Smart Study Strategies Skills for 7 Intelligence Types

People are smart in different ways. Some people can create a catchy song on command. Others can memorize every word of a book, paint a masterpiece or understand complex human emotions innately. When you realize where your strengths lie, you can figure out the best way to study. Based on Howard Gardners theory of intelligence, which challenged the long-held beliefs that students were empty vessels waiting for teachers to â€Å"deposit† knowledge into. Their level of intelligence was measured by the ability to regurgitate the deposited material on exam day. Thanks to Gardner, we now know that people learn in very different ways and hence should study in a way that best suits their individual learning type. These study tips can help you tailor your learning for your intelligence type. Word Smart Also known as linguistic intelligence, word-smart people are good with words, letters and phrases. They enjoy activities such as reading, playing scrabble or other word games, and having deep discussions. If youre word smart, these study strategies can help you focus your strengths. • Make detailed flashcards and practice with them regularly.Take extensive notes. Word-smart people often visualize the word in their minds, and writing it out helps bolster that mental image.• Keep a journal of what you learn. Journaling is a scientifically proven way to reflect on complex issues. If you journal before going to sleep, your subconscious brain will use the downtime to work through the problem without daily distractions impeding the process. Number Smart Number-smart people, or those with logical-mathematical intelligence, are good with numbers, equations and logic. They enjoy coming up with solutions to logical problems and figuring things out. If youre number smart, give these study strategies a try. •Make your notes into numeric charts and graphs, which makes it easier for your brain to logically organize the information.•Use the roman numeral style of outlining to highlight key concepts while using sub-categories for supplementary information.•Put information you receive into personalized categories and classifications for better memory retention and recall. Picture Smart Picture-smart or spatially intelligent people are good with art and design. They enjoy being creative, watching movies and visiting art museums. Picture smart people can benefit from these study tips: Sketch pictures that represent or expand on your notes or in the margins of your textbooks.•Draw a picture on a flashcard for each concept or vocabulary word you study.Use charts and graphic organizers to keep track of what you learn. Body Smart Also known as kinesthetic intelligence, body smart people work well with their hands. They enjoy physical activities such as exercise, sports and outdoor work. These study strategies can help body smart people be successful. Act out or imagine the concepts you need to remember. Imagine that you’re concept is the topic of a charades game.Look for real-life examples that demonstrate what youre learning, such as celebrity representations of historical figures.•Search for manipulatives, such as computer programs, that can help you master the material. You learn by doing, so the more practice, the better. Music Smart Music-smart people are good with rhythms and beats. They enjoy listening to new music, attending concerts and composing songs. If youre music smart, these activities can help you study: •Create a song or rhyme that will help you remember a concept. Your subconscious brain will often make associations, and a song is a vibrant memory to help you recall important facts.•Listen to classical music while you study. The soothing, rhythmic melodies will help you â€Å"get in the zone.†Ã‚•Remember vocabulary words by linking them to similar-sounding words in your mind. Word association is a highly effective way to recall complex vocabulary. People Smart Interpersonal intelligence — those who are people smart are good with relating to people. They enjoy going to parties, visiting with friends and sharing what they learn. People-smart students should give these strategies a try. Discuss what you learn with a friend or family member. Often the act of sharing information can help clarify the concept and make it easier to recall during an exam.•Have someone quiz you before an exam. People-smart students thrive in peer-pressure situations.•Create or join a study group. With various learning types at one table, new and better ways to remember tricky concepts can emerge, benefitting the entire group. Self Smart Self-smart people, those with intrapersonal intelligence, are comfortable with themselves. They enjoy being alone to think and reflect. If youre self smart, try these tips: • Keep a personal journal about what youre learning. The chance to reflect and recharge will give you the necessary energy to sort through any concepts that you’re struggling with.•Self-smart people can often be drained by large groups. Find a place to study where you wont be interrupted.When working in group projects, keep yourself involved by individualizing each aspect of the project and creating small milestones to celebrate.

Roland Truly a Hero in The Dark Tower The Gunslinger and...

