Comparing and Contrasting Two Versions of Macbeth Essay Example for Free

Comparing and Contrasting Two Versions of Macbeth Essay The two versions of Macbeth were made in different years. The BBC version was lower budget and set almost as if it is a play being performed on stage. The Polanski version was a big- budget film which is set in real, outdoor locations. However, though each film is very different, they are both adapted from Shakespeares play. Sound is very important in a film; sound consists of three elements, these being dialogue, music and effects. In the BBC version of Macbeth, dialogue is the most important of these sound elements; this is because the BBC version is very closely related to Shakespeares play. In the BBC version, sound is used to tell everything; there are very few sound effects and very little music. Conversely, in the Polanski version all three elements share important roles. While the BBC version follows Shakespeares original script very closely, Polanski makes a number of changes to the script and sequence of events. An example of the original play being adapted is in scene one, in which he chooses to make very long so that he was able to miss our parts later on in the story. Instead of the witches meeting in the first scene, the witches meet and cast a spell using an arm. In the BBC version, this particular reference to a body part does not come until scene three. This is why scene one in the Polanski version is so long. The dialogue in the BBC version is identical to the dialogue that Shakespeare wrote. Though dialogue in the BBC version is the most important feature, there is music. Music is used to build up suspense at the very beginning of the film, this music starts and stops as does the use of thunder as pathetic fallacy. This creates an eerie and unpredictable effect. In the Polanski version, sound is a more subtle element. In scene one, everything is action with quiet sounds and the witches do not speak until two minutes into the scene. On the other hand, the witched begin to speak almost immediately in the BBC version. The mise en scene in both movies is important. A movie can be more realistic than in a staged play. This can be seen clearly in the Polanski version which uses elaborate, individual costumes which look very true to life. This is helped because the Polanski film had a big budget. The setting in the Polanski film was a real landscape and on location. Many props are also used; for example in scene one when the witches push a pram which contains an arm, a dagger and blood. Props add to any movie or play to make it more interesting. In this particular case, however, the props symbolic of what is to happen later in the play- gory murder. In the BBC the mise en scene is much simpler, being set more like a stage version- more dialogue, less scenery. In scene one there is only one setting. This scenery is much simpler and clearly filmed in a studio, it shows the witches situated on a rock in a dark area. The costumes the witches are wearing plain undistinguishing clothe: their black shawls are almost identical making the audience concentrate more on the dialogue, the mise en scene is a bonus, as opposed to in the Polanski version, where the mise en scene plays a more important role. Visuals are very important in both versions of Macbeth. In the BBC version there is only one shot in scene one, which makes it very similar to how it would be performed on stage. However, the difference is that the camera zooms in a the beginning and zooms further in to a close up of the witches hands at the end. This same effect could not be achieved in a stage version, In the third scene of the BBC version, there are many shots. This is because the scene is longer and includes more characters: Macbeth, Banquo, the three witches and two messengers. Whereas in scene one there were only three witches. In the Polanski version there are many shots; fifteen in scene one. Each shot is carefully made to portray something. Unlike in a play, a movie effectively tells the viewer exactly what to see at a certain point. One example of an important shot is the third shot in scene one where the shot goes from the three witches digging in the sand to a seagull flying in the sky. This shot may seem random at first but it was specifically chosen to show time passing. It can also symbolise a coming storm- seagulls flying inland means that there is bad weather brewing at sea. This can be connected as a sign of what is going to happen later in the story and what the witches are preparing, a bad spell. The use of lightning and colour is important in both versions. This can be noticed when the lightning in scene one in the BBC version and Polanski version is both red at the beginning. The colour red symbolises blood, a major element in the play and gives an indication to the audience of the bloodshed and murders to come. Colour is also important to portray the time of day. This is shown in the Polanski version at the beginning when it is dawn and the sky turns from red to blue, becoming brighter to show the sun rising. A red sky can also symbolise bad weather, as does the seagull later on. The saying goes: Red sky at night, shepherds delight, red sky in the morning, shepherds warning. I think both versions are excellent stories of Macbeth. The BBC version is more like the original play and focuses on the literary content; the Polanski version contains more action. Both films are helpful in aiding students to understand the content and themes of the play because the BBC version is very similar to the original play- the speech is the same, however, the Polanski version is more cinematic which makes it more exciting and helps students to enjoy the play. I preferred the Polanski version because it is not completely directed on dialogue but also on action and scenery. I found this more interesting and more realistic than in the BBC version.

