Organisation of Engineering Business Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4500 words

Organisation of Engineering Business - Essay Example They offer these services both in the private and the public sector (Interforum, 2003). D&W provides services in several development sector including energy performance and analysis, site infra structure and master planning, in the commercial and residential establishments, and in the health and the education centre. Apart from where their offices are located, D&W has also carried out work in Russia, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. D&W has recently received the ISO 14001 accreditation because of a balanced approach towards sustainable development and socially responsible design in all their projects. They attempt to create inherently low energy buildings and use low carbon technology as a vital part of the modern design. Because of their contribution towards a greener environment, D&W has received The Green Organization Award from greenbusiness.ie for the year 2009. This demonstrates the company’s commitment to a sustainable environment. D&W has also invested in information technology, which is essential for their core business. Until 1994, technology was used only sparingly but the management realized that technology could help to streamline its business processes. This in turn would help them to provide enhanced service to their customers. To improve staff communication, they installed a Wide Area Network (WAN) which could link its computers and the telecommunication system across all its offices (UKonline, 2003). All the sites now work as a team, exchanging information, and they also use technology to discuss CAD drawings with clients. The company has substantially reaped the benefits of their IT investment. It has helped to reduce their print and travel cost by  £500 per month (Interforum, 2003). Because of their ability to share information, productivity has enhanced by 20 percent. The process of change at D&W has been incremental and has not taken

Potato Salad Americans Essay Example for Free

Potato Salad Americans Essay 1. Go to the Cooking Light website or any other website that gives you healthy recipes and chose a recipe you would like to try. Website you used: Cooking light . com Recipe you chose ? copy and paste the recipe including nutrition information in the space below. How to Make Potato Salad Americans can definitely agree on one thing: Potatoes are our favorite veggie. Each of us eats about a whopping 130 pounds per year. During the summer months (if not year-round), you can safely bet that loads of potatoes find their way into the ubiquitous potato salad. Honestly, can you have a cookout or picnic without one? Despite regional interpretations, theres really one basic way to make this popular dish. And here, well show you how to master the technique and turn out a variety of unique, healthy salads. Step One: Cut to Size Cut potatoes into uniform shapes and sizes so theyll cook evenly. If theyre different sizes, some will become mushy while others still have an undesirable crunch. Low-starch varieties, like red potatoes, work best in potato salads. Step Two: Start in Cold Water. Be sure to start with cold water when boiling potatoes. This works to solidify the outer surfaces and helps prevent them from getting too soft as the interior cooks, so the potatoes will hold their shape nicely in a potato salad. Step Three: Add Dressing Make the dressing while the potatoes cook, and toss them with the dressing while theyre still warm so theyll absorb maximum flavor. If using dairy products, like sour cream, allow the potatoes to cool slightly before tossing to prevent curdling. Step Four: Add Additional Flavors and Ingredients Customize your salad. For example, add your favorite veggies, fresh herbs, or salad greens. You can even give the salad an international flair: Lemongrass adds Thai flavor; chutney lends an Indian taste. 2. Try out the recipe, take a picture of you with the prepared meal and report back to class what you thought of this recipe. Would you recommend it? Will you make it again? Anything you would change the next time? To get full credit for this assignment, you need to show your picture to your instructor. Initial of instructor.