Roland Truly a Hero in The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger and The Drawing of the Three Throughout history on science fiction and fantasy novels, the hero has always been portrayed as someone who is more than just your regular human. Someone who has no flaw in their qualities other than compassion, which often causes their downfall. Always, in the end, the hero triumphs over great evil, to the dismay of the villain, and the applause of those he saved. What happens when the hero is superhuman? Is he still a hero? What if he kills the innocent for his own purposes, hunts down those who appear to be good. What then, even if he appears to be doing it for a common good? Is he then considered hero or villain. Roland in Stephen†¦show more content†¦Roland does not follow this. This may make his efforts noble, but the fact of the matter is that he is a ruthless killer, who somewhere along the lines, got caught up in the usual misconception that all protagonists are heroes. We are given signs of Roland not being a hero constantly throughout both novels, however the signs are more apparent to the reader in the first novel. The first act of th is is when we see him at the hut with the old man. He immediately gets ready to kill the old man because he thinks he will do him harm: He looked up, startled. The shaft was about fifteen feet deep: easy enough for Brown to drop a rock on him, break his head, and steal everything on him...When he came trough the huts door and walked down the steps, Brown was poking ears of corninto the ember of a tiny fire.(The Gunslinger 21-22) Roland is always paranoid. I do not know of modern day heroes that are paranoid. This is one of the first indications that we are given. Later in the novel Roland comes through a town called Tull. While in this town he meets a women that he falls in love with. He then proceeds to kill the whole town, and the love of his life because they now stand between him and the tower. A woman who is with child, has her child taken because it is the Man in Blacks. Because of this Roland feels he must kill it. Get out. Youve killed the child. Get

Massey Coal Free Essays

Massey Coal Case A person is morally responsible for an injury or a wrong if: 1. the person caused or helped caused it, or failed to prevent it when he or she could have and should have 2. the person did so knowing what he or she was doing 3. We will write a custom essay sample on Massey Coal or any similar topic only for you Order Now the person did so of his or her own free will Question 1 Massey Energy Company should be held morally responsible for the deaths of the 29 miners. The U. S. Mine Safety and Health Administration issued â€Å"too much† citations for the violations in the mines Massey Energy Company owned. The company always challenged several of the citations and corrected enough of the significant and substantial violations to allow its total violations to fall below the level needed to force its closure. This means in terms of safety, the company only make significant safety change in order for their mines not to be totally closed but not make a major safety changes in order to follow all the guidelines of MSHA and eliminate all possible endangerment in the mines. Massey should be held morally responsible because of the lack of effort the company put in to improve the safety quality in their mines. Question 2 Don Blankenship should be held morally responsible for the deaths of the 29 miners. Don wrote a memo stating that managers should concentrate on producing coal and not waste time responding to requests to fix things. It was not clear what had ignited the explosion of April 5 but it was almost certain that is was caused by accumulations of methane and coal dust. If Don had enforced the managers to focused more on the safety of the mines and the miners so that they are up to MSHA safety standards rather than only to concentrate on producing coal, the April 5 incident could well be prevented. Don Blankenship lack of care for the miners and prioritizing profit over safety are enough reasons for him to be held morally responsible for the deaths of the 29 miners. Question 3 MSHA should somehow be held morally responsible for the deaths of the 29 miners. First of all, the company does not operate up to the standard when it comes to protecting the lives of the miners. The agency was understaffed and its inspectors were overworked. Also, the week before the mine explosion, half of the agency’s inspectors failed to attend required training courses and the agency neither kept track of their attendance nor did it sanction them. Not only that, but the company can’t shut down a mine unless the total violations of these coal mine companies are above the level needed to force its closure. Most of the coal mine companies challenged MSHA’s citations and corrected enough of the significant violations so they fall below the shut-down level. This is irresponsible on MSHA’s side. Thy should enforce a tighter and stricter rules when it comes to violations. MSHA should not just imposed fines on the company but they should be more stern when it comes to safety violations by the company. Also, waiting until there is too much violations by the company to close the mines will endanger the lives of the miners. When people lives are on stake, MSHA surely are not up to the standard of that task. Question 4 The miners had some idea of the risks of working in the Upper Big Branch mine however that is not enough for them to be held any responsibility for their own deaths. Don Blankenship had released a memo to the managers specifically stating to ignore wasting time responding to requests to fix things. Managers then would be afraid to object to Don Blankenship requests since they could get fired. During the congressional hearing, survivors and relatives of those who had died testified. Most