The Language Proficiency Assessment For Teachers

The Language Proficiency Assessment For Teachers Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority announced the result of Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers (LPAT) in recently, the overall result in English Language has continuous decreased. LPAT consist of five papers in reading, writing, listening, speaking and classroom assessment. Except for the listening paper result is increase 2% passing rate in last year, all others paper has decreased. The Language Proficiency Assessment published by the government of Hong Kong SAR since 2000, after 10 years implementation, the teachers English language standard still cannot achieve public expectation, nearly half of the candidates are failed in assessment in every year. Some teachers said it make them feel humiliated dignity, because they still repeat the trial in many times. Research Question The candidate failure in Hong Kong Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers (LPAT) in continuous few years, why are they failure in this test? Many candidates feels stress under the test, is it a real reason as behind of the failure? Purpose of the study The audience of this study is including decision-makers and candidates. The purpose of this study is discussing the reasons of the candidates failure in LPAT. Some teachers said that the questions are too difficult for them and they dont have this kind of study when they were a student, they feel stress between the test and their job. I will discuss the difficult and find out the problem when candidates are facing to LPAT. Histories of the LPAT Along with education reform, teachers are encouraged to strive for higher levels of language proficiency, and to enhance their professionalism in subject knowledge and pedagogy through training. According by the Education Bureau published in September of 2000, all new recruits teachers (include teaching in Primary and Secondary school teacher) in English level are required to pass the benchmark test (known as LPAT now), as is currently teaching in English teachers, they must be fulfill the standard before 2006 year, the teacher can be through the training or examination to achieve. Otherwise, they are not allowed to teaching the related language subject. The objective of government is to ensure that all language teachers possess at least basic language proficiency, so that they can promote effective teaching and enhance the quality of education, provide professional teaching. Teachers were taken in the streets to protest the policy announced in 2001 when government introduced the LPAT to testify the English teachers are really qualify to do that job. Some teachers association to be against the assessment as at today, they believed LPAT will increase the pressure on teachers. Bibliography review in study Many of teachers said that they feel stress in the LPAT test, some of these even quit their job as an English teacher, LPAT is the main reason for them to leave their industry, especially for someone has taken the LPAT test in a few times, they are no confidence in a teaching field. The below theories may help to explain their performance in the test and why they failure. Firstly, the cognitive theoretical approach (Lazarus 1999) suggested that the best way to view the stress process is as a transaction between the person and environment which means the stress may be come from the event itself, the persons age, culture and experience. The teachers stress is come form the test, the teacher entry in their field before the LPAT is implement, the education reform make a change in the educate cultural, they may afraid the change in their age because they will lost their job when failed in LPAT. Methodology using in study In LPAT is including in five papers, these are reading, writing, listening, speaking and classroom assessment. I will focus on writing part in this study because most of candidates are failed in this paper in the past ten years. In writing part, it also divided into 2 section, first part is detection and correction of errors/problems, but we will focus on the second part is explanation of errors/problem, because most of the candidates feels confuse in this part. They cant make accuracy answer in this section. I am going to find out the problem of the candidate when they are facing in writing paper. I will adopt 2 methods to collect the data and try to analysis the various possible reasons. Method 1: Interview Interview is one of the methods to reflect the actual situation in LPAT, interview to different role can be reflecting their opinions on LPAT test. a) The man of the street Respondents: Including student, business man, foreigner and who can speak English. Our interview should be including different segmentation of the people to make the result is more precise and objective. Different role can be reflecting different opinions of the LPAT, we need to consider on the role when doing an interview. Location: In Central, Sheung Wan or Wanchai. We need to choose an appropriate place to conduct the interview make it precise. These three places are including different kind of person, different segmentation of the person can be finding in these places. We are looking for someone who has basic language knowledge to conduct an interview, the English language level of these places is higher than other district, so that it is an appropriate place for interview. Process: We can choose two or three questions from the past paper, those are most common mistake in the previous LPAT test. Select a different degree of depth in the question. Starting with the easily question to interview an interviewee, according to interviewees respond to continuous the other questions. We request the interviewee point out the error from the question and ask them to correct it in the right answer. Compare the answer by the interviewee how to different with the candidate. b) Candidates Respondents: Who is planning to have an assessment in future and failed in assessment in pervious LPAT test. They are the most important interviewee because they lead the most important role in the assessment, when they are preparing for the assessment, they will clearly to know the difficult in between. Someone who failed in