Cause and Effects of the Rise in Cohabitation

Cause and Effects of the Rise in Cohabitation Recent decades have witnessed a dramatic rise in cohabitation in much of Western Europe including the United Kingdom (Ermisch 2005; Ermisch and Francesconi 2000a; Haskey 2001; Kiernan 2001; Murphy 2000). This rise has taken place against a dramatic decline in marriage rates. A so-called golden age of marriage that prevailed in the United Kingdom from the 1950s up to the 1970s (Festy, 1980), has been eroded. Marriage is no longer the exclusive marker of first union nor the pre-eminent context within which children are born; (Kiernan, 2001). The decline in the popularity of marriage indicates that no longer is marriage seen as the only organizing principle for relationships (Hall, 1993: 8) and therefore legal marriage has given way to a variety of optional non-traditional forms of living together (Boh, 1989: This essay will seek to examine whether the rise in cohabitation will witness a decline in marriage to a point where marriage is a rare phenomenon. This will entail an analysis of statistical evidence on both cohabitation and marriage and the explanations that have been provided. These include notions of selfish individualism (Morgan, 2000), notions of the democratic, consensual and pure relationship (Giddens, 1992; Beck-Gernsheim, 2000), Beckers (1973, 1981) model of marriage, the common-law marriage myth, commitment in cohabiting partnerships, and the use of lived law to create a DIY variety of marriage (Duncan et. al. 2005). The 1960s and the early 1970s was a golden age of marriage in the United Kingdom during which marriage was highly popular among the young ages (Kiernan Eldridge 1987) and a record peak of 480,285 marriages was recorded in 1972 (ONS, 2008). However, since the 1970s there have been considerable changes amounting to a structural shift in individuals demographic behaviour and societal norms (Haskey, 2001) and among these are increases in divorce and in cohabitation, that is, in couples who live together in intimate relationships without being legally married. Similarly, Ferri et al. (2003) have documented several demographic changes which led social commentators to lament the end of marriage. These include significant rises in cohabitation, divorce, lone parent families, single parent households, children born out of marriage and age of marriage.   These changes, it was assumed, led to the disintegration of traditional structures and codes and ultimately to the end of marriage. Statistical evidence indeed shows that there has been a long-term decline in marriage rates and a significant rise in cohabitation. From 1971 to 1995 first marriage rates fell by 90% for teenage women and 80% for women aged 20-24. Median age at first marriage rose from 23.4 to 27.9 yrs for men and 21.4 to 26.0 years for women (Murphy and Wang 1999). The decline in remarriage rates has been even more pronounced. For divorced men, the remarriage rate has fallen by 75% since 1971 (Murphy and Wang 1999). There were 311,000 marriages in the UK in 2004 and this figure fell to 270,000 in 2007. This represents almost half the number of marriages that took place in 1972 when marriage peaked (ONS 2009). On the other hand, cohabiting is the fastest growing family type in the UK (with the proportion of cohabiting couple families increasing from 9% to 14% between 1996 and 2006), (ONS, 2009). Among single women marrying during the latter part of the 1990s, 77% had cohabited with their future husband, compared with 33% of those marrying during the late 1970s, and only 6% of those marrying in the late 1960s (Haskey 2001). During the 1960s, 40% of remarriages were preceded by a period of cohabitation; and this figured had soared to around 85% in 2000. (Murphy 2000). The 2001 Census recorded just over 2 million cohabiting couples in England and Wales (a 67% increase from 1991). When the new form of cohabitation arrived in the 1970s it was mainly a child-free prelude to marriage. Increasingly, children are being born to cohabiting couples. In 2006, 56% of births in England and Wales were outside of marriage compared with 8% in 19z71. (ONS, 2009). Between 1996 and 2006, the number of cohabiti ng couples in the UK increased by over 60%, from 1.4 million to 2.3 million, ONS, 2009). The number of cohabiting couples in England and Wales is projected to almost double to 3.8 million by 2031 (which will be over one in four couples on this projection). (ONS, 2009). Social theorists have conceptualized these trends in terms of individualization theory. The theory which includes notions of the democratic, consensual and pure relationship (Giddens, 1992; Beck-Gernsheim, 2000) and notions of selfish individualism (Morgan, 2000), has emerged as the dominant contested theoretical approach in explaining whether the rise in cohabitation means the end of marriage. According to the former, modern society is viewed as having entered a late modern epoch of de-traditionalisation and individualisation in which traditional rules and institutional frameworks have lost ground, only to be replaced by more modern and rational rules (Beck, 1992 and Giddens, 1992, 1994). Institutional forces such as education, the modern economy and the welfare state have freed individuals from externally imposed constraints, moral codes and traditional customs, a development which Beck (1994) says is a disembedding of individual lives from the structural fabric of social instituti ons and age-specific norms. According to Brannen and Nilsen (2005), social class no longer has the same structuring role that it once had.   