Math Research Paper -- Essays Papers

Math Research Paper Since the 1980’s calculator use in the classroom has been a huge controversy between educators (Golden, 2000). It is becoming increasingly common to use calculators in the classroom on a regular basis. Some states allow students to use calculators on standardized tests and as part of the regular curriculum (Dion, 2001). Because we live in such a technologically changing world, hand held calculators have been far surpassed and can be purchased for as low as $4.00 each. This low price however, has not swayed the many people that believe calculators are not appropriate in the classroom. These critics argue that calculators take away student’s basic knowledge of mathematics, prevent children from truly understanding mathematical concepts, avert their minds from learning logical reasoning, and give students a false sense of confidence about their mathematical ability (Education World, 2002). â€Å"Kids get to use calculators as a substitute for practice, and they never really understand arithmetic,† says Sandy Stotsky, a teacher in Massachusetts, one of the few states that have taken a back-to-basics approach states (Golden, 2000). Critics also believe that calculators work against learning basic mathematics, and do not allow children to appreciate the nature of math. They believe it takes the thinking out of mathematics (Stoll, 1999). Another argument that is brought up is that low-income and minority elementary school students are more likely to use calculators than middle-income which elementary school children. They are also more likely to score lower on standardized tests. â€Å"At Hazelwood Elementary, where nearly half of the students are black and almost all qualify for subsidized school lunches, 7... ... use in elementary classrooms. Teaching Children Mathematics, 1 (5), 300-304. Education World. (2002). Educators battle over calculator use: Both sides claim casualties. Retrieved February, 22, 2003, from http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr072.shtml. Golden, D. (2000). Calculators may be the wrong answer as a 'digital divide' widens in schools. Maple River Education Coalition. Retrieved February, 22, 2003, from http://www.mredcopac.org/update62.htm. Reys, B., Arbaugh, F., Joyner, J. (2001). Clearing up the Confusion over Calculator Use In Grades K-5. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8 (2), 90-95. Reys, R., Lindquist, M., Lambdin, D., Smith, N., Suydan, M. (2003). Helping children learn mathematics (6th ed.). United States of America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Stoll, C. (1999). High tech heretic. New York: Doubleday.

Approaches of OM

Approaches of OM  :Within the past fifteen years or so there has been much studies about the theoretical status of discourse markers (DMS) focusing on what they are ,what they mean and what functions they manifest. Fraser (1999) maintains that teseachers have agreed that DMS are lexical expressions that relate discourse segments , but they have disagreed on how they are defined and what functions they carry. Similar to this view, shourup (1999) argues that there is disagreement on functions on fundamental issues in the study of DMS. researchers are unable to agree on the grammatical category of DMS or how to delimit their class or even what types of meaning these markers express. In order to understand more about DMS in language it is necessary to refer to tow approaches of DMS  :The reliance theory and coherence teased approach1/coherence based approach:Within coherence theory it is assumed DMS play a major role in dis course interpretation by using â€Å"coherence † relations between discourse units. As shourup (1999,p.240) argues that the interpretation of a text, according to the coherence group. Depends on the identification of coherence relations between the units of that text . this group includes researchers who adopt a coherence-based theory. The main figures of this group are Schifrin (1987). Fraser (1988-1990) and redeker (1990-1991).Schifrin (1987) studies the semantic and grammatical status of DMS and their functions . since she belongs to the coherence group, Schifrin states that DMS contribute to the coherence of the text by establishing coherence relationships between units of talk Schifrin (1987,b.9). He adds that DMS indicate that the interpretation of one clause is determined by the information derived from the prior clause .Schifrin proposes that DMS have a coherence role in the sense that they relate informational units in the present discourse with informational units in the prior discourse , this is what Schifrin calls local coherence in her framework; which means that it is local in the sense that DMS link two adjacent units in the text. She states that DMS have both cohesive