Senin, 25 Februari 2013
3. Expressing Certainty
DEFINITION OF Certainty and uncertainty
Certainty is a situation that really does not have the confidence or doubt about something. However, uncertainty is when nothing is ever decided or certain.
expressing certainty
If you believe that something will or will not happen in the future, using the expression.
example dialogue:
This is one example of dialogue certainty and
uncertainty with school
aktivatas topic. Yes,
for those of you who are looking for dialogue certainty and uncertainty
for school work please copy and paste the dialog below. But if there is
a sentence or a word wrong please justified
through comments ..
If not, may be useful for you.
A: Hi, L! Good morning!
L: Hello, A! Good morning!
A: What do you think if we decorate our class?
L: That's good idea, make a wall magazine I think.
A: Are you sure?
L: Yes, certainly. Our class look nice if there is a wall magazine.
A: Well it is possible I suppose it but I doubt it.
L: So, what do you think?
A: Why do not we buy flowers for our class?
L: Oh, I do not think so. It is expensive.
A: You are right, but we can collect money.
L: I doubt it. I'm broke now. I do not think can get enough money.
A: Yeah, come on. I can lend you the money if you want.
L: Really?
A: Of course.
L: Thank you very much.
A: Do not mention it.
A: Hi, L! Good morning!
L: Hello, A! Good morning!
A: What do you think if we decorate our class?
L: That's good idea, make a wall magazine I think.
A: Are you sure?
L: Yes, certainly. Our class look nice if there is a wall magazine.
A: Well it is possible I suppose it but I doubt it.
L: So, what do you think?
A: Why do not we buy flowers for our class?
L: Oh, I do not think so. It is expensive.
A: You are right, but we can collect money.
L: I doubt it. I'm broke now. I do not think can get enough money.
A: Yeah, come on. I can lend you the money if you want.
L: Really?
A: Of course.
L: Thank you very much.
A: Do not mention it.
EXPRESSING
CERTAINTY / UNCERTAINT
EXPRESSING CERTAINTY / UNCERTAINT ( yakin /
tidakyakin )
|
EXPRESSING CERTAINTY
|
EXPRESSING UNCERTAINTY
|
|
·
I doubt it
·
O’m not certain
·
I don’t think so
|
2. Bargaining
Bargaining or haggling is a type of negotiation in which the buyer and seller of a good or service dispute the price which will be paid and the exact nature of the transaction that will take place, and eventually come to an agreement. Bargaining is an alternative pricing strategy to fixed prices. Optimally, if it costs the retailer nothing to engage and allow bargaining, he can divine the buyer's willingness to spend. It allows for capturing more consumer surplus as it allows price discrimination, a process whereby a seller can charge a higher price to one buyer who is more eager (by being richer or more desperate). Haggling has largely disappeared in parts of the world where the cost to haggle exceeds the gain to retailers for most common retail items. However, for expensive goods sold to uninformed buyers such as automobiles, bargaining can remain commonplace.
Dickering refers to the same process, albeit with a slight negative (petty) connotation.
Bargaining is also the name chosen for the 3rd stage of the Kübler-Ross model (commonly known as the stages of dying), even though it has nothing to do with price negotiations.
Contexts where bargaining is allowed
Not all transactions are open to bargaining. Both religious beliefs and regional custom may determine whether or not the seller is willing to bargain.
Regional differences
In North America and Europe bargaining is restricted to expensive or one-of-a-kind items (automobiles, jewelry, art, real estate, trade sales of businesses) and informal sales settings such as flea markets and garage sales. In other regions of the world bargaining may be the norm even for small commercial transactions.
In Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia where locals haggle for goods and services everywhere from street markets to hotels, haggling is a strong cultural tradition that even children learn from a young age. Participating in that tradition can make foreigners feel accepted. Haggling for food items is strongly discouraged in Southeast Asia and is considered an insult, because food is seen a common necessity that is not to be treated as a tradable good.
In almost all large complex business negotiations, a certain amount of bargaining takes place. One simplified 'western' way to decide when it's time to bargain is to break negotiation into 2 stages: creating value and claiming value. Claiming value is another phrase for bargaining. Many cultures take offence when they perceive the other side as having started bargaining too soon. This offence is usually as a result of their wanting to first create value for longer before they bargain together. The Chinese culture by contrast places a much higher value on taking time to build a business relationship before starting to create value or bargain. Not understanding when to start bargaining has ruined many an otherwise positive business negotiation.