Brutality of Slavery Essay Example for Free

Brutality of Slavery Essay In history, slavery has been a large problem in The United States and has caused many issues. We know slavery as history, while people like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs knew slavery as their lives. Frederick Douglass was a man who was born and raised as a slave, he never knew his mother and watched many terrifying things as a child. Another known slave was Harriet Jacobs; she was a slave who was abused in many ways. Both of these slaves lived through hardship and turbulence growing up. Most people could not even fathom the pain and suffering these two slaves endured. They were considered to be chattel slaves. Chattel is a type of slavery. According to Dictionary. com chattel is â€Å"any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and other things annexed to land. † Slaveholders feel as though their slaves have no rights and they are their own property. Most slaves during this time were chattel slaves and were treated very poorly by there slaveholders. In his essay on brutality toward slaves, Frederick Douglass shares some of the horrors that were his reality. As a slave himself, he understands from first-hand experience how badly slaves were treated. He mentions emotional and physical abuse he received from his slaveholder. He talked about how the slaves were not allowed to know how old they were or information that might expose them to more about their families. Douglass mentioned the fact that slaveholders would whip the slaves until bloody while making other slaves watch. Slaveholders would shoot and kill their slaves if they did not follow orders, Douglass acknowledges. Slaveholders would keep all personal information from their slaves. The fact that a slave would not have the right to know how old they are would create emotional hardship and eliminate an important sense of self. Some slaveholders would not allow the slave to know anything about his or her mother or father. They would give the slaves very little information so they could not investigate further. Douglass was one of the slaves who barely knew his own mother. The most he ever saw her was just a few times at night while he was sleeping. She would take the long trip to see him after a long day in the fields, but she would have to be back before morning came the next day. Only being able to see one’s mother three or four times in a person’s life, and not being able to know anymore information about one’s life, would be considered abuse in many ways. Whipping a slave was a very normal action in this time. Slaves, whether they ‘deserved’ it or not, could be whipped for many reasons. Douglass mentions many times when his slaveholder would whip his own aunt. Douglass said, â€Å"I have often been awakened at the dawn of day by the most heart-rending shrieks of an own aunt of mine, whom he used to tie up to a joist, and whip upon her naked back till she was literally covered with blood. † His slaveholder took great pleasure in whipping and torturing his slaves. It is heartbreaking knowing that it was considered socially and morally okay to commit such brutalities. Douglass talks about a time when a slave named Demby was shot and killed in front of an entire plantation of slaves. The slaveholder told Demby to come to him, but Demby refused, so the slaveholder took out his gun and shot him. A thrill of horror flashed through every soul upon the plantation†¦Ã¢â‚¬  said Douglass. The slaveholder said that he killed him because he was â€Å"unmanageable. † He also said that Demby was setting a bad example for the other slaves and if he did not take care of the problem, the other slaves would follow. Women played a vital role in slavery, the pain and suffering they had to endure was terrible. Women had to bear hardship in many different ways such as sexual abuse, chattel type slavery, and the relationship between the slaveholder, his wife and the slave. All of these rigorous situations are forced upon an African American woman creating emotional and physical abuse. While reading Incidences in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs, one could notice a constant theme in the slaveholder’s ideology toward the slave. As brought up earlier, most slaves were chattel slaves, meaning that their slaveholders treated them as if they were property and with no respect. Jacobs says, â€Å"He told me I was his property; that I must be subject to his will in all things. † (Jacobs pg. 2). Obviously, Mr.  Flint treated Jacobs as if he had zero respect for her. Jacobs mid teen years is when her life as a slave girl escalated. Mr. Flint, her slaveholder had absolutely no respect for the fact that she was an innocent young girl. â€Å"My master began to whisper foul words in my ear. Young as I was, I could not remain ignorant of their import. † (Jacobs pg. 1). These actions were not uncommon in slaveholder/slave relationships because of the sense of ownership. The wife of the slaveholder and her relationship to the female slave, in this case being Jacobs, could be detrimental. Not only the relationship between the wife and the female slave is important in history, but it also creates a struggle between the African American female and the slaveholder. The wife could be considered psychotic because of the jealously placed in a relationship such as theirs. Jacobs mentioned thatâ€Å"†¦she spent many a sleepless night to watch over me. Sometimes I woke up, and found her bending over me. † Most people, whether in the same relationship as them or not would think that is weird and would have psychotic tendencies. Insidences in the Life of a Slave Girl and Both narratives written by Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs were tools in the abolition of slavery. The narratives gave African Americans a voice. They brought international attention to the issues and brutality of slavery. This basically put pressure on the United States to address the issue. Also, the ideology of slavery is based on the belief that blacks are inferior to whites. When sociologists first began trying to explain inferiority, a big argument was that there was no African literature. These narratives really showed the eloquence of African people.

