Impact of Globalization On the State Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Impact of Globalization On the State - Essay Example The globalization has brought forth many differences that pertain to different national identities working together to in the direction of achieving a particular task. In addition, the globalization is responsible for the narrowing gap in the economic conditions of the world. The people from different nationalities work for multi-national companies, which offer excellent salary packages. The free market economic principals, combined with capitalist ideology are the driving force for world economies currently working in tandem. This paper discusses few of the impacts that the world is witnessing from globalization, while it can be said that it has brought positive change to the state affairs, there the raging debate on its positive and negative impact. The effects of globalization are seen in terms of both positive and negative impacts for different countries, around the world. The positive impact is the growth in the economy that has resulted in better living standards and prosperity for the larger society. However, the negative impacts include the new wave of migration of human resources from developing to developed nations, which can result in loss of employment in developed countries and forced changes in the social strictures. The new gap created by globalization between rich and poor also leads to increase in criminal offenses. In addition, rich countries may witness depletion in resources, while bringing more pollution problems in some other countries. The direct result of globalization is the outsourcing of manufacturing facilities by countries like the USA to developing nations in Asia. This has resulted in the loss of employment for skilled workers in such countries. The establishment of call centers in Asian countries that attend to queries from European and American consumers of a particular product or service is an example in this direction.

Explication Of Jacques Derridas Signature Event Context English Language Essay

Explication Of Jacques Derridas Signature Event Context English Language Essay Derridas essay Signature Event Context was first delivered in the form of a spoken conference paper in Montreal in 1971 on the theme of Communication, and published initially as an essay as part of the conference Proceedings. The context of Derridas essay is relevant in relation to the theme of the paper itself. In its initial form, a spoken essay preformed or produced in the French language, the essay (now in its written English form), discusses the importance and differences of context in both the written language and in speech.  [1]   The essay was then published in 1988 in Graffs collection Limited Inc., which highlighted the differences between Anglo-American and European-Continental towards the theoretical debate on literary analysis.  [2]  The historical context of the essay is relevant to the themes of original meaning and context which are discussed within the essay. Derrida discusses the distinction between the nature of truth and language, and he presents arguments on the privileging of spoken words, which is deemed as being closer to the speaker and thereby the intended meaning; whereas written words are given a secondary status and the meaning is derived by the understanding of the listener. Derrida examines the meaning of context, and then the significance of context in relation to other factors surrounding a text, such as events, discourses and signature. He argues that these issues all factor into the meaning of the text as it is produced by the writer or speaker, and then understood by the listener or reader. Derrida begins the essay in a discussion on the nature and definition of Communication, when Derrida states: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦one must first of all ask oneself whether or not the word or signifier communication communicates a determinate content, an identifiable meaning, or a describable value. (Derrida 1). The word or signifier communication occurs twice, in the marked form communication, and again as the verb form communicates. For the reader the use of the word in this way signifies a question which must be explored in the text of the essay. For Derrida this is a rhetorical question. As readers and as a writer approaching the text, if the word communication had a definite or indisputable meaning, there would be no need for a discussion or essay on the subject. This is typical of Derridas stylistic approach in the rhetorical questioning which occurs throughout the text of the essay. The essay is then structured into three sections discussing the factors mentioned in the title Signature Event Context, and Derrida uses examples from other theorists in order to present his arguments for each element. In the first section on Writing and Communication Derrida looks at the arguments of Condillacs essay  [3]  because it : à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦contains an explicit reflection on the origin and function of the written textà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦which organizes itself here within a philosophical discourse that, in this case and throughout philosophy, presupposes the simplicity of the origin, the continuity of all derivation, of all production, of all analysis, and the homogeneity of all dimensions [orders]. (Derrida 4) In using Condillac Derrida is presenting the philosophical ideas on theories of writing from a classical theoretical perspective, whereby writing is taken as presenting the original ideas of the writer and all contributing factors to the writing such as origin, production, derivation and analysis and essentially equal in nature and quality. There is thus no hierarchical system to the elements which form writing, and all contributing factors producing a text, are equal in