The Main Preparation on Having a Precise a Meaning of Term

Hamm calls the lexicon a " new instrument . . . attempting to reflect in an extremely abbreviated means in which an unreflecting public uses terms in ordinary speech even when usage is inconsistent, conceptually crude, or confusing." Therefore, if we dish out the conditions which shit dogma, it will be necessary to precisely define " statement," " interpreting," and "education," before attempting to demonstrate the interrelatedness of the terms. Even then, a precise dictionary interpretation will not be enough. Webster's Ninth recent Collegiate Dictionary defines the verb teach: "to cause to know a subject." former(a) definitions after the first seek to clarify the meaning further, but we are still not aware of the components of teaching. Other options for definition are available. Should we use the glossary in the clog up of an educational psychology textual matter in preference to a standard home dictionary? Perhaps a sociology textbook would define education in a broader ("social") smell than a behavioral psychology text. Even after the definitions take a shit initially been set forth, we must still decide how teaching relates to skill, and learning to education, and so on.

A teaching issueivity may be defined as an activity which leads to learning. At this point, our definition presupposes that we feature a teacher to

According to Hamm, teaching can be considered in an doing instinct and a task sense. In the first instance, teaching implies learning; that is to say, a teacher may be considered to have taught if and only if the student learns. In the second, or "task" sense of teaching, teaching does not necessarily imply learning. This distinction betwixt the achievement and task senses of teaching is important in that it demonstrates that the act of teaching may be considered as independent of the knead of learning. Even if the same existent is presented in the same means to several different students or classes of students, each student or class of students will have learned to varying degrees, if at all. The task of teaching has occurred independently of the learning.

From the "achievement" point of view, though, if no students have learned, then the teacher has not taught. This is contradictory, however, because we know that the material has been taught to all the students or all the classes.

teach and a pupil to learn. There must also be some embody of knowledge which is considered important enough to be taught and, consequently, learned. The teacher is the conferrer in this relationship, and the student is ideally an active participant in the learning. At this point in our discussion, our three terms, in their analogue forms of "teaching," "learning," and "educating," are interrelated in a cause-and-effect relationship. An added dimension results when we consider the cognitive state of the learner. Has the learner made the attempt to learn? Should we consider the teacher to have taught even if the student has not learned? What constitutes teaching, and what constitutes learning?

If one wished to go on to depict the sufficient conditions for the achievement sense of "teaching", it would still be too strong a demand that successful learning be the outcome. That would make the logical connection between learning and teaching too tight. A suggestion t
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.