A Strong Corporate Brand Communications Essay

A Strong Corporate Brand Communications Essay 3. Explain how you might involve stakeholders in the development of a corporate brand, drawing on at least two instrumental approaches to stakeholder management and incorporatingunderstandings of authenticity in your answer. How would you evaluate the success of their involvement? â€Å"A strong corporate brand acts as a focal point for the attention, interest and activity stakeholders bring to a corporation† (Hatch and Schultz, 2001, P 1046). This essay will suggest that strategies to develop strong and sustainable relationships with stakeholders should at the heart of a brand development strategy that is focussed on enhancing reputation and ultimately the sustainability of a company. It will explain how analysis of stakeholder groups is critical to the success of this process. Two instrumental stakeholder tools will then be used to illustrate how such information may be gathered. The essay will then go on to explain that the information garnered from such an analysis could be used to inform stakeholder engagement strategies and the overall brand development strategy. The essay will conclude with a discussion about how issues with authenticity could jeopardise the development of these relationships and how, in the light of such problems, you can measur e the success and strength of such relationships in order to inform future efforts. Although this is not an essay exploring theories around the process of brand development, it is however important to begin by defining what is meant by a corporate brand if we are to understand how relationships with stakeholders can help in its development. My understanding of corporate branding is highly influenced by the work of Hatch and Schultz (2001) and (2003) and Schultz (2005) who describe a brand as a mindset that captures the essence of an organisations identity and what it stands for. They promote the idea that the focus of building a successful brand should be on developing relationships with all stakeholders, engaging them in defining who the organisation is and what it aspires to be( Hatch, 2005). Corporate branding can be best described as the process of creating, nurturing and sustaining mutually rewarding relationships between company, its employees and external stakeholders (Hatch and Schultz, 2001 and Schultz, 2005).By developing these relationships an organisatio n will be able to understand any incoherent parts of the brand that are weakening development efforts to achieve business goals (Hatch and Schultz, 2003). â€Å"When corporate branding works, it is because it expresses the values and /or sources of desire that attract key stakeholders to the organisation and encourage them to feel as sense of belonging to it. It is this attraction and sense of belonging that affects the decisions and behaviours on which a company is built. A strong corporate brand taps into attractive force and offers symbols that help stakeholders experience and express their value and thereby keep them active† (Hatch and Schultz , 2003, p.P1046). It not just theorists such as Hatch and Schultz (2001) that believe stakeholder relationship building activity is key is achieving a strong corporate identity. In the field of Corporate Communications Cornelissen (2004) stated that developing strong and sustainable stakeholder relationships can establish favourable corporate images and reputations will get these groups to behave in a way that furthers the organisations businesses objectives, such as getting customers to make a purchase or successfully convincing investors to grant financial resources. This essay draws on the research above as a foundation for arguing that the development of relationships with stakeholders should be at the very heart of any successful brand strategy. But how should one begin developing these relationships? The start of constructing any strategy involving the development of relationships with stakeholders should begin with an analysis of who they are, the nature of their stake and the values and beliefs underlying their own decision-making processes (Friedman and Miles, 2006). â€Å"In particular, the compatibility or incompatibility of values, identities, and belief systems between managers in focal organizations and stakeholder decisions-makers, and between different stakeholder groups† (Friedman and Miles, 2006, p.133). Starting from the point that the characteristics of stakeholders need be ascertained before any strategies for engagement pursued it is important to find the tools that allow us to do this. Cornelissen (2004) suggests two possible tools to help with this process: stakeholder mapping and reputation research. These not only uncover the identity of stakeholder groups and their relationships with the organisation but are able to display primary relationships and the patterns of interdependence between them (Cornelissen, 2004). Let us first look at stakeholder mapping. This is an area explored by instrumental stakeholder theory, which suggests how managers should act towards stakeholders if they want to further the interests of an organisation, which can be described as profit maximization and the maximisation of stockholder value( Friedman and Miles, 2006).This type of theorising supports the ideas espoused by Hatch and Schultz (2001), Hatch and Schultz (2003) and Hatch (2005) at the beginning of the essay and for this reason we will look in depth at how two specific instrumental stakeholder theories, developed by Mitchell Angle and Wood (1997) and Frooman (1999), can help organisations get to know more about their stakeholders and how to approach them. I would like to begin with the model developed by Mitchell Agle and Wood (1999) which suggests that different strategic responses to stakeholders can be chosen based on an analysis of the characteristics that these groups exhibit. The major contribution of this theory is its explanation of who stakeholders are and who they arent and why relationships with certain stakeholders should be prioritised over others (Friedman and Miles, 2006). Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1999) rate stakeholder groups using three criteria, power, legitimacy and urgency and the unique combination of these attributes then leads them to create seven different types of stakeholders, which vary in their level of importance to the organisation and therefore brand development strategy. Frooman (1999) supplements this work by looking at what might happen when there is conflict between a stakeholder group and an organisation and his models explains the strategies employed by stakeholders who want to change corporate policy (Friedman and Miles, 2006). Frooman (1999) suggests that during conflict power is the dominant attribute that will decide the outcome of any conflict, especially when an organisation is unwilling to compromise.   However, he does not define power in the same as Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1999). Instead of power through coercive, utilitarian or economic means (Mitchell, Agle and Wood, 1999), he believes power is defined by resource dependency theory (Frooman, 1999), as made famous by Pfeffer (1972) and Salancik (1979).   Pfeffer (1972) and Salancik (1979), cited in Friedman and Miles (2006), suggest that that it is a companies dependence of external stakeholders for resources that will determine stakeholders power and how they will use it to force their claims to be addressed. Using this as the basis of his thinking Frooman (1999) created a four way model of usage (continues to provide a resource but with strings) or withholding (where a stakeholder group withholds a resource) strategies, which can be executed directly or indirectly, when dependency of the stakeholder resources is low. Using both these two models you could start to create a picture of the identity of stakeholders, the nature of their stake, how to prioritise them and how they would behave when in conflict with the firm. But according to Cornelissen (2004) what is equally important to do at this analysis stage is to identify what reputation the organisation has with the groups you have identified. Although he doesnt present a theoretical model to achieve this he does suggest using practical quantitative and qualitative research techniques, such as focus groups. The result of this work will give the organisation a good idea of what stakeholders think of the organisation and how this matches with the organisations own views of its identity (Cornelissen, 2004). This would then suggest that an organisation uses the knowledge gained during the entire analysis phase to inform the development of focused stakeholder relationship programmes and the brand development strategy as a whole. Cornelissen (2004) suggests that the stakeholder analysis will help organisations understand whether current strategy is capable of dealing with the needs of current stakeholders and, if so, if the suggested direction proposed will deliver the desired results. From here the organisation can decide which stakeholders to address and develop engagement strategies that either change or consolidate their present position with them, according to any mismatches found. A similar process can be used in relation to the brand strategy. Hatch and Schultz (2001) explain that the images stakeholders have of who a company is and what it stands for can become part of what they can the strategic envisioning process. They suggest that the present views, behaviour, values and identi ties of stakeholders are likely to effect the direction of desired change and strategic vision of the organisation. Whether the results of the stakeholder analysis support the organisations current identity can have serious effects on any subsequent strategy as without such alignment efforts could be perceived as inauthentic Hatch and Schultz, 2003). At this point I would like to highlight how the issue of authenticity can affect an organisations assessment of its strategic options. ‘To be authentic commercially is to tap into the ‘geist of a particular group of people so that you, or the claims you make are accepted, trusted, and the consumers you appeal to are convinced (Fachet, 2009). Therefore, stakeholders ‘geist, which should have been identified during the stakeholder analysis, needs to be reflected in the core elements of a brand development strategy if stakeholders are going to engage with the organisation and carry out the desired behaviours needed by the organisation. Authenticity is the opposite to counterfeit and in an increasing unreal world consumers purchase based on how genuine they perceive an offering to be (Gilmore and Pine, 2007). Without this alignment between