Child Friendly Schools In Kenya Education Essay

Child Friendly Schools In Kenya Education Essay The purpose of this essay is to explore the contribution of Comparative and International Research in the successful implementation of Child Friendly Schools (CFSs) in Kenya. Emphasis will be placed on the background of CFSs, current practices and emerging critics, success stories, problems and pitfalls and what CIR can do to subjugate some of these challenges. I will start by examining the rationale for exploring CFSs, based on literature and my professional experience. Following this background will be literature surrounding the concepts of CIR and CFS in relation to global agendas, exploring how CFS came into existence and the driving forces behind it. I then go on to focus on a case study of CFS in Kenya, discussing the role of CIR in the Kenyas CFS, arguing that CIR is used as a political tool in creating educational policy, rather than a research method or an intellectual inquiry. I will further critically analyze challenges facing CFS and how knowledge on CIR can contribute mo re effectively to successful implementation of CFS. A conclusion based on the literature and authors experience will then be drawn. Throughout the essay, I build a case in favour of CIR arguing that CIR stimulates critical reflections about our educational systems by investigating commonalities and differences across national borders. Background and Rationale Perhaps, one of the growing fields in education in the modern age is comparative and international education, judged by the volume of studies reported in the literature. Central to this is that many countries around the world have formulated some of their educational policies based on scholarship in CIR. With the current wave of globalization, researchers and experts, especially in the field of education, are always trying to find ways of streamlining their educational policies with the global trends. According to Giddens (1990:64), globalization is the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distance localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. Global forces therefore have an impact on shaping local practices at grass root levels. In order to do this tactically and critically, comparative and internal research remains cutting edge in informing people about the realities, the challenges and the possible effects of uncritical transfer of ideas. Interestingly, global agendas in matters related to education are prioritized towards basic education as opposed to adult education or higher education. In Africa, this would be probably because, as Oketch (2004) points out, basic education yields higher rates of returns compared to higher education. This has subsequently caused government and non-governmental organizations to focus more on improving the quality of basic education. Child-friendly schools (CFSs) in Kenya is an example of a initiative sponsored by UNICEF with the aim of not just providing children right to education but the right to the right education. In other words, CFSs are more concerned with the quality of basic education in addition to its access. The emergence of CFSs in Kenya was catapulted by the forces of agendas 1 and 2 of Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) which emphasizes on the provision of basic education. The World Education Forum (2000) agreed on six Education For All (EFA) goals. The sixth goal conce rned Education quality, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦improving all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring excellence of all so that recognised and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills. The term quality in education is dynamic because of the social, political and economic context at which it is used. Because of differences in contexts, it is imperative that knowledge of comparative and international research be used in designing policies and pedagogy in CFS that fit that particular context. Furthermore, with the fear that some countries may lag behind as others move forward, sub-Sahara countries are now engaging in various practices in order to achieve this goal, a race against the 2015 set deadline for attainment of EFA goals. As the clock ticks towards the year 2015, priority goals in education may change for post-2015 and the worry is further elevated. One of the efforts the government of Kenya is doing to improve the quality of education is by integrating CFS model into the basic education system. Two major questions arise here: First, how is CFS realistic considering myriad challenges facing the FPE policy in Kenya? Secondly, if CFS model is the best practice to go by, what is the role of CIR in successful implementation of the CFSs? It is against this background that the purpose of the essay hinges. Literature Review In this section, I will look at the concepts of Comparative and International Research (CIR) and Child Friendly School (CFS) based on the literature and merge them with the global forces that catapulted the emergence of CFS with an attempt to unveil the voices behind the introduction of CFS in Kenya. In addition, I will use an example of PRISM experience in Kenya to reinforce the understanding as to the role of international bodies in promoting quality through well strategized and executed projects, arguing that lessons from PRISM experience can be used as insights to successful implantation of CFSs. Concepts of Comparative and International Research (CIR) and Child Friendly School (CFS) CIR is a fusion of two broad areas of research: Comparative Research and International Research. To understand its full meaning, it is important we define the two areas of research separately. In his definition of comparative research, Mills et al (year) argue that: Comparative research is a broad term that includes both quantitative and qualitative comparison of social entities. Social entities may be based on many lines, such as geographical or political ones in the form of cross-national or regional comparisons. (p. 621) A similar perception was echoed by Noah and Eckstein (1969: 127), who described comparative education as an intersection of the social sciences, education and cross-national study [which] attempts to use cross-national data to test