Thursday, September 19, 2013
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS
The Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction: What It Is?
The distinction between semantics and pragmatics is easier to apply than to explain. Explaining it is complicated by the fact that many conflicting formulations have been proposed over the past sixty years. This might suggest that there is no one way of drawing the distinction and that how to draw it is merely a terminological question, a matter of arbitrary stipulation. In my view, though, these diverse formulations, despite their conflicts, all shed light on the distinction as it is commonly applied, in both linguistics and philosophy.
Although it is generally clear what is at issue when people apply the distinction to specific linguistic phenomena, what is less clear, in some cases anyway, is whether a given phenomenon is semantic or pragmatic, or both. Fortunately, there are other phenomena that are uncontroversially semantic or, as the case may be, uncontroversially pragmatic. Their example will help us get clear on what the semantics-pragmatics distinction is.
Linguistic Background
In linguistics the category of pragmatics has served mainly as a bin for disposing of phenomena that would otherwise be the business of semantics (as part of grammar) to explain. Relegating such phenomena to pragmatics freed linguistic theory, already becoming more and more complex, of numerous additional complications. A notable exception to this strategy was the systematic attempt by generative semanticists, in their campaign to undermine the autonomy of syntax, to empty the "pragmatic wastebasket," so-called by Bar-Hillel, who wisely advised linguists "to first bring some order into the contents of this wastebasket" (1971, p. 401). Many defied his advice and included everything but the kitchen sink in semantics. The performative hypothesis was the most prominent example (for a brief history see Sadock 1988). Historically, generative semantics is best remembered for generating the "linguistics wars" which have been chronicled in detail by Harris (1993).
In a more positive vein, the distinction between semantics and pragmatics has served to separate strictly linguistic facts about utterances from those that involve the actions, intentions, and inferences of language users (speaker-hearers).
These facts can all be accommodated on the supposition that semantic information pertains to linguistic expressions, whereas pragmatic information pertains to utterances and facts surrounding them. Semantic information about sentences is part of sentence grammar, and it includes information about expressions whose meanings are relevant to use rather than to truth conditions. Linguistically encoded information can pertain to how the present utterance relates to the previous, to the topic of the present utterance, or to what the speaker is doing. That there are these sorts of linguistically encoded information shows that the business of sentence semantics cannot be confined to giving the proposition it expresses. Sentences can do more than express propositions. Also, as we have seen, there are sentences which do less than express propositions, because they are semantically incomplete.
Pragmatic information concerns facts relevant to making sense of a speaker's utterance of a sentence (or other expression). The hearer thereby seeks to identify the speaker's intention in making the utterance. In effect the hearer seeks to explain the fact that the speaker said what he said, in the way he said it. Because the intention is communicative, the hearer's task of identifying it is driven partly by the assumption that the speaker intends him to do this. The speaker succeeds in communicating if the hearer identifies his intention in this way, for communicative intentions are intentions whose "fulfillment consists in their recognition" (Bach and Harnish 1979, p. 15). Pragmatics is concerned with whatever information is relevant, over and above the linguistic properties of a sentence, to understanding its utterance.
Consider some examples involving pronouns. There is no semantic basis for interpreting the pronouns one way in
As part of linguistics and philosophy of language, pragmatics does not provide detailed explanations of how interpretation works in actual practice. This is a problem for cognitive and social psychology. For this reason it seems futile for linguists to seek a formal pragmatics. The task of explaining how utterances change context, for example, or how they exploit context, is not a job for linguistic theory by itself. The task is impossible without introducing general considerations about human reasoning and rational communication. Similarly, it is unreasonable to complain that theories like Grice's account of conversational implicature provide no algorithm for conversational inference, so that, when applied to particular cases they simply pull implicatures out of a hat (see Sperber and Wilson 1986, Kempson 1988, Davies 1996). This is not just a problem for Grice's theory.
At any rate, whereas semantic information is grammatically associated with the linguistic material uttered, pragmatic information arises only in relation to the act of uttering that material. (In fact, a stony silence can impart pragmatic information and thereby communicate something.) Whereas semantic information is encoded in what is uttered, pragmatic information is generated by the act of uttering it. No sentence encodes the fact that it is being uttered. Even the sentence 'I am speaking' is not analytic. The act of producing the utterance exploits the information encoded but by its very performance creates new information. That information, combined with the information encoded, provides the basis for the hearer's identification of the speaker's communicative intention. Contextual information is relevant to the hearer's inference only insofar as it can reasonably be taken as intended to be taken into account, and that requires the supposition that the speaker is producing the utterance with the intention that it be taken into account. In contrast, the encoded information provides the input to the hearer's inference in any context.
References
Atlas, J. (1989): Philosophy Without Ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J. (1960): How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K. (1987a): Thought and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K. (1987b): On communicative intentions. Mind & Language, 2, 141-154
Bach, K. (1994a): Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9, 124-162.
Bach, K. (1994b): Semantic slack. In S. Tsohadzidis (ed.): Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 267-291.
Bach, K. and R. Harnish (1979): Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Bach, K. and R. Harnish (1987): Relevant questions. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 10, 711-712.
Bach, K. and R. Harnish (1992): How performatives really work: a reply to Searle. Linguistics
and Philosophy, 15, 93-110.
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1954): Indexical expressions. Mind, 63, 359-379.
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1971): Out of the pragmatic wastebasket. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, pp. 401-407.
Clark, H. (1992): Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davies, M. (1995): Philosophy of language. In N. Bunnin and E. Tsui-James (eds.):
The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 90-139.
