themaharana

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
sternbergs triarchic intelligence theory (fhs1)

Sternberg's Theory of Triarchic Intelligence
Sternberg's view of intelligence has been closely linked to Aristotle's ancient premise that intelligence is composed of three aspects theoretical, practical, and productive intelligence. In Sternberg's view intelligence revolves around the interchange of analytical, practical and creative aspects of the mind.
Professor Robert Sternberg of Yale University developed a concept of intelligence that equates to combinations of individual preferences from three levels of mental self-management. These three areas correspond with:
1. Functions of governments of the mind,
2. Stylistic preferences, and
3. Forms of mental self-government.
Examples: As a combination a person might prefer legislative functions, internal variables and hierarchic habits of mental self-government; while another individual might prefer executive functions; external variables and anarchic habits of mental self-government, and so forth.

I. Functions of governments of the mind are:
• Legislative - creating, planning, imagining, and formulating.
• Executive - implementing and doing.
• Judicial - judging, evaluating, and comparing.

II. Scope - stylistic variables:
• Internal - by themselves
• External - collaboration

III. Forms of mental self-government:
• Monarchic people perform best when goals are singular. They deal best with one goal or need at a time.
• Hierarchic people can focus on multiple goals at once and recognize that all goals cannot be fulfilled equally. These people can prioritize goals easily.
• Oligarchic people deal with goals that are of equal weight well, but they have difficulty prioritizing goals of different weight.
• Anarchic people depart from form and precedent. Often they don't like or understand the need for rules and regulations. These people operate without rules or structure, creating their own problem-solving techniques with insights that often easily breaks the existing mindsets.

Think about it:
On the surface many of Sternberg's descriptions appear to equate to some of the aspects of personality type theory. For instance, it may be apparent to those who have studied some of Carl Jung's work on personality preferences that Sternberg's "scope variables" of internal and external might equate to preferences for either introversion or extraversion in Jungian typology. In this context, preferences for internal (introversion) or external (extraversion) mental operations might be accurately calculated on popular personality tests like the Myers-Briggs or Kiersey-Bates.
• Looking at Sternberg's other descriptors in the areas of "forms" and "functions", see if you can find any other parallels between his descriptors and aspects of traditional personality typologies.
• Also, in varied combinations (3 [functions] x 2 [scopes] x 3 [forms] = 18) Sternberg's Triarchic Model would yield 18 different combinations for mental preferences. Within Sternberg's patterns, see if you can categorize and profile your own mental preferences and those of others you know well.
There are five basic types of questions:
Factual; Convergent; Divergent; Evaluative; and Combination
The art of asking questions is one of the basic skills of good teaching. Socrates believed that knowledge and awareness were an intrinsic part of each learner. Thus, in exercising the craft of good teaching an educator must reach into the learner's hidden levels of knowing and awareness in order to help the learner reach new levels of thinking.
Through the art of thoughtful questioning teachers can extract not only factual information, but aid learners in: connecting concepts, making inferences, increasing awareness, encouraging creative and imaginative thought, aiding critical thinking processes, and generally helping learners explore deeper levels of knowing, thinking, and understanding.
As you examine the categories below, reflect on your own educational experiences and see if you can ascertain which types of questions were used most often by different teachers. Hone your questioning skills by practicing asking different types of questions, and try to monitor your teaching so that you include varied levels of questioning skills. Specifically in the area of Socratic questioning techniques, there are a number of sites on the Web which might prove helpful, simply use Socratic- questioning as a descriptor. Don't forget to hyphenate the term.
1. Factual - Soliciting reasonably simple, straight forward answers based on obvious facts or awareness. These are usually at the lowest level of cognitive or affective processes and answers are frequently either right or wrong.
Example: Name the Shakespeare play about the Prince of Denmark?
2. Convergent - Answers to these types of questions are usually within a very finite range of acceptable accuracy. These may be at several different levels of cognition -- comprehension, application, analysis, or ones where the answerer makes inferences or conjectures based on personal awareness, or on material read, presented or known.
Example: On reflecting over the entirety of the play Hamlet, what were the main reasons why Ophelia went mad? ( This is not specifically stated in one direct statement in the text of Hamlet. Here the reader must make simple inferences as to why she committed suicide.)
3. Divergent - These questions allow students to explore different avenues and create many different variations and alternative answers or scenarios. Correctness may be based on logical projections, may be contextual, or arrived at through basic knowledge, conjecture, inference, projection, creation, intuition, or imagination. These types of questions often require students to analyze, synthesize or evaluate a knowledge base and then project or predict different outcomes. Answering these types of questions may be aided by higher levels of affective functions. Answers to these types of questions generally fall into a wide array of acceptability. Often correctness is determined subjectively based on the possibility or probability. Often the intent of these types of questions is to stimulate imaginative and creative thought, or investigate cause and effect relationships.
Example: In the love relationship of Hamlet and Ophelia, what might have happened to their relationship and their lives if Hamlet had not been so obsessed with the revenge of his father's death? -
4. Evaluative - These types of questions usually require sophisticated levels of cognitive and/or emotional judgment. In attempting to answer these types of questions, students may be combining multiple cognitive and/or affective processes, levels frequently in comparative frameworks. Often an answer is analyzed at multiple levels and from different perspectives before the answerer arrives at newly synthesized information or conclusions. Example:
a. Compare and contrast the death of Ophelia with that of Juliet?
b. What are the similarities and differences between Roman gladiatorial games and modern football?
c. Why and how might the concept of Piagetian schema be related to the concepts presented in Jungian personality theory, and why might this be important to consider in teaching and learning?
5. Combinations - These are questions that blend any combination of the above.
 