In areas where bargaining at the retail level is common, the option to bargain often depends on the presence of the store's owner. A chain store managed by clerks is more likely to use fixed pricing than an independent store managed by an owner or one of owner's trusted employees.
The store's ambiance may also be used to signal whether or not bargaining is appropriate. For instance, a comfortable and air-conditioned store with posted prices usually do not allow bargaining, but a stall in a bazaar or marketplace may. Supermarkets and other chain stores almost never allow bargaining. However, the importance of ambiance may depend on the cultural commitment to bargaining. In Israel, prices on day-to-day items (clothing, toiletries) may be negotiable even in a Western style store manned by a clerk.
In India, a sign posted with the phrase fixed price indicates that bargaining is not allowed, although quite often this is not the case.
Theories
Behavioral theory
The personality theory in bargaining emphasizes that the type of personalities determine the bargaining process and its outcome. A popular behavioral theory deals with a distinction between hard-liners and soft-liners. Various research papers refer to hard-liners as warriors, while soft-liners are shopkeepers. It varies from region to region. Bargaining may take place more in rural and semi-urban areas than in a metro city.]
Game theory
Bargaining games refer to situations where two or more players must reach agreement regarding how to distribute an object or monetary amount. Each player prefers to reach an agreement in these games, rather than abstain from doing so; however, each prefers that agreement which most favours his interests. Examples of such situations would be the bargaining involved in a labour union and the directors of a company negotiating wage increases, the dispute between two communities about the distribution of a common territory or the conditions under which two countries can start a program of nuclear disarmament. Analyzing these kinds of problems looks for a solution specifying which component in dispute will correspond to each party involved.
Players in a bargaining problem can bargain for the objective as a whole at a precise moment in time. The problem can also be divided so that parts of the whole objective become subject to bargaining during different stages.
In a classical bargaining problem the result is an agreement reached between all interested parties, or the status quo of the problem. It is clear that studying how individual parties make their decisions is insufficient for predicting what agreement will be reached. However, classical bargaining theory assumes that each participant in a bargaining process will choose between possible agreements, following the conduct predicted by the rational choice model. It is particularly assumed that each player's preferences regarding the possible agreements can be represented by a von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem function.
Nash [1950] defines a classical bargaining problem as being a set of joint allocations of utility, some of which will correspond to what the players would obtain if they reach an agreement, and another which represents what they would get if they failed to do so.
A bargaining game for two players is defined as a pair (F,d) where F is the set of possible joint utility allocations (possible agreements), and d is the disagreement point.
For the definition of a specific bargaining solution it is usual to follow Nash's proposal, setting out the axioms this solution should satisfy. Some of the most frequent axioms used in the building of bargaining solutions are efficiency, symmetry, independence of irrelevant alternatives, scalar invariance, monotonicity, etc.
The Nash bargaining solution is the bargaining solution which maximizes the product of an agent's utilities on the bargaining set.
The Nash bargaining solution, however, only deals with the simplest structure of bargaining. It is not dynamic (failing to deal with how pareto outcomes are achieved). Instead, for situations where the structure of the bargaining game is important, a more mainstream game theoretic approach is useful. This can allow players' preferences over time and risk to be incorporated into the solution of bargaining games. It can also show how the details can matter. For example the Nash bargaining solution for Prisoners' Dilemma is different from the Nash equilibrium.
Bargaining and posted prices in retail markets
Retailers can choose to sell at posted prices or allow bargaining: selling at a public posted price commits the retailer not to exploit buyers once they enter the retail store, making the store more attractive to potential customers, while a bargaining strategy has the advantage that it allows the retailer to price discriminate between different types of customer. In some markets, such as those for automobiles and expensive electronic goods, firms post prices but are open to haggling with consumers. When the proportion of haggling consumers goes up, prices tend to rise.