propositions about the relationship between education and society and between teaching practices and learning outcomes. In light of this definition, comparative research in the context of education can be defined as a study of two or more entities or events (Crossley Watson 2003) with the underlying goal of searching for similarity and variance. Cross-national or regional comparisons may include comparing educational policies, pedagogy, educational leadership and so on. According to Mills et al (2006: 621), the search for variance places more emphasis on context and difference in order to understand specificities. International education, on the other hand, can be defined as the application of descriptions, analyses and insights learned in one or more nations to the problems of developing educational systems and institutions in other countries (Wilson 2000a: 116). Thus, international research is concerned with research carried out across two or more countries, often with the purpose of comparing responses between them. This might be done in order to devise strategies that work well across both or all these cultures or to suggest local adjustments to a global strategy There is a close relationship between comparative and international education. Epstein (1994: 918) points out, that international educators use findings derived from comparative education to understand better the processes they examine, and thus, to enhance their ability to make policy. We can therefore draw from the above two definitions that CIR in education as a method of comparing both qualitative and quantitative entities in education across different countries, societies or cultures with the aim of identifying similarities and differences. It is however important to note that not all international research is comparative, and not all comparative research is international or cross-national. According to UNICEF, a child-friendly school is both a child seeking school and a child-centred school: It is child seeking because it actively identifying excluded children to get them enrolled in school. It is a child-centred school because it acts in the best interests of the child leading to the realization of the childs full potential, is concerned about the whole child: her health, nutritional status, and well-being and concerned about what happens to children before they enter school and after they leave school. A CFS system recognizes and respects childrens right and responsibilities; it provides the enabling environment to realize childrens right not only in schools, but also in childrens home and their communities. These include children from conflict zones, street children and children with disabilities. The Child-Friendly Schools model (see fig 1) is based on simple, rights-based concepts that would have all schools be: Rights Based School: CFS proactively seeks out-of-school children and encourages them to enrol, irrespective of gender, race, ability, social status, etc. Gender Sensitive School: CFS promotes equality and equity in enrolment and achievement among girls and boys. Safe and Protective School: CFS ensures that all children can learn in a safe and inclusive environment. Community Engaged School: CFS encourages partnership among schools, communities, parents and children in all aspects of the education process. Academically Effective School: CFS provides children with relevant knowledge and skills for surviving and thriving in life. Health Promoting School: CFS promotes the physical and emotional health of children by meeting key nutritional and health care needs within schools. (UNICEF, 2007) Fig 1: Model of the Child-Friendly School Source: UNICEF( 2007. The CFS model provides a framework for planning (and monitoring the effectiveness of) strategies for increasing access to quality basic education with the specific focus on the development of strategies to include those children hitherto excluded from education (UNICEF, Global Education Strategy, 2007). It is important to note that there is no one-way to make a school child-friendly. The model may differ from country to country depending on the context. International and Local Pressures and their influences to formation of CFS in Kenya Education in sub-Sahara Africa, and indeed in Kenya, is crafted from both influences by global trends in education and the legacies of colonialism. Chisholm and Leyenderker (2008) observe that: Since 1990, the goals and purpose of education in sub-Sahara Africa has been reshaped by four interconnected developments: globalisation, the changed focus of international aid agencies towards development assistance, the adaptation of sub-Sahara African countries to the new world order with its new political emphases, and the spilling over of new pedagogical ideas from the USA and Europe into sub-Sahara Africa. (p 198) Kenya is a signatory to a number of conventions in education, including the Convention to the Rights of the Child (1989), the World Declaration on Education for All (Jomtien, 1990), the Dakar accord and the Millenium Development Goals (2000). In achievement of education development goals, Kenya is bound to, among other things, quality education by MDGs. The Jomtien call for access for access, equity, quality and democracy in education appeared to promise both social and economic development (Chisholm and Leyenderker, 2008). Social and economic development, and continues to be believed, requires educational change and educational change is necessary for social and economic development (ibid:). Educational change, in turn, is perceived to depend on, amongst other things, the input from relevant development assistance projects. These projects, in the arena of education, are typically formulated with reference to internationally negotiated development agendas (like the MDGs) and priority (Crossley Watson, 2003). An example of these projects in Kenya is CFSs which are supported by United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF). The Education Section of UNICEFs Programme Division introduced the Child Friendly Schools (CFS) framework for schools that serve the whole child in 1999 (Chabbott, 2004). Rationale for introducing CFS framework in Kenya The increased reliance of foreign aid to support education reform in Kenya has been