their importance and relevance to the formation and understanding of the text. Derrida suggests that Condillacs ideas on writing mean that: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the birth and progress of writing will follow in a line that is direct, simple, and continuousà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦writing will never have the slightest effect on either the structure or the contents of the meaning (the ideas) that it is supposed to transmit [vehicular]. (Derrida 4) Here Derrida presents Condillacs analysis, whereby if writing is taken as a higher medium of communication than spoken language, the origin and progression of the writing remains an absolute which is uncomplicated and incorruptible; this therefore means that the written form is also constant in its meaning, and for the understanding of the reader. Derrida takes issue with the notion of an absolute meaning of the written later in his essay, and instead suggests that the only absolute in writing is the idea of absence. For Condillac, all writing denotes an absence. There is firstly the: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦absence of the addressee. One writes in order to communicate something to those who are absent. The absence of the receiver [destinateur], from the mark that he abandons, and which cuts itself off from him and continues to produce effects independently of his presence and of the present actuality of his intentions [vouloir-dire]à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Derrida 5) The act of writing denotes an absence of the writer (absent at the time of reading), and the absence of the reader (absent at the time of the writing), which means that the writing exists independently of both reader and writer and is yet paradoxically linked to a presence. The writer is present in the writing at the time of reading because his/her intentions are made in the words that are written; the reader is present at the time of writing because the writer is intending to communicate an idea in his/her writing through the act of writing. The act of writing therefore implies the absence of both reader and writer. The writing is an independent entity which stands on its own merits after it is abandoned by the writer, yet still causes an effect on the reader; this effect is also autonomous from the actual intentions of the writer, as the understanding and interpretation depend on the reader. This brings Derrida to the second absolute in writing, which is the absence of a definitive meaning. As Derrida states: Representation regularly supplants [supplà ©e] presenceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦as a continuous and homogenous reparation and modification of presence in the representation. (Derrida 5) The presence of the writer is therefore denoted in the manner in which the text is received by the reader, whose understanding and interpretation of the text are founded not in the ideas which the writer is trying to communicate, but rather in a more practical system of understanding signs. The systematic rules of writing are based on the understanding of the written word; this is founded in language systems, which according to Derrida are only understandable because of their familiarity. Although signs give a representation of the idea which itself represented the object perceived (Derrida 6), it is only the familiarity which makes them understandable. Derrida states: My communication must be repeatable iterable in the absolute absence of the receiverà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦writing that is not structurally readable iterable beyond the death of the addressee would not be writing. (Derrida 7) The signs (words) must therefore be repeatable and repeated in different circumstances in order to be perceived and understand as to what they are signifying; and more importantly for Derrida what they are denoting or connoting. If the purpose of writing is to convey or communicate the writers ideas, the nature of language and words are a representation of something which is repeatable, no matter who the reader (or writer). Whereby writing is initially a means of communication, the actual physical marks and the meaning must have iterability, citability or citationality. All writing can be copied, or must be copyable in order to be classified as writing; therefore it must be open to both iteration and reiteration. For Derrida signs or writing, are essentially infinite in their iterability, in any capacity whether epistemic, grammatical or semiological; thus lies the distinction between written and oral communication (Derrida 9). Derrida also states that in the classical concept of writing, writing simultaneously carries with it a force that breaks with its context (Derrida 9). Derrida goes on to present an analysis of spoken language/signs from Husserl.  [4]  Again the iterability of spoken language is essential to the understanding of what is signified, denoted and understood by the listener, because language operates within a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦system of rules of universal grammar, not from a linguistic point of view but from a logical and epistemological one. (Derrida 12). This means one must be able to make certain other cultural, social and epistemological references which are understood, and thereby enable an understanding of words or spoken language. Derrida once again opens up his discussion of writing into a wider analysis of language, communication and cultural relevance. For Derrida the significance lies in that understanding is thereby taken à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦in a context determined by a will to know (Derrida 12). The understanding of language and words, whether spoken or written lie in the wider context in which they are read or heard, rather a specific literal context of semantic meaning. This leads to the