The first core belief is the concept of the autonomous, responsible and rational adult. Mezirow believed that the goal of transformational learning is “to gain the crucial sense of agency over ourselves and our lives" that is often associated with individuals reflecting on a dysfunctional operational system or company policy, and taking action to change it. A second core belief relates to knowledge creation that is constructivist. Human beings are active participants in the process of making meaning and are the creators of knowledge and hence engage in critical reflection. The pre-conditions that satiate the concept are full information, the ability to objectively evaluate arguments and freedom from self-deception or coercion.
A Brief Explanation of the Ritual View of Communication James Carey states “Communication is a symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed.” Primarily when it comes to communication, it is important to be able to spot the difference between the Transmission View and the Ritual View. The Ritual View focuses more so on the depths of communicating, rather than what is portrayed on the surface. Ritual View is less obvious, and it requires us to think critically as to why we do the things we do, and what effect it is having on the world around us. In simpler terms, it is basically the idea that our reality is determined by our communication. Rather than our actions or beliefs playing into the standards or ‘norms’ of modern day society, it is believed that we are creating modern day society by these actions.
(Weber) We create our world through actions and interactions, which are based on the meanings we give to situations. Our behaviour is not fixed / instinctive. We give meanings to the things which are important to us. We do this by attaching symbols
I will explain the basic ideas of functionalism and explain how common-sense plays a role in the theory. I will then present one objection to the common-sense functionalism theory and form a hypothesis of how a common-sense functionalist would respond to the objection. Lastly, I will present my own evaluation of the common-sense functonalism theory. Functionalism, in simple terms, is the doctrine that the function of an object should determine its design and materials. It is a doctrine in the philosophy of mind according to which mental states are defined by their causes and effects.
In actual fact, methods always presuppose the existence of goals and objectives, while goals and objectives presuppose the existence of a philosophy. The discovery of the method being utilized can lean one to discern the goals and objectives in focus. The real price is gaining a hold of and understanding the substance of the philosophy that informs the operations. Poor methods betray the application of faulty logics and reasoning in deciding on the goals, and in the development of the philosophy. This may be tested by changing the philosophy.
A cognitive viewpoint is important for the appreciation that reclines inside the person's cognition, that is, conscious power, and they should be capable of describing how to develop information and come up with conclusions. It is founded on the initiative that any dispensation of information is arbitrated by a coordination of sorts or theories of which the device for processing information is a world representation, whether it is figurative or perceptual. A cognitive point of view outlooks the mind of a person as a machine that processes information first and foremost through a sensory input, then internalizing or thinking as termed otherwise and outputting by verbalization. The origin of more information behavior theory focuses on the three procedures. Cognitive psychology in times gone by viewed these three procedures as self-governing, but has of late regarded them as mutually dependent.
Discuss two errors in attribution Attribution theory is concerned with how individuals interpret events and how this relates to their thinking and behaviour. The attribution theory relates to the concept that people try to make sense of their surroundings on the basis of what they think is the cause and what the effect of the situation. There are two attributions. When people attribute cause of other people’s behaviour to their internal characteristics, they make a dispositional attribution. The term disposition refers to somebody’s beliefs, attitudes, and personality.
THEORIES OF LEARNING: Piaget’s Theory of Intellectual Development. Piaget’s theory has two main parts, the first relates to how knowledge is acquired, and the second deals with the particular order in which different ways of thinking develop(Nixon & Aldwinckle, 2002).Piaget suggests that intelligence is adaptation, and as we begin to experience our environment we must adjust to it. Piaget also reflects that humans are naturally predisposed in acquiring information in an order that makes sense to survive in the world (Nixon & Aldwinckle, 2002). Piaget also explains the term “schemata” as the way we mentally organize our experiences of the world, and adaptation occurs as a result of assimilation and accommodation, which is the process of responding to new events, or objects, using existing mental structures (Nixon & Aldwinckle, 2002). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development is broken down into four stages; Sensorimotor, Preoperational, Concrete operational, and Formal operational (Nixon & Aldwinckle, 2002).
Such generalization can occur in both classical and operant conditioning (if a CS is used). However, a subject can be taught to discriminate among sounds and to respond only to a specific sound. Cognitive Theories- Cognitive theory is concerned with the development of a person's thought processes. It also looks at how these thought processes influence how we understand and interact with the world. The foremost
However, whereas iconological analysis aims to understand what social conventions and ideological goals stand behind given visual motifs, social semiotics aims to systematically reveal conventions in order to promote social change. Social semioticians claim that “the signs of articulation” found in texts form the basis for later articulations of the same ideological discourses into other texts. This is because they are immediately available for perception and interpretation by others, who are then likely to re-articulate them into a variety of texts and by means of various semiotic modes. Being able to systematically analyze texts, then, allows not only to renegotiate meanings that would be otherwise re-articulated “as fixed, irrevocable and natural” (Iedema, 2001, p. 201), but also to use resource inventories as tools for design promoting social change (Jewitt & Oyama, 2001). Social semioticians see all semiotic action as social action, as embedded in larger economic and cultural practices and power relations.