of the testimony states that they are afraid to go to management and express their fears of the lack of safety in the mine. They are afraid management would look for ways to fire them. So afraid of being fired, miners should not be held responsible for their own deaths because of the lack of freedom they have to express their feelings. Question 5 There is a huge difference between mines without unions like the Massey mines and other mines that had unions. The huge difference is the safety regulations. A union would fought for better enforcement of safety regulations to protect the miners. According to the testimony of Gary Quarles, the huge difference is when MSHA inspector comes to the mines. When an MSHA inspector comes onto a Massey mine property, the code words go out â€Å"we’ve got a man on the property. † When the word goes pit all effort is made to correct any deficiencies or direct the inspector’s attention away from any deficiencies. Also when an MSHA inspector comes to a Massey mine, he/she is only accompanied by Massey people. No coal miner at the mine can point out areas of concern to the MSHA inspector. While in union mines, workers at the mine would accompany the MSHA inspectors during the inspections. Workers also have the right to refuse to work in unsafe conditions without fear of their job. Clearly, in mines without unions like Massey, the people are trying to deceive MSHA inspectors to that they would not get citations for different violations. Seeing the huge difference in enforcing safety regulations, all mines should be forced to have a union. Question 6 The average salary for all jobs in the United States is $43,000 while miners in the Upper Big Branch mine were paid $60,000. Even though a work of a miner required no more than a high school education, the risk of their job is very high, probably the highest. Wages will fail to provide a level of compensation proportional to the risks of a job when markets do not register risks because the risks are not yet known. For example, the health risks involved in mining or using a certain mineral such as manganese may not be known until many years afterward. In this case, wages will not fully compensate for risks. Workers also might accept risks unknowingly because they do not have adequate accept to information concerning those risks. Workers don’t have the money or the tool to collect information needed to assess the risks of the jobs they accept. Workers might accept known risks out of desperation because they lack the mobility to enter other less risky industries or because they lack information of the alternatives available to them. Massey is only paying $17,000 more than the average of all jobs in the United States. Knowing all the risks as a miner such as exposure to methane nd all other lethal gases and also the high rate of accidents in Upper Big Branch mine due to poor safety regulations, a wage of $60,000 surely does not cover the all the risks that the miners are exposed to. Only $17,000 more on the wage of the miners than the average wage of all the jobs in the U. S. is not an ethical approach by the company. There is a far more safer job even though they are lower in wages . But the $60,000 in wages is not worth it for the miners considering all the job risks Massey doesn’t account for. So, Massey was not handling job risk in an ethically appropriate manner. Question 7 Massey Energy Company did not fulfill a lot of ethical obligations. The company violated the ethics of care. An ethic of care says they we should care for those dependent on and related to us. The miners are dependent of the managers and CEO of the company to enforce tighter and stricter safety regulations, however Massey failed to do so. The company violated the ethics of pollution control. Massey was faced with the problem of disposing millions of gallons of coal slurry the mines were producing. They did not control their pollution of coal slurry into the environment, thus violating the ethics of pollution control. Massey also violated different rights. Positive rights state that duties of other agents (Massey) to provide the holder of the right (the miners) with whatever he or she needs to freely pursue his or her interests. The miners interest is to have a high quality safety regulations in the mines and Massey failed to provide this interest. Massey also failed the fairness of wages and the fairness of employee working conditions. The wage they are paying to the miners are not enough to cover all the job risks the miners are exposed to in the mine. Massey also failed to provide proper working condition in the Upper Big Branch. How to cite Massey Coal, Essay examples

Implementation of SQA tools in an Organization Free-Samples

Question: Discuss about the Implementation of Software Quality Assurance. Answer: Introduction Software Quality Assurance (SQA) is a set of processes that are applied in association with a particular project to validate and verify the adherence of the project components and activities with the defined quality standards and specifications. It is a process that enhanced the quality of a particular procedure or a product. Correct Procedure for the Implementation of Software Quality Assurance (SQA) Implementation of SQA tools and processes in an organization requires detailed planning and analysis. It is necessary to make sure that the implementation process is well-planned in advance to avoid any loopholes and errors in the later stages. SQA tools were decided to be implemented in the ABC organization. However, it was found that the implementation process was associated with numerous issues. These issues that were listed after the in-house evaluation were categorized in the categories as assistance training, resistance, time, automation, initiation implementation communication, process, tool layout, tool analysis and verification, governance