stakeholder expectations and the brand strategy, efforts are likely to be seen as inauthentic and therefore desired behaviours not o ccur. There is also a second but equally important aspect of authenticity that should be discussed at this stage within the planning process and that is whether the brand development strategy and the values promoted within it match the experience the stakeholder will have of the product, the service or the culture within the organisation. Edwards (2009) explains that authenticity is both communicated by an organisation as well as attributed by the consumers who digest this communication. Therefore, if the brand promise doesnt match reality then an organisation may be danger of being seen as inauthentic. Representation is likely to result in communications and products and the symbols that represent them that arent connected to their original context and by definition inauthentic (Goldman and Papson, 1998, cited in Edwards, 2009). To give an example, if a product or service is positioned as specialist when in reality it is not and the staff are presented as specialists when in fact their kn owledge is just around average then incompatibilities occur and the brand could be perceived as inauthentic. A perceived lack of authenticity is just one of the issues that could affect a brand and therefore it is important that all stakeholder relationships and brand development strategies are continually assessed to determine their impact. Cornelisson (2004) states that tracking and evaluation should be the final element of any strategy, showing how efforts have progressed the organisations goals. In light of what has been discussed in this essay the suggestion is that this should be done in two parts; a brand audit to find out what the brand actually stands for and an analysis of the extent and quality of stakeholder relationships. Keller (2008) developed a model for a brand audit which takes place in two parts; a brand inventory and the brand exploratory. The brand inventory is basically research into what a brand says it is and the exploratory finds out what stakeholders say it is. His model brings these elements together to show the difference between current brand experience and brand promise, if there is any. But equally important is an assessment of the quality of the relationships an organisation has with its key stakeholders. Many theorists have developed criteria by which to assess quality and extent of stakeholder relations, including Strong, Ringer and Taylor (2001), Zoller (1999) and Zadek and Raynard (2002).   However this essay would like to look at unusual approaches that arent covered by the theorists above; the principles developed by the Clarkson Center for Business Ethics (1999) and the Ladder of Stakeholder Engagement (Friedman and Miles, 2006). Firstly to the principles set out by the Clarkson Center for Business Ethics (1999). Researchers at this centre developed a list of seven principles of good stakeholder relations, beginning with recognising stakeholders and ending with acknowledging conflicts between their roles as corporate stakeholders and their legal and moral responsibilities to stakeholders. These principles are highly respected within literature on the subject and could therefore provide a useful guidance document for businesses (Friedman and Miles, 2006). It is for this reason that this essay suggests they would be a useful day to day tool to assess quality of engagement, offering guidance for how organisations can continue to improve practice. In contrast (Friedman and Miles, 2006) developed a 12 rung ladder of engagement that looks at the quality of stakeholder relationships from a stakeholder perspective. On the very bottom of the ladder is manipulation and at the very top is stakeholder control. â€Å"This can be used as a guide to match intention and what approach to use as well as moderating intention with the degree of influence that stakeholders have†. (Friedman and Miles, 2006). As demonstrated in this essay strong and sustainable relationships with stakeholders should be at the core of a brand development strategy. Their views and interests should be taken into account throughout every phase of the brand development strategy process; including the analysis, goal setting, and evaluation. Such consideration and engagement will help the brand to successfully enhance its reputation with these groups increasing the likehood of them carrying out the actions desired by the company. References Cornelissen, J. (2004) Corporate Communications: Theory and Practice. London. Sage Publications Ltd. Clarkson Center for Business Ethics (1999/2002) Principles of Stakeholder Management. Toronto: University of Toronto. Reproduced in 2002, Business Ethics Quarterly, 12/1: 256-64. Fachet, N (2009,) Authentic communications: Breaking the halo of distrust [Internet blog].Available from: http://text100.com/hypertext/2009/06/authentic-communications-breaking-the-halo-of-distrust/> [Accessed December 2009]. Friedman, A. and Miles, S. (2006) Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Frooman, J. (1999) Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): pp.191-205. Gilmore, J.H. and Pine II, B. J. (2007) Authenticity: What consumers really want. Boston, MA. Harvard Business School Press. Cited in: Edwards L. (2009) Authenticity in Organisational Context: Fragmentation, Contradiction and Loss of Control.   