Gagne theory of learning and Gagne hierarchy

Learning Theories

·         ACT-R (John Anderson)

·         Adult Learning Theory (P. Cross)

·         Algo-Heuristic Theory (L. Landa)

·         Andragogy (Malcolm Knowles)

·         Anchored Instruction (John Bransford)

·         Aptitude-Treatment Interaction (L. Cronbach & R. Snow)

·         Attribution Theory (B. Weiner)

·         Cognitive Dissonance Theory (L. Festinger)

·         Cognitive Flexibility Theory (R. Spiro)

·         Cognitive Load Theory (J. Sweller)

·         Component Display Theory (M. David Merrill)

·         Conditions of Learning (Robert Gagne)

·         Connectionism (Edward Thorndike)

·         Constructivist Theory (Jerome Bruner)

·         Contiguity Theory (Edwin Guthrie)

·         Conversation Theory (Gordon Pask)

·         Criterion Referenced Instruction (Robert Mager)

·         Double Loop Learning (C. Argyris)

·         Drive Reduction Theory (C. Hull)

·         Dual Coding Theory (A. Paivio)

·         Elaboration Theory (C. Reigeluth)

·         Experiential Learning (C. Rogers)

·         Functional Context Theory (Tom Sticht)

·         Genetic Epistemology (J. Piaget)

·         Gestalt Theory (M. Wertheimer)

·         GOMS (Card, Moran & Newell)

·         General Problem Solver (A. Newell & H. Simon)

·         Information Pickup Theory (J.J. Gibson)

·         Information Processing Theory (G.A. Miller)

·         Lateral Thinking (E. DeBono)

·         Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart)

·         Mathematical Learning Theory (R.C. Atkinson)

·         Mathematical Problem Solving (A. Schoenfeld)

·         Minimalism (J. M. Carroll)

·         Model Centered Instruction and Design Layering (Andrew Gibbons)

·         Modes of Learning (D. Rumelhart & D. Norman)

·         Multiple Intelligences (Howard Gardner)

·         Operant Conditioning (B.F. Skinner)

·         Originality (I. Maltzman)

·         Phenomenonography (F. Marton & N. Entwistle)

·         Repair Theory (K. VanLehn)

·         Script Theory (Roger Schank)

·         Sign Theory (E. Tolman)

·         Situated Learning (J. Lave)

·         Soar (A. Newell et al.)

·         Social Development (L. Vygotsky)

·         Social Learning Theory (A. Bandura)

·         Stimulus Sampling Theory (W. Estes)

·         Structural Learning Theory (J. Scandura)

·         Structure of Intellect (J. Guilford)

·         Subsumption Theory (D. Ausubel)

·         Symbol Systems (G. Salomon)

·         Triarchic Theory (R. Sternberg)

·         Transformational Learning (J. Mezirow)

BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

(Learning Objectives)

Original

·       Knowledge

·       Comprehension

·       Application

·       Analysis

·       Synthesis

·       Evaluation

Revised

·       Know

·       Understand

·       Apply

·       Analyse

·       Evaluate

·       Create

Creating--Create, Imagine, Design, Plan

Evaluating--Decide, Prioritize, Rate, Justify

Analyzing--Identifying, Compare, Explain, Categorize

Applying--Use, Illustrate, Compare, Solve

Understanding--Discuss, Outline, Explain, Predict

Remember--Describe, Relate, Tell, Find

No	Learning Objectives	Competencies/Skills
6	Creating	Create, Imagine, Design, Plan
5	Evaluating	Decide, Prioritize, Rate, Justify
4	Analyzing	Identifying, Compare, Explain, Categorize
3	Applying	Use, Illustrate, Compare, Solve
2	Understanding	Discuss, Outline, Explain, Predict
1	Remember	Describe, Relate, Tell, Find

Plurality Of India

There is little doubt now that the next four years are going to be engaged on a political debate about the nature of India and who its citizens are. Rival ideas of India as a Nehruvian ideal of a secular nation or as a nation of Hindus will be put forward forcefully and battled out. History is a vital part of this debate.

The one central claim often made is that in 1947 India gained Independence after 1,200 years of slavery. This is meant to include Muslims and British as foreign rulers who enslaved India. This is a partial history, even if it was accurate. It is a story of North India and even then only of parts of it, mainly the Hindi belt — the BIMARU states. Muslim rule never reached Assam and the Northeast, not even Bengal for centuries. It did not reach South India. Aurangzeb spent the last 25 years of his life trying to win the Deccan and failed.

Even the chronology is partial. The incursions of Muhammad Bin Qasim were confined to Sindh, and Mahmud of Ghazni raided Gujarat and Punjab but did not stay to rule. One can date Muslim rule over parts of North India only from the late Thirteenth Century, when the Delhi Sultanate was established, 500 years after Bin Qasim.

South India’s history is totally different. There is a claim frequently made by Indian politicians, often of the Rightist, that India has never been an aggressor over other countries. It would be an interesting claim were it true. But it is not. It may be a claim that North Indian-Hindi belt politicians believe. South Indians will know that the Chola King Rajaraja had a maritime empire stretching to Malay islands.