and structural roles ; structural because they link two (or more) syntactic units, and also cohesive because the interpretation of the utterance depends on the combination of both conjuncts. It can be summarized that Schifrin concentrates on the linguistic and structural role that DMS play to achieve discourse coherence by linking discourse units The second figure of coherence-based theory is Fraser(1999). Similarly to Schifrin, Fraser maintains that DMS contribute to the coherence of a text by indicating coherence relationships between units of talk however, Fraser(1999,938) indicates that DMS do not have to signal any relationship between segment 2 and segment 1 (adjacent segments of talk ).A discourse marker can relate the segment it introduces with any other previous segment in discourse .And this is known as ‘global coherence ,it is contrasted to Schifrin's local coherence . Fraser's (1997-1999) account focuses on pragmatic functions of DMS ;he calls them â€Å"pragmatic markers†. Fraser define DMS in his proposal as they are linguistic element that encode clues which signal the speaker potential communicative intention .2/ Relevance-based account:Sperber and Wilson (1986,1995) have developed the relevance theory. It is a pragmatic model that explain how speakers interpret utterances. It based on cognitive ability of the hearer to interpret the utterance rather the linguistic one. The relevance theory suggests that the mind's central processor is highly effective in holding the information because it is specifically oriented towards the search for relevance (as cited in the use of discourse markers in E.F.L learners writing by ana cristina laluerta Martinez university of Oviedo). The principle of relevance determines that all utterances are ruled by the level of optimal relevance .that is to say ,when a speaker calls a hearer's attention to the utterance . He is claiming that his utterance is relevant enough to deserve the hearer's attention. To discuss deeply the relation between relevance theory and discourse markers , Blakemore should be present Blakemore (1987) argument is that DMS play a crucial role in the interpretation of utterance by providing the hearer/reader with some guidance in the inferential phase to reach the optimal relevance. According to Blakemore (1987), connectives contribute to the interpretation process. Usually a speaker/writer has a specific interpretation of his utterance and to guide the hearer/reader to reach the right interpretation DMS are so important .They provide the specification of certain properties of the context and the contextual effects .The level of optimal relevance means that the larger contextual effect the smaller cognitive effort . generally the hearer stores a number of assumption in his memory ,and these assumptions can interact with the new information conveyed by the speaker , which come up with three results ; a new assumption or the contradiction , and even elimination , of an assumption Blakemore (1992;p.135). This the speakers/writer can help the hearer by reducing the cognitive effort. As Blakemore (1992;p.176) â€Å"a speaker may use the linguistic from of his utterance to guide the interpretation process†. Similar features of discourse markers:Despite the large disagreement about the definition and the classification of discourse markers ,There are some basic characteristic and features shared by discourse markers have been identified in DMS studies. Schourup (1999) argues, â€Å"to identify a small sent of characteristic most commonly attributes to discourse markers and to items referred to by other closely associated terms†. He realizes the most common features in these expressions from some studies in the discourse markers. These features are â€Å"multi-categoriality, connectivity, mon-truth conditionality, weak clause association, initiality, and optionality†a-multi- categoriality : It is viewed that discourse markers constitute a functional category that is heterogeneous with respect to the syntactic class (as cited in (similar features). Because items that are usually included in DMS are not structurally unified. They are derived from a variety of grammatical sources. Schourup (1999,p.134) distinguishes in wich DM function has been a attributed whether words like: adverbs (eg, now actually, anyway), coordinating and subordinating conjunctions (e.g, and, but, because). Interjections (e.g, oh, gosh, boy) verbs (e.g, say, look, see) or it can includes clauses (e.g, you see, I mean, you know). The fact that DMS are drown from different word classes makes them difficult to define them structurally. And that means they have identical counterparts that are not used as markers. Kohlani (2010,p39) points out that despite the great dispute regarding â€Å"the coexistence of two structurally identical items