accompanied by a transition, from understanding education as a human right and the general good to viewing it primarily in terms of its contribution to national growth and well-being through the development of the knowledge and skills societies are deemed to need. (Arnove Torres 2007:359). Occasional voices continue insisting that education is liberating, that learning is inherently developmental (ibid: 359). With the global concern that Sub-sahara Africa countries may not achieve Universal Primary Education (UPE) by 2015 unless the progress is accelerated (Carceles et al., 2001; Bennel, 2002), Kenya responded by introducing Free Primary Education (FPE) policy in 2003 with both local and global pressure. The rationale behind introducing FPE was (apart from the pressure from global and international agendas) to alleviate poverty attributed to lack of literacy skills. The success story behind implementation of FPE policy is the increased enrolment at primary schools by nearly 50%, from 5.9 million in 2003 to 9.38 million pupils according to the Kenya Economic Survey 2011. However, there are myriad challenges facing the implantation of FPE policy: there are not enough textbooks, classrooms are overcrowded and the infrastructure in many schools is inadequate for the numbers of pupils attending. Many of the schools do not have sanitation facilities. The teacher-pupil ratio is quite high: accor ding to UNESCO there are more than 40 pupils per teacher, on average. All of these factors militate against the provision of quality teaching. There is no magic wand for fixing this problem of quality in education. In response to this CFS were introduced in Kenya by UNICEF. According to UNICEF (2006:1): The challenge in education is not simply to get children into school, but also to improve the overall quality of schooling and address threats to participation. If both quality and access are tackled, children who are enrolled in primary school are likely to continue, complete the full cycle, and achieve expected learning outcomes and successfully transition to secondary school. The CFS framework (see appendix 3) aims at promoting child-seeking, child-centred, gender-sensitive, inclusive, community-involved, protective and healthy approaches to schooling and out-of-school education with a general goal of improving the quality of learning. Since CFSs are concerned with the quality of learning, it is important we look at the meaning of quality. The national examinations to obtain the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) at the end of primary cycle and the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) at the end of secondary cycle are designed to evaluate the extent to which the primary and secondary graduates master the curriculum content. In other words, the national test scores are used as the indicators of quality. The limitation of this indicator is that it does not take into account the context at which learning takes place i.e. the learning environment, learners unique characteristics etc. There are many definitions of quality but one of the descriptions of quality which emphasizes on the context was by Tikly (2011:10) who argued that: A good quality education is one that enables all learners to realise the capabilities they require to become economically productive, develop sustainable livelihoods, contribute to peaceful and democratic societies and enhance wellbeing. The learning outcomes that are required vary according to context but at the end of the basic education cycle must include threshold levels of literacy and numeracy and life skills including awareness and prevention of disease. In his description, Tikly believes that a good quality education arises from interactions between three overlapping environments, namely the policy, the school and the home/community environments. In his perception of quality education, Tikly puts context into consideration i.e. needs of the learner, cultural and political contexts. In addition, he emphasizes on the relevance of what is taught and learned and how it fits the nature of particular learners in question. This encourages policy makers to take cognisance of changing national development needs, the kinds of schools that different learners attend and the forms of educational disadvantage faced by different groups of learners when considering policy options'(ibid:11). The fact that CFS emphasizes on learner-centered pedagogy and puts the child at the centre or focal point in the learning process raises the idea of what is regarded as valuable knowledge and how this knowledge is acquired in this particular context. This leads us to the inquiry on the school of thought or paradigm behind introducing a contextualized CFS framework. CFS as an approach to education is premised on constructivism, a theory of knowledge arguing that humans generate knowledge and meaning from interaction between ideas and real experiences. According to constructivists, the notions of reality and truth are socially constructed and in different context with the understanding that knowledge is subjective and embedded in multiple realities. Thus, quality of learning should be viewed in the context in which it is occurs. Towards Quality Basic Education In Kenya: Developing Research Capacity and Evaluation Before we acknowledge the contribution of CFS in providing quality education to the children at Primary school level, it will be prudent to review some of other contributions that has been made by international organizations in collaborations with the local governmet in promoting quality of education at grassroot levels by building research capacity. Kenya has had a history of benefiting from international assistance in its education sector. One of the programmes is the Primary Schools Management (PRISM), an initiative of DfID through the Ministry of Education, which places a lot of emphasis on participatory approaches and emphasis on mobilising community support, resource management and utilisation, supporting learning of pupils and developing action plans. It targeted teacher training and management and the impact of this is overall effectiveness of an education system which has a direct bearing on quality of education. According to Otieno Colclough (2009:26), PRISM is regarded