second section of the essay where Derrida discusses the notion of truth in language, through an examination of the event. Derridas analysis centres on criticism of Austins  [5]  ideas of communication in speech: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦speech acts only as acts of communicationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.Communicating a force through the impetus [impulsion] of a mark à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the performative does not have its referent à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦outside of itself or any event, before and in front of itself. (Derrida 13) Derrida suggests here that John Austins ordinary language philosophy is in fact determined and restrictive, working only within a framework of definitively absolute unordinary exclusion; as Austin suggests that the performative nature of language takes precedent in communication. Austin analyses all utterances as performative, yet excludes performative speech acts which are quoted, which Derrida finds essentially problematic. This approach is limiting and restrictive, by focussing primarily on analysing the perlocution and illocution, Austin is forced to: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦free the analysis of the performative from the authority of the truth value, from the true/false opposition (Derrida 13). If language or words take on a performative dimension, this means that the utterances of the words will be placed within a situation (or context) which is independent of either the true essential meaning, or any false interpretation, of the intended meaning. The problem for Derrida is that the meaning of the words are essentially subordinated to the actual utterance or event of the speech, and/or the context within which they are uttered; which in turn produces an event in the meaning as it is understood by the listener. Derridas criticism of Austin also raises questions as to the totalising element of context whereby there is emphasis on the: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦conscious presence of the intention of the speaking subject in the totality of his speech act (Derrida 14) In the event of the speech act the presence of the speaker places an importance and foregrounding to the intention of the speaker; if the intention of the speaker is prominent in the speech act, then it must follow that the understanding of the receiver/listener becomes secondary. This leads to the inevitability that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦performative communication becomes once more the communication of an intentional meaningà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Derrida 14) This poses a wider philosophical problem for Derrida in the context of literary or language discourse, as Austin also discusses the criterion of what actually constitutes a successful or failed speech act with elements of correctness and completeness (Derrida 15). This again is restrictive and finite, and goes against Derridas general philosophical openness and approach to literary theory. For Derrida there is an inherent possibility in the success of the event which lays in the possibilities of for example the infelicities in the event, and may not in fact be distinguishable from a successful event. For Derrida the failure of the event, whether deliberate or accidental, serves a greater purpose. Derrida suggests that the presence or potential of failure is what in fact constitutes the event as an ideal. The scope for error and the negative impact on the event, whilst it may destroy the idealistic approach to the event, in fact serves the paradoxical purpose of making the event ideal; by in its very nature in introducing an element of danger to the event. A perfect or ideal event would therefore have an element of danger, which is avoided. Although Austin cites theatrical events, recitations of poetry or literature as examples of felicitous speech events, as Derrida points out there is still scope for mistakes or errors in the utterances. Derrida ends the section on Event by taking an opposing view to Austin, in the similar vein to his opposition to Condillacs views and refers to the itability of the sign in general. Derrida states that speech utterances, or events have an itability. Austins view of the relative purity of performatives (Derrida 18) must be taken not: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦in opposition to citationality or iterability, but in opposition to other kinds of iteration within a general iterability which constitutes a violation of the allegedly rigorous purity of every event of discourse or every speech act. (Derrida 18) Derridas view on the event of the speech act is that there is a background to the iterability or possible repetition of an utterance, which means that each utterance or speech act must be taken in the context in which it is said. This has an inevitable effect on the operation or understanding of the words which are spoken and what they signify. Contrary to Austins view that emphasise understanding of the thing and the notion (Derrida 18), Derrida stresses that we must also consider that the: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦motivations, indestructible necessity and systematic effects would be subject to analysisà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Derrida 18) Here the importance of context is fore grounded in relation to the event and is subject to the same metaphysical origins (Derrida 18) which Austin appropriates to the event. Derrida concludes by suggesting that in order to understand context, the conscious intentions of the speaker (and receiver) must be definite. However consciousness is not a definite and is open to discussion and discourse. Therefore although utterances may be specific, the specificity is not exclusive to having an opposite or contrary effect on the