Fotion, N. (1995): Pragmatics. In T. Honderich (ed.): The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 709.
Gazdar, G. (1979): Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. London: Academic Press.
Green, G. (1989): Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grice, P. (1989): Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Harnish, R. (1994): Mood, meaning, and speech Acts. In S. Tsohadzidis (ed.): Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 407-459.
Harris, R. (1993): The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horn, L. (1988): Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.): Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. I. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113-145.
Hungerland, I. (1960): Contextual implication. Inquiry, 3, 211-258.
Kaplan, D. (1989): Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.): Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 481-563.
Katz, J. (1977): Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: Crowell.
Kempson, R. (1988): Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.):
Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. II. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139-163.
Kripke, S. (1977): Speaker's reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 255-296.
Levinson, S. (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Lycan, W. (1995): Philosophy of language. In R. Audi (ed.): The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 586-589.
Montague, R. (1974): Pragmatics. In R. Thomason (ed.): Formal Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Morris, C. (1938/1971): Foundations of the theory of signs. In Writings on the Theory of Signs. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 17-74.
Neale, S. (1990): Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Parsons, T. (1990): Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Prince, E. (1988): Discourse analysis. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.): Linguistics: The Cambridge
Survey, Vol. II:. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 164-182.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995): The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Recanati, F. (1989): The pragmatics of what is said. Mind & Language, 4, 295-329.
Recanati, F. (1995): The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science, 19, 207-232.
Recanati, F. (1996): Domains of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 445-475.
Sadock, J. (1988): Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.): Linguistics : The Cambridge Survey, Vol II. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183-197.
Searle, J. (1969): Speech Acts. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986): Relevance. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Stalnaker, R. (1972): Pragmatics. In G. Harman and D. Davidson (eds.): Semantics of
Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 380-397.
Stalnaker, R. (1974): Pragmatic Presuppositions. In M. Munitz and P. Unger (eds.):
Semantics and Philosophy. New York: New York University Press, pp. 197-213.
Strawson, P. (1950): On referring. Mind, 59, 320-344.
Strawson, P. (1952): Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.
The distinction between semantics and pragmatics is easier to apply than to explain. Explaining it is complicated by the fact that many conflicting formulations have been proposed over the past sixty years. This might suggest that there is no one way of drawing the distinction and that how to draw it is merely a terminological question, a matter of arbitrary stipulation. In my view, though, these diverse formulations, despite their conflicts, all shed light on the distinction as it is commonly applied, in both linguistics and philosophy.
Although it is generally clear what is at issue when people apply the distinction to specific linguistic phenomena, what is less clear, in some cases anyway, is whether a given phenomenon is semantic or pragmatic, or both. Fortunately, there are other phenomena that are uncontroversially semantic or, as the case may be, uncontroversially pragmatic. Their example will help us get clear on what the semantics-pragmatics distinction is.
Linguistic Background
In linguistics the category of pragmatics has served mainly as a bin for disposing of phenomena that would otherwise be the business of semantics (as part of grammar) to explain. Relegating such phenomena to pragmatics freed linguistic theory, already becoming more and more complex, of numerous additional complications. A notable exception to this strategy was the systematic attempt by generative semanticists, in their campaign to undermine the autonomy of syntax, to empty the "pragmatic wastebasket," so-called by Bar-Hillel, who wisely advised linguists "to first bring some order into the contents of this wastebasket" (1971, p. 401). Many defied his advice and included everything but the kitchen sink in semantics. The performative hypothesis was the most prominent example (for a brief history see Sadock 1988). Historically, generative semantics is best remembered for generating the "linguistics wars" which have been chronicled in detail by Harris (1993).
In a more positive vein, the distinction between semantics and pragmatics has served to separate strictly linguistic facts about utterances from those that involve the actions, intentions, and inferences of language users (speaker-hearers).
These facts can all be accommodated on the supposition that semantic information pertains to linguistic expressions, whereas pragmatic information pertains to utterances and facts surrounding them. Semantic information about sentences is part of sentence grammar, and it includes information about expressions whose meanings are relevant to use rather than to truth conditions. Linguistically encoded information can pertain to how the present utterance relates to the previous, to the topic of the present utterance, or to what the speaker is doing. That there are these sorts of linguistically encoded information shows that the business of sentence semantics cannot be confined to giving the proposition it expresses. Sentences can do more than express propositions. Also, as we have seen, there are sentences which do less than express propositions, because they are semantically incomplete.
Pragmatic information concerns facts relevant to making sense of a speaker's utterance of a sentence (or other expression). The hearer thereby seeks to identify the speaker's intention in making the utterance. In effect the hearer seeks to explain the fact that the speaker said what he said, in the way he said it. Because the intention is communicative, the hearer's task of identifying it is driven partly by the assumption that the speaker intends him to do this. The speaker succeeds in communicating if the hearer identifies his intention in this way, for communicative intentions are intentions whose "fulfillment consists in their recognition" (Bach and Harnish 1979, p. 15). Pragmatics is concerned with whatever information is relevant, over and above the linguistic properties of a sentence, to understanding its utterance.
Consider some examples involving pronouns. There is no semantic basis for interpreting the pronouns one way in
Ann told Betty that she wanted to borrow her car.and the opposite way in
Ann told Betty that she could not borrow her car.The hearer relies on extralinguistic information to interpret one utterance one way and the other in the opposite way. The so-called "E-type" pronoun in
Most philosophers who have written a book think it is brilliant.is interpreted as going proxy for the description 'the book he wrote,' and the "pronoun of laziness" in
John carried his luggage but everyone else checked it in.is also interpreted descriptively- 'it' is not taken as being used to refer to John's luggage (see Bach 1987a, pp. 258-261, and Neale 1990, pp. 180-191). In none of these cases is there any semantic requirement that the pronoun be interpreted in a certain way. The explanation for the preferred interpretation is pragmatic.
