Tuesday, August 6, 2019
On Translation of English Proverbs Essay Example for Free
On Translation of English Proverbs Essay Abstractï ¼Å¡Proverbs, which derive from life are the condensation and embodiment of the language and culture of a nation. Proverb is a form of literature,its terseness and depth is the result of sand washing from rough sea and discarding the dross and selecting the essential in the course of language culture development. The proverb has the bright characteristic of a nation. Because of the differences of religious beliefs, habits and customs, fables and myth and culture and art, English proverbs and Chinese proverbs carry on the different national cultural characteristics and information. In translation,these cultural elements are the main difficulties and they form the influencing factor of the translation of English proverbs.This essay uses some typical examples to state four factors through analyzing, comparing and concluding from the point of geographical environment, customs, religious beliefs and historical culture. In order to present an adequate translation of a proverb, we can use four translation methods flexibly: literal translation, free translation, substitution translation and literal translation combined with free translation. Key words: English proverb influencing factor translation method æ µâ€¦Ã¨ °Ë†Ã¨â€¹ ±Ã¨ ¯ è °Å¡Ã¨ ¯ çš„ç ¿ »Ã¨ ¯â€˜ Ã¥ ¦ çâ€Å¸Ã¯ ¼Å¡Ã©Æ' 晓æâ€" ° ä ¸â€œ ä ¸Å¡Ã¯ ¼Å¡Ã¨â€¹ ± è ¯ æÅ'‡å ¯ ¼ è€ Ã¥ ¸Ë†Ã¯ ¼Å¡Ã¨ µ µÃ¤ ¸ ¹Ã¤ ¸ ¹ 摘è ¦ ï ¼Å¡Ã¨ °Å¡Ã¨ ¯ æ ¥Ã¦ º ä ºÅ½Ã§â€Å¸Ã¦ ´ »Ã¯ ¼Å'æ˜ ¯Ã¤ ¸â‚¬Ã¤ ¸ ªÃ¦ °â€˜Ã¦â€" è ¯ è ¨â‚¬Ã¥â€™Å'æâ€"‡åÅ'â€"çš„é «ËœÃ¥ º ¦Ã¦ µâ€œÃ§ ¼ ©Ã¥â€™Å'集ä ¸ ä ½â€œÃ§Å½ °Ã£â‚¬â€šÃ¨ °Å¡Ã¨ ¯ æ˜ ¯Ã¤ ¸â‚¬Ã§ § æâ€"‡å ¦Ã¥ ½ ¢Ã¥ ¼ 。è °Å¡Ã¨ ¯ çš„æ ´â€"ç »Æ'å’Å'æ · ±Ã¥Ë† »Ã¦Ëœ ¯Ã¤ ¸â‚¬Ã¤ ¸ ªÃ¦ °â€˜Ã¦â€" Ã¥Å" ¨Ã¥â€¦ ¶Ã¦ ¼ «Ã©â€¢ ¿Ã§Å¡â€žÃ¨ ¯ è ¨â‚¬Ã¦â€"‡å â€"Ã¥ ‘å ±â€¢Ã¤ ¸ Ã¥ ¤ §Ã¦ µ ªÃ¦ ·ËœÃ¦ ²â„¢Ã¯ ¼Å'åŽ »Ã§ ²â€"Ã¥ â€"ç ² ¾Ã§Å¡â€žÃ§ »â€œÃ¦Å¾Å"ï ¼Å'è °Å¡Ã¨ ¯ å… ·Ã¦Å"‰é ²Å"明的æ °â€˜Ã¦â€" ç‰ ¹Ã¦â‚¬ §Ã£â‚¬â€šÃ§â€ ±Ã¤ ºÅ½Ã¤ ¸ Ã¥ Å'çš„å ®â€"æ•™ä ¿ ¡Ã¤ » °Ã¯ ¼Å'é £Å½Ã¤ ¿â€"ä ¹ æÆ' ¯Ã¯ ¼Å'Ã¥ ¯â€œÃ¨ ¨â‚¬Ã§ ¥Å¾Ã¨ ¯ ä » ¥Ã¥ Šæâ€"‡å ¦Ã¨â€° ºÃ¦Å" ¯Ã¨ ¯ ¸Ã¥ ¤Å¡Ã¦â€" ¹Ã© ¢Ã§Å¡â€žÃ¥ · ®Ã¥ ¼â€šÃ¯ ¼Å'è‹ ±Ã¯ ¼Å'æ ±â€°Ã¨ °Å¡Ã¨ ¯ æ‰ ¿Ã¨ ½ ½Ã§ ۊ ¸ Ã¥ Å'çš„æ °â€˜Ã¦â€" æâ€"‡åÅ'â€"ç‰ ¹Ã¨â€° ²Ã¥â€™Å'ä ¸ Ã¥ Å'çš„æâ€"‡åÅ'â€"ä ¿ ¡Ã¦ ¯Ã£â‚¬â€šÃ¥Å" ¨Ã § ¿ »Ã¨ ¯â€˜Ã¤ ¸ ï ¼Å'è ¿â„¢Ã¤ ºâ€ºÃ¦â€"‡åÅ'â€"å› ç ´ æ˜ ¯Ã¤ ¸ »Ã¨ ¦ çš„å› °Ã©Å¡ ¾Ã£â‚¬â€šÃ¤ »â€"ä » ¬Ã¦Å¾â€žÃ¦Ë† ä ºâ€ Ã¥ ½ ±Ã¥â€œ è‹ ±Ã¨ ¯ è °Å¡Ã¨ ¯ ç ¿ »Ã¨ ¯â€˜Ã§Å¡â€žÃ¥â€º ç ´ 。æÅ" ¬Ã¦â€"‡å€ŸåŠ©Ã¤ ¸â‚¬Ã¤ ºâ€ºÃ¥â€¦ ¸Ã¥Å¾â€¹Ã§Å¡â€žÃ¤ ¾â€¹Ã¥ ï ¼Å'ä »Å½Ã¥Å" °Ã§ †çŽ ¯Ã¥ ¢Æ'ã€ é £Å½Ã¤ ¿â€"ä ¹ æÆ' ¯Ã£â‚¬ Ã¥ ®â€"æ•™ä ¿ ¡Ã¤ » °Ã£â‚¬ 历å ²Ã¦â€"‡åÅ'â€"æâ€" ¹Ã© ¢Ã¥Ë†â€ æž å››ç § Ã¥ ½ ±Ã¥â€œ å› ç ´ 。ä ¸ ºÃ¤ ºâ€ Ã¥ ¿ Ã¥ ®Å¾Ã£â‚¬ 通é ¡ ºÃ¥Å" °Ã¥â€ çŽ °Ã¨â€¹ ±Ã¨ ¯ 原è °Å¡,Ã¥ ¯Ã¤ » ¥Ã§ µÃ¦ ´ »Ã¨ ¿ 熨å››ç § è ¯â€˜Ã¦ ³â€¢Ã£â‚¬â€šÃ¦Å" ¬Ã¦â€"‡è ® ¨Ã¨ ® ºÃ¤ ºâ€ ç› ´Ã¨ ¯â€˜Ã£â‚¬ æ„ è ¯â€˜Ã£â‚¬ Ã¥ Å'ä ¹â€°Ã¨ °Å¡Ã¨ ¯ Ã¥ ¥â€"熨æ ³â€¢Ã£â‚¬ ç› ´Ã¨ ¯â€˜Ã¥â€™Å'æ„ è ¯â€˜Ã§â€º ¸Ã§ »â€œÃ¥ ˆè ¿â„¢Ã¥â€ºâ€ºÃ§ § ç ¿ »Ã¨ ¯â€˜Ã¦â€" ¹Ã¦ ³â€¢Ã£â‚¬â€š å… ³Ã©â€ ®Ã¨ ¯ : è‹ ±Ã¨ ¯ è °Å¡Ã¨ ¯ Ã¥ ½ ±Ã¥â€œ å› ç ´ ç ¿ »Ã¨ ¯â€˜Ã¦Å ی · §
Monday, August 5, 2019
The Effectiveness Of Technology
The Effectiveness Of Technology Over the years, technology has played a vital role in educational innovation, providing both teachers and students with more options and flexibility in their teaching and learning practices. With the internet and computer technology availability, technology becomes increasingly indispensable in the field of education. In todays schools, multimedia software, content based CD-ROMs, online resources and many other technologies provide students and teachers with many new research tools, limitless wealth of information, shared professional practices, communication tools, and new modes of learning (keane, 2002) in (Eunjoo Russell, 2002). Availability of internet in schools enables both the teachers and students to have a variety of opportunities to expand the curriculum. Todays school continue to be challenged by the increased visibility, roles and cost of instructional technology tools. Considering current trends in education, a modern classroom would not be complete without computers, software, internet connections, projectors and a variety of other high-tech device (Keane, 2002). According to Hasselbring, Barron Risko, (2000), schools will be equipped with the best hardware and software in the near future, but it is unlikely that teachers and students will use them effectively if teachers are not trained. The success of technology infusion in schools depends on training teachers. In the digital age, schools will require teachers to have competent technology skills and be able to effectively implement the use of instructional technology in classrooms. Therefore, it is logical to require teachers to be trained to handle such technologically equipped classrooms. Technology integration in the classroom has become an important aspect of successful teaching. It has triggered many researchers to investigate different aspects of such integration (e.g., Kotrlik Redmann, 2005; Bauer Kenton, 2005; Judson, 2006; Zhao, 2007; Gulbahar, 2007; Anderson Maninger, 2007; Abbit Klett, 2007; and Wood Ashfield, 2008). This is because it allows students to learn more in less time and allows schools to focus on global learning environments if used appropriately. It could also be an effective teaching tool when used to engage all students in the learning process. During the last few years, technology has been adopted in many areas such as business, entertainment, government and education. The global adoption of technology has been the landmark on the educational scene for the last few years (Albirini, 2006). Harvey (1983) envisages that the effectiveness of the use of computers in education may be an important factor in determining which countries will succe ed in the future. In recent years, educational technology has been to a large extent incorporated into teaching and learning practice in many educational institutions across the globe. This phenomenon has taken place as a response to economic, social and pedagogical pressures (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2001). From the economic rationale, it is believed that knowledge and competence in technology will enhance graduates opportunity to be professionally employed (Thornburg, 2002). Indeed, it is argued that the measured level of employability will strengthen the economy of a nation (Mutula Bakel, 2007). The social rationale sees competence in the use of technology as a necessary skill for graduate to participate in community development (OECD, 2001). This can aid students to lead the society to meet the challenges of the global information. As regarding the pedagogical rationale, the integration of technology in education claimed to facilitate a transformation of teaching an d learning process from being highly teacher centered to student centered (Trucano, 2005). The student-centered environment is argued to be more favourable than the teacher-centered environment because it gives learners the opportunity to actively participate in knowledge construction (Roblyer, Edward Havriluv, 2004). Teachers are managers of learning experience. As managers, they are meant to ensure that the environment is structured in a way that learners are given the opportunity to engage in a deep and meaningful learning process. A way through which this role can be accomplished is for teachers to assume the responsibility of an educational technologist, i.e., a professional who embarks on the study of theories and practices associated with the use of technology in instruction. According to Seels (2004), in Westergaad (2008), there are general roles that educational technologists must take. First is the regulation and reinforcement of selected media to promote learning, second is to educate teachers and stake holders about the use of media and the third is critique and lobby policies that influence media utilization. Among the three roles, the first is expected from teachers in the classroom. The fact that a lot of factors are responsible for students underachievement is not new to researcher s but amongst those factors could be teachers perception of the effectiveness of technology. Perception refers the way one think about something and ones idea of what it is like, also it is an ability to understand the true nature of a subject especially as it affects our environment. However teachers perception of the