that function differently in discourse†, they do not overlap in discourse :When an expression functions as a discourse markers ,it does not express the propositional meaning of, its identical counterparts. As cites in janina buintkiene (2015)b- connectivity :connectivity is a common point shared by many studies concerning the DMS. They agree that DMS connect utterances or other discourse unites. However, there is a great disagreement about the nature of the connection discourse markers express and the nature and extent of the element connected ,as Schourup ( 1999,p20)point out. Thus connectivity is conceived differently due to the way discourse is viewed. In coherence-based studies, like Schifrin (1987) and Fraser (1999) defined DMS as connectives which relate two textual units by marking the relationships between them; they contribute to inter-utterance coherence. For coherence-based studies DMS have an important role in connecting one segment of text to another. In relevance-based studies, DMS do not connect one segment of text to another but they provide the hearer/reader with the right interpretation of the segment they introduce. Blakemore (1987) noted that DMS can play the role of connecting the host utterance not only the linguistic co-text but also to the context in a wider sense. For within relevance theory, discourse markers are viewed as expressing â€Å"inferential connections† that constrain the â€Å"cognitive processes† underlying the interpretation of the segment they introduce (Blakemore(2002,p.5).similar to this view, shourup (1999,p.230-232)states that DMS do not connect one segment of text to another. Rather they connect the â€Å"propositional content† expressed by their host sentence â€Å"to assumptions that are expressed by context†. He concludes that if connectivity is criterial for DM status, it can be used to distinguish DMS from various other initial element such as illocutionary adverbials (e.g, confidentially), attitudinal adverbials (e.g, sadly) and from primary interjections (e.g, oops). c/ nontruth-conditionality: nontruth-conditionality is also a feature that most researchers attribute to discourse markers. Saying that DMS are nontruth-conditional means that they bring no meaning or condition to the sentence. As Schourup (1999,p.232) claims that DMS are generally thought to contribute nothing to the truth-conditions of the proposition expressed by an utterance. Fraser (1996) also claimed that DMS do not influence the truth-conditions of sentences; he approved the idea that truth-conditions pertain to mental representations not to sentences. Accordingly ,for many researchers discourse markers are nontruth-conditional means that DMS are part of the pragmatic component of the sentence. Ostman (1995,p.98) argues that their â€Å"primary task in language is not related to the propositional aspect of sentences, but to the pragmatic functioning of language†. Moreover, Blakemore (2002) points out that pragmatic is defined as â€Å"meaning minus truth conditions†. She argues that pragmatic information which is not part of the truth conditional content â€Å"cannot be obtained through decoding linguistic forms†. As a conclusion, DMS are non-propositional expressions means that they are not part of propositional meaning of the sentence moreover; this does not mean they do not effect this meaning. DMS are not important in the propositional structure, but they do effect the propositional meaning. As Andersen (2001) argues that the meaning of the sentence is â€Å"not handled solely by the words contained in the utterance† rather is conveyed by † complex semantic and pragmatic processes†, as cited by kohlan (2010).d/ weak clause association:another characteristic of discourse markers that has been identified by Schourup (1999,p.232-234) is weak clause association. It is similar to the nontruth-conditionality feature is the sense of the detachment of DMS from their host sentence. As cited in janina buitkiene (2015), Brinton argues (1996,p.34), DMS usually occur â€Å"cither outside the syntactic structure or loosely attached to it†. DMS are regarded as being outside the propositional content and the syntactic structure of the sentence. Schourup (1999) points out that some of DMS have their syntactic structure such as on the other hand and you know (232). It is also because of their loose grammatical attachment to the structure of their host sentence, that discourse markers are after separate from the main clause by comma or independent two unit â€Å"regard Len whether they occur within the clause or at its initial† (ibid, 233). e/ initiality:IS one of the most noticeable feature of discourse markers. For some researchers. DMS occurs initially in the sentence. As Hansen (1997,p.157) points out that â€Å"markers must necessarily precede their host