Saturday, 10 September You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: University of Toronto Press,hardback; pp. The difficulties highlighted by the increasing merging and inter-relationship between the discipline of English and that of History are evidenced in this work.
The cross-disciplinary approach can often produce informative and enlightening texts as long as the boundaries are maintained. As an examination of a literary text, this 'reading' is valuable as an analysis of the lesser known work of George Herbert.
Its stated remit is to situate a single text within the discourses through which seventeenth-century English people understood their world. Cooley sees his text as a 'focus for a sustained analysis blending literary criticism with the insights of social, cultural, and intellectual history.
The author is largely critical of all these authorities but fails to offer or show any initiative in providing an alternative of his own, most particularly through the literary text which should be at the centre of the discussion.
The problems of claiming a historical significance from a literary viewpoint are very apparent in this work. The text is evidence that the insights of specialist historians have been relied upon; their conclusions are accepted but not analysed from the viewpoint of the author or from that of the literary text.
For a work published insome claims can no longer be agreed with: To present the text as one of the few available means of educating new clergy is to discount the significant amount of manuscript circulation which we now know occurred during the early modern period.
Nor is any credence given to the educative impact of quite regular visitation sermons, which the clergy were all required to attend. Cooley seems to have made the assumption that Herbert wrote the book with the intention of publishing it but there is no concrete evidence for this.
How much Herbert actually practised his profession is also open to question since the parish records of Bemerton during Herbert's tenure give no evidence of his actual participation in pastoral work. The experiential significance of Herbert's work for new clergy is therefore somewhat fraught but Cooley does not deal with this issue.
More to the historical point, so much work has been published and research undertaken since Lawrence Stone's published works in the field of social history. Indeed, the field of social history has broadened considerably thanks to the significant building blocks with which Stone and his contemporaries provided the discipline, a fact which makes the contextualisation of Cooley's work within the parameters of s social history a real problem.
The bibliography attests to this time warp as most of the historical works cited are concentrated in the s, with a few in the s but nothing after which is an original publication. Whether the reader is a supporter of Stone or not, the historical debate which Cooley asserts the book will undertake is limited in its scope because of the lack of readings from more recent contributions to the discipline.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in Chapter 5, 'Pastor as Patriarch: If you would like to authenticate using a different subscribed institution that supports Shibboleth authentication or have your own login and password to Project MUSE, click 'Authenticate'.
You are not currently authenticated.Constructivism is an epistemology, or a theory, used to explain how people know what they know.
Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.. Knowledge can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the. In a sentence, it's not university's responsibility to provide practical training and it's rather meaningless for students to participate in types of practical training when time's for them to attain more theoretical knowledge. The university should not provide so much theoretical knowledge but give students more practical training. Do you agree or disagree? As to this matter I hold the opinion that it's university's function to provide students theoretical knowledge, but not necessarily it's duty to give them practical training.
The basic idea is that problem solving is at the heart of learning, thinking, and development. More to the historical point, so much work has been published and research undertaken since Lawrence Stone’s published works in the field of social history.
Indeed, the field of social history has broadened considerably thanks to the. Some people think that universities should not provide so much theoretical knowledge but give more practical training throughout their courses.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? Sample Answer: It goes without saying that theoretical knowledge goes hand in hand with practical knowledge.
So if the universities only provide theoretical knowledge, after graduation students will find it tough to apply the knowledge in their work field. Every government funded university costs a huge sum of money and the government has an aim for all the cost it bears –to make honest, skilled and better performing employees for the state.
Identify and define terminology related to theoretical thinking 2. Identify and describe several types of theoretical works in nursing much of this discussion related to the develop-ment of a single global theory for nursing.
However, and experiences so as to provide a mental image for the purpose. In a sentence, it's not university's responsibility to provide practical training and it's rather meaningless for students to participate in types of practical training when time's for them to attain more theoretical knowledge.