As part of linguistics and philosophy of language, pragmatics does not provide detailed explanations of how interpretation works in actual practice. This is a problem for cognitive and social psychology. For this reason it seems futile for linguists to seek a formal pragmatics. The task of explaining how utterances change context, for example, or how they exploit context, is not a job for linguistic theory by itself. The task is impossible without introducing general considerations about human reasoning and rational communication. Similarly, it is unreasonable to complain that theories like Grice's account of conversational implicature provide no algorithm for conversational inference, so that, when applied to particular cases they simply pull implicatures out of a hat (see Sperber and Wilson 1986, Kempson 1988, Davies 1996). This is not just a problem for Grice's theory.
At any rate, whereas semantic information is grammatically associated with the linguistic material uttered, pragmatic information arises only in relation to the act of uttering that material. (In fact, a stony silence can impart pragmatic information and thereby communicate something.) Whereas semantic information is encoded in what is uttered, pragmatic information is generated by the act of uttering it. No sentence encodes the fact that it is being uttered. Even the sentence 'I am speaking' is not analytic. The act of producing the utterance exploits the information encoded but by its very performance creates new information. That information, combined with the information encoded, provides the basis for the hearer's identification of the speaker's communicative intention. Contextual information is relevant to the hearer's inference only insofar as it can reasonably be taken as intended to be taken into account, and that requires the supposition that the speaker is producing the utterance with the intention that it be taken into account. In contrast, the encoded information provides the input to the hearer's inference in any context.
References
Atlas, J. (1989): Philosophy Without Ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J. (1960): How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K. (1987a): Thought and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K. (1987b): On communicative intentions. Mind & Language, 2, 141-154
Bach, K. (1994a): Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9, 124-162.
Bach, K. (1994b): Semantic slack. In S. Tsohadzidis (ed.): Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 267-291.
Bach, K. and R. Harnish (1979): Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Bach, K. and R. Harnish (1987): Relevant questions. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 10, 711-712.
Bach, K. and R. Harnish (1992): How performatives really work: a reply to Searle. Linguistics
and Philosophy, 15, 93-110.
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1954): Indexical expressions. Mind, 63, 359-379.
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1971): Out of the pragmatic wastebasket. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, pp. 401-407.
Clark, H. (1992): Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davies, M. (1995): Philosophy of language. In N. Bunnin and E. Tsui-James (eds.):
The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 90-139.
Fotion, N. (1995): Pragmatics. In T. Honderich (ed.): The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 709.
Gazdar, G. (1979): Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. London: Academic Press.
Green, G. (1989): Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grice, P. (1989): Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Harnish, R. (1994): Mood, meaning, and speech Acts. In S. Tsohadzidis (ed.): Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 407-459.
Harris, R. (1993): The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horn, L. (1988): Pragmatic theory. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.): Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. I. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113-145.
Hungerland, I. (1960): Contextual implication. Inquiry, 3, 211-258.
Kaplan, D. (1989): Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.): Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 481-563.
Katz, J. (1977): Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: Crowell.
Kempson, R. (1988): Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.):
Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. II. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139-163.
Kripke, S. (1977): Speaker's reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 255-296.
Levinson, S. (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Lycan, W. (1995): Philosophy of language. In R. Audi (ed.): The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 586-589.
Montague, R. (1974): Pragmatics. In R. Thomason (ed.): Formal Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Morris, C. (1938/1971): Foundations of the theory of signs. In Writings on the Theory of Signs. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 17-74.
Neale, S. (1990): Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Parsons, T. (1990): Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Prince, E. (1988): Discourse analysis. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.): Linguistics: The Cambridge
Survey, Vol. II:. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 164-182.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995): The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Recanati, F. (1989): The pragmatics of what is said. Mind & Language, 4, 295-329.
Recanati, F. (1995): The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science, 19, 207-232.
Recanati, F. (1996): Domains of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 445-475.
Sadock, J. (1988): Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.): Linguistics : The Cambridge Survey, Vol II. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183-197.
Searle, J. (1969): Speech Acts. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986): Relevance. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Stalnaker, R. (1972): Pragmatics. In G. Harman and D. Davidson (eds.): Semantics of
Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 380-397.
Stalnaker, R. (1974): Pragmatic Presuppositions. In M. Munitz and P. Unger (eds.):
Semantics and Philosophy. New York: New York University Press, pp. 197-213.
Strawson, P. (1950): On referring. Mind, 59, 320-344.
Strawson, P. (1952): Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
FACTOR AFFECTING ACADEMIC PERFOMANCE IN MATHEMATICS AND ENGLISH IN PRIMARY SCHOOL IN TANZANIA;A CASE STUDY OF:LUSHOTO DISTRICT
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
This chapter highlight the main reason for the study .It also gives the bacground information,statement of the problem ,research objectives,research questions,scope of the the study ,significant of the study as well as limitation to the study.