effectiveness of technology is in different ways hence, learning is a process which produces series of changes in behaviour or it is more or less a change in behaviour that result from activities, training or observation. It is a change in behaviour that confirms learning. Technology has had a significant impact on teaching and learning in schools (Cuttance, 2001). Reviews of several research projects have substantiated the potential of educational technology to enhance learning environments (Sivin-Kachala Bialo, 1994) and improve student learning outcomes (Hativa Becker, 1994) through active student engagement, collaborative learning, frequent and immediate feedback and real-world contexts for learning (Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordin Means, 2000). In addition, ICT enhances higher order thinking (Educational Testing Service, 1989), and impacts on student attitudes, motivation, self esteem, social competencies and enjoyment of learning (Joiner, 1996: Rowe, 1993: Tiernay, 1996; Wellburn, 1996). However, the extent to which ICT facilitates and enhance teaching, learning and the learning environment is dependent in part on the adequacy of teachers skills and knowledge (Wenglinsky, 1998). Technology integration into teaching and learning process is an effective way to widen educational opportunities, but this is yet to be fully utilized by teachers as an instructional delivery system. Bauer Kenton (2005) in their research found that some teachers were highly educated and skilled with using technology, but are not integrating technology on a consistent basis in the teaching and learning process. Ertmer, Conklin, Lewandowski, Osika, Selo, and Wignall (2003) indicated that beginning teachers wanted to use technology and have adequate technical skills, but teachers lacked knowledge on how to integrate technology in teaching and learning. Technology integration is not a one size fits all (Wepner, Tao, Ziomek, 2006) where teachers do the same thing for their students or where teachers possess the same specific skills to be competent technology users. Teachers need to know how and why to use technology in meaningful ways in the learning process for technology integration t o work. Like many educational reform efforts, the introduction of technology in schools has been less than successful. Over the last century there were several waves of massive investment in technology to improve education, but none has had significant lasting impact on education (Cuban, 1986). Implementation of technology is a complex process that depends on characteristics of technology, workers, environment, and subtle interactions among these components (Bayer and Melone 1989; Yetton, Sharma Southon 1999; Wolfe, 1994). Questions have been asked in studies about many failed educational innovations. In Fullan (1991) a question was raised that Why technology isnt used more in schools? Also in Tyack Cuban (1995) a question was also raised that Why cant innovations that seem to hold great promises be adopted by schools in spite of great efforts? Many researchers have been searching for solutions to this persistent puzzle. In this study, the search continues by the examination of teachers perception of the effectiveness of technology in enhancing teaching and learning. But it is not intend to simply repeat previous research but to search for new factors that may affect technology uses in schools because it is believed that previous research have identified most, if not all, factors that may have an effect on technology integration in schools. What is needed is an integrating framework that can provide new directions for research and specific suggestions for policy and practice. Thus it is taken as a res ponsibility to extend existing research by investigating the relationships among the long list of factors that have already been identified to be related to school technology uses. In particular, teachers perception of the effectiveness of technology to theoretically integrate and organize sets of factors that affect implementation of technology. It is also hoped that this framework will help in better understanding of other educational innovations, since technology, is a special case of innovation. Statement of Problem Due to the role of technology in the advancement of society in general and educational sector in particular, effective technology integration into teaching and learning has become the focus of many educators. Over the years, the problem of under achievement has been a general problem. For example, many researchers in Nigeria which include; Adeyemi (2005), Balduf (2009), Chukwu (2009), Patric (2010), Obomanu (2011) and Anakwe (2011) have conducted series of research to investigate what could be responsible for the problem. In their studies, factors such as lack of adequate laboratory equipment, ineffectiveness and lack of teaching proficiency of teachers, lack of qualified teachers and school factors have been identified as major causes of underachievement of students. Despite all these efforts of research and findings, the poor performances of students still exist. However, little emphasis has been laid on the integration of instructional technology into teaching. Disproportionately very few schools and teachers adopt the use of instructional technology in classroom teaching in Lagos state. As indicated by Byers (2000), Cope (2002), and also Kahveci (2011) the perception of the effectiveness of instructional technology by teachers may play a role in the adoption and integration of these technologies. This henceforth justifies the need for this study to investigate the effect of teachers perception of their technology integration competencies, barriers obstructing such integration, and incentives to increase it, in addition to other related issues in classroom learning environment. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to examine teachers perception of the effectiveness of technology and the rate at which they adopt technology into classroom teaching. Research Question The following questions will guide this study; How do teachers perceptions of the effectiveness of technology affect the rate at which they integrate it in their teaching process? Does the demographic characteristic of teachers such as gender, age, years of teaching experience, grade level taught, content area, and educational level affect the rate at which they integrate instructional technology? Statement of Hypothesis There will be no significant effect of teachers perception of the effectiveness of technology on the rate at which they integrate it in their teaching process. Significance of Study Mode of teaching and instructional tools employed in the teaching process is of a major importance in determining the achievement of students. This study will create in the students, teachers and curriculum builders the awareness of technology, its integration, effect and benefits. These will also help the teachers in knowing there level of technological competency and also factors that might be militating against the integration of these technologies in teaching. It will also highlight the need for teachers to combat deficit thinking. Because only by this will teachers develop positive attitude towards instructional technology utilization in teaching process. This study will also clarify to the teachers the need to use technology as a catalyst for change and improvement in the practice of teaching. Further, it will clarify to the teachers the need to integrate technology into teaching so as to facilitate the constructivist method of teaching which can be used to enhance student lear ning of specific subject matter. For the school administrators and curriculum builders this study will assist in their planning by suggesting specific strategies and procedures that can make technology integration easy and achievable. It will also give empirical support for a need to upgrade and increase the level of instructional technology integration in the classroom in a manner that will enhances student learning. It will also show them the need to orientate teachers on the need for technology integration in their teaching practices. If the findings of this study are adequately applied, the learning facilities available to the students will be enriched in technology by school administrators and this will in turn enhance the students performance and better their achievement. Scope of Study and Delimitation This is a study into the effect of teachers perception of the effectiveness of instructional technology integration in enhancing teaching in selected tertiary institution in Lagos state. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE In this literature, teachers perception of technology integration and factors affecting their level of technology integration will be discussed. This chapter therefore reviews related literature based on the purpose of the study. The literature of this study is derived from researches from 1999 to 2012. Outline of Literature Review Introduction Difference between Technology Integration and Technology Use Impact of Technology Integration on Teachers and students Factors Affecting Teachers Level of Technology Integration Teachers Perceptions of Technology Integration and Gender Differences Barriers Technology Integration 2.1 Introduction The use of technology in education has emerged to become an increasingly indispensible part of higher and professional education (Almekhlafi, 2006a). Technology, in addition to giving learners the opportunity to control their own learning process, also makes available for them ready access to a large amount of information over which the teacher has no control (Lam Lawrence, 2002). Literacy is defined as the ability to read and write, but currently, the definition of literacy has gone beyond this. A new type of literacy is developing as our society makes new technological developments. Teachers are now faced in addition to their preparing students to read and write with the task of educating students to be technologically literate. Definition of literacy according to Mullen and Wedwick (2008) in Catherine (2011) is no longer the traditional definition which is being able to read and write, the definition is now expanding to computer and technology literacy. The literate of the twenty-first century must be able to download, upload, rip, burn, chat, save, blog, Skype, IM, and share. The main goal of literacy, no matter what type, is to be able to communicate effectively. Digital literacy, computer literacy or technological literacy all enhance a persons ability to communicate by adding another dimension to the arsenal of skills a literate person already possesses (Jones-Kavalier Flannigan, 2008) in (Catherine, 2011). The each day growing complexity of education, the rise of the information to learn, the need for qualified and modern education require the use of computers as a tool in education. The use of technology in education will provide that the education will be carried out in accordance with the needs of the era as well as that the highest appropriate yield will be received from education (Kayri, Genà §oglu and Kayri , 2012). The computer which is one of the technological capabilities and a basic element of culture in our century, has become a tool which its use is rapidly spreading (Arslan, 2003 Odabasi, 2006) in (Kayri, Genà §oglu and Kayri, 2012). 2.2 Difference between Technology Integration and Technology Use When using technology in the classroom, it is important to distinguish between technology use and technology integration. Technology use is just the use of technology; it means much more to integrate technology (Catherine, 2011). The difference between technology use and technology integration for learning is that integration implies full-time, daily operation within lessons. Integration involves daily use of technology in reforming the everyday classroom routines (Gorder, 2008). Technology integration is not about the availability of technology, but more about the teachers effective use of technology that makes a difference in reforming the classroom. The teacher is the most important ingredient for success when using and integrating technology (Mandell, Sorge, Russell, 2002). Beckett, Wetzel, Chishlom, Zambo, Buss, Padgett, Williams and Odom (2003) in Gorder, (2008) said teachers are central to the creation of a technology-integrated environment that is learner-centered and motiva ting. Therefore, without teachers who can integrate technology, students exposure to technology remains limited and inequitable. Ozel, Yetkiner and Capraro (2008) in (Catherin, 2011) claim that there are five phases for properly integrating technology. These five phases employ the following questions: Why should I use a technology-based method? How will I know students have learned? What teaching strategies and activities will work best? Are adequate hardware, software and technical support available? What worked well and what could be improved? By examining each of these questions, a teacher is not just using technology, the teacher is thoughtfully planning how technology can be used in the lesson in order to best suit the needs of the students which is integration. 2.3 Impact of Technology Integration on Teachers and students Technology is appealing to teachers because it addresses the need of learners with visual styles as well as of learners with special needs. Moreover, technology exposes learners to a world of information. It has also enabled some teachers to implement new teaching techniques learned through computer (U.S congress of Technology Assessment, 1995) in (Almekhafi, 2004). There are numerous researchers who have explored the area of technology integration worldwide and have came up with reports indicating its positive impact on teaching and learning for teachers using technology. These studies include; Guha, 2000; Manzo, 2001; Shelly, Bilig, Jesse Acosta (2001); Zorfass and Rivero, 2005; Almekhlafi, 2006. Guha (2000) conducted a study to investigate the personal experience of elementary school teachers using computers in the classroom. He investigated their present use of computers in the classroom, and their views on current computer use as compared to their preferred use in classroom instruction. He came up with findings which reported positive correlations and significant differences between the previous training, computer usage in the classroom and comfort level of teachers and their present computer training, level of comfort, and computer usage in the classroom. Manzo (2001) also carried out a study on technology integration in an Art class. He found out that most of the students, who are enrolled in the Electronic Arts Class prior to enrolment, were not able to compete effectively in most of their other classes. But after experiencing the effect of technology utilization, they began to appreciate the importance of doing well in all subjects. Also, Shelly et al. (2001) in their study examine a project titled the WEB Project. The findings of their survey suggest that teachers should as they integrate technology into different areas in the academic content, emphasize the use of meta-cognitive skills, application of skills, and inquiry of learning. Almekhlafi, A.G. (2006a) in his study investigated the effect of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on elementary-prep school students improvement in English as a foreign language (EFL). Results from the study show evidence of the effect of CALL on learning English as a foreign language. It was discovered that a positive attitude was experienced toward CALL, it was also perceived its utility for helping them learn EFL, and the students had a strong intention to use it in the future. The literatures, both in theory and practice, supports the idea that students learning in a community of learners environment using technology as a tool for learning, are able to build on prior knowledge, feel success and grow to their fullest potential. It seems evident that a constructivist-learning environment allows students to experience success with the integration of technology. However, researchers caution us to recognize that technology alone cannot bring about all the needed changes in todays classrooms. 