Processual theory
This theory isolates distinctive elements of the bargaining chronology in order to better understand the complexity of the negotiating process. Several key features of the processual theory include:
· Bargaining range
· Critical risk
· Security point
Integrative theory
Integrative bargaining (also called "interest-based bargaining," "win-win bargaining") is a negotiation strategy in which parties collaborate to find a "win-win" solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses on developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants. Interests include the needs, desires, concerns, and fears important to each side. They are the underlying reasons why people become involved in a conflict.
"Integrative refers to the potential for the parties' interests to be [combined] in ways that create joint value or enlarge the pie." Potential for integration only exists when there are multiple issues involved in the negotiation. This is because the parties must be able to make trade-offs across issues in order for both sides to be satisfied with the outcome.
Narrative theory
A very different approach to conceptualizing bargaining is as co-construction of a social narrative, where narrative, rather than economic logic drives the outcome.
Automated bargaining
When a bargaining situation is complex, finding Nash equilibrium will be difficult using game theory. Evolutionary computation methods have been designed for automated bargaining, and demonstrated efficient and effective for approximating Nash equilibrium.
Anchor Pricing
Anchor price is the first call that is made during a bargain. Due to the first call a condition of biased pricing is set which tilts the bargain towards the first caller.
example video:
Dickering refers to the same process, albeit with a slight negative (petty) connotation.
Bargaining is also the name chosen for the 3rd stage of the Kübler-Ross model (commonly known as the stages of dying), even though it has nothing to do with price negotiations.
Contexts where bargaining is allowed
Not all transactions are open to bargaining. Both religious beliefs and regional custom may determine whether or not the seller is willing to bargain.
Regional differences
In North America and Europe bargaining is restricted to expensive or one-of-a-kind items (automobiles, jewelry, art, real estate, trade sales of businesses) and informal sales settings such as flea markets and garage sales. In other regions of the world bargaining may be the norm even for small commercial transactions.
In Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia where locals haggle for goods and services everywhere from street markets to hotels, haggling is a strong cultural tradition that even children learn from a young age. Participating in that tradition can make foreigners feel accepted. Haggling for food items is strongly discouraged in Southeast Asia and is considered an insult, because food is seen a common necessity that is not to be treated as a tradable good.
In almost all large complex business negotiations, a certain amount of bargaining takes place. One simplified 'western' way to decide when it's time to bargain is to break negotiation into 2 stages: creating value and claiming value. Claiming value is another phrase for bargaining. Many cultures take offence when they perceive the other side as having started bargaining too soon. This offence is usually as a result of their wanting to first create value for longer before they bargain together. The Chinese culture by contrast places a much higher value on taking time to build a business relationship before starting to create value or bargain. Not understanding when to start bargaining has ruined many an otherwise positive business negotiation.
In areas where bargaining at the retail level is common, the option to bargain often depends on the presence of the store's owner. A chain store managed by clerks is more likely to use fixed pricing than an independent store managed by an owner or one of owner's trusted employees.
The store's ambiance may also be used to signal whether or not bargaining is appropriate. For instance, a comfortable and air-conditioned store with posted prices usually do not allow bargaining, but a stall in a bazaar or marketplace may. Supermarkets and other chain stores almost never allow bargaining. However, the importance of ambiance may depend on the cultural commitment to bargaining. In Israel, prices on day-to-day items (clothing, toiletries) may be negotiable even in a Western style store manned by a clerk.
In India, a sign posted with the phrase fixed price indicates that bargaining is not allowed, although quite often this is not the case.
Theories
Behavioral theory
The personality theory in bargaining emphasizes that the type of personalities determine the bargaining process and its outcome. A popular behavioral theory deals with a distinction between hard-liners and soft-liners. Various research papers refer to hard-liners as warriors, while soft-liners are shopkeepers. It varies from region to region. Bargaining may take place more in rural and semi-urban areas than in a metro city.]
Game theory
Bargaining games refer to situations where two or more players must reach agreement regarding how to distribute an object or monetary amount. Each player prefers to reach an agreement in these games, rather than abstain from doing so; however, each prefers that agreement which most favours his interests. Examples of such situations would be the bargaining involved in a labour union and the directors of a company negotiating wage increases, the dispute between two communities about the distribution of a common territory or the conditions under which two countries can start a program of nuclear disarmament. Analyzing these kinds of problems looks for a solution specifying which component in dispute will correspond to each party involved.