assessment, they may help to analysis the reasons of failed in the test. Location: Any place let the interviewee feels comfortable Process: It can be conducting in one by one interview or telephone interview. Using telephone interview because some of the candidate is existing teacher in the school, they are not willing to disclose the identity, they may afraid to affect the image of them or their school. So, these kinds of interview make them feels security and more objective. In one by one interview, it may give a mock paper for the interviewee who is planning to have assessment, all question will be find in past paper. After that, we can check the answer together, to discuss the real answer and ask the interviewee feels after they finished the mock paper. This mock paper helps us to analysis the real problem in LPAT test. Professional in language scope Respondents: They can be a school principal, English lecturer in University, representative of Education Bureau or who is involve in LPAT. Location: Any place let an interviewee feels convenience, may be in their office. Process: This group of interviewee can be share their experience in the test, help us to cognitive the question in the LPAT, they will know more about the meaning of the LPAT, help to find out the deep reason that are failed in the test. Method 2: Research in the past paper Some of the teachers said that the question of the writing part is too difficult for them, so they dont have a sense in the past in some question. We are trying to find out some questions in previous past paper, to compare the degree of the question in LPAT paper, go through the questions are belonging to which level student. We will obtain 5 previous LPAT in writing paper of explanation of errors/problem section, find out the pattern of the question in these 5 years, analysis which grammatical features is often occur in paper, find the possibility of the most common question in the paper. After research, we will know that the weakness of the candidate and analysis. Such as the most common question focus on tenses, infinitive and defining clause in the previous paper. According to these analyses, it can give us a reference to recognize the question is easier one or difficult one, to verify the teachers view is correct or not. Conclusion Measuring stress in humans: a practical guide for the field / edited by Gillian H. Ice and Gary D. James

Comparing Fordism and Scientific Management

Fordism and Scientific Management are terms used to describe management that had application to practical situations with extremely dramatic effects. Fordism takes its name from the mass production units of Henry Ford, and is identified by an involved technical division of labour within companies and their production units. Other characteristics of Fordism include strong hierarchical control, with workers in a production line often restricted to the one single task, usually specialised and unskilled. Scientific management, on the other hand, â€Å"originated† through Fredrick Winslow Taylor in 1911, and in very basic terms described the one best way work could be done and that the best way to improve output was to improve the techniques or methods used by the workers. (Robbins p. 38) Many comparisons can be made between the two theories, such as the mechanisation, fragmentation and specialisation of work and that a lack of intellectual or skilled content will speed up the work at hand. Fordism's mechanisation of mass production further emphasised many of Taylor†s popular beliefs about management being divorced from human affairs and emotions, using ‘humans as instruments or machines to be manipulated by their leaders† (Hersey p. 84). Fordism fused and emphasised the scientific methods to get things done by Ford†s successful mass-production processes. Contrasts also exist between the two theories. Fordism dehumanisied the worker whereas scientific management convinced the workers that their goals could be readily achieved along with their employers goals, therefore they should all work together in this direction. Fordism suited industrial companies participating in mass production, whereas Scientific Management could be used in many types of organisation. Large companies such as Ford Motors, The Reichskuratorium fur Wirtschaftkichkeit (RKW) in Germany examples these theories in practice. These theories of the past are lessons for the way modern organisations are run today. Managers now realise that they should treat their workers more democratically and since the mid-70†³s, sweeping changes in markets and technology have encouraged managers and manufacturers to use greater product diversity and more flexible methods of production. Movements towards a more flexible organisation have become apparent. Examples of orgainisations such as Nissan, NASA and Toyota serve as modern day examples of post-Fordism and depict movement towards a modified Scientific Management. Comparisons that can be made include Fordism's mechanisation of mass production and Taylor†s attempts at using employees as machines. Taylor designed this using his principles of management that included developing a science for each element of work and finding the quickest way the job could be done. Henry Ford†s ideal types of Fordist production system included using fixed and dedicated machines in individuals work, rather than turning the employee into a machine. (Hollinshead 1995) With Taylor attempting to prove to the world that there was a science to management and that the quickest way was the best way, he attacked the incompetence of managers for their inefficiencies in running the railroads and factories. Using time and motion studies, Taylor achieved productivity increases of up to 200 per cent. (Dunphy, 1998, p. 4). His thoughts were echoed by others: during a 1910 Interstate Commerce Commission hearing, Louis D. Brandeis argued that US railroads could save a million dollars a day if they introduced scientific management into their operations (Oakes, 1996). Taylor showed the world that the methodical and scientific study of work could lead to improved efficiency. He believed that by defining clear guidelines for workers many improvements could be made to the production of goods. Fordism like Scientific Management in the newly mechanised