2.4 Factors Affecting Teachers Level of Technology Integration Numerous studies have been carried out as a result of the attention of many researchers drawn to the integration of technology at schools and factors influencing such integration. In a study on teachers who used computer technology in their instruction conducted by Bauer Kenton (2005), to investigate how much they used technology, the obstacles they had to overcome to succeed in its use, and their general issues and concerns regarding technology. It was observed that the teachers were who are highly educated and skilled with technology, were innovative and adept at overcoming obstacles, but that they did not integrate technology on a consistent basis as both a teaching and learning tool. Two key issues that were noted are; their students did not have enough time at computers, and that teachers needed extra planning time for technology lessons. Other concerns were outdated hardware, lack of appropriate software, technical difficulties, and student skill levels. Kotrlik Redmann (2005) examined the extent of technology integration in instruction by adult basic education teachers. The teachers used for this study are in the early stage of technology integration thereby more active in the area of exploration. The findings from the study reveals that that teachers feel some anxiety when it comes to technology integration, they perceived that they are effective in using technology regardless of whether they have integrated technology, and they are encountering barriers. As teachers perceive an increase in barriers, their integration of technology decreases; also, as the availability and increase of ICT tools, such as computers with Internet connection in the classroom and/or lab increases their level of technology integration. In a study conducted by Gulbahar (2007), investigating both student and teachers perception to illustrate how technology planning process was carried out in a private school in Turkey. Findings from the study indicated that even teachers and administrator staff felt themselves competent in using ICT available at the school; still, they reported a lack of guidelines that would lead them to successful integration. On the other hand, students reported that ICT is not utilized sufficiently in their classes. Zhao (2007) conducted a qualitative research to investigate the perspectives and experiences of teachers following technology integration training. The findings of his study indicated that teachers view towards technology integration is diverse, and this has an influence on their use of technology in the classroom. It further reveals that; willingness to use technology and positive experiences were related to teachers increased use of technology and to more creative use of technology, because most teachers who are willing to use technology, expressed positive experiences with technology integration training, increased their use of technology in the classroom, and used technology more creatively. But this did not ensure that teachers would replace their teaching with technology. 2.5 Teachers Perceptions of Technology Integration and Gender Differences The perspective of teachers of their understanding of technology, their utilization of instructional technology, and feelings about the support structure associated with this equipment have been examined with the findings suggesting that teachers believe technology is an integral part of the process of educating their students Almekhlafi Almeqdadi 2010. There are different literatures relating to gender differences in the technology integration. Of these studies include; Hong Koh, 2002; Kian Chee, 2002; Zhou Xu, 2007; Aremu Fasan, 2011; Hon Alison, 2012). Gender discrepancy was studied in both classroom access and use by Hong and Koh (2002), it was found that male teachers were less anxious when compared with the female teachers toward hardware. They also found that there is no significant difference in the overall level of computer anxiety of male teachers was not significantly different from the anxiety levels of female teachers. Only for the hardware anxiety domain was significant differences detected between male and female teachers. Zhou Xu (2007) conducted a study which was aimed at exploring how gender affects the process of technology adoption in post-secondary teaching. Findings from this study suggest that females had lower confidence and less experience in the use of computers in teaching. Also, they tended to learn how to use technology from others, unlike the males who were more likely to learn from their own experience. Also, in a study by Aremu Fasan (2011) which was aimed at investigating factors that could affect technology use and by teachers analysis from the study showed that the computer self efficacy was average for most of the teachers though female teachers have higher Computer self efficacy than male teachers. Hon Alison (2012) conducted a study which was used to examining the effect of gender difference regarding confidence toward using technology for learning in higher educational institutions. The findings of this study confirmed that male have more confidence in using technology for learning than do females because gender imbalances in computing are socially constructed and not related to a learners innate ability. 2.6 Barriers Technology Integration There are numerous researches that have documented a number of barriers which hinder the integration of technology. Out of these include ; Earle, 2002; Flores, 2002, Brinkerhof, 2006 and Almekhlafi Almeqdadi, 2010. In the study by Robert Ferries (1994) cited by Almekhlafi Almeqdadi, (2010), it was stated that barriers to technology integration included lack of knowledge of the available technological resources, time commitment, the risk associated with the use of technology and also the view of technology as an ever changing thing. According to Earle (2002), in her study, she classified the factors that affect technology integration in the classroom into two. These are extrinsic and intrinsic. These factors are defined as restraining force to the teachers. The extrinsic factors are identified as access, available resources, support, time, and training of teachers while the restraining factors that are intrinsic are identified as teachers attitudes, beliefs, practices, and resistan ce. In the study of Flores (2002), it was identified that in the attempt of teachers to integrate technology in their teaching activity, they were faced by many obstacle. In addition to administrative support and time scheduling for the use of technology, equity is another important issue. The introduction of technology is particularly hard when there are few resources. This is supported by Almekhlafi Almeqdadi, (2010) where he cited Brinkerhof (2006) who grouped the restraining into four (4) main categories: administrative and institutional resources and support, attitudinal or personality factors, and experience and training. CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction This chapter highlights how the field work will be carried out. It describes the design, nature of population, sample, instruments used and how the instrument will be administered as well as analyzed. Research Design This study is a descriptive study which will be conducted to investigate the effect of teachers perception of instructional technology and the level at which they integrate these technologies in the process of teaching and learning. Area of Study The study was carried out in Lagos state. Population of Study The population for this study will consists of all lecturers in the tertiary institution in Lagos state with special reference to the lecturers of selected tertiary institutions in Lagos state. Sample and Sampling Technique The tertiary institution in comprises of Colleges of Education, Poly-techniques, and Universities. In Lagos state, there are ____ Colleges of Education, ____ Poly Techniques, and ____ Universities out of which one will be randomly selected from each as a representative sample. In each of the selected schools, 60 lecturers will be selected using a purposeful random selection The sample of this study will be lecturers who will be selected using a purposefully random sampling technique. This will be the sample the questionnaire will be administered to. Instrumentation The instrument that will be used in this study is; The Mills Tincher Technology Integration Standards Configuration Matrix (TISCM). This is a model for determining technology integration by teachers (Mills Tincher, 2003). This instrument will consist of two sections as follows; Section A: Demographic data Section B: 18 Survey questions Validation of Instrument The instruments will be critically examined, scrutinized and amended by my supervisor and experts who are experienced in area of research to ensure the validity its of. Data Collection To answer the research questions in this study, a research tool (Technology Integration Standards Configuration Matrix (TISCM)) which was developed by Dr. Steven Mills, will be used to investigate teachers perception of technology and how they integrated technology on a daily basis. This tool will consist of a number of subthemes that will investigated teachers perceptions of their technology competencies and usage, determined how teachers integrate and use technology. Data Analysis Data gathered from questionnaire items will be analyzed using SPSS 17.0. Descriptive statistics, a multivariate analysis, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used. In addition, items will be analysed using Item Analysis method in order to get a deep understanding of the results from the questionnaire.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