Players in a bargaining problem can bargain for the objective as a whole at a precise moment in time. The problem can also be divided so that parts of the whole objective become subject to bargaining during different stages.
In a classical bargaining problem the result is an agreement reached between all interested parties, or the status quo of the problem. It is clear that studying how individual parties make their decisions is insufficient for predicting what agreement will be reached. However, classical bargaining theory assumes that each participant in a bargaining process will choose between possible agreements, following the conduct predicted by the rational choice model. It is particularly assumed that each player's preferences regarding the possible agreements can be represented by a von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem function.
Nash [1950] defines a classical bargaining problem as being a set of joint allocations of utility, some of which will correspond to what the players would obtain if they reach an agreement, and another which represents what they would get if they failed to do so.
A bargaining game for two players is defined as a pair (F,d) where F is the set of possible joint utility allocations (possible agreements), and d is the disagreement point.
For the definition of a specific bargaining solution it is usual to follow Nash's proposal, setting out the axioms this solution should satisfy. Some of the most frequent axioms used in the building of bargaining solutions are efficiency, symmetry, independence of irrelevant alternatives, scalar invariance, monotonicity, etc.
The Nash bargaining solution is the bargaining solution which maximizes the product of an agent's utilities on the bargaining set.
The Nash bargaining solution, however, only deals with the simplest structure of bargaining. It is not dynamic (failing to deal with how pareto outcomes are achieved). Instead, for situations where the structure of the bargaining game is important, a more mainstream game theoretic approach is useful. This can allow players' preferences over time and risk to be incorporated into the solution of bargaining games. It can also show how the details can matter. For example the Nash bargaining solution for Prisoners' Dilemma is different from the Nash equilibrium.
Bargaining and posted prices in retail markets
Retailers can choose to sell at posted prices or allow bargaining: selling at a public posted price commits the retailer not to exploit buyers once they enter the retail store, making the store more attractive to potential customers, while a bargaining strategy has the advantage that it allows the retailer to price discriminate between different types of customer. In some markets, such as those for automobiles and expensive electronic goods, firms post prices but are open to haggling with consumers. When the proportion of haggling consumers goes up, prices tend to rise.
Processual theory
This theory isolates distinctive elements of the bargaining chronology in order to better understand the complexity of the negotiating process. Several key features of the processual theory include:
· Bargaining range
· Critical risk
· Security point
Integrative theory
Integrative bargaining (also called "interest-based bargaining," "win-win bargaining") is a negotiation strategy in which parties collaborate to find a "win-win" solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses on developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants. Interests include the needs, desires, concerns, and fears important to each side. They are the underlying reasons why people become involved in a conflict.
"Integrative refers to the potential for the parties' interests to be [combined] in ways that create joint value or enlarge the pie." Potential for integration only exists when there are multiple issues involved in the negotiation. This is because the parties must be able to make trade-offs across issues in order for both sides to be satisfied with the outcome.
Narrative theory
A very different approach to conceptualizing bargaining is as co-construction of a social narrative, where narrative, rather than economic logic drives the outcome.
Automated bargaining
When a bargaining situation is complex, finding Nash equilibrium will be difficult using game theory. Evolutionary computation methods have been designed for automated bargaining, and demonstrated efficient and effective for approximating Nash equilibrium.
Anchor Pricing
Anchor price is the first call that is made during a bargain. Due to the first call a condition of biased pricing is set which tilts the bargain towards the first caller.
example video:
1. Giving Inovation
GIVING INNOVATION (Memberi Inovasi)
Definition
The process
of translating an idea or invention into a good or service that creates value
or for which customers will pay.
To be called
an innovation, an idea must be replicable at an economical cost and must satisfy
a specific need. Innovation involves deliberate application of information,
imagination and initiative in deriving greater or different values from
resources, and includes all processes by which new ideas are generated and
converted into useful products. In business, innovation often results when
ideas are applied by the company in order to further satisfy the needs and
expectations of the customers. In a social context, innovation helps create new
methods for alliance creation, joint venturing, flexible work hours, and
creation of buyers' purchasing power. Innovations are divided into two broad
categories:
(1)
Evolutionary innovations (continuous or dynamic evolutionary innovation) that
are brought about by many incremental advances in technology or processes and
(2) revolutionary innovations (also called
discontinuous innovations) which are often disruptive and new.