as one of donor-funded programmes which had most positive impact on quality of basic education and CFS can learn from it. As Crossley et al notes, the main objective of PRISM was to improve the quality of primary education through the training and support of head teachers in practical management skills. Borrowing from the PRISM experience it is worthy l earning that well planned and organized CFSs projects involving community participation at grass root level could help tap local voices and lead to successful implementation of educational policies not only in Kenya but also other parts of African contexts. Challenges in implementing CFS in Kenya In this section I will explore common challenges associated with the CFSs concept with an aim of illuminating and critiquing the gap between policy and practice in CFSs. Access and Quality Dilemma: Which one should be first priority? As I mentioned earlier, one of the role of CFS in Kenya is to improve the quality of learning. But the access to education is still a challenge in Kenya and there is fear that Kenya will not have achieved EFA goals 1 and 2 by the year 2015. As we near the 2015 set deadline for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, at a time when hopes should be high, universal access to primary education in Kenya seems to be slipping away. Many comparative researchers argue that different countries have different educational problems and it is the countrys obligation to identify what should be the priority and why. Aksoy (2008: 218) observes that: While developed countries are mainly engaged in activities to increase the quality of education, or they practice and seek new techniques and methods of learning and teaching, developing countries struggle to provide equal opportunities for education, trying to increase the rate of participation of all citizens in basic education, which is actually compulsory. To deal with its educational problems, each country works out countrywide or local solutions, depending on the nature of the problem. The tone of such statement is more closely allied to the question of priority. Priority in one country may not be a priority in another. In Kenya, the major problem basic education is facing is of access while higher education is facing the problem of quality. CFS focus more on quality, but in the Kenyan context, access to education is still a problem in basic education even after the introduction of FPE. The CFS concept of quality can however suit very well in small state commonwealth countries which have almost universal access to basic education. It has been noted that small sates have now shifted education priorities towards focus in school effectiveness, quality and inclusion (Crossley Watson 2003) and CFS in Kenya should learn from small states that the priority should now be on access to basic education before shifting to quality. Atomizing the child: is child-centred the solution to quality CFS? A key feature of a right-based, CFS system is that it is linked tightly to the child-centred learning process. CFS advocates for child-centred learning where a child is treated as a single entity or an atom in learning processes. The idea of atomizing a child has its drawbacks derived from child-centred learning. First, there is an oversight on early year development behaviour of the child. Psychologists believe children undergo various levels of development and their learning behaviours are different at each level. For instant, Vygotskys (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) implies that a child cannot ordinary create ZPD by himself; he needs the more expert individual to bridge the gap between his current development level and his proximal level of development. Secondly, a child-friendly, democratic learning environment may not work successful in overcrowded classrooms and school with limited resources like it is the case in Kenya. Thirdly, child-centred learning weakens the role of the teacher. The idea that a child must be active in construction of knowledge is often understood to imply a diminishing role for the teacher in learning process who now becomes a coach or a facilitator. A call for paradigm renovation, from an exclusively child-centred learning to a combination of both child-centred learning and teacher-centred learning approach is important so that the weakness of one method is complemented by the other method. What Lessons can Kenya learn from other Countries in Implementing CFS? A Review on the Contribution of Comparative Research Kings (2007) emphasizes the need to explore the tension between the national and the international policy agendas in Kenya in order to make informed decisions when crafting educational policies. Clearly, this is a view that underscores the contribution of CIR researchers in bridging theories, policies and practices with both local and global minds (Crossley, 2000) in trying to identify betters grounds to critically reflect and determine appropriate course of action. Apparently, the term that is commonly used in Kenya and indeed many Africa countries in the initial processes of designing an educational policy is benchmarking. Essentially, this is usually a comparative study which is carried out either locally and/or internationally in trying to compare different models of policy framework with the aim of critical adaption or adoption. Lessons are well learnt when a comparisons are made, and this underscores the strength and significance of comparative research. Moreover, since problems transcend national borders, it is prudent to seek possible solutions from a similar experience in another country, and this explains why international research is important. Kenya can learn from other countries that are either progressing or failing to implement CFS because lessons can either identify opportunities or gaps, based on comparative analysis. In these respect therefore, I have identified two key elements of CIR which could help implementation of CFS. The first element is on identification of the gap between policy and practice. Documenting the emerging good practices and lessons learned within the regions is useful in informing evidence based programming and advocacy to enable us to achieve better results. For example, a Global Evaluation Report published