explain ho wchristians put these ideas into practice :: essays research papers
Believing in helping and assisting less privileged people than ourselves is one thing but putting these beliefs into practice is another. Many people often have these ideas of how they may be able to help people but a lot of them never actually do it and at the most may put five pounds into a collection tin. There are many things that can be done where you can personally help and experience the cause you are helping. ‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven’ this quote represents the most basic thing people do for charity; giving to charity. Most people do this but not to the lengths this quote encourages people to do. People nowadays would not be willing enough to give up all their possessions to help the poor. There are a few exceptions. People like St Mother Teresa gave up everything and went and lived in poverty with the sick and the poor to teach them about the bible and to teach them English, maths and skills to ease the hardship on their lives. Another very basic thing people do where available is buy fair trade products. A lot of the time farmers are unable to break even in their farming so they spend more money on the actual farming as they get in return for their products. Because of this, people often get drawn into the cycle of poverty. There are hundreds of fair trade products available. For example you can buy fair trade chocolate which is often a lot nicer than unfair trade chocolate from a producer like Nestle who are being investigated for encouraging exploitation of the poor in LEDC’s. Overall fair Trade is not about charity. It's about paying a fair price for the products that we use, eat and wear. It ensures that you get top quality goods and the people who produce them get paid fairly. It's a practical solution to many of the problems that keep the world's poorest people in poor. One of the more involving activities people do to help the poor and less fortunate is to go and be an aid worker in another country. Either to go and help as a medical worker or as one who delivers aid to the needy and helps to teach new skills to help people in life. ‘Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy and drive out demons.
Saturday, August 3, 2019
Smut, Erotic Reality/obscene Ideology Essay -- Murray Davis Human Sexu
Smut, Erotic Reality/Obscene Ideology In the book Smut, Erotic Reality/ Obscene Ideology , by Murray Davis (1983), the author expresses the idea that the best source for studying human sexuality objectively is "soft core", rather than â€Å"hard core†pornography. (Davis p. xix). The purpose of this paper is to critique Davis's claim and to study what understanding of human sexuality someone might have if they used some other resource that is available today, in this case the Internet. Davis argues that , "hard core pornography is usually more abstract and less explicit than soft-core pornography". (Davis, p. xix, 1983). Davis doesn't go on to explain how hard-core pornography can be less explicit than soft-core. However he does explain that hard-core pornography is more abstract in that, it depicts the sex act only and not the emotional or personal characteristics of the people involved in the act. (Davis, p. xx) He believes soft-core pornography is describing "a sexual experience", which conveys characteristics of the participants that are not described by hard-core pornography. Hard-core pornography describes "sexual behaviour" which involves more of the act of sex rather than the characteristics and feelings involved with sex. (Davis, p. xix) Although Davis admits that the vocabulary of sex is changing (Davis, p. xxv), he also states that hard-core pornography uses considerably more vulgar terms that are associated with lower-class activity, such as, "prick, fuck, and suck" (Davis, p. xxiii). Davis believes that hard-core pornography, induces imaginative behaviours by using these lower-class, four-letter words. The stories use phrases such as "First we sucked, then we fucked."(Davis p. xix, 1983), to allow the reader the tools to imagine the scene actually taking place. The reader is lead by the author through the story by using words that may be more understood or common in the readers' everyday life. He also accuses hard- core films of being "behavioristic" and "abstract" because they often fail to "fully inform the audience about the characters personality types and social categories."(Davis, p. xx, 1983) Soft-core pornography, on the other hand, often depicts "the subtle phenomenological effects that result when a character's sexual behaviour clashes with his or her personal and social characteristics." (Davis, p. x... ... to the search. For example, love plays a role in our sexuality. If someone did not know this they would enter â€Å"human sexuality†into the search engine and again may be distracted by flashy, hard-core, sex-sites and may not find anything on love. The over-all understanding of human sexuality would be limited according to which sites were looked at. Although I agree somewhat with Advisee's claim that soft-core , rather than hard-core pornography, may be a better resource for studying human sexuality. I feel that using only one resource for information can limit the view and even sometimes distort an individuals ideas of human sexuality. When using a resource such as the Internet, one may be overwhelmed with information and marketing tactics may win the attention of information seekers and take away from the sites that actually offer factual information regarding human sexuality. Therefore, I believe that an individual should use all resources available to them when studying any topic, especially a topic as complex as human sexuality. References Davis, S. Murray. (1983). Smut erotic reality obscene ideology. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Friday, August 2, 2019
Changing Oil in Your Car Essay -- Process Descriptive How To Changing
Changing Oil in Your Car When the average person's car needs an oil change we drive to a Quick Lube and have it done in 20 minutes. Another alternative would be to change the oil your self, this is a fairly simple process, most people with some common sense and some basic hand tools can do it at home on a weekend. The first step is finding out how much oil your car holds and what kind of oil filter fits on your cars engine. Your car's owner's manual will have a capacity section in the back, down the list till you come to the engine oil capacity, and the chart will list the number of quarts that your car needs. Also on most new cars when you can look on the oil cap it should state the oil weight which is recommended by the cars manufacturer. Then you need to go to the local parts house (I prefer Advance or Orileys) get the brand of oil that you prefer in the recommended weight, and quantity. When you pay, you can get the part number for the oil filter, all you have to know is the make of the car and the motor size and they should be able to find the information and then tell you which filter belongs on the car. Remember to get an oil filter wrench to remove the filter of with if don't already have one. Next, go home and find a level spot on which to park your vehicle. Before you jack up the front of the vehicle, you need to set the emergency brake and chock the rear wheels; this is just a safety measure to keep the car form rolling back. Once you have completed this, you need to refer to the owner's manual again for the recommended lift points for the car. You are not able to just put a jack underneath a car and lift it up because you will risk damaging the under body. There are certain places to put the jack to properly ... ...place it in the fill hole (it is located on one of the valve cover of the motor and it has a cap) and add the recommended amount of oil. After you have added oil, replace the cap. Now you are ready to start the motor. When you first start it, there will be no oil pressure so don't be alarmed but watch the gauge, and in about ten to thirty seconds the oil pressure should be up in the normal range. With the engine running, look underneath the vehicle and check the plug and filter to make sure there are no leaks. If there are no leaks, shut the vehicle off and check the oil level on the dip stick and make sure it is between the low and full mark. If the oil is a little low, add a little more at a time, and keep rechecking it until the oil level is full. When you have completed this you are done. This is a fairly simple process and can save you a lot of money over time.