1.1 Background of the study
Academic performance refers to how students deal with their studies and how they cope with or accomplish different tasks given to them by their teachers (wiki.answers.com)
Academic perfomance is an outcome of teaching and learning process to a student with regard to academic instructions(ehow.com/about-4740750)
In educational institutions, success is measured by academic performance, or how well a student meets standards set out by local government and the institution itself. As career competition grows ever more fierce in the working world, the importance of students doing well in school has caught the attention of parents, legislators and government education departments alike.(www.ehow.com)
Although education is not the only road to success in the working world, much effort is made to identify, evaluate, track and encourage the progress of students in schools. Parents care about their child's academic performance because they believe good academic results will provide more career choices and job security. Schools, though invested in fostering good academic habits for the same reason, are also often influenced by concerns about the school's reputation and the possibility of monetary aid from government institutions, which can hinge on the overall academic performance of the school(www.ehow.com)
In the past, academic performance was often measured more by ear than today. Teachers' observations made up the bulk of the assessment, and today's summation, or numerical, method of determining how well a student is performing is a fairly recent invention. Grading systems came into existence in America in the late Victorian period, and were initially criticized due to high subjectivity.(www.ehow.com)
Different teachers valued different aspects of learning more highly than others, and although some standardization was attempted in order to make the system more fair, the problem continued. Today, changes have been made to incorporate differentiation for individual students' abilities, and exploration of alternate methods of measuring performance is ongoing.(www.ehow.com)
The tracking of academic performance fulfills a number of purposes. Areas of achievement and failure in a student's academic career need to be evaluated in order to foster improvement and make full use of the learning process. Results provide a framework for talking about how students fare in school, and a constant standard to which all students are held.(www.ehow.com)
Performance results also allow students to be ranked and sorted on a scale that is numerically obvious, minimizing complaints by holding teachers and schools accountable for the components of each and every grade.(www.ehow.com)
Performance in school is evaluated in a number of ways. For regular grading, students demonstrate their knowledge by taking written and oral tests, performing presentations, turning in homework and participating in class activities and discussions. Teachers evaluate in the form of letter or number grades and side notes, to describe how well a student has done. At the state level, students are evaluated by their performance on standardized tests geared toward specific ages and based on a set of achievements students in each age group are expected to meet..(www.ehow.com)
The subjectivity of academic performance evaluation has lessened in recent years, but it has not been totally eliminated. It may not be possible to fully remove subjectivity from the current evaluation methods, since most are biased toward students that respond best to traditional teaching methods. Standardized testing is best responded to by students that excel in reading, mathematics and test-taking, a skill that is not in itself indicative of academic worth. The tests reward visual learners, and give no chance for kinesthetic or auditory learners to show their abilities...(www.ehow.com)
The standardized test fails to recognize students with learning and physical disabilities that do not allow them to complete the test in the same manner or amount of time as other students. Evaluations from classroom teachers, though they give the most detailed information, may still retain bias if individual differentiation and learning styles have not been taken into account....(www.ehow.com/)
1.2 statement of the problem
Despite the fact that there is an increase number of school and the growing of educational sector ,still the performance academically is more challanging.
According to the minister ogf education and vocational training ,educational in Tanzania is compursory for seven until children reach the age of 15 years.(ehow.com/about-4740750)
In 2006 the gross primary enrollment rate was 110.3percent and the net primary enrollment rate was 97percent.Gross an net enrollment ratios are based on the number of students formally registered in primary schools and do not necessarily reflect actual school attendance(ehow.com/about-4740750)
Announcing the results in Dar es salaam ,the minister fo Education and vocational training prof. Jumanne Maghembe disclosed that more than half of the nearly one million pupils who sat the examination in september 2009 had failed.(www.ngonewsafrica.org/?p892)
The results indicat that the the overall perfomance dropped by 3.32percent compared to lastn year 2008.Meaning that half of the candidate will not join form one(www.ngonewsafrica.org/?p892)
Maghembe said number of of pupils who did well in the examinations was only 49.41percent or 493333 candidates .They include 217250 girls or 43.25percent and 276083 boys or 55.65percent of the all candidates .(www.newsafrica.org/?p892)
Prof Maghembe singledout that mathematics and English as the two subjects in which the standard seven candidates perfomed extremely poor(www.ngonewsafica/org/?p892.
he said while the pass rate uin english was 35.44percentand mathematics a lowly 20.96percent(www.ngonewsafrica.org/?p892)
The following are the results of Mock examination from Shukilai Primary school conducted in the year 2008
Registered
boys girl Total
33 23 56
those who passed english subject
Boys girls total
18 15 33
those who failed english subject
Boys girls total
15 8 25
those who passed mathematics subject
Boys girls Total
13 12 25
those who failed mathematics subject
Boys girls Total
20 11 31
the following are the results of national examination from Shukilai primary school in the year 2009
registered
Boys girls Total
22 47 69
those who passed english subject
Boys girls Total
9 28 37
those who failed english subject
Boys girls Total
13 19 32
those who passed mathematics subject
Boys girls Total
7 18 25
those who failed mathematics subjects
Boys girls Total
15 29 44
the following are the results of national examination from Shukilai primary school in the year 2010
registerd
Boys girls Total
32 44 66
those who passed english subject
Boys girls Total
6 18 24
those who failed english subjects
Boys girls Total
16 26 42
those who passed mathematics subjects
Boys girls Total
10 15 25
those who failed mathematics subjects
Boys girls Total
12 29 41
1.3 General and specific objectives of the research
1.3.1 General objective of the study
The purpose of this research is to examine the factor that affect acadenmic perfomance in primary school in Lushoto District.
1.3.2 Specific objectives of the study
-To identify the teaching strategies /techniques been used in primary schools.
-To assess the environment and resources been used in teaching mathematics and english.
-To assess the compatibility and proffessionalism af mathematics and english teachers in primary schools.
-To examine the government support in the learning process.
1.4.Research questions.