by UNICEF in 2009 on comparative studies of how to six countries (Guyana, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand) with different experiences implementing CFS, demonstrated the following: CFSs in varying contexts successfully apply the three key principles of CFS models-inclusiveness, child-centredness and democratic participation. Schools operating in very different national contexts, with different levels of resources and serving populations with different needs have succeeded in being child-centred, promoting democratic participation, and being inclusive. Schools that had high levels of family and community participation and use of child-centred pedagogical approaches had stronger conditions for learning, that is, students felt safer, supported and engaged, and believed that the adults in the school supported the inclusion and success of each student. (UNESCO, 2009) Kenya can use this success report to assist in providing a broader perspective on the ways in which CFSs can contribute to quality in the countrys unique context. The caution should however be that any steps taken should have hindsight of the current context in the country to avoid uncritical transfer of practice which may end up opening a Pandoras box. Secondly, through CIR, studies of educational systems that share similar problems can provide information for learning possible consequences. A recent comparative evaluation research conducted by UNESCO in Nigeria, Gunaya, Thailand and the Philippines on CFS pedagogy gave different findings. While teachers in Nigeria and Guyana mainly focused on meeting basic instructional material needs (textbooks, paper), many teachers in Thailand and the Philippines focused on having greater access to information and communication technology (UNESCO 2009). Kenya experiences the same challenge as Nigeria and Gunaya, and data from these countries can be used to learn how they coping with inadequate basic instructional material. The caution here should be, that common problems may prevail in different countries, but common model cannot be applied because each country has different culture/context (Crossley Watson, 2003:39). This provides invaluable information of what to adopt, modify or avoid. Conclusion It is worthy reiterating Crossley'(2003) emphasis that context matters and different countries have different needs and priorities even if they are faced with the same challenges. The value of CIR is studying foreign systems of education in order to become better fitted to study and understand our own (Sadler 1900, reprinted 1964:310) and CIR can be used as a lense to focus on adaptable or adoptable practices. UNICEF repeatedly emphasises that CFS is a pathway to educational quality rather than a blueprint and that it is counterproductive to regard the CFS model as rigid, with a present number of defining characteristics or key components (2009c, Ch. 1, p. 9). Thus, the essay sought to present an overview in favour of the contribution of CIR in improving successful implementation of CFSs in the Kenyan context. As such, the essay acknowledges the role of CIR in stimulating critical thinking and reflections about CFSs system by evaluating its success and failures, strengths and weaknes ses. This critical reflection facilitates self evaluation in our own context and the basis for determining appropriate courses of action. The article also hints that CIR helps us understand global agendas and how they shape educational development projects from organizations and development agencies.

Compare and contrast two approaches Essay

Psychology is a huge science area with many variations on approach. Over many years Psychologists such as Freud, Skinner, Rogers and Watson, just to name a few, have contributed, providing us with invaluable tools to evaluate and treat mental illness, understand and treat phobias and indeed provide us with a window into the unconscious mind. In particular, two areas of study have intrigued me, so I believe it would be useful to compare and contrast these two very different approaches. Not only will I compare the methods of research used but also will note any similarities or differences they may have and indeed the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. My chosen approaches to evaluate are Behaviourist V Psychoanalytic. In 1913 John Watson published ‘ Psychology as the behaviourist view it’, in it he outlined his new ideas. These ideas were considered ‘new’ because Watson disagreed with Freud’s view of human behaviour; he dismissed it as ‘ philosophical to the point of mysticism’ (Watson 1913, citied by Christopher D. Green, York University). Watson also dismissed heredity as an important factor in human behaviour shaping. Watson stated that ‘The traditional methods of animal psychology are indeed the true method of scientific psychology’. (Watson 1913, citied by Christopher D. Green, York University). In this article Watson said ‘ The time seems to have come when psychology must discard all reference to consciousness; when it need no longer delude itself into thinking that it is making mental states the object of observation ‘ (‘Psychology as the behaviourist views it’ John Watson, Psychological review, 1913}. By saying this Watson meant that Freud and other Psychoanalysts could not prove their theories and therefore were not scientific. Also they studied abnormal patients (mental patients) so therefore they could not have a true picture. This publication did in fact establish ‘a new school of psychology, the School of Behaviourism’. The essential theories, which stand Watson out from the rest, are that he believed psychologists should look to the relationship between the environment and the behaviour, rather than the presumed contents of the consciousness. The principles that govern behaviour in animals and in  humans are virtually identical. Watson’s aim was to predict and control behaviour. He was able to provide evidence to his theories unlike other unreliable and unverifiable conscious experience studies. A behaviourist believes that the environment motivates behaviour and that a stimulus will create a response, therefore, ‘humans are merely passive respondents.’ This approach rejects the unconscious mind and believes that only behaviour that can be observed should be studied. There are three main areas of study Classical conditioning (Pavlov), Operant conditioning (Skinner) and Observational learning (Bandura). Classical conditioning uses a stimulus response, Pavlov when experimenting with the dog and salivation, conditioned the dog to know when a treat was inevitable by using a bell as the stimulus. He proved that the dog would salivate at the mere thought of food and therefore his learning was by association. In the Skinner experiment he used positive and negative reinforcement as forms of rewards or punishments, this was called Operant conditioning. Finally when using Observational learning (Bandura 1960) its proven to be far more scientific using laboratory for studies and experiments. This seems to be a far more objective approach. The behaviourist approach has a more scientific and objective view and provides a counter argument to the nature theory. By using a few basic principles, behaviourism can explain many characteristics in both human and animal behaviours and has many practical applications. However, on a more negative note it can be said that behaviourism rejects the conscious mental experiences and assumes that individuals are not responsible for their own actions. In addition it over simplifies the explanations for behaviour and experiences. The psychoanalytic approach was started and mainly developed by Sigmund Freud. He became interested in hysteria and was convinced that unconscious mental causes were responsible for all disorders and even ‘normal’ personalities. Freud’s approach and theory were greatly influenced by the  technology of the time (locomotives) along with the work of hypnotist Charcot. Whilst talking to Charcot, Freud realized how talking about traumatic experiences relieved the symptoms of hysteria. He also made a connection between the role of sex and hysterical behaviour. Freud saw sex as a potential cause of emotional stress. Another great influence was Breuer who pioneered cathartic therapy. This therapy was known as the ‘Talking cure’. Freud’s major technique was free association, were a patient would be encouraged to relax and express a free flow of thoughts entering their mind. Another popular therapy of Freud’s was Dream analysis where he would attempt to decode the symbols of a dream. His approach had a huge impact on psychology and psychiatry. Freud’s theory was developed further by Jung, Adler and Anna Freud (his daughter) The Psychoanalyst believed that behaviour was influenced mainly by a part of the mind which we have no awareness of; this was called the Unconscious process. They also believed in Psychic determinism, which dictates whatever we say or do has a cause. Hydraulic drives were believed to create psychic energy which if not released would create tension and anxiety. The two basic drives, which this refers to, are the Sex drive and the aggressive drive. Apparently according to Freud, different parts of the unconscious mind were in constant struggle with each other called the Psychodynamic conflict.. He along with others believed that the personality was shaped as we entered different stages of development. It has become apparent that the only similarity between these two approaches is that both Watson and Freud believed their theory could explain all concepts of human behaviour. They allowed no room for any other explanation. This in its self has causes doubt for both sides of the argument. It is obvious to the reader that there a very few similarities between these approaches, however it seems that both the pioneers solely thought their way was the only way. Both these men used their own theories to explain the same topics, such as: moral development, Aggression and Abnormalities. There are strengths and weakness to all arguments and this one is no exception. Freud’s ideas made a large impact on psychology; however, his theories had little experimental support except on repression and fixation. The psychoanalytic approach has huge explanatory of power on a variety of subjects. His methods were regarded as ‘unscientific’ and incapable of being proved wrong. Many experiments carried out using this theory have failed to support Freud. Psychoanalyst therapy has been widely criticised. Behaviourism was scientific and experimental and left a lasting effect on its subjects. It also provides a strong counter argument on the nature rather than nurture argument. Using simple principles, behaviourism can explain a great variety of phenomena and has many practical implications. So what, if any gain has been made by society by these theories? Far more has been gained from the Behaviour theories than that of the psychoanalyst. This is mainly due to the practical implications applied in today’s terms. The behaviourist approach has produced many practical implications such as education (programmed learning) also the treatment of those with behavioural disturbances such as phobias and behaviour shaping in autism. The Operant conditioning principles are used to train animals to do tasks. This approach has also been used in advertising and in child rearing. The only gain I can acknowledge from Freud and his theories is that of a therapy to help treat mental disorders. I find little evidence, however, that this theory actually works or indeed if the principles explain everything, I find it difficult to find any outcome in this theory. I find the Freudian theory (Psychoanalytic) to be inadequate and non scientific. The behaviourist view seems to be a far more objective approach. It has a more scientific and objective view and provides a counter argument to the nature theory. By using a few basic principles, behaviourism can explain many characteristics in both human and animal behaviours and has many practical applications. However, on a more negative note it can be said that behaviourism rejects the conscious mental experiences and assumes that individuals are not responsible for their own actions. In addition it over  simplifies the explanations for behaviour and experiences. Bibliography Watson, J.B, (1913) Psychology as the behaviour views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177 Thomas, R.K. (1997) American journal of psychology, 110, 115-125 Watson J.B (1914). Behaviour: An introduction to Comparative Psychology. New York: Holt. Tony Malim & Ann Birch ‘Introduction to Psychology’ (1998) Graham Hill ‘Psychology through Diagrams’ (1998) www.psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/intro.htm www.sntp.net/behaviourism/behaviourism-main.htm www.psych.utah.edu/gordon/Classes/Psy4905Docs.htm

