Search

This article focuses on one systematic design model—Planned Instructional Emphasis —and the principal's function in its use. In addition, some leadership strategies for use when implementing an instructional design model are outlined.

A multi-assessment approach was used to examine problems in social development involving the interaction of the cognitive and affect domains. Teachers identified 30 aggressive, 30 withdrawn and 30 popular girls by the Behavioral Description Form, and then administered the Children's Friendship Expectancy Inventory that taps conventional morality, mutual activities, loyalty and empathy. A TAT-type projective test evaluated psychosocial adaptation on five ego stages. In the affect domain, the withdrawn and the aggressives were similar in the inadequacy of their conflict resolutions, a possible development delay problem. The best discriminator of the low and high status girls was group identity versus alienation, posited by Newman and Newman (1975) as the basic conflict of early adolescence. The withdrawn and the aggressives differed in their conceptions of friendship. The withdrawns placed less value on empathy and more value on loyalty than the aggressives, whose social cognitions were more like the populars than the withdrawns.

When attempting to research and document a topic such as ‘women as victims’, the magnitude and complexity of the task is, at the outset, an overwhelming consideration. This issue is comprised of numerous facets which each merit serious scrutiny by those who are concerned with the right of all individuals to a life free of abuse, harassment, and coercion.

This collection of 16 essays discusses the broad relationship of women poets to the American literary tradition

IN April 1960, Anne Sexton for the first time wrote "poet" rather than "housewife" in the "occupation" block of her income tax return. Married since 1948, mother of two daughters, Sexton had been publishing poetry for three years. The change in her status as citizen was significant for Sexton and for American literature. No poet before her had written so frankly of the female realm of family life, nor of its pathologies. And few poets, women or men, achieved success so expeditiously: nine years from drafting her first poem to being awarded the Pulitzer Prize. Sexton's unprecedented metamorphosis from suburban housewife into major poet appears, at first glance, a fairy tale. The real interest of its improbability, though, lies in Sexton's exemplary struggle against two seemingly unrelated handicaps: that of being a suburban wife and mother without a college education and that of being, at recurring intervals, certifiably mad. At age twenty-eight, Anne Sexton quite unexpectedly began turning herself into an artist. During the years of her apprenticeship, in which she produced two highly regarded books, Sexton's good fortune included working with several established younger poets-W. D. Snodgrass, Robert Lowell, James Wright-who immediately recognized her originality and with the Boston poet-teacher John Holmes, who censured it. Friend and adversary, Holmes measured Sexton's work by the literary standards and conventions of an older generation. The chronicle of their relationship provides

The brutal and tragic end of the writings of Goldmann, just when people were still expecting that theoretical synthesis that he was one day planning to publish, necessitates a return to disparate texts asking aesthetic questions in order to seize the outlines of a firm theory concerning the quality of artistic works. The absence of a theoretical formulation by Goldmann himself immediately creates difficulties. The most fruitful source we may tap indeed remains the article "L'esthbtique du jeune Lukics," which appeared in Meditations in 1961 and was reprinted in Marxisme et sciences humaines. For in this essay where he examines the first three works of Lukacs1, Goldmann immediately presents the problem of the essay as a genre as it is developed by Lukics beginning in 1910. In this mirror through which he meditates, Goldmann questions himself about his own work and informs us about the status of his own discourse. Speaking of Lukacs' aesthetics, he defines his own in so far as it is true that "the essay remains an intermediary form to the extent that it only presents its problems because of a particular reality. Thus it is always a work with two dimensions. That of the object it refers to and that of the problem it raises."2 That Goldmann preferred to enunciate the problems of a sociological aesthetic which is his own "because of" the aesthetics of Lukics rather than to present an autonomous theoretical exposition in itself defines one of the dimensions of this aesthetic. The aesthetic does not possess theoretical autonomy, it can only be the object of a particular science.