South India did not experience the aggressive incursion of Muslims either. Arabs had been coming to South India for centuries as traders since before the advent of Islam. The Vijayanagara Empire flourished in the South while the Hindi belt had Muslim rule. Even British domination of India has to be dated from 1857 onwards when full hegemony was gained by the British Crown. If any foreign power ruled directly over most of India (with hegemony over princely states), it was the British and that too only for 90 years. The first ‘ruler’ over all of India (albeit after Partition) was President of India, from January 26, 1950, onwards.

India has multiple histories. It is a fundamental part of its diversity that it should be so. There are attempts to impose a single monistic structure on it but we can see the limitations of doing so. Take Assam for example. The Assamese are nursing a fragile idea of their ‘nationhood’ – Assamiyat to coin a word. They are Indian but want to preserve their own unique culture and history. So do the Maharashtrians or Tamil speakers or Kashmiris.

Even if one wants to champion a Hindu India, one only has to look at the diversity which is characteristic of Hinduism. There is no single God nor a single Holy Book which all swear by. Hindus are eclectic about who they worship and who they admit into their midst. Ganesh and Hanuman are Gods of all Indian Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs.

India is many, not one.
Credit- Indian Express

JUSTICE S MURALIDHARAN

Some of the aspects surrounding the farewell of Justice S Muralidhar have no precedent. The serving of the transfer order, which was the genesis of the farewell, close to midnight, was unusual. The specific words of the order directing him to assume charge as judge were downright humiliating. The number of lawyers who attended the farewell in the main lobby of the Delhi High Court was unprecedented too.

Not just the ground floor, the ramp covering the two floors of the High Court was also packed. Muralidhar’s speeches, both in the main lobby as also in the more formal Full Court Reference, exceeded expectations. And there was his sage advice to young lawyers — to never enter court without being fully prepared, even if it is just for the adjournment of a case. He recounted his experience in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case (the issue being whether interest of the amount awarded to the victims should be given to them) where, after multiple adjournments, and when least expected, the case was taken up in the SC and relief given on that day itself .

In the more formal proceedings of the Full Court Reference, his speech described the role played by a judge in India’a constitutional courts. What Muralidhar termed as “random thoughts” constitute the very essence of the act of judging. He describes it as taking place “in a space that is both mediative and meditative”. He acknowledges the mediative space as constituting the primary function of judging, namely, dispute resolution. The meditative space contains two guiding principles: The Gandhian talisman of the “weakest person” and Ambedkar’s adoption of George Grote’s constitutional morality. He identified these two as guiding his judicial instinct and which he felt would fulfill “the constitutional vision of justice”.

This articulation of the guiding principles of his judicial instinct brought to mind the iconic phrase of legendary US Supreme Court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, who had remarked that judges are guided by an “inarticulate major premise”. The concept was that, apart from legal precedents and doctrines, judges’ decision making is also influenced by their personal values and predilections. In his articulation of this “inarticulate major premise”, Muralidhar was able to convey the hallmark of the highest traditions of judging by the judge of a constitutional court.

The second important element of his speech was his exposition of what he meant by neutrality. He said: It requires the judge to be able to “discern the weak from the strong litigant in terms of their capacities to access justice and lean on the side of the vulnerable in order to attempt to achieve the equality of arms”.

He went on to describe what keeps him going as a judge: Moments when he brings to an end a two or three decade-old case, gets an 80-year-old pensioner relief, long overdue retirement benefits to the legal representatives of a deceased bus conductor or a wrongly dismissed CRPF Jawan, reversing a wrong conviction or a wrong acquittal. “The cry for justice,” he said, “is loud in every roster and in every court”.

At a time when institutional trust is perilously undermined and allegations fly thick and fast, the afternoon with Justice Muralidhar reminded us that despite everything, as lawyers, while waiting for our turn to argue, we witness many cases which do not attract huge publicity; but which nevertheless are occasions for constitutional values to be discovered, practised and tested. It was an uplifting moment as it gave a sense of validation of ourselves as lawyers. This feeling lingered the next day when there was a second Full Court Reference for the retirement of Justice G S Sistani, another great judge who the Delhi High Court was losing that day, and whose commitment to these values is unassailable.
Credit- Indian Express

WHY ARE YOU SO LOW?

Your dreams shattered! Then what?

Yours plans failed ! then what?

Why do you limit life,

Within success and failure?

And why to be so impatient,

For pleasure, pleasure and pleasure?

Why do you enlarge, the wings of desires?

And you, by yourself, get subdued in it;

And lifelong you flutter,

To come out of it.

And by the passing hours,

You set the ultimate halt.

The wishes, dreams and desires,

Are the ever burning fires;

Under whose heavy heat,

The man melts into nothing.

The possessions, holding and earning of earth,

Are to be left lifeless;

In minutes, they are all destructible,

By blow and brunt of Time’s mercilessness.

What is your,

You are crying for?

And what you have lost?

 You are lamenting for!

Nothing, and nothing at all,

Why wastefully, you show, your ownness;

Upon the things, you found hereabout;

And why  you shed tears,

Upon such baits and bouts.

Never dishearten yourself,

By futile, and fragile objects;

Have a strong hold, on your Self,

With deep and durable, positive prospects.

Live, like a man, with vast manhood;

Where unbound glory, of goodness, resides;

In tough tide of time, you bravely be stood;

And lovably live, every bit of life, with fortitudes.