In: Proceedings of the 59th Annual International Communications Association Conference, May 21-25, 2009, Chicago, USA , Ill, pp 1-15. Schultz, M. (2005) A cross disciplinary perspective of corporate branding. In: Schultz, M., Antorini, Y.M. and Csaba, F.F.   (2005) Corporate Branding: purposes, people, processes: towards the second wave of corporate branding. Denmark. Copenhagen Business School Press, pp. 23-57. Hatch, M. and Schultz, M. (2001) Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 128-134. Hatch, M and Schultz, M (2003) Bringing the corporation into corporate branding. European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), pp.1041-1064 Keller, K.L. (2003) Strategic Brand Management-Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. 2nd ed, New Jersey. Prentice Hall. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., and Wood, D.J. (1997) Towards a theory of Stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 853-86. Pfeffer, J. (1972). Interorganizational Influence and Managerial Attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 15, pp. 775-790. Salancik, G.R. (1979). Interorganizational Dependence and Responsiveness to Affirmative Action; The Case of Women and Defense Contractors. Academy of Management Journal, 22/2, pp. 375-394. Strong, K.C., Ringer, R.C. and Taylor, S.A. (2001)THE* Rules of Stakeholder Satisfaction (*Timeliness, Honesty and Empathy). Journal of Business Ethics, 32/3. Pp. 219-230. Van Riel, C (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication. Hertfordshire. Prentice Hall. Zadek, S. and Raynard, P. (2002) Stakeholder Engagement: Measuring and Communicating the Quality. Accountability Quarterly, 19, pp.8-17. Zoller, K. (1999) Growing Credibility Through Dialogue: Experiences in Germany and the USA. In: Charter, M. and Polonsky, M.J. (eds.), Greener Marketing: A Global Perspective on Greening Marketing Practice. Sheffield. Greenleaf Publishing, pp.196-206.

Character Analysis of Sheila in An Inspector Calls Essay -- English Li

Character Analysis of Sheila in An Inspector Calls Sheila is unlike any other character in the play - she is far more conscientious and more sensitive than any of the others, and she does not express her opinion as frequently or forcefully as her parents. When Sheila hears of the death of Eva Smith she is genuinely shocked by the news, and despite the fact that she does not know her, she is still upset. We can see this from what she says when she hears the news: "Oh - how horrible!". When the Inspector shows her a photograph of the girl she reacts much more dramatically than any of the others, which tells us that perhaps she had already realised that her behaviour towards the girl had been inappropriate and unnecessary, and that she was feeling guilty about it. Sheila is more moral than the other characters and this can be seen throughout her questioning, and she is immediately sorry for having had a part to play in the demise of Eva Smith. When it is revealed that Sheila was the one who had Eva Smith made redundant she is immediately sorry and obviously upset t...

Wondrous Strange :: Character Analysis, Kelly Winslow

Life is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. â€Å"It is believed that in life no one can change your happiness but you; therefore, you have the power to change anything about yourself or your life that you want to change† (Barbra de Angelis). The Internal struggles that the main character, Kelley Winslow, faces in this novel is man vs. herself. This strongly affects the character as well as drives the plot because the character struggles with her decisions, physical/mental battles as well as trying to find her identity. Throughout this novel, Kelley has been trying to find her identity and who she really is. Some people may say that a person has not found themselves; however, you do not find yourself. You create yourself. During the process of creating yourself, you have to know what you fear, and what you cannot live without. Kelley learns what she is afraid of, and who she does not want to lose. â€Å"†¦fear of losing him, sorrow of what he has already risked for her† (Livingston 274). In the novel Kelley finds out that she is adopted. â€Å"Emma†¦ Was I†¦ adopted (Livingston 222). In continuation to this, Kelley learns from her aunt, Emma, that she is adopted. She also leans more about where she came from, who her birth parents are, and about faerie history. This proves that Kelley wants to know more about her heritage, which leads to herself creating her identity. In order to create herself, Kelley needs to know more about her heritage. She also learns what she likes, and does not like and what she wants to do with her life. â€Å"Kelley was speechless. She dreamed of this†¦ This is it. This is my big break! (Livingston 5), â€Å"Kelley was a Faerie princess. In defiance of the Faerie king, she had taken up her destiny on her terms" (Livingston 316-317). This shows that she accepts herself, in addition to gaining her goals. Kelley Winslow goes went through a huge development, and journey in finding herself, even through the many obstacles she faces. Decision is a mental process you conduct to result in a making of a selection of a choice. Kelley Winslow had made various decisions throughout her life, which had made an impact on her characteristics.