Counseling in the Latino Culture
Case Study of Mario Abstract Counseling members of the Latino culture who reside in the United States comes with many challenges, as family structure, economic, and social factors influence an individual’s ability to cope with his new surroundings. In the case study of Mario, an examination of his US residency and the motivational role his family played in his relocation is crucial in determining his mental state and understanding of support. Latino men are generally hesitant to seek counseling and admit weakness, and the mandate of the court for treatment may even create more resistance in the case of Mario.While treatment goals would include a complete abstinence from addictive substances, deeper success would come with a realization of his coping mechanisms and the environment factors triggering their defenses. Measures success will be found in the increased ability for Mario to self-disclose during treatment, cooperating in native-language journaling, and attendance and vo luntary participation in addiction oriented group counseling. Personal Information When first meeting with Mario, I would like to understand more about who he is.Since we may not have complete file on his demographics, I would like to know his age, marital status, original residence, if he has children, and current employment situation. I would like to know about his journey to get into the United States, as well as the decision making that went into the process. Considering that he has left his family behind, I would like to know who he is staying with or his current living conditions. Since the ties among family are highly valued in the Hispanic culture, determining whose choice it was for Mario to enter the United States illegally would assist in understanding his emotional state and stability.As mentioned by Torres & Zayas (2009), â€Å"Latino men are intensely devoted to their families, take great pride in their ability to provide for and protect their wives and children, and are deeply connected to their extended families and their broader communities†(Torres & Zayas, 2009, p. 206). In light of this, I would like to know the motivation for being in the United States despite the risks associated with his alien status. I would also like to know if he any contact with his family back home. I would also like to know about his family background.The primary source of identity and self-esteem in a Latino is found in his familial structure (Torres-Rivera, 2004). Additionally, the family culture of the Latino population heavily involves the teaching and cultures of the Roman Catholic church, which is a source of Mario’s social interaction (Hildebrand, Phenice, Gray, & Hinesm, 2008). The family structure and culture also provides understanding of the level of acceptance or tolerance for substance abuse, and whether or not there are any moral objections to such behaviors by relatives and his original community.This provides an avenue from which to pu rsue support or determine a weak spot in his associations (Torres-Rivera, 2004). I think it would also be pertinent to follow his journey in the United States for the past five years. How many times has he been unemployed? What different cultures, ethnicities, and attitudes has he been exposed too? How has he learned to communicate with others? Research show the social and economic conditions play a significant role in substance abuse among Latinos (Black, DeBlassie, Paz, 1991).Realizing what he has been exposed to may provide insight into his need or decision to abuse alcohol or other substances. Personal Biases and Limitations Having had previous exposure to the Latino community through a non-profit organization, I feel that I am comfortable around their culture. One of the keys to building successful rapport with a Latino client is familiarizing oneself with the Latino community and culture, and I think that my desire to become more education about diversity would allow me to acc omplish this (Black, DeBlassie, Paz, 1991).However, realizing that he is an illegal alien does give me cause for concern and my first inclination may be to question why he is receiving counseling rather than being deported. Since men within the Latino â€Å"seldom present for treatment, and even more rarely do they make the initial request for services themselves†(Torres & Zayas, 2009), I may be predisposed to assume that these sessions would be pointless and his addictions were just a part of his primary culture. I may also question who would be paying for the services, and feel that government funding would be better spent on individuals who had a â€Å"legitimate right†to ur services. Should he have limited English speaking abilities, I may be frustrated and feel that he had a responsibility to learn English if he wanted to a part of our country and just refer his case off to a Spanish speaking counselor so I would not have the challenges that would accompany that barrier. With these thoughts and biases, my understanding of his lifestyle and point of view would be skewed and I do not think that I would look objectively at goals and treatment plans.I may go through the motions of listening, but lack a sincerity and empathy in my approach and response. Latino individuals, especially men, need to develop strong rapport with their counselors or therapist, as self-disclosure is extremely difficult for them (Torres & Zayas, 2009). My attitude may be easily sensed, which would lead to confrontation and hostility from the initial introductions (Black, DeBlassie, Paz, 1991). Goals In working with Mario, I think the primary goal would be abstinence from alcohol.Instead of explaining the evils of alcohol or the effects on his physical health or even the legal consequences of abuse, it is more critical that I engage him in a decision to abstain from alcohol for a specific period of time as we discuss the implications of his abuse on his family and commu nity. Although he is separated from his family, deriving treatment goals from what is culturally acceptable behavior highlights one of the strongest values in the Hispanic culture- protecting and providing for the family (Maddux, Phan, Roberts-Wilbur, Torres-Rivera, & Wilbur, 2004).Realizing that his dependence on alcohol may be a coping mechanism for his loneliness and having him explore avenues to become more socially engaged will be another goal that I pursue with Mario. In Latino men, â€Å"substance abuse is often used to cope with the discomfort and unmet emotional needs of the individual†(Maddux, Phan, Roberts-Wilbur, Torres-Rivera, & Wilbur, 2004, p. 31). Despite the need for change, it is plausible that Mario will not support these goals.In fact, â€Å"resistance should be expected at with every intervention when working with Latino clients†(Maddux, Phan, Roberts-Wilbur, Torres-Rivera, & Wilbur, 2004, p. 36). One suggestion for combatting this resistance wou ld be to have Mario participate in a group counseling setting where he can examine the importance of cultural beliefs and values, as well as provide him a more â€Å"familiar face†environment where he can be honest with other Latino participants (Maddux, Phan, Roberts-Wilbur, Torres-Rivera, & Wilbur, 2004). Theoretical ApproachBecause of the strong need for Latino men to feel in control and exude their masculine identity, I will have to carefully approach my discussions or plan for Mario (Torres & Zayas, 2009). I would develop a better relationship if I share ideas and allow him to discuss it and offer input. The Latino population is generally not interested in lengthy, theoretical discussions and often prefers action. ‘Hispanic clients were found to be tolerant of early goal setting in the counseling process†(Black, DeBlassie, Paz, 