-what are the teaching strategies /techniques been used in primary school?
-Is environment and resources been deployed in teaching and improving perfomance in mathematics and English?
-Are primary school's teacher possess the needed skills ,knowledge and compatible in teaching mathematics and English?
-Is there any government support in learning process?
1.5 significance of the problem
- In this section ,being an exploratory study ,the research findings will play an important role to guide a process of understanding factors affecting academic perfomance in primary school in lushotop District
-Also through this section ,the research will will explore the learning limitations to primary schools in tanzania particulary lushoto distirict
-The research will provide some solutions to academic perfomance and this will be a gudeline to the government to improve education career in Tanzania.
-However , the study will be useful for further research especially to the research who may wish to conduct a study concerning poor academic perfomance in primary school
-This research is useful to planners ,educators ,administrators and other educatioanl stkeholders to build awareness to students and teachers of Tanzania on problems and barriers hinder the perfomance of Mathematics and English subjects in primary schools.
-Being an exploratory study ,the research findings play an important role to guide a process of restructuring training programs and support for teachers and othefr stuff.
1.6 The scope of the study
The study will be conducted in Tanzania,speciffically in lushoto.access was the major factor for choosing this area of study.This District is located in the northern Eastern part of Tanzania .The study will be conducted in three primary school which are SHUKILAI,KITOPENI,and MAGAMBA.This study will take two months
,january and and February in the year 2012.
1.7 Limitations of the study
Research limitations refers to constraints or problems a researcher encoutered in conducting research .
in conducting this research ,the first limiting factor was time.Schedule for this study was limited because researchers contnued with studies at the college while collecting data.
Poor response of respondence was anothjer limiting factor .Some respondents were not ready to give appropriate information due to fear or being busy with their jobs
Financial factors,insufficient and delay of money from student's High Education Loans Board for conducting this study led to many problems including delay on writing the research report.
MEMBERS.
1.PHILIP LAULIAN ILETA TU/SEK/BEdSN/84/09
2.MHANDO GIDEON TU/SEK/BEdSN/287/09
3.UGULUMU VALENCE TU/SEK/BEdSN/327/09
4.MARWA DAUDI TU/SEK/BEdSN/147/09
5.NJIKU MAGRETH TU/SEK/BEdSN/186/09
6.MAGANGA TATU. TU/SEK/BEdSN/330/09
BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE STUDY:
This chapter highlight the main reason for the study .It also gives the bacground information,statement of the problem ,research objectives,research questions,scope of the the study ,significant of the study as well as limitation to the study.
1.1 Background of the study
Academic performance refers to how students deal with their studies and how they cope with or accomplish different tasks given to them by their teachers (wiki.answers.com)
Academic perfomance is an outcome of teaching and learning process to a student with regard to academic instructions(ehow.com/about-4740750)
In educational institutions, success is measured by academic performance, or how well a student meets standards set out by local government and the institution itself. As career competition grows ever more fierce in the working world, the importance of students doing well in school has caught the attention of parents, legislators and government education departments alike.(www.ehow.com)
Although education is not the only road to success in the working world, much effort is made to identify, evaluate, track and encourage the progress of students in schools. Parents care about their child's academic performance because they believe good academic results will provide more career choices and job security. Schools, though invested in fostering good academic habits for the same reason, are also often influenced by concerns about the school's reputation and the possibility of monetary aid from government institutions, which can hinge on the overall academic performance of the school(www.ehow.com)
In the past, academic performance was often measured more by ear than today. Teachers' observations made up the bulk of the assessment, and today's summation, or numerical, method of determining how well a student is performing is a fairly recent invention. Grading systems came into existence in America in the late Victorian period, and were initially criticized due to high subjectivity.(www.ehow.com)
Different teachers valued different aspects of learning more highly than others, and although some standardization was attempted in order to make the system more fair, the problem continued. Today, changes have been made to incorporate differentiation for individual students' abilities, and exploration of alternate methods of measuring performance is ongoing.(www.ehow.com)
The tracking of academic performance fulfills a number of purposes. Areas of achievement and failure in a student's academic career need to be evaluated in order to foster improvement and make full use of the learning process. Results provide a framework for talking about how students fare in school, and a constant standard to which all students are held.(www.ehow.com)
Performance results also allow students to be ranked and sorted on a scale that is numerically obvious, minimizing complaints by holding teachers and schools accountable for the components of each and every grade.(www.ehow.com)
Performance in school is evaluated in a number of ways. For regular grading, students demonstrate their knowledge by taking written and oral tests, performing presentations, turning in homework and participating in class activities and discussions. Teachers evaluate in the form of letter or number grades and side notes, to describe how well a student has done. At the state level, students are evaluated by their performance on standardized tests geared toward specific ages and based on a set of achievements students in each age group are expected to meet..(www.ehow.com)
The subjectivity of academic performance evaluation has lessened in recent years, but it has not been totally eliminated. It may not be possible to fully remove subjectivity from the current evaluation methods, since most are biased toward students that respond best to traditional teaching methods. Standardized testing is best responded to by students that excel in reading, mathematics and test-taking, a skill that is not in itself indicative of academic worth. The tests reward visual learners, and give no chance for kinesthetic or auditory learners to show their abilities...(www.ehow.com)
The standardized test fails to recognize students with learning and physical disabilities that do not allow them to complete the test in the same manner or amount of time as other students. Evaluations from classroom teachers, though they give the most detailed information, may still retain bias if individual differentiation and learning styles have not been taken into account....(www.ehow.com/)
1.2 statement of the problem
Despite the fact that there is an increase number of school and the growing of educational sector ,still the performance academically is more challanging.