listener and thus the event is open to further metaphysical debate. In the final section of the essay Derrida focuses on Signature' as an indicator and measure of the presence of the writer or author. The signature denotes the writer as the source of the text, or the speaker of an utterance, and they hold the form of regulation for the sign or words which are spoken or written. Derrida illustrates that the possibility and inevitability of repetition and iterability is essential to the signature; as with earlier discussions on the nature of signs and language. By its very nature the signature is iterable, as it must be, and is always repeated in order to be recognisable as a signature specific to the author. As Derrida points out although a signature is singular to the author, yet again paradoxically, there is an inevitable plurality to its production; in that it is repeated time and again as a sign of the presence of the writer. Derrida refers back to earlier arguments stating that: By definition, a written signature implies the actual or empirical nonpresence of the signer. (Derrida 20) The signature thereby signifies the absence of the writer, while at the same time denoting the presence of the signer in the past, and can be taken as a substitute for their physical presence; it also implies the presence of the reader in the future or present. Derrida also rather playfully adds his own signature to the end of the essay, as a performative example of an event. As readers we are made aware that Derrida must have at some point made the signature to the paper, however the printed copy of the signature in front of us is not the original or authentic mark/sign made by Derrida, it is an repeated printed copy of the same. This act highlights key elements of Derridas arguments from the essay, as to the nature of iterability, repetition, absence and context. The communication of Derridas ideas in the preceding essay are somehow signified as more genuine, or sincere because he has placed his signature at the end of the essay and placed a mark/sign of authenticity to the essay. Derridas conclusions to the essay tie in with this idea, in that while language can be philosophised in an ordinary manner, as a means of communicating semantics, there is always an underlying and infinite possibility to other factors such as presence, knowledge , representation, and truth. For Derrida the practice of communication and the spoken word or writing must be inclusive of these elements in order for a text to be understood or communicated in its entirety. Derridas stylistic presence is evident in the title and structure of the essay, in the use of questions, often at times rhetorical, and the proposition of paradoxes. The essay is actually structured in the reverse order of the title Signature Event Context: Context is discussed first in presentation of Condillacs ideas, followed by Austins arguments on the Event, and the essay ends with Derridas thoughts on Signature.  [6]  This playing with the order of the elements which Derrida is discussing is somewhat typical of Derridas stylistic and consciously playful approach to writing. At times the language and style is analogous to the spoken word or a speech; which again is self-referential to the form of the text, as it was initially a spoken text/utterance. The form and structure of the essay reiterates the ideas and arguments that Derrida presents. The essay is structured in a fairly accessible yet formal manner whereby Derrida at times breaks arguments or ideas down into listed or numbered sections. Although the complexity of the ideas and concepts presented are perhaps more complicated than the stylistic form of the written language. Derrida repeats certain points and arguments, by presenting his theories in a manner which reiterates the essence of his arguments, and by repeating the same central arguments in a slightly altered form. He uses repetition of the arguments to make the ideas that he is presenting familiar and understandable to the reader, and this is his general approach to the function and understanding of language, signs and words the more familiar we become with words, the easier they are to understand in their true meaning. The meaning lies in the repetition and iterability not only of the words, but also in the concepts and ideas which lie beneath the semantics of the sentences and content of the essay. Derridas arguments are therefore communicated to us as readers when we read and understand the text in the context of the structure of the essay, and experience the text as part of a wider cultural discourse.

College Admissions Essay: I Shall Break Free :: College Admissions Essays

I Shall Break Free    If words could say all they mean then life would be easy. I try to speak, but nothing ever comes from my mouth. Mind full of thoughts with no way to get them out. Expressions come but do not mean what they say. Each try brings a blundering mess of a jumble of words, no meaning to anyone in what they say. Try and speak only to be ignored by empty space. Each thought whole in my head, not even a fragment in my mouth. No matter what I try, my mind still flows free with no way to express it. Night comes with anticipation of a voice to come from my head. Always try yet words still do not come. Around conversation happens like I dream of, yet I can still utter nothing but silence. Break the silence, with mindless speech no meaning in either's voice. I search deep for my being that brings with it my mind, but I try to no avail. If only my mind would work. How can I make it? Too many tries come up empty. More chances come so I continue to search my soul for the voice that I have long since lost. Once I knew it, and could call for and receive at any time. What was it I did? I do not know, but it has been scared too deep inside me. Must find, for without it I am as good as a mute. Still I talk, but with no meaning.