industries of the early 20th century emphasised that efficiency came from precision in job design, clear division of responsibilities and tight policing of implementation (Taylor, 1911). Taylorism and Fordism were consistent with notions of the organisation as † a ‘military machine† first developed by Frederick the Great of Prussia, and later refined by Henri Fayol†. (Taplin, 1995, p. 430) Scientific Management encouraged firms to improve efficiency by analysing individual processes of industrial production and then recreating them to produce maximum output from any given size labor force. (Hudson, 1997) Ford's production-line innovations compounded scientific management†s efficiencies into the economy. Taylor believed it would be best to scientifically select, train, teach and develop the workers. However, in contrast, Fordism was based on mass production using semi skilled workers who could be easily replaced. Fordism did not care for the workers to work as a team and to ‘Heartily co-operate †¦ to ensure that all work is done in accordance with the principles of science† like Taylor†s ideas of scientific management did (Robbins,1997, p. 40). Although Fordism borrowed many scientific management ideas, it then advanced upon them to produce a new form of management that included management having hierarchical authority and technical control. Fordism enabled managers to regulate production and safeguard their own position within firms as well as meeting the efficiency criteria set by owners. The obvious efficiencies of Fordism and features that were responsible for the economic successes of this system, also caused problems. Fordism proved particularly suitable to manufacturing in a mass consumption economy, required only occasional innovation of new products and used machines that only made specific goods. Often, these were of low-quality, low-value, high-volume nature, and competition was price based. Low quality could easily become poor quality; workers were poorly motivated with resulting high labor turnover and absenteeism; and coordinating the flow of materials through production processes was difficult (Wood, 1993). Fordism led to massive increases in productivity in certain industries, but the human cost was significant. At one point Henry Ford's assembly lines had an annual employee turnover of 380 per cent (Encarta, 1998). Fordism alienated workers and allowed no creativity. Where scientific management looked to divide work and responsibility almost equally between management and workers, Fordism was after minimum discretion between management and workers with fragmented work and minimal tasks for employees. Examining what happened at the Ford Motor Company supports these facts. In 1913 Ford began using monotonous assembly-line techniques in his plant. Although assembly-line techniques greatly increased productivity, many people soon left their line jobs, because of the unpleasant monotony of the work and the repeated increases in production quotas. This is something that contemporary management techniques have realised; it is beneficial for employees to become involved within their jobs and not expected to be machines. Ford partly overcame this problem by doubling the daily wage then standard in the industry with his famous offer of ‘$5 a day to workers who would put up with the alienated, regimented work conditions at Ford Motors† (Clark, 1997). One worker said, â€Å"You†ve got to work like hell at Ford†s†¦ You can†t let up. You†ve got to get out the production†¦ nd if you can†t get it out, you get out† (Rupert, 1997, p. 11) His results were increased stability in Fords labor force and a substantial reduction in operating costs. Then the Model T automobile was introduced in 1908. With the help of this model, Ford became America†s largest automobile producer and vendor. Nevertheless throughout the 1930s Ford began losing business to his competitors, mainly because they were slow introducing new models of automobiles every year. (Encarta, 1998) Scientific Management and Fordism created a new type of ‘revolution†. The promise of massive increases in productivity led to the following of Fords and Taylor†s models of management all over the world. Britain never had a scientific management movement like that in America, and the leading British engineering journals in the early 20th century revealed Taylorism receiving attention, much of it positive. Engineering became an unqualified supporter of scientific management, only The Engineer, a journal of engineering at the time, maintained sustained hostility to Taylorism declaring it was unfair and inhuman and not â€Å"sportsmanlike. The Engineer criticised the separation of workers thinking in their jobs from doing their jobs and described Taylorism as â€Å"scientific management gone mad. † (Whitson, 1997) Another organisation that followed both the American models of Taylor and Ford, was The Reichskuratorium fur Wirtschaftkichkeit (RKW) founded in 1921. This huge Berlin-based electro-technical and machine-constructing conglomerate strove to implement measures of industrial and organisational efficiency in Germany in the inter-war era. RKW†s aim was to â€Å"implement technical and organisational measures of industrial, and economic efficiency, an organization devoted to industry; efficiency, and production standardization. † (Shearer, 1997, p. 569) In modern times, firms have attempted to reconfigure work places and production systems using flat hierarchies and lean production systems in contrast to Scientific and Fordist management. Managers presume that these sorts of changes will enable firms to achieve flexibility, seen by many managers as essential to maintaining competitive advantage into and beyond the 21st Century. Flexible production systems opposing strict Fordist lines, made possible by these organisational changes and new technologies, permit shortened product development time. There is a new way of organising production and a departure from Fordism and all it contains. However, scientific management was used by Japanese automobile constructors in the 1970s when they began to compete using â€Å"fundamentally improved manufacturing processes that consistently produced vehicles of higher quality far faster than Detroit† (Oakes p. 569). Japan car