Evaluation Form Oral Presentation - University Of: Fill & Download for Free

Tomasz Blusiewicz (BA, MA from Chicago University, PhD from Harvard University) is an assistant professor of history at the School of Advanced Studies at the University of Tyumen, Russia.in 2019, Mr. Blusiewicz was asked to analyse the results of “Writing, Thinking, Analysis, Interpretation,” a mandatory introductory program for the freshman students at the University of Tyumen, and outline what, from the Western point of view, Russian students lacked for successful undergraduate studies.Mr. Blusiewicz findings turned into criticism of the Russian education system.Western Quorians who have had discussions and arguments with Russian Quorians will be interested in reading Mr. Blusiewicz analysis.Students can’t answer questions if there are no ready-made answers“Out of habit, students tried to find answers in the text, and if their searches were unsuccessful, they spent the rest of the lesson in anxious silence, fearing to make a mistake.”Can't differentiate an argument from a personal opinionThe students were not familiar with the concept of an argument. They thought that the argument equates a subjective opinion. Instead of evaluating the text, many began to share their personal feelings, without argumentation.Students would do everything so that the professor doesn’t shout at themOne of the main barriers was the fear of mistakes: students did not answer if they were not absolutely sure that the lecturer would like their answer. Students only offered what they thought would appease him and “trying to read the professor’s reaction, would change the answer, adjusting it to what they think he would like to hear.”Students do not ask questions“Students believe that asking a question is a sign of weakness. This also applies to questions for clarification, and questions for explanation. The students thought they should listen and answer only when asked. They also did not use the questions as a tool for discussion, as they were convinced that “valuable statements should be presented only in an affirmative manner”.Students never change their point of view, because it’s a sign of weakness“As soon as students relate themselves to a particular intellectual position or idea, they accept it as an inseparable element of their own identity, which should be protected - not because it is compelling, but because it is part of their self. It is difficult for students to conduct thought experiments because they immediately strive to take one or another side. They are accustomed to fusing their “I” with a specific point of view, and therefore it is difficult for them to evaluate judgments from a distance.”No idea what is constructive criticism“It seems that students expected that the teacher would send them an essay without comments and with the highest grade. They regarded the comments as an attempt to censor, or as a reprimand, which they naturally tried to evade."No inspiring ideas of their own“Students are not used to having an inspiring idea that is worth writing down during a discussion; an idea that can help you design and write your final essay."Active students speak. Others keep quietIn the classroom only some students were active, and the rest were simply passively present at the lecture. They were not used to exchanging opinions with each other and were ready to interact only one-on-one with the professor.“They are not ready for a round table discussion. They believe that the professor’s comments should be given more attention than the remarks of fellow students. "No habit of controversy“Students are surprised to learn that a book is far from the only form of transmission of scientific knowledge. Students are puzzled by the controversy of researchers, unfolding, for example, on the pages of the journal. They are accustomed to the fact that everything they come across in the text is an indisputable unit of information that should be memorized and, if necessary, retold. Their usual learning process stops when they are faced with the process of creating knowledge: the process of discovery, verification, idea development and discussion."Students look for hidden meanings in the textStudents rarely view texts literally. They look for encrypted messages, symbolism, additional meanings.“Each following text is like Baudelaire's symbolist poem for them. Students believe that each author seeks to hide one more message within an ordinary message, accessible only to a select few. "Critical thinking = the right to challenge everything at onceStudents believed that critical thinking meant "the right to dispute literally everything that they encounter in the classroom." They either trusted the author completely or refuted absolutely everything that he reported.Only two options: presentation or stream of consciousnessThe creative writing format was also unfamiliar to the students. The word "essay" was understood as "philosophical reflections in the spirit of Montaigne, a chain of more or less conjugate reasoning on random topics.""The students were trapped in a false dichotomy: they either wrote a presentation or gave themselves up to creative expression in the spirit of stream of consciousness literature, ignoring any formal rules."Research Initiative IssuesStudents were perplexed by the need to formulate their own topic from scratch, checking their reasoning with the text. They expected that the professor would ask a question, and they would have to guess which answer would be correct.“Students lack the confidence to pose their own research question, and the experience to assess the relevance of a scientific topic. Finding such conjugations turned out to be one of the most difficult challenges. "No proof-readingStudents also found it difficult to work on the text of the essay after its rough draft. As soon as they "reach the specified number of words or pages, they believe that the job is done, although even one short proofreading of the text would most likely allow them to get rid of some obvious mistakes."Criticism is a personal grudgeStudents were very wary of the format of the individual consultations provided by the program. They perceived them either as lessons from a tutor (that is, a sign of weakness), or as a challenge (when you are expected to be thrashed).