Search

Two-stage testing is a form of collaborative assessment that creates an active learning environment during test taking. In two-stage testing, students first complete an exam individually, and then complete a subset of the same questions as part of a learning team with the ultimate exam score being a weighted average of the individual and team portions. In the second (team-based) part of the exam, students are encouraged to discuss solutions until a consensus among team members is achieved, thus actively engaging students with course material and each other during the exam. A short open-ended survey was administered to students at the end of the semester, and the responses coded by thematic analysis, with themes generated using inductive coding based on the principles of grounded theory. The most important conclusion was that students overwhelmingly preferred two-stage tests for the development of positive peer relationships in class. The most common themes that emerged from student responses involved positive feelings from forced interaction with their peers, the benefits of meeting and socializing with other students, sharing of knowledge with others, and solidarity or positive affect towards the process of working as part of a team. Finally, students also expressed an overall preference for two-stage exams when compared to solely individual, one-stage exams.

Cet article a pour objectif de reprendre la question de la marge de manœuvre des comtes de Francie occidentale et de la discuter. Roman Deutinger a certes travaillé sur ce sujet pour les rois de Francie orientale, mais la problématique n’a pas encore été traitée en ce qui concerne la Francie occidentale. Il semble ici pertinent de quitter la perspective de la centralisation royale et de nous attacher à l’étude des membres de l’élite de Francie occidentale et de leurs marges de manœuvre, en particulier à l’échelle régionale.

The world’s refugee phenomenon attracted oscillating levels of interest from governments as early as the inter-war era. Only with the establishment of UNHCR a half-century ago, however, did governments reluctantly acknowledge that managing the refugee phenomenon required an institutional structure and a genuine, continuous, multilateral effort by the international community. Since the founding of UNHCR, its role, operational approach, and, according to some observers, even its mandate have changed remarkably. Governments, frequently wavering in their support for these modifications, have at least begrudgingly endorsed UNHCR’s efforts in order to limit the spread of political instability, which too often resulted in regional economic turmoil and widespread despair. This paper analyzes how effectively and at what political and fiscal cost UNHCR has dealt with intensifying refugee flows in light of shifting priorities of governments, themselves the policy and budgetary masters of this UN body. To achieve this, the reasons behind UNHCR’s expanded responsibilities are identified, the agency’s important advocacy work is analyzed, and its expanded role and constantly altering operational approach are examined. Despite the innumerable obstacles that have confronted the agency over the past half century, the conclusions suggest that at least partial success has been achieved.

Throughout history, mankind has migrated, whether from valley to valley or to a distant continent. At times, these population shifts may have affected only a relatively small portion of human society while on other occasions, particularly during the past century, migration has had an impact upon literally millions of people worldwide.