Interactional View Theory Essay

This theory states that within family relationships there can often be misconceptions between each family member and the problem can only be transformed when addressed by outside members of the family (or situation), or simply stepping outside the situation yourselves and looking at all possible aspects that way, or reframing. Watzlawick claims that through the repetitive actions of a family system, a self- ­regulating, inter- ­depending network of feedback loops guided by member’s rules, we tend to stick to a status quo, or a family homeostasis, when dealing with issues within our families. In doing that, we often automatically assume, or put a label on, a situation to be how we see it from our personal views rather than looking at the whole picture and everyone’s views who are involved. Once we take that outside- ­looking- ­in approach we have to take into consideration both sides of the communication in the situation: the content of the situation, the report part of a message (verbally), and the relationship between members communicating, the command part of a message (nonverbally). In doing this as well as analyzing all aspects of the situation we can eventually come to an agreement on how to approach and solve the actual issue. Growing up with a health practitioner as a parent, getting sick is never anyone elses fault but your own and sympathy is almost never present in those situations. I recently had an extreme food- ­ poisoning incident which caused much havoc in my family, but the process of analyzing and solving this issue is a perfect example of Watzlawick’s theory. A few years ago my mom decided to go back to school and study healthy living, diet, and the ways of an organic, raw vegan. This changed her whole life, my whole pantry, and the way she approached almost any situation. Anytime something does not go the way it should having to do with my body, energy, moods, etc. if I go to my mom for advice the answer is always about diet, sleep patterns, or other healthy living styles. Which is accurate and understandable to a certain extent but, in mine and my stepdad’s minds, it does not apply to every situation. I do eat very healthy compared to the average person and I try to not eat a lot of meats, and especially not red meats, but on occassion I do enjoy treating myself to, what I call, a â€Å"cheat meal.† A few months back when visiting friends out of town, I decided to go all out and try this â€Å"world- ­famous† burger at a local burger joint. Might I say, it was quite the burger, but the aftermath was seven days of pure distaste, pain, and regret. Of course when coming to my mom for advice on the situation she immediately put all blame on me for not choosing â€Å"wisely† on my food decisions. My stepdad, on the other hand, eats a good amount of red meats and had actually been to this particular restaurant many times before, having no issues. He said i probably just got a bug from touching the â€Å"world famous† burger joint door handles and putting my hand to my face, or something of that sort. My take on the situation was different from both of theirs. I thought it was all in my mind because I am typically against eating red meats and i violated my self morals therefore causing me to feel guilty to an extent where I caused myself to actually be sick. Hearing each member’s take on the situation caused havoc and an unnecessary issue that drove away from the actual problem. Until we all sat down and open- ­mindedly listened to each person’s reasoning did we all realize how ridiculous the whole situation was, and how no one actually knew the official cause of my illness but arguing about what might be because of our personal stances was just silly and almost irrelevant. When approaching the situation, as Watzlawick predicted in his theory, my mom, stepdad, and I, originally, all took our individual opinions and pushed them on one another assuming that they were the only way. My mom saying the my stepdad was an enabler, one whose non- ­assertive behavior allows others to continue in an addiction or other wrong- ­doing, and in defending himself, my stepdad saying she was biased because of her personal beliefs on eating habits. Once we agreed to sit down and talk about each person’s perspective on things using metacommunication, communication about communication, and taking into consideration why each of us acted a certain way and how it might have affected the others, we could finally come to agreement and be at peace. We decided that if we all would have approached each other in a more open- ­minded, understanding manner using one- ­across communication, conversational moves used to neutralize or level control within the exchange, rather than trying to one- ­up communicate, place conversational moves on each other to gain control of the exchange, with each other, it would have been a symmetrical interchange, an interaction based on equal power, and the conflict might not have happened at all. I find the Interactional View Theory to be quite on point, and though Griffin found much to critique I might have to disagree and say, while the theory may not be absolutely perfect and one- ­hundred percent accurate in every situation, it does apply to most of, at least, my family controversies, for example, this particular incident. From this theory I was made aware of how often I am to quickly ignore my parents’ responses as initial reactions to them being repetitive and almost biased in their advice, and how I can be more open- ­minded in those situations. I was also made aware of how to think and approach my parents in certain situations, such as food poisoning, to trigger a more calm and open- ­minded response from them. I enjoyed reading, comparing, and analyzing this theory and will begin to consciously apply it to my future conversations with my family members as I did in the food poisoning example, but this time before the incident can happen or get worse.