Tokyo Story by Yasujiro Ozu :: Japan Japanese Film Cinema Movies

Tokyo Story was directed by Yasujiro Ozu and released in Japan in 1953. It is about an old married couple that travels to Tokyo to visit their children. They are greeted warmly, but are treated as if they are just an annoying sidetrack from the childrens’ busy lives. The mother becomes ill and dies soon after they return home, leaving the family to reflect on her visit. Some striking scenes include the grandmother dreaming of her future during a walk with her grandson, the old couple’s visit to a spa, and three old men discussing the failure of the future generations. The subject matter of the story consists of a social commentary on Japanese middle-class family life and more acutely, an examination of human mortality, alienation, and modernity. The main contention of Ozu’s unique style of directing is the importance of mutually supportive formal and stylistic systems, a contention that is absent from the classical Hollywood films of this period. Whereas in most of the movies of this time the stylistic aspects would be subordinate to the narrative, the systemics of Ozu coexist independently of one another. This inimitable quality of Tokyo Story can be reflected on through the examination of continuity, transition, and the discretion of the non-diegetic filmic properties. The consideration of these elements suggests that a stylistically driven film can succeed regardless of the degree of narrative motivation. The freedom of the stylistic system to not be dependent on the narrative creates the distinctive spatial and temporal aspects of Tokyo Story. The intentional discontinuity of the diegetic world is accomplished mainly by the use of non-traditional editing. Ozu’s disregard of the necessity of respecting the conventions of the graphic match and the 180- degree line contribute to the originality of the film. For example, one of the opening sequences in the movie is a conversation between the married couple that deliberately cuts back and forth over the 180-degree line in each successive shot. The effect of this technique is that each character achieves perpendicularity with the camera, which creates the illusion that the characters are speaking directly to the audience. This contributes to the viewer’s involvement in the world created in front of the camera. Another example is the introductory dialogue between the old couple and their daughter’s family. An entirely different style was employed for this scene in which every character is in the frame at once. Ozu conveys through this scene his ability to layout a complex shot construction and perform scene manipulation. Despite the seeming disregard for the typical continuity, driven by eye-line matches and montage, this film achieves a stylistic originality and independence that complements the narrative rather

Child Deve

Observation: Physical (fine Motor) Time: 12:30-3:00 Date: 5/12/12 |Time |Actions |Social group |Language |Task | |12:30 |T. C is sitting at table making a jigsaw picking up|T. C , C1,C2,C3,C4,C5 |T. C>C1 –you help me |Making Jigsaw | | |pieces using pincer grasp | |C1>T.C –Yeah | | | | | |C4>T. C – Me too | | |1: 00 |T. C eats dinner with spoon |T. C , G |none |Eating dinner | |1:30 |T. C helps draw head holding pencil using pincer |T. C , C1 |T.C > C1, C1- Look, Look |Drawing picture | | |grasp |T. C , C2 |C1> T. C –That’s lovely | | |1:45 -2:00 |T. C builds a tower with another child |T. C –C1 |T. C> C1 want to help |Free-play | | | | |C1>T.C -yup | | |2:15 |T. C helps change the page of book using pincer |T. C>G |Read That One |Story-time | | |grasp |T. C>A | | | |2:30 |T. C has Book of her own reading it and is changing|T.C, C1, C2, C3,C4,C5 |None |Storey-time | | |pages using her pincer grasp | | | | |3:00 |T. C picks her coats and z ips it up using pincer |T. C > A |T. C> A- Bye |Home-time | | |grasp | | | |Personal learning: †¢ Whilst doing this observation on T. C I learned how amazing it is that at such a young age a child can hold a pencil and attempt to draw with it. †¢ Also in this observation I learned that the more free-play that children get the more they develop their skills †¢ I also learned that at such a young age of two that a child with some help from another child can put together a jigsaw without adults help. Summary: TC shows in this observation that she can use her pincer grasp very well as she is making jigsaws and is using a pencil.TC also shows that she can