Individuals who used to have a standard biography no longer have pre-given life trajectories but are instead compelled to reflexively make their own choices and hence create their own biographies. At the same time, the project of self, with an emphasis on individual self-fulfillment and personal development, comes to replace relational, social aims. This results in families of choice which are diverse, fluid and unresolved, constantly chosen and re-chosen (Weeks 2001) and which Hardill, (2002) refer to as the postmodern household. In families of choice all issues are subject to negotiation and decision making (Beck and Beck- Gernsheim1995, Beck-Gernsheim 2002). Individuals are seen as preferring cohabitation to marriage because they wish to keep their options and their negotiations open ( Wu, 2000). The individualisation theory sees modern relationships as being based on individual fulfillment and consensual love, with sexual and emotional equality, replacing formal unions based on socially prescribed gender roles. Sexuality is largely freed from institutional, normative and patriarchal control as well as from reproduction, producing a plastic sexuality, which serves more as means of self-expression and selfactualisation rather than as a means to reproduction and cementing institutionalized partnership (Giddens, 1992). Giddens argues that that such plastic sexuality as part of the project of self is realized in pure relationships an ideal type that isolates what is most characteristic for intimacy in reflexive modernity, Giddens (1991, 1992).   This is pure because it is entered into for its own sake and for the satisfaction it provides to the individuals involved. The pure relationship must therefore be characterized by openness, involvement, reciprocity and closeness, a nd it presupposes emotional and sexual democracy and equality, Giddens (1991, 1992). According to Cherlin (2004:853), the pure relationship is not tied to an institution such as marriage or the desire to raise children. Rather, it is free-floating, independent of social institutions or economic life. The individualisation theory asserts that these changes in relationships contribute towards the decentring of the married, co-resident, heterosexual couple. It no longer occupies the centre-ground statistically, normatively, or as a way of life (Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Roseneil and Budgeon, 2004). Instead other forms of living such as cohabitation, living alone, lone parenting, same-sex partnerships, or living apart have become more common and are both experienced and perceived as equally valid. However, most English-speaking commentators (e.g. Morgan, 1995, 2000, 2003; Bellah et al., 1985; Popenoe, 1993; Dnes and Rowthorne, 2002) have developed a pessimistic view of family change. In cohabitation they have seen a moral decline and its harmful effects on society, a loss of family values, individual alienation, social breakdown, rise in crime and other social ills and social, emotional and educational damage to children. For them, the trend in statistics is clear evidence of selfish individualism and have thus advocated for turning the clock back by promoting marriage among other things. Morgan (1995) for instance, argues that without the traditional family to socialize children and in particular to provide role models and discipline for young men, delinquency and crime will escalate and society as a whole will be at risk. To avoid this social policy should seek positively to support marriage and promote traditional gender roles for men and women. According to Morgan (2003), cohabiting relationships are fragile. They are always more likely to break up than marriages entered into at the same time, regardless of age or income. On average, cohabitations last less than two years before breaking up or converting to marriage. Less than four per cent of cohabitations last for ten years or more. She also believes that cohabitation should be seen primarily as a prelude to marriage but increasingly it is part of a pattern which simply reflects an increase in sexual partners and partner change (Morgan, 2003:127). Morgan (1999) also argues that cohabitation is concentrated among the less educated, less skilled and the unemployed. The individualization theory in its various versions, has been seen as having its merit in terms of indicating trends in post-modern societies, but has been criticized for lacking reliable methodologies and for lacking empirical and historical evidence. According to Thernborn (2004), individualisation theory should be seen as a geographically and historically limited exaggeration among the variety and long durà ©es of socio-sexual systems. Individualisation theory is seen as largely resting