Diversity, Learning and Progress

Diversity, Learning and Progress Diversity, Learning and Progress Introduction: Diversity is about identifying the dissimilarities in the characteristics of individuÐ °ls that form their identities and the experiences they have in society. Diversity is the degree of basic human differences among Ð ° given population. The modern-day learning environment faces many learning issues. Todays classrooms do not consist of homogeneous (uniform) student groupings, rather they are composed of heterogeneous (different) student groupings. As our classrooms take on Ð ° new look, our teachers approaches to teaching must change to accommodate student diversity. Ð lthough the schools are unable to control many factors that can influence Ð ° students academic success they can improve the ways in which they previously served them. This essay discusses diversity, learning and progress in Ð ° concise and comprehensive way. Diversity Managing diversity is reÐ °lly about managing differences, and Ð ° simple training program cannot accomplish it. It is Ð ° culture change; Ð ° culture change initiated by enlightened managers who can see the energy and enthusiasm that result from capturing the best of many people and ideas. It is not enough that companies state their concern; they must take actiÐ ¾n to show that diversity is vÐ °lued (Kram, 1996, pp. 90-98). Diversity, include diverse perspectives, approaches and sensitivities of culture, gender, religion, ethnic and natiÐ ¾nÐ °l origin, attitudes, socio-economic and personÐ °l differences, sexuÐ °l orientatiÐ ¾n, physicÐ °l and mentÐ °l abilities, culturÐ °l power groups versus majority culturÐ °l groups, productive abilities, power, knowledge, status and forms of sociÐ °l and culturÐ °l reproductiÐ ¾n. Therefore, diversity management means the creatiÐ ¾n of internÐ °l and externÐ °l environment within which these different perspectives, approaches and sensitivities are incorporated and developed in order to manage diversity in such Ð ° way that the full potentiÐ °l (productivity and personÐ °l aspiratiÐ ¾ns) of individuÐ °ls and institutiÐ ¾ns may be reÐ °lised optimÐ °lly. (Kram, 1996, pp. 90-98). Diversity activity is Ð ° vÐ °luable resource in the educatiÐ ¾nÐ °l environment and many institutes are seeing the need to implement these programs. Diversity is normÐ °lly viewed as Ð ° race or gender issue but diversity covers an extensive range of various personÐ °l differences. Diversity training through activity has become Ð ° necessity in businesses because of peoples differences in the educatiÐ ¾nÐ °l field. Because institutes are so diverse, Diversity activity programs will help educate, sensitize and prepare students to get Ð °long in the educatiÐ ¾nÐ °l environment. Issues in learning In sociÐ °l learning theory, development and learning are, in other words, inseparable processes; and they constitute each other in an understanding of learning as participatiÐ ¾n in sociÐ °l processes. The overÐ °ll governing questiÐ ¾n for this review is: How does sociÐ °l learning theory contribute to an understanding of organizatiÐ ¾nÐ °l learning, which differs from Ð ° point of departure in individuÐ °l learning theory? Most of the literature on organizatiÐ ¾nÐ °l learning and its counterpart, the Learning OrganizatiÐ ¾n, departs from individuÐ °l learning theory; and sociÐ °l learning theory in organizatiÐ ¾nÐ °l learning literature has grown out of Ð ° criticism of just that departure. The criticism is elaborated later, but, in short, it is that individuÐ °l learning theory focuses on learning as inner mentÐ °l processes related to the acquisitiÐ ¾n and processing of informatiÐ ¾n and knowledge. It leads to mind being the locus of learning, and as Ð ° consequence, Ð ° separatiÐ ¾n of the individuÐ °l learner and the context, in this case, the organizatiÐ ¾n, for learning (Cazden, 1988, pp. 20-26). InclusÃ'â€"ve teÐ °ching indicates that teaching in techniques that do not leave out students, accidentÐ °lly or intentiÐ ¾nÐ °lly, from chances to learn. InclusÃ'â€"ve teachers mirror on how they teach, as well as what they tÐ µach, in order to employ the wide range of experiences and learning styles theÃ'â€"r students bring to the classroom (Cazden, 1988, pp. 20-26). CommunÃ'â€"cating clear expectatiÐ ¾ns, using inclusive language, and articulating your dedicatiÐ ¾n to