According to the minister ogf education and vocational training ,educational in Tanzania is compursory for seven until children reach the age of 15 years.(ehow.com/about-4740750)
In 2006 the gross primary enrollment rate was 110.3percent and the net primary enrollment rate was 97percent.Gross an net enrollment ratios are based on the number of students formally registered in primary schools and do not necessarily reflect actual school attendance(ehow.com/about-4740750)
Announcing the results in Dar es salaam ,the minister fo Education and vocational training prof. Jumanne Maghembe disclosed that more than half of the nearly one million pupils who sat the examination in september 2009 had failed.(www.ngonewsafrica.org/?p892)
The results indicat that the the overall perfomance dropped by 3.32percent compared to lastn year 2008.Meaning that half of the candidate will not join form one(www.ngonewsafrica.org/?p892)
Maghembe said number of of pupils who did well in the examinations was only 49.41percent or 493333 candidates .They include 217250 girls or 43.25percent and 276083 boys or 55.65percent of the all candidates .(www.newsafrica.org/?p892)
Prof Maghembe singledout that mathematics and English as the two subjects in which the standard seven candidates perfomed extremely poor(www.ngonewsafica/org/?p892.
he said while the pass rate uin english was 35.44percentand mathematics a lowly 20.96percent(www.ngonewsafrica.org/?p892)
The following are the results of Mock examination from Shukilai Primary school conducted in the year 2008
Registered
boys girl Total
33 23 56
those who passed english subject
Boys girls total
18 15 33
those who failed english subject
Boys girls total
15 8 25
those who passed mathematics subject
Boys girls Total
13 12 25
those who failed mathematics subject
Boys girls Total
20 11 31
the following are the results of national examination from Shukilai primary school in the year 2009
registered
Boys girls Total
22 47 69
those who passed english subject
Boys girls Total
9 28 37
those who failed english subject
Boys girls Total
13 19 32
those who passed mathematics subject
Boys girls Total
7 18 25
those who failed mathematics subjects
Boys girls Total
15 29 44
the following are the results of national examination from Shukilai primary school in the year 2010
registerd
Boys girls Total
32 44 66
those who passed english subject
Boys girls Total
6 18 24
those who failed english subjects
Boys girls Total
16 26 42
those who passed mathematics subjects
Boys girls Total
10 15 25
those who failed mathematics subjects
Boys girls Total
12 29 41
1.3 General and specific objectives of the research
1.3.1 General objective of the study
The purpose of this research is to examine the factor that affect acadenmic perfomance in primary school in Lushoto District.
1.3.2 Specific objectives of the study
-To identify the teaching strategies /techniques been used in primary schools.
-To assess the environment and resources been used in teaching mathematics and english.
-To assess the compatibility and proffessionalism af mathematics and english teachers in primary schools.
-To examine the government support in the learning process.
1.4.Research questions.
-what are the teaching strategies /techniques been used in primary school?
-Is environment and resources been deployed in teaching and improving perfomance in mathematics and English?
-Are primary school's teacher possess the needed skills ,knowledge and compatible in teaching mathematics and English?
-Is there any government support in learning process?
1.5 significance of the problem
- In this section ,being an exploratory study ,the research findings will play an important role to guide a process of understanding factors affecting academic perfomance in primary school in lushotop District
-Also through this section ,the research will will explore the learning limitations to primary schools in tanzania particulary lushoto distirict
-The research will provide some solutions to academic perfomance and this will be a gudeline to the government to improve education career in Tanzania.
-However , the study will be useful for further research especially to the research who may wish to conduct a study concerning poor academic perfomance in primary school
-This research is useful to planners ,educators ,administrators and other educatioanl stkeholders to build awareness to students and teachers of Tanzania on problems and barriers hinder the perfomance of Mathematics and English subjects in primary schools.
-Being an exploratory study ,the research findings play an important role to guide a process of restructuring training programs and support for teachers and othefr stuff.
1.6 The scope of the study
The study will be conducted in Tanzania,speciffically in lushoto.access was the major factor for choosing this area of study.This District is located in the northern Eastern part of Tanzania .The study will be conducted in three primary school which are SHUKILAI,KITOPENI,and MAGAMBA.This study will take two months
,january and and February in the year 2012.
1.7 Limitations of the study
Research limitations refers to constraints or problems a researcher encoutered in conducting research .
in conducting this research ,the first limiting factor was time.Schedule for this study was limited because researchers contnued with studies at the college while collecting data.
Poor response of respondence was anothjer limiting factor .Some respondents were not ready to give appropriate information due to fear or being busy with their jobs
Financial factors,insufficient and delay of money from student's High Education Loans Board for conducting this study led to many problems including delay on writing the research report.
MEMBERS.
1.PHILIP LAULIAN ILETA TU/SEK/BEdSN/84/09
2.MHANDO GIDEON TU/SEK/BEdSN/287/09
3.UGULUMU VALENCE TU/SEK/BEdSN/327/09
4.MARWA DAUDI TU/SEK/BEdSN/147/09
5.NJIKU MAGRETH TU/SEK/BEdSN/186/09
6.MAGANGA TATU. TU/SEK/BEdSN/330/09
Monday, April 25, 2011
ILETA BARIKI: KIJANA WA TANZANIA TAMBUA KUWEPO KWAKO KATIKA NCHI...