“Students timidly come one after another, determined to defend themselves: they want to defend the ideas they have already chosen and are not ready for the professor to dispute something, suggest changes or improvements. Students believe that any criticism of their ideas means that their work was assessed as unsuccessful and that the teacher does not have a better opinion of their academic success. In other words, students are not familiar with the concept of constructive criticism. They prefer not to hear anything about their work, oral and written, neither from the professor, nor from fellow students. "

Material changes? Unauthorized people? I am somewhat hard pressed to figure out exactly what this presumes, but I am guessing this is about the charge the New Testament has been ‘corrupted’ by multiple wanton changes across time.Some books and movies like “The Da Vinci Code” alleging such willful corruption have popularized this idea. Throw in a little skepticism, and a few Bart Ehrman books, and things can get confusing. The truth is, there is no basis in anything but imagination for the view that multiple substantive material changes to the New Testament ever took place. That is not a statement of faith. It’s scholarship.However, there are some legitimate questions being raised about the transmission of the New Testament texts in light of our growing understanding of oral cultures and scribal practices of the ancient world.It cannot be denied that Western scholars have tended to view the ancient texts through the lenses of their modern, literate, academic world. And it is also true that fixed and stable textual reproduction of written material was a goal and achievement of the world after the printing press. These modern views were probably not shared by scribes living and writing within a culture dominated by the spoken tradition. Our modern understanding is so completely different from the ancient’s that we probably really have failed to correctly understand the impact of oral historical practices on the written texts.The study of scribal habits in oral cultures has found a complex dynamic in the interaction between the written and the spoken mediums. This explains a large measure of what we find in the New Testament.The early church would have been an orally dominated culture, and it would most likely have been seen as sufficient that any written copy reflected the “essence” of the orally performed Gospel, (since written texts were “less” important than oral presentations). Whether or not such a written document was meticulously copied would also have been less important to them than it is to us. In fact, ordinary protocol in an oral culture would have allowed scribes to amend texts to render them more faithful to the oral tradition they were seeing and hearing.This is not to say that there were no ancient copyists who were meticulous in reproducing exact replicas of the texts. There were. P75 demonstrates that. And there is evidence of standardized procedures for copying texts in existence in the late first and early second centuries.After two British scholars, Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt, discovered the remains of thousands of ancient papyrus documents in Egypt, including copies of New Testament books, scholars noticed several distinguishing features. Unlike the scroll common to Roman writing, every single copy of a New Testament book was in codex format, the ancient precursor to our modern book. Second, the scribes who copied the text abbreviated divine names (nomina sacra techniques[1]), put spacing between words, implemented crude forms of punctuation, and employed reading aids. Therefore, in contrast to the elitist Roman scroll, the earliest copies of the New Testament were much more accessible.It was expected that these texts were for public reading before a Christian congregation. The apostle Paul gave Timothy the command to “devote” himself “to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching” (1 Tim 4:13, ESV). Paul instructed the Christians at Colossae; “And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea” (Col 4:16, ESV). When John wrote Revelation, he understood that his prophecy would be read by one person standing before a congregation and so he gave a blessing to "the one who reads ... and those who hear" (1:3, ESV). The scribal mindset of the day would have seen written texts as a memory aid, and as a preservative, but what was most significant was what was spoken and heard.An early Christian gospel codexThis is a foreign concept to the modern world. We mostly read silently to ourselves, so for us, the text is all. It is fixed and stable. But in an orally oriented world, written texts were born out of and surrounded by both the mindset, the practices and the forms of oral tradition, and oral transmission is not fixed and stable; it is “fixed-yet-flexible.”Studies of oral cultures have shown us that those responsible for oral transmission are trained and they do memorize; the community receives it from them: the community does not create it, though the community has input through its responses. It is also true that the “essence” of an orally transmitted event does get fixed in its core content extremely quickly; but it is also true that even trained oral history speakers will vary in the details of their recitations.Written texts, then, would have adapted and reflected that same living, fixed-yet-flexible, oral tradition. The differences between the gospels and even modifications are therefore not intentional