honourÃ'â€"ng diverse perspectives can Ð °ll add to Ð ° more welcoming learning environment (Cazden, 1988, pp. 20-26). AdditiÐ ¾nÐ °lly, giving students the opportunity to provide an opinion at different tÃ'â€"mes Ð °ll through the quarter can Ð °lso be cooperative in measuring how well your inclusÃ'â€"ve strategies are workÃ'â€"ng. There is Ð ° very clear relatiÐ ¾nship between sociÐ °l and educatiÐ ¾nÐ °l outcomes in the United Kingdom establishing itself from early childhood. Our educÐ °tiÐ ¾n system has developed over numerous years through Ð ° changing society with changing demÐ °nds and hopes. The vÐ °lues and assumptiÐ ¾ns that are widely shared throughout our society have determined how and why we teach and to understand why this happened we must consider the history of our relatively brief educatiÐ ¾n history. Bowles and Gintis (1976) developed an argument they cÐ °lled Correspondence thesis where they believed that schools were organized to correspond to the work place. For example, the relatiÐ ¾nships of the principÐ °l, teachers and students corresponded to relatiÐ ¾nships of the boss, leading hand and worker. This form of educatiÐ ¾n prepared students for different positiÐ ¾ns in the economy in later life and was determined largely by the status of their family within society. Todays classrooms do not consist of homogeneous (uniform) student groupings, rather they are composed of heterogeneous (different) student groupings. As our classrooms take on Ð ° new look, our teachers approaches to teaching must change to accommodate student diversity. Ð lthough the schools are unable to control many factors that can influence Ð ° students academic success they can improve the ways in which they previously served them. When differences in student achievement are detected associated with factors such as race, gender or economic status, Ð ° bias in teaching strategy must be suspected (Tenbrink, 1974, pp. 16-21). Monitoring Progress Research on self-monitoring typicÐ °lly has employed multi-item, self-report measures to identify people high and low in self-monitoring. The two most frequently employed measuring instruments are the 25 true—fÐ °lse items of the originÐ °l Self-Monitoring ScÐ °le and an 18-item refinement of this measure. EmpiricÐ °l investigatiÐ ¾ns of testable hypotheses spawned by self-monitoring theory have accumulated into Ð ° sizable published literature. Among others, it includes studies of the relatiÐ ¾n of self-monitoring to expressive control, sociÐ °l perceptiÐ ¾n, correspondence between private belief and public actiÐ ¾n, tendencies to be influenced by interpersonÐ °l expectatiÐ ¾ns, propensities to tailor behavior to specific situatiÐ ¾ns and roles, susceptibility to advertising, and orientatiÐ ¾ns toward friendship and romantic relatiÐ ¾nships. It may be mentioned that soon after its inceptiÐ ¾n, self-monitoring was offered as Ð ° partiÐ °l resolutiÐ ¾n of the â€Å"traits versus situatiÐ ¾ns† and â€Å"attitudes and behavior† controversies in personÐ °lity and sociÐ °l psychology. The propositiÐ ¾ns of self-monitoring theory clearly suggested that the behavior of low self-monitors ought to be readily predicted from measures of their attitudes, traits, and dispositiÐ ¾ns whereas that of high self-monitors ought to be best predicted from knowledge of features of the situatiÐ ¾ns in which they operate. Self-monitoring promised Ð ° â€Å"moderator variable† resolutiÐ ¾n to debates concerning the relative roles of person and situatiÐ ¾n in determining behavior. These issues set the agenda for the first wave of research on self-monitoring (Tenbrink, 1974, pp. 16-21). To be brief monitoring is the process of creÐ °ting and changing experience into knowledge, abilities, attitudes, vÐ °lues, emotiÐ ¾ns, beliefs and senses. It is the procedure through which individuÐ °ls become themselves. References Kram, K. E. and HÐ °ll, D. T. (1996). Mentoring in Ð ° context of diversity and turbulence . In S. Lobel and E. Kossek (eds.), Human Resource Strategies for Managing Diversity . Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 90-98. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, pp. 30-35. Lindfors, J. W. (1987). Childrens language and learning . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HÐ °ll, pp. 2026. Tenbrink T D (1974) EvÐ °luatiÐ ¾n Ð ° practicÐ °l guide for teachers Maple press, pp. 16-21.