ILETA BARIKI: KIJANA WA TANZANIA TAMBUA KUWEPO KWAKO KATIKA NCHI...: "KATIKA MAISHA YOYOTE YALE YA BINADAMU JAMBO GUMU NI KUHUSU KUFANYA MAAMUZI AMBAYO YANAWEZA KUMSAIDIA KUENENDA KATIKA MUENENDO MZURI.WENGI W..."
Thursday, January 13, 2011
-WAR IN IRAQ
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
seven secretes of the super organized
A few years ago, my life was a mess. So was my house, my desk, my mind. Then I learned, one by one, a few habits that got me completely organized.
Am I perfect? Of course not, and I don't aim to be. But I know where everything is, I know what I need to do today, I don't forget things most of the time, and my house is uncluttered and relatively clean (well, as clean as you can get when you have toddlers and big kids running around).
So what's the secret? In truth, there aren't any secrets. There are simple habits that you can develop over time that will get you to where you want to be. These are habits that you can apply to your work, your home, your kids, your hobbies, your life. Instead of giving you specifics for how to organize something specific, like your desk or your closet, I provide principles that you can use over and over in every situation.
Are these obvious principles? Sure, if you stop to think about them. You've read them in various other places. But you might not be applying them to your daily life, and that's where the problem lies. I'm just providing you with a step-by-step guide to what actually works, based on my experience and that of others.
If your life is a mess, like mine was, I don't recommend trying to get organized all in one shot. It's overwhelming. Instead, start with the first habit, and work your way down. Do it a little at a time, one area of your life at a time, one area of your home or office at a time. Work on a habit for a month or so, then move on to the next one. Or adopt two or three if you think you can handle it, but don't do them all at once. I also recommend you set aside some time each day (30 or 60 minutes) for organizing, at least in the beginning, until you are fairly organized and have your system down. Then, you might need 10 minutes a day, just to keep things running smoothly, and every now and then you might need to have a purge session (every 6 months or so) to get rid of accumulated buildup.
So here are the 7 habits:
- Reduce before organizing.
The mistake most people make when trying to organize their stuff or their tasks or their projects is that they have a whole mess of things to organize, and it's too complicated. If you have a closet crammed full of stuff, sure, you can buy a bunch of closet organizers, but in the end, you'll still have a closet crammed full of stuff. Same thing with time management: you can organize a packed schedule, but it'll still be crammed full of tasks. The solution: reduce, eliminate, simplify.
If you take your closet full of 100 things and throw out all but the 10 things you love and use, now you don't need a fancy closet organizer. Same thing with time management: if you have 20 things to do today, and reduce it to just the three most important tasks, you don't need a schedule anymore.
How to reduce: take everything out of a closet or drawer or other container (including your schedule), clean it out, and only put back those items you truly love and really use on a regular basis. This will leave you with a pile of other stuff -- get rid of it by tossing it, donating it, selling it or giving it to somebody who will love it. If you can't bear to part with some of the stuff, put it in a "maybe" box and store it in your attic or basement or other storage space. Label it with a description and date, and six months later, when you haven't needed any of it, toss it.
- Write it down now, always.
Our minds are wonderful things, but they leak like a sieve. We don't remember things when we need to remember them, and they continually come up when we don't need them. Instead of using your mind as storage for things you need to remember, write it down. I carry a small pocket notebook wherever I go, and write things down immediately. Then I process the ideas and tasks later into my calendar or to-do list, so I don't forget.
- Have one inbox & process.
Well, actually you need two inboxes - one for home and one for work. But many people have many more than that -- paper comes to their desk and lands in a number of places. Phone messages get placed everywhere. Notes to self are posted all over the place. Instead, have one inbox, and put all incoming stuff in there. Then, once a day (or once a week at home if that works better for you), process the inbox to empty. Take an item out of the inbox and decide what to do with it, right away: toss it, delegate it, file it, put it on your to-do list, or do it now. Do the same thing to the next item, until your inbox is empty. Don't defer these decisions for later.
- A place for everything.
Related to the above tip is to have a place for each item in your life. Where do your car keys go? You should have one place for them (next to the door is best) and you'll never lose them again. Where do your pens go? How about your magazines? I teach my kids to find a "home" for every toy or other item in their rooms (even still, their toys are mostly homeless wanderers, but they're kids) and that's a concept that works for us grown-ups too: each item should have a home, and if it doesn't, we need to designate one. Labels can help you remember where those homes are. Now, if you find something on your table or counter top or on you bed or on your desk, you know that it doesn't belong there. Find its home -- don't just toss something anywhere. The same concept applies to information: do you have one place where you put all your information? If not, try a personal wiki -- it's accessible from work and home, and you can create pages for each type of information in your life -- schedules, goals, to-dos, movies to watch, books to read, notes on projects, etc. - Put it away now.
Most people have a habit of putting something on a table or counter top or on their desk with the intention of "putting it away later". Well, this is how things get messy and disorganized. Instead, put it away now -- in its home. It only takes a few seconds, and this one habit will save you a lot of cleaning and sorting and organizing later. When you find yourself putting something down, catch yourself, and force yourself to put it away now. After a little while, it will become second nature. - Clean as you go.
Closely related to Habit 5, this habit is effective because it's much easier to clean things as you work or as you move through your day than to let them pile up and do a big cleaning session later. So if you're cooking, try to wash your dishes as you use them, and wipe the counter, instead of leaving a huge mess. Same principle applies to everything we do. If it's easier to do it in smaller increments, we are more likely to do it. If there is a huge mess to clean, we are more likely to be intimidated or overwhelmed by it and leave it for later. - Develop routines & systems.