themaharana

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
theory x and theory y of motivation( fhs1)

Theory X is the traditional view of direction and control, based on these assumptions:

1. The average person inherently dislikes work and will avoid it if at all possible.

2. As a result, most people have to be coerced, controlled and threatened if they are to put in enough effort to achieve the organization’s goals.

3. In fact the average person prefers to be directed, avoids responsibility, isn't ambitious and simply seeks security.
Theory Y, based on the integration of individual and organizational goals, assumes:
1. The physical and mental effort of work is as natural as play or rest, so the average person doesn't inherently dislike work.

2. We are capable of self-direction and self-control, so those factors don't necessarily have to come from elsewhere.

3. Our commitment to an objective is a function of the rewards for its achievement.

4. The average person learns not only to accept but to seek responsibility.

5. Most people have a capacity for imagination, ingenuity and creativity.


6 The intellectual potential of most people is under-used in modern industrial life.


Theory Y is not a soft option. In fact it can take as much management effort as Theory X, but the effects of a Theory Y approach will last longer. The Theory X manager is a dying breed (although it has to be said he's not yet extinct), and Theory Y lies behind most modern approaches to motivation. Nowadays the terminology is used as a polite way of referring to the old command-and-control approach to management: the trouble is the diehard Theory X manager won't pick up the subtle criticism!
 

themaharana

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
herzberg motivation theory of hygiene(fhs1)

HERZBERG'S MOTIVATION - HYGIENE THEORY
Frederick Herzberg studied and practiced clinical psychology in Pittsburgh, where he researched the work-related motivations of thousands of employees. His findings were published in "The Motivation to Work" in 1959. He concluded that there were two types of motivation:
Hygiene Factors that can demotivate if they are not present - such as supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, and salary. Hygiene Factors affect the level of dissatisfaction, but are rarely quoted as creators of job satisfaction.
Motivation Factors that will motivate if they are present - such as achievement, advancement, recognition and responsibility. Dissatisfaction isn't normally blamed on Motivation Factors, but they are cited as the cause of job satisfaction.
So, once you've satisfied the Hygiene factors, providing more of them won't generate much more motivation, but lack of the Motivation Factors won't of themselves demotivate. There are clear relationships to Maslow here, but Herzberg's ideas really shaped modern thinking about reward and recognition in major companies.
 

kartik

Kartik Raichura
Staff member
Foundation of Human skills (FHS)

Post your questions related to FHS in here as a reply to this topic
 

vishal1986

New member
hey dude...gr8 post....newayz.,...ne1 has ne idea..as to wat is mind mapping...

i dint attend my colg for a few dayz..n so i missed mind mappin lecs...if ne1 knws...gimme a few details abt it..

Regards
Vishal
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: sternbergs triarchic intelligence theory (fhs1)

Sternberg's Theory of Triarchic Intelligence
Sternberg's view of intelligence has been closely linked to Aristotle's ancient premise that intelligence is composed of three aspects theoretical, practical, and productive intelligence. In Sternberg's view intelligence revolves around the interchange of analytical, practical and creative aspects of the mind.
Professor Robert Sternberg of Yale University developed a concept of intelligence that equates to combinations of individual preferences from three levels of mental self-management. These three areas correspond with:
1. Functions of governments of the mind,
2. Stylistic preferences, and
3. Forms of mental self-government.
Examples: As a combination a person might prefer legislative functions, internal variables and hierarchic habits of mental self-government; while another individual might prefer executive functions; external variables and anarchic habits of mental self-government, and so forth.

I. Functions of governments of the mind are:
• Legislative - creating, planning, imagining, and formulating.
• Executive - implementing and doing.
• Judicial - judging, evaluating, and comparing.