Evaluate the Influence Different Stakeholders Exert in One Organisation

I am going to evaluate the influence that stakeholders exert on Zotefoams PLC. I will be evaluating the following stakeholders: customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, the government and owners. Customers Customers contribute to profit levels and turnover through buying products and services. People are stakeholders in a company for financial reasons; customers do not want to have to spend an excessive amount of money to purchase a product, so if one of Zotefoams competitors can produce the same product for a lower price the customer may be tempted to change suppliers.Without its customer Zotefoams would not exist, they survive through customer loyalty and their ability to attract new custom. To ensure that they get regular customers Zotefoams ensures that all of its products are the best on the market. Customer service is also held very highly. By offering these incentives Zotefoams are getting regular customers which bring in more profit which then can be used to help expand the business.In the resent economic down-turn Zotefoams business customers have been demanding cheaper products, and with the risk of losing contacts worth millions of pounds Zotefoams has had to expand its manufacturing base with factories in the UK, USA and now in China. This diversity allows them created not only cheaper products but also more specialised one too. This has opened up a larger market for them which have increased their share prices by 50% in two years. This has all been brought on by the need to satisfy their existing customer and increase their potential one.Employees Employee is any person hired by an employer to do a specific job. Employees are important as any other stakeholder because they have first contact with customers so if the customers want to ask a question about the organisation or about a product then the employees can help with that and that employees could also recommend products to customers which will bring in more profit. Employees must know ab out the customer service policy. If customers have a problem or an issue with a product or service then employees must know how to deal with it.Zotefoams have business and public customer that require different levels of customer service. The advantage to having a customer service for the customers is that their needs and complaints will be responded to. In reality, there are several factors that influence how committed employees are to a company or organization. It has been proven that the more autonomy and responsibility that a job has, the less repetitive and dull that job also is and the more likely the worker is to enjoy and feel satisfied by the work.Those individuals who feel stimulated, challenged and satisfied in their jobs are much more likely to be committed to a given work environment, company or organisation. Additionally, things like promotional opportunities, pay raises and chances for cross-training and advancement all encourage commitment. Those jobs or companies wh ere there are fewer opportunities for promotion, advancement, and education tend to have higher turnover and less satisfied employees. In essence it is a very symbiotic relationship.A business such as Zotefoams needs to employee a number of skilled employees to reach its business goals and likewise skilled employees would have the advantage of having a larger amount of employers to choose from. As a result the amount of influence employees have on a business is only (in my option) second to a business’s customer. Shareholders Shareholders are the owners of a company. They have the potential to profit if the company does well, but that comes with the potential to lose if the company does poorly. Shareholders can influence a business in many ways.They can exert their influence by voting for particular directors or they can exert their influence by approving dividend payments at the AGM (Annual General Meeting). Shareholders play an important role in raising funds for organisati ons. So these figures create a great opportunity for all those who are looking for a profitable option to invest money. The main powers of the Annual General Meeting of shareholders are to approve and receive dividend proposals. An AGM (Annual General Meeting) is a meeting that official bodies and ssociations involving the public including companies with shareholders are often required by law to hold.An AGM is held every year to elect the Board of Directors and inform their members of previous and future activities. It is an opportunity for the shareholders and partners to receive copies of the company's accounts as well as reviewing financial information for the past year and asking any questions regarding the directions the business will take in the future. In reality (a company such as Zotefoams) the shareholders have little or no impact on virtually anything to do with the company.Most companies have millions of shares outstanding and thousands of shareholders. The management ge nerally makes all strategic decisions unless the decision involves raising funds through bonds or secondary offerings, along with potential mergers or acquisitions. Issues of that significance are presented to the Board of Directors by the management and decided by the Board. In general, management considers shareholders simply as investors, and that the shareholders are only concerned about the share price or dividend payout.They know that it is virtually impossible for general shareholders to get 50% + 1 to change the board. That is not to say the company does not care about the shareholders. It simply assumes that the board and top management know the most about the company and therefore will automatically do what they believe is in the best interest for both the company and investor. External stakeholders-Suppliers Stock managers have trusted suppliers to supply them with the products they need to sell.The suppliers should provide the products on time, however if not then stock managers will find new suppliers that are better than the ones they had previously. If stock managers and suppliers have a good relationship with one another then they would be happy to work with each other which means stock managers will have a reliable source of supplies and suppliers will have a reliable source of income. If