If you've gotten everything uncluttered and organized, you might sit back and enjoy the pleasantness of it. Being organized and having a simplified working environment or home is tremendously satisfying. But the problem is that after a little while, things tend to start to get disorganized and cluttered again. Things tend to gravitate towards chaos. The solution: you need to develop systems to keep your organization in place. For example, the inbox processing mentioned above is a system: you have specific procedures for processing all incoming papers, and you have a routine for doing it (once a day). All systems follow the same guidelines -- specific procedures and a routine that is done at a set interval (three times a day, once a day, once a week, once a month, etc.). It's important that you identify the systems you have in your life (and they exist, even if you don't know they do -- but they may be complicated and chaotic) and write them out so that you can make them efficient, simple, and organized. Develop systems for dealing with paperwork and mail, with kids schedules, with errands and laundry and chores and exercise and everything else. Once those systems are in place, you need to be vigilant about keeping them going, and then things will stay organized.
 | Written for Dumblittleman.com on 06/07/2007 by Leo Babauta and republished on 12/31/10. Leo offers advice on living life productively simple at his famous Zen Habits blog. |
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
UMASKINI WA AFRIKA SIO LAANA NI MTAZAMO.
![[nyerere.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7bEK5C4EDCI9TEO-KTMUwVJMJ53mYm3nfelGIT4iT4DikX6_dc5JUihyphenhyphen_9xBOw2MSUv2EeYn0rzyPSRrmvU4wTatGwhto5JM-A2_sgX0jTY1pvZOIXZALgd7NXBHvJvQZuq2WItnFRaw/s1600/nyerere.jpg)
Mpaka sasa Afrika ndilo bara ambalo linaongoza kwa kuwa na maskini wengi zaidi duniani.Umaskini uliokithiri na unaonuka upo afrika.Pamoja na jitahidi zote zinazofanyika kutokomeza umaskini ,lakini bado kazi hii imeonekana kuwa ngumu na isiotia matumaini.Jinsi siku zinavyozidi kwenda hali ndio inazidi kuwa mbaya.waafrika wenzangu , hivi umaskini ni laana kwetu au ni mtazamo tulionao?hili swali linatakiwa kujibiwa na kila mwafrika mwenye akili timamu.
Baba wa taifa mwalimu Julius nyerere katika moja ya hotuba zake aliwahi kusema kwamba,``ukitaka kumkomboa maskini mwelimishe mtoto wake``,hii ikiwa na maana kwamba nji pekee ya kuuepuka umaskini wetu ni katika elimu.lakini swali ni je mbona watoto wengi wa afrika wameelimishwa lakini hakuna ahueni ya maisha? au kwa nini hatupati mabadiliko kutokana na elimu yao wanayoipata?tatizo ninini na kipi kifanyike?
Kama mtakuwa mnakumbuka vizuri ile ziara alioifanya mheshimiwa raisi wa Tanzania nchini marekani moja ya maswali alioulizwa ni kwa nini tanzania ni maskini? kwa kujiamini alijibu kwamba hata yeye hajui.
Katika hotuba ya mwalimu,watoto wa maskini wa Afrika aliowazungumzia ni pamoja na hawa viongozi wetu wa afrika ambao wamepata bahati ya kupata elimu [formal education] ambao ndio hasa tunawategemea watoe suluhisho hasa la nini kifanyike ili kuundoa umaskini afrika, lakini cha ajabu hata wasomi na viongozi wa juu katika nchi zetu hawajui nini kifanyike ili angalau na sisi tuweze kupiga hatua.
Au tukubaliane na msemo wa kwamba ngozi nyeusi imelaaniwa?
Ukweli ni kwamba Afrika hatujalaaniwa na wala hatujashindwa kujikwamua dhidi ya umaskini ila tatizo letu kubwa na lazima sisi waafrika tulikubali ni kwamba hatujajitambua.
Labda kabla sijaendelea mbele niwape sifa za mwanadamu ambae hajajitambua
Hawezi kujitawala mwenyewe
Hawezi kuyatawala mazingira yake mwenyewe
Hawezi kufanya maamuzi
Sio mbunifu na anategemea akili ya mwingine kuweza kujipatia mahitaji yake
anategemea sana matumizi ya nguvu kuliko akili.hizo ni baadhi ya sifa za mtu ambae hajajitambua
Hivyo ili tuweze kuushinda umaskini lazima sisi waafrika tujitambue.Lazima tutambue ya kwamba ili tuweze kufanikiwa katika maisha lazima kuanzia sasa tujifunze kusimama kwa miguu yetu wenyewe.
Huwezi kupata mafanikio katika maisha kama wewe mwenyewe hujaamua kusimama na kukataa kubebwa.
Wenzetu wazungu wamefanikiwa sio kwa sababu wao wana akili sana kutshinda sisi ila tu wenyewe wamejitambua tayari,wanajua kwamba Mungu alituumba sio ili mazingira yatutawale bali tuyatawale.Lazima tufike hatua tukubali kwamba hatujaamua kutumia akili zetu na vipawa vyetu kutufanikisha na wakati wenzetu tayari wameshapiga hatua katika hilo.Wenzetu wanajua kwamba utajiri,heshima na uwezo wa mwanadamu kuyatawala mazingira yake uipo katika akili.Sisi tumetafsiri matumizi ya nguvu kama njia ya kutufanikisha na kutokana na hilo tunafanya kazi asubuhi mpaka jioni lakini hatupati mafanikio.
Hii ndio Africa ya karne ya ishirini na moja.nani wa kulaumiwa?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)