1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Dima020 [189]
2 years ago
9

Karius, a schoolteacher, is an advocate of the constructivist approach to instruction. given this information, it can be said th

at karius is most likely to?
Social Studies
1 answer:
zloy xaker [14]2 years ago
3 0

Karius, a schoolteacher, is an advocate of the constructivist approach to instruction. Given this information, it can be said that karius is most likely to "Encourage children to collaborate in their efforts to learn and understand."

<h3>What is constructivism?</h3>

Constructivism is defined as "a learning method that maintains that people actively create or make their own education and that truth is determined by the learner's experiences."

Some characteristics of constructivism are-

  • Arends (1998) elaborates constructivist principles by stating as constructivism believes in the learner's personal production of meaning through experience, but that meaning is determined by the interaction of past knowledge and new occurrences.
  • The core notion of constructivism is that human cognition is created, that learners to build new information on the base of existing knowledge.
  • The prior knowledge influences the new or modified knowledge that an individual constructs as a result of fresh learning experiences.
  • Learners basically use their foreknowledge as a foundation & build on it with new information.

To know more about constructivism, here

brainly.com/question/11144228

#SPJ4

You might be interested in
Which best shows that the United States was confident in its economy in 1816?
Marta_Voda [28]

Answer:   A I'm pretty sure correct me if I'm wrong.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What is equilibrium in Supply and Demand?
Sveta_85 [38]

Answer:

Equilibrium = when supply is equal to demand.

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
What was Mohandas gandhi's plan of civil disobedience?
Julli [10]
The answer is a because that's the definition of civil disobedience.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which body system protects the body from infections?
hram777 [196]

Answer:

The Immune System protects the body from infections and pathogens.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How has the United Kingdom maintained an important role in world affairs
kenny6666 [7]

The UK's world role: Great Britain's greatness fixation

Editorial

Mon 25 Jan 2010 00.05 GMT First published on Mon 25 Jan 2010 00.05 GMT

Shares

3

Comments

130

In some eyes, but most notably its own, the British government will be in the driving seat of world events this week. Today, G7 finance ministers will be in London to discuss inter­national banking reform and the transaction tax, and – in the claim that the City minister, Paul Myners, makes on our comment pages today – the UK will be "leading international efforts". On Wednesday, diplomats from around the world will meet here to discuss the threat to Yemen from al-Qaida. A day later, attention shifts to another international conference in London, this time on the imperilled future of Afghanistan. Quite a week.

Every country likes to be taken seriously around the world. Lots of nations like to feel they are punching their weight, or even above it. Only a few, however, seem to feel the need to promote themselves as the one the others all look to for leadership. It is one thing – though never uncontroversial, and in some contexts increasingly implausible – for the United States to see itself in this role. As the world's largest economic and military power, the US remains even now the necessary nation in international affairs. It is quite another thing for Britain to pretend to such a status.

Advertisement

The continuing pre-eminence of American clout has been starkly shown by what has happened in banking over the last several days. Domestic political pressures spurred President Obama into declaring a war on the money men, and markets worldwide immediately trembled, as they grasped that his plan could unleash a global drive to split retail and investment banking. There should be no shame for London in wholeheartedly welcoming the initiative while admitting that Britain could never have made such a move on its own. Instead, however, the government carries on as if its own detailed plans for banks' living wills, and its distant dreams of a Tobin tax, are framing the debate.

Britain is a very important country. The sixth-largest economy in the world. The fifth-largest military power. Its claim to what the former prime minister Lord Home used to call a seat at the top table is beyond dispute, though it would be a still more influential one if we sometimes ceded it to the European Union. And yet, more than half a century after the loss of empire, our political culture still seems racked by the need to be the leading nation, not just one of them. Such delusions are most associated with the political right, but Gordon Brown can also seem peculiarly ensnared by them. His Britain must always be first, always at the forefront, must always show the way to the rest. Even in the G7, the G8 or the G20 – never mind the UN – a mere share of the action is never enough, and it must always be Britain that is leading the effort, whether in Yemen or Afghanistan. But this way hubris lies. Mr Brown immodestly let slip to MPs in 2008 that he had saved the world. And as he arrived in Copenhagen for the ill-fated climate change summit last month he announced that "There are many outstanding issues which I'm here to resolve."

In reality, of course, no single nation can resolve the world's problems alone. Only the United States and China, separately or together, can even aspire to set the agenda for the rest. If the US raises its commitment to Afghanistan then other nations are likely to follow. If the US penalises the banks, others soon fall into line.

Britain has no such potency. Yet we still struggle to adjust to our reality. We can propose, as we shall be doing in three important London meetings this week, but we cannot dispose. Every day, the descant of the Chilcot inquiry reminds us of where the refusal to recognise this truth can humiliatingly lead. Our national interest should be to play our important role as a true, trusted and committed European partner on the world stage. No longer the greatest. Just one great among others. Good enough ought to be good enough. The people get it. If only the politicians did too.


7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • PLS HELP WILL MARK BRAINLIEST
    8·1 answer
  • Champlain is primarily known for:
    11·2 answers
  • Please help im broke and sleep oj]n the flloororr r
    10·2 answers
  • When Fernando babysits his niece, the infant grabs his long hair and won’t let go until Fernando uncurls her fingers. Instead of
    14·1 answer
  • ¿cuales son los riesgos de las redes sociales?
    8·1 answer
  • Read this sententence from Selena's draft. What type of word is missing?
    12·2 answers
  • Netflix there was a problem selecting this profile
    9·1 answer
  • Give causes of examination malpractices​
    15·2 answers
  • Why did the south get angry when Lincoln gave his inaugural address
    9·1 answer
  • How did the oil boom impact higher education in Texas? A) There was no impact on education because of the oil industry in Texas.
    5·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!