on the evidence of qualitative work using purposive samples of particular social groups in particular contexts and localities. They do not often use representative samples or total population figures which can accurately portray overall social patterns. According to Sayer (1992) individualization theorists have used intensive research design which are indeed in-depth and able to access social process more directly, and understand its context but points out that such work needs to be complemented by extensive research on patterns and distributions, using representative survey for example. Duncan and Edwards (1999) share the same view that the use of both intensive and extensive research designs will enable generalizations to be made. In addition intensive work will enable better interpretation of the representative patterns revealed by extensive work and to link process to pattern directly rather than depending upon post-hoc deduction, (Duncan and Edwards 1999). Critics of the individualisation theory have argued that the theory underplays the significance of the social and geographical patterning of values and behaviour and neglects the importance of local cultural and social contexts. According to Duncan and Irwin structures of economic necessity, social groups and moral codes have not gone away, although they may have changed. Family forms are still deeply influenced by local structural conditions or contexts and although people might be less constrained by older traditions, this does not necessarily mean individualisation. The traditional structures of class, gender, religion and so on have a continuing importance, (Duncan and Irwin, 2004, 2005). Individualisation theory assumes that individuals can exercise choice and shape their lives. However, the theory has been criticized for taking insufficient account of the context in which individuals make their choices. Critics of individualisation have pointed out, peoples capacity to make choices, for example in respect of separation and divorce, must depend in large measure on their environment, whether for example, on the constraints of poverty, social class and gender, or, more positively, on the safety net provided by the welfare state (Lasch, 1994; Lewis, 2001a). In addition, the context in which people are making their choices is constantly shifting. Thus the meaning of what it is to be married, or to be a parent has changed and continues to change. Actors will in all likelihood be affected by these changes over their own life course and must expect to have to re-visit the decisions they have made, for example in respect of the division of paid and unpaid work, especially at critical points of transition such as parenthood. Charles and Harris (2004) have argued that choices regarding work/life balance are different at different states of the lifecycle. The individualization theory in its various versions, has been seen as having its merit in terms of indicating trends in post-modern societies, but has been criticized for lacking reliable methodologies and for lacking empirical and historical evidence. According to Thernborn (2004), individualisation theory should be seen as a geographically and historically limited exaggeration among the variety and long durà ©es of socio-sexual systems. Individualisation theory is seen as largely resting on the evidence of qualitative work using purposive samples of particular social groups in particular contexts and localities. They do not often use representative samples or total population figures which can accurately portray overall social patterns. According to Sayer (1992) individualization theorists have used intensive research design which are indeed in-depth and able to access social process more directly, and understand its context but points out that such work needs to be complemented by extensive research on patterns and distributions, using representative survey for example. Duncan and Edwards (1999) share the same view that the use of both intensive and extensive research designs will enable generalizations to be made. In addition intensive work will enable better interpretation of the representative patterns revealed by extensive work and to link process to pattern directly rather than depending upon post-hoc deduction, (Duncan and Edwards 1999). Critics of the individualisation theory have argued that the theory underplays the significance of the social and geographical patterning of values and behaviour and neglects the importance of local cultural and social contexts. According to Duncan and Irwin structures of economic necessity, social groups and moral codes have not gone away, although they may have changed. Family forms are still deeply influenced by local structural conditions or contexts and although people might be less constrained by older traditions, this does not necessarily mean individualisation. The traditional structures of class, gender, religion and so on have a continuing importance, (Duncan and Irwin, 2004, 2005). Individualisation theory assumes that individuals can exercise choice and shape their lives. However, the theory has been criticized for taking insufficient account of the context in