and management (Scarpino and Kovacs 2008). The correct procedure should have used more focus on the process that was required to be followed. For instance, the implementation of any of the new tools and concepts leads to many changes for the employees in terms of business activities and operations. The case was the same with ABC as the manual activities around quality assurance were now being converted to their automated counterparts. It was necessary to make sure that a detailed planning around the processes was involved and a gradual transition was made rather than following the big-bang approach for implementation of the tools. Once the planning and procedures were in place, the next step should have been in association with the trainings. Training is an activity that is often overlooked and not paid due attention. However, in case of ABC organizations attempt to implement SQA tools, training would have played a significant role. For instance, there are resources that are engaged with the organization that do not have a pr ior experience on SQA tools and automation testing. Instructing such resources to perform their business activities using these tools without any sort of training is sure to cause errors and deterioration of productivity levels (Parthasarathy and Sharma 2016). It was therefore required for the organization to develop a training plan and a training schedule for the end users. Also, the layout of the tool and its underlying features were required to be set up in such a manner that the user experience with the same was enriched. There were issues in the tool layout as well that led to confusions and ambiguities. The training procedure should have therefore included the explanation of the tool layout along with the navigation associated with the same. As stated earlier, a step by step approach should have been adapted instead of a big-bang implementation of the SQA tool. It would have provided the resources with the required timeframe to adapt to the behavior and functionality of the to ol along with its usage. Every organization has its own set of activities and departments along with their respective needs and requirements (Khaddaj and Horgan 2015). The level of automation along with the applicability of the tool therefore varies from one organization to the other. In case ABC, there are 40 different departments and a few require and some of the departments do not require an enhanced level of automation in terms of quality assurance. However, there was no analysis done in this aspect and it was assumed that automation would fit to the needs of one and all. The correct procedure would have included a detailed analysis on the level of automation required along with analysis of the tool. There were also several risks that could have emerged during the implementation of SQA tools in terms of technical and operational errors or security concerns. Governance and risk management was therefore required as a procedure to be applied to the same (Huang 2014). The order of procedures that should have been used and applied in ABC organization include planning and processing, training plan and schedule, estimation of automation levels, UI and navigational aspects of the tool, reviews and evaluations in the same order. In-House and External Evaluation There are numerous evaluation methods and these methods and processes can be carried out either externally or with the utilization of the in-house resources and entities. A comparison of the in-house and external evaluation is summarized in the table below. Parameters In-house Evaluation External Evaluation Entities Involved Quality Assurance team of the organization along with senior managers and leaders Technical and quality experts having specialization in the field Major areas of focus Integration with the rest of the systems, adherence to the organizational policies and standards, fulfillment of the provided specifications Level of customer satisfaction and ease of usability, fulfillment of the functional and non-functional aspects Level of Independence The evaluators are required to report their findings to the organizational departments and several heads of the departments (Winkler and Biffl 2014) The evaluators have statutory obligations and are not dependent upon any of the internal entities Costs There are several hidden costs that emerge in case of in-house evaluation in terms of the cost of tools, reporting and resources The costs in this case are fixed as per the contractual terms agreed upon by both the parties Incident Reporting Reporting of the findings and incidents are quicker and organized in case of in-house evaluation as there is a complete knowledge of the correct person to report the incident to There may be delays in the reporting of the incidents that are identified due to the presence of the intermediary channels in between Risk Management It is easier for the internal evaluators to suggest measures for control and management of the risks that may emerge in association with the activity or a process These evaluators are specialized in their fields but have a limited knowledge regarding the organization. The management of the risks may or may not fall in line with the organizational policies Reports Detailed reports compatible with the documentation structure of the organization are provided by the in-house evaluators Reporting is brief and to-the-point in this case In-house evaluations often comprise of the exact requirements as per the organizational policies and requirements. Evaluation are carried out with an integrated approach which often goes missing in the case of external evaluations since there is just a component or a system provided for the evaluation. Evaluation of assurance of the performance in the integrated environment therefore cannot be carried out by the external evaluators. On the other hand, external