II. Scope - stylistic variables:
• Internal - by themselves
• External - collaboration

III. Forms of mental self-government:
• Monarchic people perform best when goals are singular. They deal best with one goal or need at a time.
• Hierarchic people can focus on multiple goals at once and recognize that all goals cannot be fulfilled equally. These people can prioritize goals easily.
• Oligarchic people deal with goals that are of equal weight well, but they have difficulty prioritizing goals of different weight.
• Anarchic people depart from form and precedent. Often they don't like or understand the need for rules and regulations. These people operate without rules or structure, creating their own problem-solving techniques with insights that often easily breaks the existing mindsets.

Think about it:
On the surface many of Sternberg's descriptions appear to equate to some of the aspects of personality type theory. For instance, it may be apparent to those who have studied some of Carl Jung's work on personality preferences that Sternberg's "scope variables" of internal and external might equate to preferences for either introversion or extraversion in Jungian typology. In this context, preferences for internal (introversion) or external (extraversion) mental operations might be accurately calculated on popular personality tests like the Myers-Briggs or Kiersey-Bates.
• Looking at Sternberg's other descriptors in the areas of "forms" and "functions", see if you can find any other parallels between his descriptors and aspects of traditional personality typologies.
• Also, in varied combinations (3 [functions] x 2 [scopes] x 3 [forms] = 18) Sternberg's Triarchic Model would yield 18 different combinations for mental preferences. Within Sternberg's patterns, see if you can categorize and profile your own mental preferences and those of others you know well.
There are five basic types of questions:
Factual; Convergent; Divergent; Evaluative; and Combination
The art of asking questions is one of the basic skills of good teaching. Socrates believed that knowledge and awareness were an intrinsic part of each learner. Thus, in exercising the craft of good teaching an educator must reach into the learner's hidden levels of knowing and awareness in order to help the learner reach new levels of thinking.
Through the art of thoughtful questioning teachers can extract not only factual information, but aid learners in: connecting concepts, making inferences, increasing awareness, encouraging creative and imaginative thought, aiding critical thinking processes, and generally helping learners explore deeper levels of knowing, thinking, and understanding.
As you examine the categories below, reflect on your own educational experiences and see if you can ascertain which types of questions were used most often by different teachers. Hone your questioning skills by practicing asking different types of questions, and try to monitor your teaching so that you include varied levels of questioning skills. Specifically in the area of Socratic questioning techniques, there are a number of sites on the Web which might prove helpful, simply use Socratic- questioning as a descriptor. Don't forget to hyphenate the term.
1. Factual - Soliciting reasonably simple, straight forward answers based on obvious facts or awareness. These are usually at the lowest level of cognitive or affective processes and answers are frequently either right or wrong.
Example: Name the Shakespeare play about the Prince of Denmark?
2. Convergent - Answers to these types of questions are usually within a very finite range of acceptable accuracy. These may be at several different levels of cognition -- comprehension, application, analysis, or ones where the answerer makes inferences or conjectures based on personal awareness, or on material read, presented or known.
Example: On reflecting over the entirety of the play Hamlet, what were the main reasons why Ophelia went mad? ( This is not specifically stated in one direct statement in the text of Hamlet. Here the reader must make simple inferences as to why she committed suicide.)
3. Divergent - These questions allow students to explore different avenues and create many different variations and alternative answers or scenarios. Correctness may be based on logical projections, may be contextual, or arrived at through basic knowledge, conjecture, inference, projection, creation, intuition, or imagination. These types of questions often require students to analyze, synthesize or evaluate a knowledge base and then project or predict different outcomes. Answering these types of questions may be aided by higher levels of affective functions. Answers to these types of questions generally fall into a wide array of acceptability. Often correctness is determined subjectively based on the possibility or probability. Often the intent of these types of questions is to stimulate imaginative and creative thought, or investigate cause and effect relationships.
Example: In the love relationship of Hamlet and Ophelia, what might have happened to their relationship and their lives if Hamlet had not been so obsessed with the revenge of his father's death? -
4. Evaluative - These types of questions usually require sophisticated levels of cognitive and/or emotional judgment. In attempting to answer these types of questions, students may be combining multiple cognitive and/or affective processes, levels frequently in comparative frameworks. Often an answer is analyzed at multiple levels and from different perspectives before the answerer arrives at newly synthesized information or conclusions. Example:
a. Compare and contrast the death of Ophelia with that of Juliet?
b. What are the similarities and differences between Roman gladiatorial games and modern football?
c. Why and how might the concept of Piagetian schema be related to the concepts presented in Jungian personality theory, and why might this be important to consider in teaching and learning?
5. Combinations - These are questions that blend any combination of the above.
Hey friend, thanks for sharing and explaining about the theory. I am really impressed by your effort and liked your article. Well, i am also uploading a document where you can get much more detailed information with examples and images on the same subject.
 

Attachments

Top