Brosimum alicastrum, The Ancient Maya Breadnut Tree

The breadnut tree (Brosimum alicastrum) is an important species of tree that grows in the wet and dry tropical forests of Mexico and Central America, as well as in the Caribbean Islands. Also known as the ramà ³n tree, asli, or Cha Kook in the Mayan language, the breadnut tree usually grows in regions that are between 1,000–6,500 feet (300–2,000 meters) above sea level. The fruits have a small, elongated shape, similar to apricots, although they are not particularly sweet. The seeds are edible nuts that can be ground and used in porridge or for flour. The modern Maya societies consume the fruit, cut timber for firewood, and leaves for animal fodder. Key Takeaways: Breadnut Tree The breadnut tree, Brosiumum alicastrum and known as the ramà ³n tree in Maya societies, likely had a role for the ancient Maya as well.  Historically, the tree is used for fruit, wood for fuel, and brush for animal fodder.  Its use in prehistory has been debated, but evidence suggests that it is underrepresented in archaeological sites because of its basic nature. The Breadnut Tree and the Maya The breadnut tree is one of the dominant species of plants in the tropical Maya forest. Not only its density very high around ancient ruined cities, particularly in the Guatemalan Petà ©n, but it can reach a height of around 130 ft (40 m), producing abundant yields and with several harvests possible in one year. For this reason, it is often still planted by modern Maya near their homes. The widespread presence of this tree near ancient Maya cities has been explained variously as: The trees could be the result of a human-manicured or even deliberately-managed tree farming (agro-forestry). If so, it is likely that the Maya first simply avoiding cutting the trees down, and then eventually replanted breadnut trees near their habitations so that now they propagate more easilyIt is also possible that the breadnut tree simply grows well in the limestone soils and rubble fill near ancient Maya cities, and the residents took advantage of thatThe presence could also be the result of small animals such as bats, squirrels, and birds which eat the fruits and seeds and facilitate their dispersion in the forest The Breadnut Tree and Maya Archaeology The role of the breadnut tree and its importance in the ancient Maya diet has been at the center of many debates. In the 1970s and 80s, archaeologist Dennis E. Puleston (son of the famous environmentalist Dennis Puleston), whose unfortunate and untimely death prevented him from further developing his research on breadnut and other Mayan subsistence studies, was the first to hypothesize the importance of this plant as a  staple crop for the ancient Maya. During his research at the site of Tikal  in Guatemala, Puleston recorded a particularly high concentration of this tree around the house mounds compared to other species of trees. This element, along with the fact that the breadfruit seeds are particularly nutritious and high in proteins, suggested to Puleston that the ancient inhabitants of Tikal, and by extension of other Maya cities in the forest, relied on this plant as much as or perhaps even more than on maize. But Was Puleston Right? Brosimum alicastrum (ramon, breadnut) nuts being dried in the sun. Congobongo1041 Furthermore, in later studies, Puleston demonstrated that its fruit can be stored for many months, for example in subterranean chambers called chultuns, in a climate where fruit usually rots rapidly.  However, more recent research has significantly decreased the role and importance of breadnut in the ancient Maya diet, defining it instead as an emergency food source in case of famine, and linking its unusual abundance near ancient Maya ruins to environmental factors more than human intervention. One reason breadnuts prehistoric importance was downplayed by scholars was that the archaeological evidence for its presence was limited. Experimental studies by French archaeologist Lydie Dussol and colleagues have discovered that wood from B. alicastrum is more susceptible to breakdown during the combustion process, and is likely therefore under-represented in the collections. Edited and updated by K. Kris Hirst Sources Dussol, Lydie, et al. Ancient Maya Sylviculture of Breadnut (Brosimum Alicastrum Sw.) and Sapodilla (Manilkara Zapota (L.) P. Royen) at Naachtun (Guatemala): A Reconstruction Based on Charcoal Analysis. Quaternary International 457 (2017): 29–42.  Lambert, J. D. H., and J. T. Arnason. Ramon and Maya Ruins: An Ecological, Not an Economic, Relation. Science 216.4543 (1982): 298–99.  Miksicek, Charles H., et al. Rethinking Ramon: A Comment on Reina and Hills Lowland Maya Subsistence. American Antiquity 46.4 (1981): 916–19.  Puleston, Dennis E. Appendix 2: The Role of Ramon in Maya Subsistence. Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston. Ed. Flannery, Kent V. First ed. New York: Academic Press, 1982.  Schlesinger, Victoria. Animals and Plants of the Ancient Maya: A Guide. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001.  Turner, B. L., and Charles H. Miksicek. Economic Plant Species Associated with Prehistoric Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Econom ic Botany 38.2 (1984): 179–93.