manufacturers successfully decreased labour and production costs giving American Manufacturers a run for their money, Japans Toyota is an example that used Fordism as a base of new managerial processes. Another modern day example, which drew on these two management methods, was in space science. NASA developed a set of measures to assess if they were implementing their own strategies. NASA's strategy, defined by the motto ‘cheaper, faster, better,† was to reduce the size and cost of space probes without eliminating any important missions. Figures show that the two missions to Mars launched in late 1996 were each one-fifth the real cost of previous Mars missions (under $200 million in 1996 dollars, as opposed to an average of $1 billion each for the previous eleven U. S. spacecraft launched for Mars)†. (Oakes, 1996, p. 589) Post-Fordism has been described as a â€Å"shift to the new information technologies;[a] more flexible, decentralized form of labour process and of targeting consumers by lifestyle taste and culture rather than by categories of social class†¦ as well as] a rise of the service and white-collar classes and the feminization of the workforce:† These are lessons managers have learnt and result in less rigidity and mechanisation and a reduction in the blue-collar masculine workforce. The firms that face the most difficulties in the new globalised marketplace are often those with labor intensive, standardised manufacturing processes. Companies emphasise that these new forms of work provide better jobs. For instance, Nissan projects an image of work as taking place in an empowering environment built around the themes of flexibility, quality and teamwork. In conclusion, both Fordism and Scientific Management share common themes yet also display some significant differences. They both encourage looking at the fastest way work can be completed and impose strict guidelines upon employees and their job descriptions. This has led to a great deal of dissatisfaction among employees in production lines with alienation and monotony of workers that encouraged a high turnover of employees at organisations that imposed these techniques. Henry Ford developed much of his conceptions upon Taylor†s ideas of scientific management. These theories imply that contemporary organisations and their managers should take into consideration the ideas of employees to avoid division. Managers today often see workers as multi-skilled and more involved in the process of production via teamwork, the reintegration of manual and mental labour, and the empowerment of production workers. Today†s mass production has seen technology wiping out many of the jobs once held by these employees. There is a movement towards a more flexible workplace in the wave of this new technology away from strict guidelines imposed upon workers and their job descriptions, they are now encouraged to learn about other areas of the workplace. Fordism and scientific management have greatly influenced our workplace today and their theories will continue to be built upon for years to come.

Help Your Child Make Their Own Stethoscope

What Is Borax and How Is It Used

Borax is a natural mineral with a chemical formula Na2B4O7 †¢ 10H2O. Borax also is known  as sodium borate, sodium tetraborate, or disodium tetraborate. It is one of the most important  boron  compounds. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) name for borax is sodium tetraborate decahydrate. Did You Know? The common usage of the term borax refers to a group of related compounds, distinguished by their water content:Anhydrous borax or sodium tetraborate  (Na2B4O7)Borax pentahydrate (Na2B4O7 ·5H2O)Borax decahydrate (Na2B4O7 ·10H2O) Borax Versus Boric Acid Borax and boric acid are two related boron compounds. The natural mineral, mined from the ground or collected from evaporated deposits, is called borax. When borax is processed, the purified chemical that results is boric acid (H3BO3). Borax is a salt of boric acid. While there are some differences between the compounds, either version of the chemical will work for pest control or slime. Where to Get Borax Borax is found in laundry booster, hand soaps, and in some kinds of toothpaste. You can also find it in one of these products: 20 Mule Team Borax (pure borax)Powdered hand soapTooth bleaching formulas (check labels for borax or sodium tetraborate) Borax Uses Borax has many uses on its own, plus it is an ingredient in other products. Here are some uses of borax powder and pure borax in water: Insect killer, particularly in roach killing products and as moth-preventative (ten percent solution on wool)FungicideHerbicideDesiccantLaundry boosterHousehold cleanerWater softening agentFood additive as a preservative (banned in some countries) Borax is an ingredient in several other products, including: Buffer solutionsFlame retardantsTeeth bleaching productsGlass, ceramics, and potteryEnamel glazesA precursor for boric acidScience projects such as green-colored fire, slime, and borax crystalsAnalytical chemistry  borax bead testFlux for welding iron and steel How Safe Is Borax? Borax in the usual form of sodium tetraborate decahydrate is not acutely toxic, which means a large amount would need to be inhaled or ingested to produce health effects. As far as pesticides go, its one of the safest chemicals available. A 2006 evaluation of the chemical by the U.S. EPA found no signs of toxicity from exposure and no evidence of cytotoxicity in humans. Unlike many salts, skin exposure to borax does not produce skin irritation. However, this doesnt make borax categorically safe. The most common problem with exposure is that inhaling the dust can cause respiratory irritation, particularly in children. Ingesting large amounts of borax can cause nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The European Union (EU), Canada, and Indonesia consider borax and boric acid exposure a potential health risk, primarily because people are exposed to it from many sources in their diet and from the environment. The concern is that overexposure to a chemical generally deemed safe could increase the risk of cancer and damage fertility. While the findings are somewhat contradictory, its advisable children and pregnant women limit their exposure to borax if possible.