the students have a
background knowledge of the subject being discussed. The instructor should
prompt everyone to take part, thus allowing the students the opportunity to learn
from everyone in the group. The discussion method is interaction centered and
can be teacher or student centered, and can be held in either a large or small
group. Interaction techniques capitalize on the human desire to talk and share
one’s thoughts. Personal activity permits greater involvement in the lesson.
Advantages and Special Used of the Discussion Method
1. Expands the cognitive and affective domains of students.
2. Can be used to solve problems and develop interest in the topic.
3. Emphasizes main teaching points.
4. Utilizes student knowledge and ideas.
5. Results in more permanent learning because of the high degree of student
involvement.
6. Determine student understanding and progress.
7. Everyone has a chance to get involved.
8. Teaches how to come to an agreement within a group without arguing.
9. Permits students are teacher to get acquainted.
Limitations of the Discussion Method
1. Tend to get off topic if the instructor doesn’t continually redirect ideas.
2. More informed and eager pupils tend to monopolize the discussion.
3. Not suitable for presenting information for the first time.
4. Not very effective in describing procedures or breakdown of a component.
5. Content is limited and the method is time consuming.
6. It restricts the size of groups.
7. The larger the groups the more difficult it is to guide the discussion.
8. Knowledge of the group.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

me and diane


Thursday, February 18, 2010

A DOT

DOT


Everything in this world means a lot
As simply as a dot
You can find a lot of things,
That you can relate to a dot

It’s like small stones in the ground
That can hurt you a lot,
Or, a star in the night
That inspired you a lot

Because, in this world
Never ever neglect a dot
Because a dot means a lot. . .