which individuals make their choices. Critics of individualisation have pointed out, peoples capacity to make choices must depend in large measure on their environment, whether for example, on the constraints of poverty, social class and gender, or, more positively, on the safety net provided by the welfare state (Lasch, 1994; Lewis, 2001a). According to Lupton and Tulloch, (2002), peoples choices may depend in part on the consideration they give to the welfare of others, and on how far others influence the way in which they frame their choices. In addition, the context in which people are making their choices is constantly shifting. Thus the meaning of what it is to be married, or to be a parent has changed and continues to change. Charles and Harris (2004) have argued that choices regarding work/life b alance are different at different states of the lifecycle. Scholars have examined public attitudes towards marriage and cohabitation in order to assess whether the trends in statistics confirm the deinstitutionalisation of marriage (Cherlin, 1994), in which an increase in the acceptability of cohabitation can be interpreted as evidence for weakening of the social norms. Using data from a number of British Social Attitude Surveys, Barlow et. al. found clear evidence of changing public attitudes. More and more people in the United Kingdom were accepting cohabitation both as a partnering and parenting structure, regardless of whether it is undertaken as a prelude or alternative to marriage. In 1994, 70 per cent agreed that People who want children ought to get married, but by 2000 almost half (54 per cent) thought that there was no need to get married in order to have children; cohabitation was good enough. They found increasingly liberal attitudes to pre-marital sex, with the proportion thinking that it was not wrong at all increasing from 42 per cent in 1984 to 62 per cent in 2000. By 2000 more than two-thirds of respondents (67 per cent) agreed it was all right for a couple to live together without intending to get married, and 56 per cent thought it was a good idea for a couple who intend to get married to live together first. Studies by Dyer (1999) and Barlow et al. (2005) found there was a clear difference in attitudes towards cohabitation from young and old generations, indicating a shift in social viewpoint to an acceptance of cohabitation. The younger age groups were more likely to find cohabitation acceptable than older age groups, but all age groups had moved some way towards greater acceptance of pre-marital sex and cohabitation. Barlow et al. argue that over time there is a strong likelihood that society will become more liberal still on these matters, although particular groups, such as the religious, are likely to remain more traditional than the rest. This change in public attitude is echoed by former Home Secretary, Jack Straw who was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying the important thing is the quality of the relationship, not the institution itself (Daily Mail, 16th June, 1999). This acceptance in politics as well as in society is probably one reason why people drift into cohabitation. Barlo w et a!. suggest Britain will probably move towards a Scandinavian pattern, therefore, where long- term cohabitation is widely seen as quite normal, and where marriage is more of a lifestyle choice than an expected part of life. Barlow et al, however, do not interpret the public attitudes to indicate the breakdown or end of marriage as a respected institution. In the 2000 survey, 59 per cent agreed that marriage is still the best kind of relationship. A mere 9 per cent agreed that there is no point getting married it is only a piece of paper, while 73 per cent disagreed. Despite the increasing acceptance of cohabitation, Barlow et al. therefore argue that, overall, marriage is still widely valued as an ideal, but that it is regarded with much more ambivalence when it comes to everyday partnering and   parenting. While only 28 per cent agree that married couples make better parents, just 40 per cent disagree figures virtually unchanged since 2000, (Barlow et al, 2005) According to Barlow et al. (2005), there is a body of   qualitative research that shows that for many cohabitants, living together is seen as a form of marriage rather than an alternative. Moreover, just as the majority think that sex outside marriage is wrong, the same applies to sex outside cohabitation: the large majority of cohabitants, over 80 per cent, think that sex outside a cohabiting relationship is wrong, (Erens et al., 2003). These findings give little support to the notion that many people cohabit outside marriage because cohabitation is more congruent with a project of the self, as individualisation theory would have it (Hall, 1996). Instead research seems to indicate that many traditional norms about relationships still hold true and cohabitation is seen as the equivalent of marriage. According to Barlow et al, (2008), cohabitation is socially accepted as equivalent to marriage and whilst marriage is seen as ideal, social attitudes show great tolerance to differ ent styles of partnering and parenting relationships.