suppliers are happy then they will be more motivated to help the business to achieve success and help the business run effectively. Suppliers must supply the stock managers with good quality products.If however the products are bad quality then stock managers will find new suppliers and their previous suppliers will lose customers and they would get a bad reputation which means all their other customers will find new suppliers too. Zotefoams suppliers influence the business by making sure they have the right amount of stock delivered at the right time. If their suppliers do not supply high quality goods this would be a disadvantage. This could lead to a reduc tion of customers. The Government The government sets corporate tax rates for businesses so that they pay their taxes.This way, a business can make its contribution towards the society. As a result, the government uses this money for economic growth and development. Paying taxes help these businesses to streamline their processes, as a result of more efficient infrastructure and management. The taxes paid also assist in supporting backward countries, so that overall demand of their products is not only restrained to UK, but includes exports to these nations too. Government laws are there to handle disputes, errors or poor judgment of a given person.In any society, disagreement between employees can break down a healthy structure, so the laws are in place to attempt to guarantee equal rights to each member. Conclusion My conclusion is that there are a number of different stakeholders that hold different levels of influences on Zotefoams. But in my option out of all of Zotefoams (or a ny business) stakeholders its customer would hold the most influence, because after all a business cannot operate without its customers. By looking at a number of case studies (1) you can see a direct link between poor PR/ customer service and a company stock prices and sales.In November 2011 Shares of Abercrombie & Fitch plunged more than 15% in one day resulting from a PR disaster. This is evidences that if a company do not reflect the wishes of its customer or delivers poor service/goods there can be a massive negative effect on the business. Another example of how customers can effect business operations is the disastrous speech made by CEO Gerald Ratner of The Ratner Group. After making a speech in which he jokingly denigrated the company's products as â€Å"tacky† he nearly caused the company's near collapse. The company’s stakeholders are very important to keep the business up and running.A company’s stakeholders are all important but in handling its stak eholders, a business also has to accept that it will have to make choices. It is rare that â€Å"win-win† solutions can be found for key business decisions. Almost certainly the business cannot meet the needs of every stakeholder group and most decisions will end up being â€Å"win-lose†: i. e. supporting one stakeholder means another misses out. There are often areas where stakeholder interests are aligned, where a decision can benefit more than one stakeholder group. In other cases, there is a clear conflict of interest.

Howard Gardner and Applications of Multiple Intelligences Essay

Gardner believes that there are different ways of solving problems and that there are different ways that intellectual ability is manifested or expressed (Gardner, 1993; 1999). What had been accepted in education in general had been to assess students in terms of their capabilities in Science, Math and Language or Communication (English in written and spoken communication). Gardner expanded this to what he termed as multiple intelligence which introduced the domains with which every individual may possess in whatever degree. These domains include, the logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, linguistic, intra and inter-personal, naturalistic and existential intelligences (Gardner, 1993; 1999). There are evidences that support the theory in terms of the biological and cultural underpinnings such as those done on development focused on children, empirical research from individuals with brain damage and persons with giftedness. The theory has significant implications on both structure and curriculum in the educational setting such as the kind of set up with which the classroom is arranged or the strategies employed in introducing material or assessment of learning (Gardner, 1993; 1999). Problem statement Since Gardner believes that the educational setting at all levels must foster and promote the understanding of multiple intelligences the following pertinent parts of the educational set up involving curriculum and assessment strategies must be changed or reformed (Gardner, 1993; 1999). This research therefore attempts to answer the following problem statements: What is Multiple Intelligences as a framework in school? What is the description of a curriculum in the secondary level (high school) incorporating the Gardner theory? In this framework, how can assessment be done on student learning and overall progress of students? Discussion Nature of the learner in the Secondary Level There are basic observations gathered by experts on the kind of learner expected to enter into the secondary level. Since the concept of Multiple Intelligences by Gardner would be revolutionary even today, when in essence, most institutions of learning already recognized the brilliance and applicability of his position. It would be helpful to have alongside in the direction of this notion, quite important figures and principles that would further make the application of the Gardner framework in the secondary level easier to grasp and more feasible to comprehend. The curriculum would serve to reflect how learners inch their way into the classroom and courses they are about to undertake and to finish. It is always important to start right by understanding how the learner apprehends and appreciates the material, his preparation in terms of physical, emotional, and psychological maturity, and the way these materials or knowledge could be absorbed and thereafter applied at the correct time and place. It was Malcolm Knowles (1978, 1990) and his theory andragogy who emphasized the model of adult learning. The premise is based on his hypothesis that the maturation of an individual into adulthood is manifest when people