Influences in the teaching enviroment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Influences in the teaching enviroment - Essay Example This primarily requires the teacher to understand the nature of disruptive behavior and form strategies to deal with such students. A good teacher is one who is prepared for everything and is always ahead of the students. A good teacher will never lose any of his/her audience. They will always maintain a connection and eye contact with the pack to ensure maximum participation (Ryan, & Patrick, 2001). The most common factors which lead to disruptive behavior of students in the classroom are the following The students lose interest in the subject and get bored from the confined environment. When the students lose their focus from the topic they start behaving in a disruptive manner. Misbehavior with the teacher and violating the rules of school by the students is the most common form of disruptive behavior. Students indulge into wrong habits or they feel good by bullying others. Some students deliberately behave badly to get noticed. They do this to get famous amongst their peers. Stud ents who are self centered and like it when people circle them while walking often argue without any reason. They think that they are always right and always have an argument ready. Some students genuinely have a bad behavior and they cannot do anything to control their behavior. Autism and other disorders like the spectrum disorder are observed in such students. This disruptive behavior which the students show affects the teachers and makes it difficult for them to control the class. A good teacher is one who exactly knows the audience they are addressing to. They maintain full contact with all the students and the lecture delivery is such that the students don’t feel bored at any point. For teachers it is said that when the attention of one student is lost the whole class is lost (Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002). The classroom environment is very impulsive and volatile. The mood, reaction and the behavior of the students keep on changing. In professional education teachers fail to deliver because of disruption and misconduct in the behavior of the students. Disruptive behavior is like a virus, it spreads throughout the class. If one student misbehaves the whole class gets an urge to misbehave. The examples of disruptive and negative classroom environment behavior are Personal attack by the students either physical or verbal Excessive use of electronic devices in the classroom Leaving of class without the permission of the teacher Sleeping during classes and not paying heed to the teacher Ignoring teachers instructions and arguing with the teacher unnecessarily by showing an aggressive or hostile behavior Bullying the students or the teachers or portraying displeasure through an unacceptable behavior like shouting and arguing unnecessarily (Teaching Academy, n.d) The most efficient strategy which the teachers can use to deal with the disruptive behavior of the students is to ensure that the interest of the students is maintained constantly. The course material must be made interesting and relevancy of the subject must be delivered to the students. New methods and interactive techniques must be proposed to make learning and interaction easy like discussion, games and group activities. A teacher must encourage participation because it is the only way they could get feedback of whether the topic is being delivered to the students or not. This is the technology age and to attract the attention of the students new methods

Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific Atlanta Essay

Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific Atlanta - Essay Example The court in its analysis of the facts in the case, the court asserted that the claims against the plaintiffs were based on aiding and abetting and not on manipulation or deception. There was no allegation of involvement of the vendors in any of the charters deception since they were not involved in internal accounting (Hein et al. 25-32). The vendors were deemed to have been involved in a business transaction, which did not involve securities and were such under no obligation to take any action on the financial happenings of the charter company. The court was right in not revisiting the 1994 Central Bank aiding and abetting standard, which created primary and secondary liability. The ruling in the 1994 case of Central Bank of Denver v. the First Interstate Bank of Denver, which held, that aiders and abettors were liable to scheme liability in instances in which their actions resulted in financial losses and manipulative tendencies (Perry and Scott 26-32). Revisiting the case and cre ating scheme liability would not have been practical as even the 1994 case strictly applied the rule of section 10 (b) were not envisioned to include aiders and abettors. ... The law would also result to an increase in the number of cases filed against secondary violators of the SEC Act; the act would deter and lead to a shift of many foreign investors from the country due to the high risks and costs involved. The positive effects of such a ruling on the business community would be its effect on the accounting principles and general way of doing business. Such a ruling would make many businesses to be more careful in their business dealings even in secondary transactions (Coberly 26-7). Since the rule would make secondary violators liable, it would result into more vigilance among businesses that would result to better management and more profits for the business. The question of whether there was aiding and abetting in the Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc case is a complex issue which is subject to different interpretations. In my opinion, the defendants cannot be said to have been involved in aiding and abetting since what t hey were involved in was a secondary business transaction to what is proscribed as aiding and abetting in section 10 (b). Aiding and abetting would entail intent to collude in order to deceive and manipulate people into buying of securities. The defendants in this case were not involved in any collusion since theirs was simply a business transaction separated from the selling of securities. The behavior of the vendors while legal under the law since it adheres to general accounting principles is unethical in that it was unethical. Professional conduct in business calls for an adherence to ethical principles in all aspects of doing business. The vendors acted in an unethical manner since they had knowledge of the unethical financial reporting that the charter was involved in yet they