Innovation in education: teachers talk about the future
The pace of change has been brisk in teaching since the coalition came to power. How would teachers themselves like to see their profession shaping up in the years ahead? They told us at our conference
At the Innovation in
Education conference, one delegate questioned why children are being
taught the way they were 200 years ago when there are now far more
stimulating alternatives. Photograph: Anna Gordon
A poll of more than 100 teachers carried out at the Guardian's Innovation in Education conference on Thursday suggests this could be taking its toll: more than 86% said they felt there was a problem with staff morale in the teaching profession.
"People feel that whatever they do, it's not good enough and whatever they do, Ofsted are going to come and hit them over the head, and we as headteachers have to manage that," said Kenny Frederick, principal of George Green's school in the Isle of Dogs, in east London.
Innovation can end up taking second place to the more immediate pressures to meet targets and perform well in league tables.
Keynote speaker Sir John Rowling, founder of the Pixl group of headteachers, argued that school leaders spend far too much time observing lessons when they should be involved in activities that energise staff. But despite the pressures, teachers should not lose sight of their core purpose, he said. "What matters here is not performance tables – it's kids' futures and we'll get it right, by legitimate means, because we care about kids."
Competition was a central theme of the day, with 64% of teachers saying that in the current landscape, they feel schools are competing, rather than collaborating.
But in a panel session on school partnership models, it was acknowledged that competition and collaboration are not necessarily polar opposites, with Robert Hill, visiting senior research fellow at the Department of Education and Professional Studies, King's College London, arguing that aligning the two can actually drive innovation. "Some teachers would say 'I collaborate so I can compete'," he said.
But Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), questioned whether current education policies are too focused on "managed collaboration" – in the form of academy chains and federations, for example – at the expense of more traditional forms of collaboration, where schools help each other on an informal basis.
According to the Programme of International Student Assessment (Pisa), the UK has one of the biggest gaps in the achievement of rich and poor children. Speakers put forward potential solutions.
Prof Bette Chambers, director of the Institute for Effective Education at the University of York, argued that an "evidence-based" approach, using proven educational methods – as opposed to new fads or trends – was needed.
But Peter Hyman, Tony Blair's former adviser, now founder and headteacher of School 21, a free school in Stratford, east London, argued for more flexibility. Many secondary schools are simply "far too big to get the quality of relationships needed [to help pupils achieve], particularly in the most disadvantaged areas," he said. At School 21, a lot of thought has gone into class size, the length of lessons and creating "a relevant and exciting curriculum".
At a session on the recent government green paper for special educational needs, which proposes – among other things – to replace SEN statements with broader health, education and care plans, Dean Beadle, a 22-year-old with Asperger's syndrome, spoke powerfully about his own experiences of school. Building on the individual passions of young people with learning or other disabilities – rather than treating them "as numbers on a sheet of paper"– can reap rich rewards, he said.
"Children with special needs colour the world beautifully. It's a high mountain to climb, but has the best view at the top when you get there."
The closing session of the day focused on whether the UK is in a "golden" time of curriculum innovation. Trevor Averre-Beeson, director of education and founder at Lilac Sky Schools, questioned why children are still being taught the way they were 200 years ago – all too often in rows of desks, in large groups in large schools – when advances in technology offer far more stimulating and exciting alternatives.
Joe Hallgarten, director of education at the Royal Society of Arts, argued that innovation is only needed if there is a problem. "And we do have a problem with children – even high achievers – being disengaged or unmotivated by what's on offer," he said."When young people leave school we want them to put on their 'L' plates, not take them off."
Involving children in the design of curriculum content is one possible solution, but it has to be done in "genuine partnership," said Hallgarten. But while acknowledging the importance of getting students' views, Averre-Beeson sounded a note of caution. "Should we ask the children what they want to learn? Only if we are prepared to teach whatever they say."
read more : http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/dec/10/innovation-in-education
è
Langganan:
Postingan
(Atom)