conduct themselves in adult behavior and consider themselves to be adults. Then they should be dealt with as adults. By adulthood people are self-directing. Knowles taught that adult education was special in a several ways. This will mean that the presence or absence of some significant details will improve or pull down adult learning experience. This implies that knowledgeable background on adults and the developmental characteristics of that particular stage will spell effective or disastrous results. This paper attempts to show the various positive and negative learning environments specifically for adults. Positive Learning Environment include: 1. Adult learners carry with them a vast amount of experience to the learning environment. This means that tuning in to their particular psyche creates a conducive atmosphere for learning; 2. Adults expect on the kind of training they are exposed to and how they are to be educated. Example: Unlike the younger learners where most take on passive role, adults have goals in mind and the learning they receive must fall within those predetermined personal goals; 3. the active involvement of students should be encouraged in planning and implementing educational programs; 4. Adults need to be able to see applications for new learning; 5. Adult learners expect to have a high degree of influence on how learning will be evaluated; 6. Adults expect their responses to be acted upon when asked for feedback on the progress of the program. Andragogy is therefore student-centered, experience-based, problem-oriented and collaborative (Brooks, J 1995). On the other hand, the following can influence adults specifically in the learning experience in an unhelpful way. The Negative Learning Environment includes the fact that: 1. some adults can move toward prescribed educational settings with anxiety and feelings of high or low self-efficacy. Their method to new learning milieus can be prejudiced by how they assess or evaluate the new experience. A case in point: given two adults in a classroom where an exercise is about to begin, one individual may interpret the assignment in such a way that leads to a feeling of ‘excitement’, while another individual interprets the task in such a way that leads to the feeling of ’embarrassment’. It is a fact that the way the individual interprets the situation and the consequent emotion that arises, will affect the kind of action the individual is to take (Burns, 1995, p.16). Burns considers that such assessments, together with the labels such as ‘fear’ or ‘anxiety’ can direct some learners to psychologically disengage from the source of distress that is the learning experience. Conversely, when coupled with labels such as ‘excitement’ or ‘challenge’ the learner is conducted to take measures that focus on the undertaking. With this slant, the abovementioned findings just aptly show how the Multiple Intelligences framework is the better if not best option to amplify what adult learning insights have offered and how the issues are met and addressed. It would seem that the Gardner framework can be both an approach in the arrangement of teacher’s approach to the student’s ease assimilating information and training of skills development; Gardner’s framework serves as assessment tool as well to further check and evaluate status of learning as well as secure its usefulness (i.e., training and knowledge) for a future job (Gardner, 1993; 1999). The curriculum then would appear more like a university level type that can be seen as implementation of several tracks, individualized in nature, with personal advising installed, and students are evaluated on their overall grade point average performance. Personality tests that are primarily geared to measure the Gardner â€Å"traits† are indispensable tools to discovering the possession of either or combinations of the â€Å"intelligences† (Gardner, 1993; 1999). On the course or subject level, students are also handled in individual cases but getting used to the variations will be established in the long run and may no longer be as difficult to implement and follow-up. Evaluation of the student performance and any behavioural changes are pertinent tasks that teachers are to be cognizant of. In this manner, the application of formative and summative assessments would not only be appropriate but timely as well. According to studies on the subject, both summative and formative assessments are employed to provide a very objective result as to the efficiency and efficacies not only of the teacher’s methods. The evaluation itself (i.e., assessment for and of learning) is a vital factor that is found to help the student realize his potentials and attenuate the weaknesses he’s had in the process of learning (Northern Arizona University, 2009). I believe that the methods of evaluating the interventions for the problem cannot be easily applied or even seen/grasped. However, this can only be understood well when applied (hands-on) to a particular school, class, and individual during a certain period like during the first half of a given school year. A detailed lesson plan, or syllabus is part of this tool with specific dates and key result areas to serve as a guide. This way, every student has each given the chance to shine his best and not just be a statistic in an otherwise lopsided contest where no real winners are found but instead disillusionment for failed dreams and succumbing to societal pressures are more common and expected. Reference: Brooks, J (1995) Training and Development Competence: a practical guide Kogan Page, London. Burns, S. (1995) ‘Rapid changes require enhancement of adult learning’ HRMonthly June, pp 16-17. Knowles, M.S. (1978) The Adult Learner: a Neglected Species 2nd edition, Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, Book Division   and Knowles, M.S. 1990 The Adult Learner: a Neglected Species 4th edition, Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, Book Division. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books. And Gardner, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 69-90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Northern Arizona University. Formative vs. Summative Evaluation. Retrieved on May 9, (2009), from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/edtech/etc667/proposal/evaluation/summative_vs._formative.htm