Hamlet: Hamlets Sanity :: Shakespeare Hamlet Essays

Hamlet: Hamlet's Sanity â€Å"Great wits are sure to madness near allied, and thin partitions do their bounds divide.† Though John Dryden's quote was not made in regard to William Shakespeare's Hamlet, it relates very well to the argument of whether or not Hamlet went insane. When a character such as Hamlet is under scrutiny, it can sometimes be difficult to determine what state he is in at particular moments in the play. Nonetheless, Hamlet merely pretends to be insane so that he can calculate his moves according to the situation at hand. There are many situations throughout the play that are enough to bring Hamlet to insanity. Take, for example, Act IV, scene II, after Polonius's death. Hamlet's day has been hectic; he finally determines that Claudius has killed his father. The chance to kill Claudius confronts him, and he comes very close to convincing Gertrude that Claudius killed his father. Hamlet accidentally kills Polonius and finally, the ghost of his father visits him. Though at this point these situations create plenty of reasons for Hamlet to be insane, he remains sharp and credible. â€Å"[Hamlet] concocts this state of madness...his intellect remains clear, his discourse sound and comprehensive,† (Harris, p. 129). Hamlet reveals to his friends and his mother of his plans to pretend act insane. He tells Horatio that he is going to "feign madness," and that if Horatio notices any strange behavior from Hamlet, it is because he is putting on an act. (I, v). Hamlet also tells his mother that he is not mad, "but mad in craft." (III, iv). In addition to his confessions, Hamlet's madness only manifests itself when he is in the presence of certain characters. When Hamlet is around Polonius, Claudius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he behaves irrationally. When Hamlet is around Horatio, Bernardo, Francisco, The Players and the Gravediggers, he behaves rationally (Bevington, p. 59). Some of the characters themselves come to realize that Hamlet is not mad. Claudius confesses that Hamlet's "actions although strange, do not appear to stem from madness." (III, i). In addition, Polonius admits that Hamlet's actions and words have a "method" to them; there appears to be a reason behind them, they are logical in nature. (II, ii). Hamlet is also able to make smart remarks to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, comparing them to sponges. "When he (Claudius) needs what you have gleaned, it is but squeezing you and, sponge, you shall be dry again," ( ). This is random and unexpected, as many of his actions, but the comparison makes sense; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern soak up all the kings

IT Enters a New Learning Environment Essay

It is most helpful to see useful models of school learning that is ideal to achieving instructional goals through preferred application of educational technology. These are the models of Meaningful Learning, Discovery learning, Generative Learning and Constructivism. Meaningful Learning If the traditional learning environment gives stress focus to rote learning and simple memorization, meaningful learning gives focus to new experience departs from that is related to what the learners already knows. New experience departs from the learning of a sequence of words but attention to meaning. It assumes that: ââ€"  Students already have some knowledge that is relevant to new learning. ââ€"  Students are wiling to perform class work to find connections between what they already know and what they can learn. In the learning process, the learner is encouraged to recognize relevant personal experiences. A reward structure is set so that the learner will have both interest and confidence, and this incentive system sets a positive environment to learning. Facts that are subsequently assimilated are subjected to the learner’s understanding and application. In the classroom, hands-on activities are introduced so as to simulate learning in everyday living. Discovery Learning Discovery learning is differentiated from reception learning in which ideas are presented directly to student in a well-organized way, such as through a detailed set of instructions to complete an experiment task. To make a contrast, in discovery learning student from tasks to uncover what is to be learned. New ideas and new decision are generated in the learning process, regardless of the need to move on and depart from organized setoff activities previously set. In discovery learning, it is important that the student become personally engaged and not subjected by the teacher to procedures he/she is not allowed to depart from. In applying technology, the computer can present a tutorial process by which the learner is presented key concept and the rules of learning in a direct manner for receptive learning. But the computer has other uses rather than delivering tutorials. In a computer simulation process, for example, the learner himself is made to identify key concept by interacting with a responsive virtual environment. Generative Learning In generative learning, we have active learners who attend to learning events and generate meaning from this experience and draw inferences thereby creating a personal model or explanation to the new experience in the context of existing knowledge. Generative learning is viewed as different from the simple process of storing information. Motivation and responsibility are seen to be crucial to this domain of learning. The area of language comprehension offers examples of this type of generative learning activities, such as in writing paragraph summaries, developing answers and questions, drawing pictures, creating paragraph titles, organizing ideas/concepts, and others. In sum, generative learning gives emphasis to what can be done with pieces of information, not only on access to them. Constructivism In constructivism, the learner builds a personal understanding through appropriate learning activities and a good learning environment. The most accepted principles constructivism’s are: ââ€"  Learning consists in what a person can actively assemble for himself and not what he can receive passively. ââ€"  the role of learning is to help the individual live/adapt to his personal world. These two principles in turn lead to three practical implications: ââ€"  the learner is directly responsible for learning. He creates personal understanding and transforms information into knowledge. The