unit†. Similarly, Fraser (1990,p389) state â€Å"typically occur only in utterance-initial position†. The significance of the initial position as a text organizer is what makes it the most appropriate place in which discourse markers can fulfill their role in discourse. As cited in.The place of DMS is related to their function in discourse. Schourup (1999) states. â€Å"because they are used to restrict the contextual interpretation of an utterance†; he adds â€Å"it makes sense to restrict context early before interpretation can run astray† (233). Moreover, kohlani (2010.48) argues that initial position give for DMS wide scope over the whole sentence or paragraph to influence hearer or reader interpretation of everything that follows. f/ Optionality:Being optional rather than obligatory is another feature of discourse markers. Accordingly, DMS can be present or absent in the discourse. As Schifrin (1987) argues. â€Å"are never obligatory†. Moreover, Schourup (1999,p.231) states that DMS are optional in two distinct senses: â€Å"syntactically optional in the sense that removal of a DMS does not alter grammaticality of the sentences and in the further sense that they do not enlarge the possibilities for semantic relationship between the element they associate†. However, he adds. â€Å"it is never claimed that the optionality of DMS renders them useless as redundant†. This means even if DMS are regarded as syntactically and semantically optional, pragmatically are not. Supporting to this view, Brinton (1996) argues, † they are not pragmatically optional or superfluous†. Instead , they guide the hearer/reader to a particular interpretation. As Brinton (1996,p.34) argues â€Å"they reinforce or clue the interpretation intended by the speaker†.

Persuasive Speech Outline - 1309 Words

Persuasive Speech Outline (Using Monroe’s Motivated Sequence) Topic: Voting in Election Specific Purpose: To persuade the audience to vote in democratic elections to voice out their opinions and beliefs regardless of their background, to decide for their future, and to preserve the essence of democracy. Attention: * Provide a vivid description of people struggling to fight for their voting rights in certain countries. * Share relevant facts /statistics of how a small number of votes could have change the course of history in certain countries: I. In year 1867, one vote gave United States the state of Alaska. The 1867 purchase of Alaska was approved by the Senate of America by the margin of just one vote- paving the way†¦show more content†¦* Ask the audience: When people in other countries are struggling to fight for voting rights, why are we not exercising our rights, wasting it away to nothing? Need A. Voting allows people to voice out their opinions and beliefs regardless of background. Voting gives the population an equal opportunity completely blind of sex, race, origin, education in contributing to community development (Akande, 2011). B. Voting allows people to decide for their own futures. If people do not vote, it would lead the country to a very vulnerable and perilous position due to incompetent and irresponsible leaders. Not voting during an election is voting indirectly against democracy and making way for irresponsible leaders (Akande, 2011). C. Voting preserves the essence of democracy. Voting is the foremost way to exhibit good citizenship and civil responsibility. People should get involved in elections and educated in all political measures. By this they become good and responsible participatory citizens. It should always be remembered that some people sacrifice their lives to preserve the freedom and voting opportunity as a sacred right. True democracy demands the involvement of the people otherwise in absence of that there is no democracy(Akande, 2011). Satisfaction: I. If people vote in elections, it would reduce corruption, reduce poverty and inequalities and lead to a better and more efficient government.Show MoreRelatedPersuasive Speech : Persuasive Outline2149 Words   |  9 PagesDyadic Persuasive Comprehensive Outline General Purpose: To persuade Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience how to be more successful as a college student. I. Introduction A. Attention Getter: How many of you have said that there are too many options? Whether you are talking about choosing a college, class selection once you get to college, or even something as simple as choosing what to eat for dinner tonight. If you made a choice on what career field you will enter after college, you come toRead MorePersuasive Speech Outline1028 Words   |  5 PagesPERSUASIVE SPEECH OUTLINE TOPIC: WHY YOU SHOULD GIVE UP SMOKING PROPOSITION: Give up smoking and you will save yourself and the others around you and live in a healthy environment. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES/PURPOSES: I want to persuade my audience on how harmful smoking does to the body and giving up the habit is the right way to do because it will literally save their lives and the people around them and the environment as well. SPEECH PLAN ATTENTION STEP: Opening statement: Smoking†¦Read MorePersuasive Speech : Speech Outline819 Words   |  4 PagesElmer Lombana Jr. Dr. Shane Gunderson SPC 2608 November 6, 2015 Persuasive Speech Outline General Purpose: To persuade Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience to contact Florida Department of Education to incorporate Personal Finance courses in high schools. Thesis: Instead of teaching children in schools non-vital skills like sewing and baking, Personal Finance should be taught in Home Economics or as a curriculum during a summer semester if not fulfilled with aforementioned elective. I. TheRead MorePersuasive Speech Outline994 Words   |  4 Pages10/31/12 Persuasive Speech Outline I. ADG- It is not a myth why people call fast food disgusting. On a Friday night during my graveyard shift at McDonald’s a drunken customer passed by the Drive-Thru around 2:30a.m.While my coworker was taking his order the customer decided to cuss and call her really offensive names because she couldn’t get his order right. She got mad and decided to spit in the customers Sweet Tea, she was immediately fired when another coworker told the manager. Since I startedRead MorePersuasive Speech Outline2793 Words   |  12 PagesSamples of Persuasive speech Outline SAMPLE 1 From the time we wake up in the morning to the moment we lay are head down at night, we are constantly making choices. Some take a conscious effort, some should, and some do not. Have you ever taken the time to really stop and think if you’re giving the correct amount of attention to the right choice? I’m here today to ask you to be more conscious of what you eat. I’m going to discuss health reasons, effect of food advertisements, reading foodRead MorePersuasive Speech Outline1169 Words   |  5 PagesTitle:  What’s In Your Glass? Topic: The Opposition of Artificial Intelligence Method of organization:  Refutative Specific Purpose:   My specific purpose of this speech is to encourage those who oppose artificial intelligence to see the good that can be done with this technology. Thesis:   In this presentation I hope to explain the opposition that artificial intelligence faces, show examples of successful uses of AI, and challenge those opposed to this technology to consider a change ofRead MorePersuasive Speech Outline1649 Words   |  7 PagesComm 110 Informative Outline Template (remember that a presentation aid must be used within the body of this speech.) Please label these parts as you create your outline: I. Introduction a. College is an integral time period for many people – college is a time for freedom, receiving an education, and learning what it means to survive on little to no food for long periods of time. Or at least that’s what it’s been like for me. Food is arguably one of the most important things to a collegeRead MorePersuasive Speech Outline1232 Words   |  5 PagesI. Attention A. Attention Grabber: In this moment in time, the United States has only 5 percent of the world s population, but holds 25 percent of the world s prisoners, this is costing the country approximately $80 billion dollars per year. B. Tie to Audience: From your point of view, you might think that keeping all the law violators behind bars is a positive thing because it enhances public safety, but you should take a look on how incarcerating people impacts families and the nation’s economyRead MorePersuasive Speech Outline On Immunizations1004 Words   |  5 PagesPersuasive Speech Outline Immunizations Specific Purpose: The specific purpose of my topic is to persuade my audience that immunizations are important and actually do more good than harm. Thesis: Immunizations are one of the most important medical advances in history. They have severely reduced the effects of dozens of viral infections and everyone should consider getting immunized. Introduction: Take a good look. These are the effects of just some of dozens of infectious diseases we are dealingRead MorePersuasive Speech Outline Essay1117 Words   |  5 PagesPersuasive Speech Outline ALL 50 STATES SHOULD HAVE MANDATORY MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAWS TOPIC: Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws PURPOSE: To persuade the audience that all 50 states should enact and enforce a mandatory motorcycle helmet law. THESIS STATEMENT: Mandatory helmet laws save lives and dollars. INTRODUCTION ï‚ · ï‚ · ï‚ · Did you know that only 19 states and the District of Columbia have laws in place that require all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet? 19!? 28 states have laws covering