Bloom’s taxonomy, contexts & task challenge

No abstract available

Promoting transfer and an integrated understanding for pre-service teachers of technology education

The ability of pre-service teachers (PSTs) to transfer learning between subjects and contexts when problem solving is critical for developing their capability as technologists and teachers of technology. However, a growing body of literature suggests this ability is often assumed or over-estimated, and rarely developed explicitly within courses or degree programmes. The nature of the problems tackled within technology are such that solutions draw upon knowledge from a wide range of contexts and subjects, however, the internal organization and structure of institutions and schools tends to compartmentalize rather integrate these. Providing a knowledge base and strategies to enhance PSTs’ awareness of and skills in transferring knowledge may allow for a more integrated understanding to develop. The importance of developing this ability to transfer knowledge is heightened as PSTs will, in turn, be responsible for developing the similar capabilities of their future students. This paper begins by considering problem solving in technology education and some of the issues associated with learning transfer. Thereafter, a framework and strategy for better integrating learning between courses is described and forms the basis for developments in an initial teacher education degree programme for technology education. Provisional data from evaluations and PSTs’ work indicated a positive effect in enhancing their thinking and additional data collected in the form of questionnaires, interviews and course work further illuminate this finding. It is argued that the development framework and approach enhances PSTs’ mental models of teaching technology and offers a significant step forward in promoting skills in the transfer of future learning between subjects; something increasingly critical for 21st century STEM Education

Technological problem solving as skills for competitive advantage: an investigation of factors associated with levels of pupil success

No abstract available

Almost the supersymmetric Standard Model from intersecting D6-branes on the Z_6' orientifold

Intersecting stacks of supersymmetric fractional branes on the Z_6' orientifold may be used to construct the supersymmetric Standard Model. If a,b are the stacks that generate the SU(3)_{colour} and SU(2)_L gauge particles, then, in order to obtain {\em just} the chiral spectrum of the (supersymmetric) Standard Model (with non-zero Yukawa couplings to the Higgs mutiplets), it is necessary that the number of intersections a \cap b of the stacks a and b, and the number of intersections a \cap b' of a with the orientifold image b' of b satisfy (a \cap b,a \cap b')=(2,1) or (1,2). It is also necessary that there is no matter in symmetric representations of the gauge group, and not too much matter in antisymmetric representations, on either stack. Fractional branes having all of these properties may be constructed on the Z_6' orientifold. We construct a (four-stack) model with two further stacks, each with just a single brane, which has precisely the matter spectrum of the supersymmetric Standard Model, including a single pair of Higgs doublets. However, the gauge group is SU(3)_{\rm colour} x SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y x U(1)_H. Only the Higgs doublets are charged with respect to U(1)_H.Comment: 8 pages, no figure

The supersymmetric standard model from the Z_6' orientifold?

We construct N=1 supersymmetric fractional branes on the Z_6' orientifold. Intersecting stacks of such branes are needed to build a supersymmetric standard model. If a,b are the stacks that generate the SU(3)_c and SU(2)_L gauge particles, then, in order to obtain just the chiral spectrum of the (supersymmetric) standard model (with non-zero Yukawa couplings to the Higgs multiplets), it is necessary that the number of intersections a \circ b of the stacks a and b, and the number of intersections a \circ b' of a with the orientifold image b' of b satisfy (a \circ b, a \circ b')=\pm(2,1) or \pm(1,2). It is also necessary that there is no matter in symmetric representations of the gauge group, and not too much matter in antisymmetric representations, on either stack. We provide a number of examples having these properties. Different lattices give different solutions and different physics.Comment: Latex 9 pages. Talk given at Cairo International Conference on High Energy Physics, Jan 200

Intersecting D6-branes on the Z_{12}-II orientifold

Much work has been done by a number of authors with the aim of constructing the supersymmetric Standard Model in type IIA intersecting-brane theories compactified on an orientifold with various Z_N or Z_M x Z_N point groups. Here we consider the Z_{12} point group which has previously received comparatively little attention. We consider intersecting D6-branes that wrap 3-cycles consisting of a 2-cycle of the 4-dimensional lattice upon which the Z_{12} is realised times a 1-cycle of the remaining 2-torus. Our discussion is restricted to the case when these 2-cycles are "factorisable" in the sense discussed in section 3. Although it is possible to find models with the correct supersymmetric Standard Model quark-doublet content, we have not found it possible to obtain the correct quark-singlet content.Comment: Slightly revised version to be published in JHEP, 24 page

Why Do Firms Offer Risky Defined Benefit Pension Plans?

Even risky pension sponsors could offer essentially riskless pension promises by contributing a sufficient level of resources to their pension trust funds and by investing those resources in fixed-income securities designed to deliver their payoffs just as pension obligations are coming due. However, almost no firm has chosen to fund its plan in this manner. We study the optimal funding choice for plan sponsors by developing a simple model of pension financing in which the total compensation offered to workers must clear the labor market. We find that if workers understand the implications of pension risk, they will demand greater compensation for riskier pension promises than for safer ones, all else equal. Indeed, in our model, pension sponsors maximize their value by making their pension promises free of risk. We close by positing some explanations for why no real-world firm follows the prescription of our model.