1991, p. 229). My style should be direct, and include an understanding of the problem form their perspective (Diller, 2011).It woul d also be important to incorporate a spiritual component to his treatment, â€Å"since spirituality for Latinos is an important part of their identity†(Maddux et al, 2004, p. 37). Latino individuals are known to terminate counseling prematurely (Madduz et al, 2004). With the fact that counseling has been mandated by the courts, I would establish a minimum of four sessions. Since the primary session will mainly gather information about his background, that leaves three sessions to work through what I have discovered and found to be important to him.Since this will be combined with attendance with a support group, I do not want to scare Mario or smother him in his treatment and progress. If there is a language barrier, it may be easier for Mario to communicate on a deeper emotional level in his native language (Black, DeBlassie, Paz, 1991). If this is the case and he is comfortable doing so, I would have him journal in Spanish or outwardly speak his thoughts occurring when he has a desire to drink or when he is lonely. This may be more effective than me trying to tell him how he might feel in English.Therapeutic Progress and Success While success would be for Mario to become more integrated into his present community and maintain control over his alcohol intake, measuring success for Mario may be difficult if he is unable remove the depression, fear, and stress that often accompanies Latinos residing in the United States (Maddux et al, 2004). However, smaller signs of success with be a noticeable change in his effort to participate in therapy and increase in the depth of his disclosers during sessions.Once Latino men are more comfortable and engaged in the therapeutic process, their walls come down and they are more willing to be personal and open in their revelations (Torres and Zayas, 2009). Further success would be shown in his willful participation in the group therapy that he has been required to attend. References Black, C. , DeBlassie, R. , & Paz, H. (1991). Counseling the Hispanic male adolescent. Adolescence, 26(101), 223-32. Retrieved from http://search. proquest. com/docview/195933761? accountid=12085 Diller, J. V. (2011). Cultural diversity: A primer for the human services (4th ed. ).Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Hildebrand, V. , Phenice, L. , Gray, M. , & Hines, R. (2008). Knowing and serving diverse families (3rd ed. ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Maddxx, C. , Phan, L. , Roberts-Wilbur, J. , Torres-Rivera, E. , & Wilbur, M. (2004) Counseling Latinos with substance abuse problems. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 25(1), 26-42. Retrieved from http://search. proquest. com/docview/194443893? accountid=12085 Torres, L. & Zayas, L. (2009). Culture and masculinity: When therapist and patient are Latino men. Clinical Social Work Journal, 37(4), 294-302. doi: 10. 1007/s10615-009-0232-2
Thursday, August 1, 2019
PepsiCo restaurants Essay
I. Introduction The key question is whether PepsiCo should expand its restaurant business by pursuing the purchase of CARTS OF COLORADO, a $7 million manufacturer and merchandiser of mobile food carts and kiosks, and CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, a $34 million restaurant chain in the casual dining segment. II. Analysis of the main problemPepsiCo has 3 main segments: soft drinks (35% of PepsiCo’s sales and 39% of its operating profits in 1991), snack foods (29% of PepsiCo’s sales and 35% of its operating profits) and restaurants (36% of PepsiCo’s sales and 26% of its operating profits). In the early 1990’s PepsiCo’s three restaurant chains (KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut) were the leaders in their respective segment. PepsiCo’s senior management believes its ability to move people within and across divisions gives PepsiCo a competitive advantage in the restaurant segment. PepsiCo believes their restaurants perform due to their strong management teams; which are developed within the corporation. PepsiCo would like to utilize their competitive advantage in running restaurants with PepsiCo managers by adding California Pizza Kitchen and CARTS OF COLORADO to the PepsiCo portfolio. Despite PepsiCo’s success with KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut it had difficulty expanding La Petite Boulangerie, a three-unit bakery chain it purchased in 1982. The large overhead for La Petite Boulangerie made the company unprofitable and Pepsi sold it in 1987 for a $13 million loss. The unsuccessful venture into La Petite Boulangerie suggested that although PepsiCo managers were gifted and could be easily moved across divisions; the moves would not always guarantees a successful business expansion. Therefore, the main problem for PepsiCo management is to decide whether it can successfully purchase and administer CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO. This is in light of the fact that PepsiCo believes it has a competitive advantage in the skillfulness of its managers that was not borne out in the unsuccessful La Petite Boulangerie bakery endeavor. III. Recommendations PepsiCo can be categorized as a related diversifier. Approximately 30% of its revenue is split between its 3 main industrial categories. PepsiCo’s business units share common resources and skills. Historically companies that take a corporate strategy of related diversification perform the best (GBS_634M lecture notes). Therefore on the surface it would appear that diversification by acquiring CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO would be an excellent strategic decision. However, in arguments described below; the evidence does not support a recommendation for PepsiCo to purchase Carts of Colorado or CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN. IV. Justification for recommendations PepsiCo is a lucrative company and therefore does not need to diversify into CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO to maintain it profitability. From 1987-1991 PepsiCo’s sales doubled, income from continuing operations grew at a compound rate of more than 20%, and the company’s value on the stock market tripled (PepsiCo restaurant Case, pg. 4, and Exhibit 3). Eight key reasons NOT to diversify into CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO. It is poor rationale for PepsiCo to diversify into CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO simply to reduce risk. The restaurant business is cyclical. Some restaurants will be profitable, while some will not be profitable. PepsiCo’s shareholders can diversify risk by purchasing shares in CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO themselves. Furthermore, it is not an appropriate strategy for PepsiCo management to over-diversify to protect their personal wealth. Maintaining growth is not a good basis to diversify into CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN or CARTS OF COLORADO. Most shareholders would rather hold shares in a small profitable company, not a big unprofitable company. As a shareholder, there is only a benefit if PepsiCo makes a profit. Currently PepsiCo is making a profit. Although managers benefit from growth regardless of profit or loss , growth for the sake of growth is not an appropriate reason to diversify. Although PepsiCo can use CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO to balance cash flow by funneling cash from its large business units to the smaller CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO business units; this is not recommended. Even thought PepsiCo has the capability of doing this an individual shareholder can do this for himself. The counterargument would be that PepsiCo managers can do a better job balancing cash flow than shareholders because the corporation can be more tax efficient than the individual shareholder. But this alone is not a sufficient reason to diversify. The acquisition of CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO will not create synergy within the PepsiCo corporate strategy. PepsiCo already has a Pizza segment (i.e. Pizza Hut) and does not have experience in the mobile food cart segment. Diversifying into these two market segments will not produce corporate synergy where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. One good reason for PepsiCo to diversity into CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO is the sharing of infrastructure and to create economies of scope. PepsiCo is currently saving money because they are competing in several different industries (ie. Soft drinks, snack foods, and restaurants). These business units share the support structure and therefore the reduced costs. While Pepsi’s economy of scope can be used to distribute chips just as well as soft drinks it is not apparent that they can deliver well in the niche restaurant market like CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN (refer back to La Petite Boulangerie misfortune). If PepsiCo were to sell two or more different products simultaneously that would be beneficial by creating an economy of scope. For example, if PepsiCo could distribute Pepsi soft drinks and California Pizza from a cart they would have justification for the acquisition of CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO because they would be sharing common infrastructure that would make them unique. The uniqueness would make it very difficult for competitors to imitate and would be a reason to diversify. But there are currently no mechanisms to sell California Pizza’s from a cart. Therefore at this time, sharing of infrastructure is not a good justification for PepsiCo to diversify into these two markets. It is not apparent that PepsiCo will increase its market power if they acquire CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO. PepsiCo already has multiple business units that buy from the same set of suppliers and sell to same set of customers. They have used this to gain market power. It is not apparent that adding CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN or CARTS OF COLORADO to the fold will increase PepsiCo’s market share significantly. It could be argued that by acquiring CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO PepsiCo is exploiting core competence. Although this is generally a good reason to diversify by generating more revenue opportunity and competing in several markets; this is not a good initiative for PepsiCo in the situation with CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO. In order to exploit core competencies, PepsiCo’s business units must be related, so they share the same set of skills. In order for this strategy to be successful, the benefits to PepsiCo have to be unavailable to PepsiCo’s competitors. If PepsiCo’s competitors can gain the same advantage, then PepsiCo will not have a strategic benefit. Although the Colorado Carts are unique, they can be duplicated by the competition (e.g. California Carts, All-Star Carts, Creative Mobile systems). With regards to CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, other pizza restaurants can reproduce the unique flavors and styles of pizza. Therefore, PepsiCo will not be exploiting its core competence and should not diversify. If PepsiCo is contemplating CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO as good ‘turnaround projects’ then this is not a justification for diversification. CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN is a profitable company. CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN has increased both sales and net income from 1990 to 1991. CARTS OF COLORADO has also shown an increase in sales and operating income from 1985-1991. The management teams of both companies appear to be performing well. Therefore the ‘turnaround’ potential is not a good reason to diversify. CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO do not fit into the PepsiCo Corporate strategyWhere does PepsiCo compete?There may be a market opportunity for PepsiCo in the acquisition of CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO, but that does not necessarily imply that PepsiCo should take the opportunity. The overall scope of PepsiCo is on convenient foods and beverages. The acquisition of CARTS OF COLORADO would certainly be in-line with PepsiCo’s focus of providing foods and beverages at well-situated locations. However, PepsiCo does not have experience in the placement of mobile food carts and therefore PepsiCo would be at a disadvantage to those more experienced in the mobile cart business. There is even less evidence for a distinctive market opportunity for PepsiCo with the acquisition of CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN. PepsiCo already owns Pizza Hut and therefore has a place in the dine-in and take-out pizza business. Although CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN is suited for more upscale markets with unique flavors and tastes, Pizza Hut could introduce similar unique flavors and tastes. In addition Pizza Hut has stores across the United States and internationally, while CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN has a limited geographic scope. It currently operates only 25 restaurants in eight states (PepsiCo case, pg. 15). The offbeat pizzas may not sell well across the United States and internationally. For example, jerk-chicken pizza may sell very well in Beverly Hills, CA but not sell well in Peoria, Illinois or Duesseldorf, Germany. How does PepsiCo compete?PepsiCo’s corporate strategy allows for transfer of resources (i.e. managers) across their business units. PepsiCo’s philosophy is â€Å"We take eagles and teach them to fly in formation†(PepsiCo case, pg. 3). Therefore PepsiCo may have a strategic advantage by transferring managers from one of its current business units to CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN or CARTS OF COLORADO. For example, one manager could transfer her knowledge from a position at Pizza Hut to CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN relatively transparently; although it may be more difficult to transfer knowledge from Pizza Hut to the food carts and kiosks; the business of Colorado Carts. PepsiCo does transfers resources which fit well with the CARTS OF COLORADO enterprise. PepsiCo can place a Cart outside a shopping mall on the street selling food. At some carts PepsiCo could offer KFC or Taco Bell while offering a Pepsi soft drink; maybe put forward some Frito lays chips. But this strategy does not fit well with the idea of the upscale CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN being directly near a KFC or Taco Bell in a mega-mall food court. How does PepsiCo execute?PepsiCo, although a very large corporate office, has an execution strategy in which they let the managers go at their own pace. They have a ‘decentralized organization’ (PepsiCo case pg. 4). PepsiCo managers are rewarded on a two-phase system; reporting performance first to direct managers then to upper level managers. In order to be promoted managers of CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO would have to perform very well relative to all of the remaining PepsiCo restaurants. Because all of the other PepsiCo restaurants are at the top of their respective segments it will be a challenge for managers of CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN and CARTS OF COLORADO to surpass other PepsiCo business units. Therefore the managers will not be incentivized as well managing CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN or CARTS OF COLORADO. Therefore, diversifying into California Pizza Kitchen and CARTS OF COLORADO is not copasetic with the PepsiCo corporate strategy. V. Summary. The acquisition of CARTS OF COLORADO and CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN will not lead toward the fulfillment of PepsiCo’s mission which is â€Å"To be the world’s premier consumer products company focused on convenient foods and beverages and seeks to produce healthy financial rewards to investors as they provide opportunities for growth and enrichment to their employees, their business partners and the communities in which they operate. And in everything they do, to strive for honesty, fairness and integrity.†(http://www.pepsico.com/PEP_Company/Overview/index.cfm)PepsiCo’s management should take the â€Å"guilty until proven innocent†approach and not diversify into these two business segments. As described in the preceding paragraphs at this time there is not sufficient and convincing evidence to support the need for diversification into CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN or CARTS OF COLORADO. References: 1. http://www.pepsico.com/PEP_Company/Overview/index.cfm2. www.cpk.com3. PepsiCo restaurants. HBS 9-794-078
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)