distortions and cannot, legitimately, be seen as “corruptions.” That is a modern mis-interpretation of both method and mindset of then vs. now. It is a projection of our own “post-Gutenbergian” mindset and method.Acknowledging the variations one can expect from ancient scribal traditions, it is also easy to see that any modifications made by early scribes have not affected the texts in any significant manner.The vast majority of scribal modifications to the written texts are minor and limited in scope. The most Ehrman claims is that theologically inspired modification “occasionally” happened. In the Gospels themselves, there are two that can be considered major—the well known case of Mark 16:9–20 that is annotated in every Bible, and John 7:53–8:11, that has also been recognized for a long, long time. There are not others scattered everywhere hiding unbeknownst to us.There aren’t any variants that are unrecognized. These have been known for hundreds of years. Forerunners of modern textual criticism can be found in early Rabbinic Judaism and the early church as far back as AD 100.The claims that there has been extensive ideological changes to the Gospels—(or other early Christian literature)—runs counter to all the textual evidence.Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches while it was still being written (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27) in the forms in which we now have them. Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight (possibly 13) New Testament books in A.D. 95. Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John, and in all of this, there is no evidence the early texts were ever circulated in any form other than the later textual tradition we have now.Within an orally dominated culture, the reason for writing things down would have been to preserve, in at least a somewhat fixed form, the sacred oral Gospel tradition. And while these texts may have been characterized by a degree of flexibility alien to our modern literate world, they were meant to faithfully retain the essence of the oral tradition if not every exact word.Understanding the peculiarities of written transmission in oral cultures explains the nature and scope of the ways early scribes modified texts, while also demonstrating that such modifications did not alter the substance or the sacred oral ‘Jesus’ tradition from which it arose.It is warranted to accept our contemporary version of these ancient works as reasonable representations of the original traditions. The New Testament has not been ‘corrupted,’ there have not been ‘material changes’ and what modifications there were have had no substantive impact.ADDITIONAL READING:[2][3][4]ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:There are at least four lines of evidence that have a bearing on this issue:Proximity in time between texts and events, and between originals and copies: This concerns the length of time between the writing of the original autograph and the events it describes, as well as the writing of the original and any given copy; obviously the greater the time span at either end, the more likely it is that facts get forgotten, reinterpreted, reframed, translated into legend, etc., and content becomes corrupted.The New Testament was both written and copied in an unusually timely manner—for the ancient world. The time frame for the original writing of the New Testament is short enough, it almost qualifies as contemporary.Copying happened quickly as well. There are no existing copies of other ancient traditions (such as Buddhist texts, etc.), that date as closely to the originals as the New Testament.Amount of data available to examine: This concerns the quantity of manuscripts that attest to any ancient document’s textual transmission. The more copies, the greater the data base, the more confidence there can be that what we have is consistent with what there always was.The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work. We have copies in existence today that date from the end of the first century up to the invention of the printing press—thousands and thousands of them. Nothing else compares to the sheer amount of evidence available.Geographical Distribution: The further the spread, the more manuscript traditions there are that are ‘independent’ from one another. That independence acts as a kind of “control” on quality and content.Say scribe 'A' makes a copy error that scribe 'B' doesn’t make. From then on, copies of text 'A' will contain that mistake, while copies of ‘B’ do not. Over time, those texts copied from 'A' will be identifiable by the presence of the error, and those descended from 'B' will also be identifiable by the absence of that mistake. Each line of descent is referred to as a "family" of texts. The further the geographical spread of any manuscript, the more “independent” such families of manuscripts are from one another. Independent lines act as “controls” by the simple virtue that their “genetic” lines are uninfluenced by each other as time goes by: then, finding a family of texts out in Timbukto that echoes the content of the family of text ‘B’ makes identifying the error in ‘A’ simpler and also identifies original content more dependably.Internal evidence - Finally, textual critics assess the relative quality of a manuscript by evaluating it in the light of ancient scribal practices, tendencies, idiosyncrasies, and issues of content specific to the text itself.It is true these texts are not exactly alike in the manner of a printed work, but the truth is, even with software driven proofreading and modern printing, our texts still regularly contain errors. Any variation between any two texts—a mis-spelling or mis-copying: dropping one or more letters, skipping a word or line, writing one letter for another, transposing letters, and so on—is called a ‘variant’ but variants are not, in and of themselves evidence of ‘corruption’ simply because it is pretty much true that all texts have variants, even modern printed ones.Some variants do represent a scribal attempt to simplify or harmonize, by changing a word or a phrase, but this adds up to about one percent of the total number of variants.James Royse has shown scribes were more likely to accidentally drop text than purposefully add to it. (Metzger, B. M.; Ehrman, Bart (2005). The Text of the New Testament(Fourth ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 214. ISBN 978-0-19-516667-5.)Textual scholar Kurt Aland explains that charting the variants shows 62.9% of New Testament texts are variant-free.Those places where there are additions or harmonizations are listed and described in the footnotes or endnotes in every Bible, and most of them have no impact on meaning.On this basis, if the New Testament text is considered corrupted, then ALL ancient texts, which are all “less” by comparison, must also be considered corrupted. That would mean there are no dependable historical texts upon which to base our understanding of the past, and our entire concept of history and our ability to study it would crumble.Footnotes[1] Nomina Sacra[2] The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition: Paul Rhodes Eddy, Gregory A. Boyd: 9780801031144: Amazon.com: Books[3] "Christian Papyri and the Ancient Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 173 (April–June 2016): 182–202.[4] How Reliable were the Early Church's Oral Traditions? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

Dear Aspirant,It feels great to see your interest in Lovely professional University.The Bachelor of Arts,Hons(English) program aims to introduce a wide variety of literature in the English language. Primarily, the program aims to offer eligible students the opportunity to read and respond to a massive spectrum of novels, plays, and poetry across different genres. Also, students are exposed to wider socio-cultural and political issues in relation to contemporary English literature.The course consists of components of study such as literary analyses, cultural diversity in literature, critical thinking, and written and oral communication skills through a rigorous curriculum of literature, composition, language and linguistics, and communication studies.Yes Lovely Professional University is good university for BA(Hons)English programme.Lovely Professional University,School of Social Sciences and Languages is among the best language colleges in Punjab and India. Recognizing liberal arts education as the crying need of the global education system, the school exposes its students to theoretical rigor, fieldwork and research, along with social sensitization through opportunities to interact with and learn from the outside world.Reasons are following:-This is designed to allow you to engage in extensive independent study outside classes, supported by other forms of teaching including tutorials, online activities and self-directed learning using the learning resources available in the University and beyond.SeminarsSeminars involve presentations of new material by staff, and are a useful way to explore questions, concepts and theories. They also include activities to work independently and in small groups to carry out practical tasks such as analysis of literary and non-literary spoken, written and digital texts, creative group tasks, individual and group presentations, peer commentary and feedback, research projects. These help you develop your creative, critical, group-work and communication skills.Online learning activitiesThese include blog, vlog, forum, and wiki participation and help students to develop skills in writing, communication skills, IT and online collaboration. These activities also help to develop your independent learning skills.Group or individual tutorialsHere, you will receive structured, formal and informal feedback from your tutors on work in progress or on your ideas for a specific module assignment or project task. You will also discuss how work at university connects with employability and your personal development planning.Self-directed learningA lot of your learning at university takes place outside classroom sessions. Classes are designed to facilitate your autonomous learning, during which you will have the opportunity for critical self-reflection or space for self-directed reading or research. An example might be a research or practical project linked to a module's learning outcomes that you work on independently or with a small group supported by your tutor. This might then form the basis for a seminar presentation.Guest LecturesAlongside regular classes, you will have the opportunity to attend lectures with guest speakers from creative industries. The Language and Communication research cluster organises regular research seminars and other events which are open to members of the public.AssessmentThere are no exams for this programme. Your assessments exclusively consist of coursework that can take various forms: oral presentations; creative fiction and non-fiction writing; essays; case studies; investigative projects; critical analysis; text analysis; group work; practical communicative tasks.Curricular EventsOpportunities to participate in extra-curricular activities for achieving all-round development. EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE SCHOOL A plethora of activities are held to nurture and ensure all round development of the learners in the session 2018-2019.WorkshopsWorkshop courses on Life skills/ Business communication/Research Paper writing/Research Project Writing▪ Special module on yoga▪ App based learning and evaluation▪ Focus for better student-teacher interaction through mentoring sessions▪ Orientation of curricular content for enhancing employabilityFor more information kindly visit Lovely Professional University websites or call on Tel: +91-1824-404404Thank You!