evaluators are more equipped in terms of the skills sets and expertise to understand the customer expectations and requirements as they have an elaborated view of the entire process and external environment (Lee 2014). The case is not the same with internal evaluators as they are restricted to a limited environment. Also, there are certain defects and issues that may be identified by in-house evaluators only such as the incompatibility of the system or process with the systems in other departments or the non-adherence to the particular standard or policy followed in the organization. Similarly, there are certain issues that can be evaluated only by the external evaluators that include the required levels of customer acceptance and satisfaction along with the accepted usability requirements (Voas, 2013). Project Progress Control Regimes There are several control regimes that may be applied to the ABC organization and its procedure for the implementation of SQA tools in its architecture. The first and the foremost shall include the development of plans and baselines for the procedure to stick to in order to avoid any of the deviations and errors in the path. It would control the risks and uncertainties that may be associated with the procedure and would therefore result in the successful outcomes (Bhuiyan and ElSabbagh 2014). The second control regime that may applied shall include the use of automated tools such as resource management, information management along with incident reporting to have a detailed account of the activities that are carried out along with the tracking of the same at any point of time. It is also necessary to have an adequate level of governance in the organization in order to control the flow and implementation of the processes and procedures that are implemented. The regime shall be followed in case of ABC organization as well with a dedicated governance bodies set up comprising of managers and system experts (Yiannakos 2011). These resourc es shall carry out audits and reviews to highlight the areas of improvement along with the loopholes that may be associated with the processes. Training is another method that may be applied in order to have a better progress of the project of the implementation of SQA. Trainings would provide the resources and the end users with the ability to adapt to the functionalities and features of the tool. Also, it would provide an opportunity to execute the features with much ease and convenience without any errors which would lead to enhancement of the productivity levels (Radlinski, 2011). Documentation and reporting is another method that would control and put a check on the deviations associated with the implementation procedure. Documentation of the project activities along with frequent reporting of the progress shall be made mandatory to allow the senior management and leadership to have the knowledge of the exact status and the issues associated with the project. Also, these report s and documents shall be placed on a shared location such as SharePoint or a shared folder. It would provide the resources and leadership with the ability to review the activities accomplished at any point of time. This practice would prove to be fruitful in case of the occurrence of a risk or the changes made by the client (Collofello 2006). Conclusion Software Quality Assurance (SQA) is a process that can enhance the quality of the system and procedures if implemented correctly. However, there are several mistakes that are given shape by the organizations during the implementation of SQA that range from incorrect estimation of requirement, inadequate governance and trainings along with insufficient planning and analysis. It is required for the organizations to therefore avoid such loopholes and carry out detailed planning and analysis for the implementation process. References Bhuiyan, Nadia, and ElSabbagh, Habib. 2014. "A Quality Assurance Model For Airborne Safety-Critical Software". Journal Of Software Engineering And Applications 07 (03): 162-176. doi:10.4236/jsea.2014.73018. Collofello, Js. 2006. "Software Quality Assurance For Maintenance". IEEE Software 4 (5): 46-51. doi:10.1109/ms.1987.231418. Huang, Ai Ming. 2014. "Study On CMM-Based Software Quality Assurance Process Improvement - A Case Of The Educational Software Quality Assurance Model". Advanced Materials Research 1049-1050: 2032-2036. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.1049-1050.2032. Khaddaj, Souheil, and Horgan, Gerard. 2015. "A Proposed Adaptable Quality Model For Software Quality Assurance". Journal Of Computer Science 1 (4): 482-487. doi:10.3844/jcssp.2005.482.487. Lee, Ming-Chang. 2014. "Software Quality Factors And Software Quality Metrics To Enhance Software Quality Assurance". British Journal Of Applied Science Technology 4 (21): 3069-3095. doi:10.9734/bjast/2014/10548. Parthasarathy, Sudhaman, and Sharma, Srinarayan. 2016. "Impact Of Customization Over Software Quality In ERP Projects: An Empirical Study". Software Quality Journal. doi:10.1007/s11219-016-9314-x. Radlinski, Ukasz. 2011. "A Conceptual Bayesian Net Model For Integrated Software Quality Prediction". Annales UMCS, Informatica 11 (4). doi:10.2478/v10065-011-0032-5. Scarpino, John J., and Kovacs, Paul. 2008. "An Analysis Of A Software Quality Assurance Tool's Implementation: A Case Study" IX (2): 146-151. Voas, J. 2013. "Assuring Software Quality Assurance". IEEE Software 20 (3): 48-49. doi:10.1109/ms.2003.1196320. Winkler, Dietmar, and Biffl, Stefan. 2014. "Guest Editorial: Special Section On Software Quality Assurance And Quality Management". Software Quality Journal 22 (3): 467-468. doi:10.1007/s11219-014-9244-4. Yiannakos, Andrew. 2011. "Quality Assurance And Quality Control In The Software Development Process". ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 9 (2): 130-132. doi:10.1145/1012467.1012480.