teacher plays an indirect role by modeling effective learning, assisting, facilitating and encouraging learners. ââ€"  the context of meaningful learning consists in the learner â€Å"connecting† his school activity with real life. ââ€"  the purpose of education is the acquisition of practical and personal knowledge, not abstract or universal truths. To review, there are common t hemes to these four learning domains. They are given below: Learners ââ€"  are active, purposeful learners. ââ€"  set personal goals and strategies to achieve these goals. ââ€"  make their learning experience meaningful and relevant to their lives. ââ€"  seek to build an understanding of their personal worlds so they can work/live productively. ââ€"  build on what they already know in order to interpret and respond to new experiences. LB#6: IT Enters a New Learning Environment. Effective teachers best interact with students in innovative learning activities, while integrating technology to the teaching-learning process. In Meaningful learning * Students already have some knowledge that is relevant to new learning * Students are willing to perform class work to find connections between what they already know and what they can learn. In Discovery learning Ideas are presented directly to students in a well-organized way, such as through a detailed set of instructions to complete an experiment or task. In applying technology, the computer can preset a tutorial process by which the learner is presented key concepts and the rules of learning in a direct manner for receptive learning. In Generative Learning Active learners who attend to learning events and generate meaning from this experience and draw inferences thereby creating a personal model or explanation to the new experience in the context of existing knowledge.Motivation and responsibility are seen to be crucial to this domain of learning. In Constructivism The learner builders a personal understanding through appropriate learning activities and a good learning environment. Learners: are active, purposeful learners. Set personal goals and strategies to achieve these goals. Make their learning experience meaningful and relevant to their lives. Seek to build an understanding of their personal worlds so they can work/live productively. Build on what they already know in order to interpret and respond to new experiences.

buy custom The Impacts of Changing Software Requirements essay

buy custom The Impacts of Changing Software Requirements essay The issue of new changes to be introduced into the system should be addressed during the earlier stages than at the late stages of the software development life circle. The later a change is addressed, the greater the cost, risk and duration of the project. The first scenario depicts some stakeholders (the project team leaders) as being part of the source of the feature creep introduction. The company signs an agreement that was not initially part of the deal. This issue has both its advantages and disadvantages. Starting with the advantages, the company has decided to adopt a framework that is in line with the ADA and section 508. This is a great deal as it provides for more user needs and standards. The feature creep in this case helps achieve the business goal as well as the customer needs. It as well aids in advancing the project to fit into its ideal problem solving state. Based on various techniques, a team through their leader can cope up with the changes and come up with a strategy that will allow them to deliver the software according to the new requirements. First of all, on the start of the project, the team has a mandate to accept that feature creep is part of the project so, prepare in advance. Secondly, they can commit enough time to the requirements elicitation. While performing the intensve requirements analysis, they should also consider the boundaries to changes and when they can be made. Meanwhile, the team should remain task-oriented and consider the customer as right while taking on a lot of research before deciding to commit. On the other hand, the feature creep has negative impacts on the developing team. First of all, additional costs have to be incurred. The developers possibly have to fix the new requirements beginning with the point of integration of the new idea. The project takes more time than the initially decided time and more risks have to be incurred. This leads to delay in the project delivery an altered project milestone results. Most programming languages have a steep learning overhead hence new suggestions would put everything on hold. This leads into the team members frustration especially in the case where they were not consulted. It is therefore necessary to have the project team aware of any consultations and their directions. In the second scenario, the Contents Management System, a scope creep is introduced into the system. The project is now meant to handle more Operating Systems based on a web platform. The result of this is additional development expenses and time introduced into the system. In addition, the complexity of the system becomes a question. Before anything can be done with the suggestions that have been made, it is necessary to carry out a change analysis. The requirements must be considered so that the product satisfies the clients needs. Some changes may be critical to a system so, they must be included whereas some are optional hence can be included in a version of the software. Any alternative that is taken has an impact on the design. First, there is a time taken to decide on which option to take. Secondly, there are new risks that are introduced into the projects design phase. The design may be produced in a manner that doesnt satisfy the customers need. Lastly, the cost of the whole project goes higher than the initially intended costs. This is due to more resources that need to be allocated to the projects in order to accomplish the new mission. Nevertheless, the second scenario leaves the system developers with a decision to make on whether to take the change defer it or reject it. If the developers decide on a progressive application upgrading, then they can start off with the initial projects and implements the customers needs. However, rejecting the change is the least expected decision. A project that fails to address the change in the requirements and quantifying the effects of the changes normally fails. Buy custom The Impacts of Changing Software Requirements essay