use her gramer grasp when she feeds herself with the spoon. Recommendations for T. C: I would recommend that the creche could ask T. C to build something with the blocks or they could ask T. C to try drawing something on her own to challenge her so she can develop more. Reference: Flood, E. (2010). Child Development for students in Ireland. Dublin: Gill&Macmillian Physical development: Checklist – gross Motor. Date: 23/11/12 Time: 11:00- 11:30 |Yes |No |Comment |Date | |Runs safely. Confidence, |( | |T. C plays outside catch, T. C |23/11 | |avoiding obstacles | | |runs down towards caterpillar | | | | | |toy and avoids slide. | |Rides a trike, pushing it along | | |Not in observation |23/11 | |with the feet | | | | | |Walks up and down stairs both |( | |Walked down step to go outside |23/11 | |feet to each step, holding wall | | |one step at a time. | | |Squats with ease. Rises without |( | |Plays sleeping bunny.Squats on |23/11 | |using hands | | |ground when saying â€Å" bunny | | | | | |sleeping but doesn’t sit on | | | | | |ground | | |Can climb up on furniture and |( | |Climbed up slide one foot at a |23/11 | |get down again | | |time.Holding onto rails with | | | | | |both hands going up. | | |Steers tricycle pushing along | | |Not in observation |23/11 | |with feet. | | | | | |Able to manoeuvre large toys |( | |Pushes child along in toy car |23/11 | |with wheels | | |using both hands. | |Loves to pull along toys on | | |Not in observation | | |string | | | | | |Throws small ball over arm |( | |Playing ball game outside passes|23/11 | | | | |to another child. | | |Kicks a large ball |( | |Passes ball to other child |23/11 | Evaluation: The Aim of this observation was to observe TC, a 2 year old girl while she was in a creche setting to get a better understanding of her physical development. I feel that I have achieved this aim very well and that generally TC is meeting her norms of development with her physical development in terms of her gross motor. The gross motor skills are the use of the large muscles in your body.In the yard TC shows that she can run in the yard towards caterpillar toy avoiding the slide. TC also shows that she can climb up on furniture and get back down holding onto rails with both hands. TC also shows she’s meeting the nor ms according to flood when she pushes a child in the toy car around the yard. TC also shows that she can kick a large ball when she picks up the soft ball from the ground and throws it to her friends whilst playing hot ball. When returning inside TC went up the step one foot at a time holding the wall for support according to flood 2010 a child at the age of two should be able to carry these tasks without difficulty to be meeting the norms of development.According to flood at the age of two a child should be able to ride tricycles pushing them along with their feet and to pull toys along with wheels, but these activities were not in my observation so I couldn’t observe that TC could carry out these tasks. In summary I feel like TC is meeting her norms of development in her gross motor skills as she carried out the tasks I set out for her to her full potential. Personal learning: †¢ I learned whilst doing this observation that when you set out tasks for the children that they enjoy them more as they can learn through practice doing them. †¢ I also learned that at such a young age that children have good physical strength eg. TC could push the younger child around in the toy car I also learned that children at this age are aware of the dangers that can hurt them like when TC avoided the slide when going to the caterpillar Recommendations for T. C: †¢ I would recommend that the creche get more Toys in the creche so TC can develop her skills on other things. †¢ I would also recommend that the creche encourages TC more to play with other children. References: Flood. E (2010). Child development for students in Ireland. Dublin: Gill&Macmillian. Piaget, J. (1975). The child's conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. (Originally published 1932). Intellectual development. Observation: narrative. Date: 16/11/12 Time: 11;11:10 T.C is sitting on the couch at the corner with two baby born dolls on her knees; TC is pretending that t he baby born dolls are talking to each other saying â€Å"do you want to play† TC is laughing away to herself and is pretending that the babies are laughing with her. TC keeps playing with the dolls, laughing pretending that the dolls are her own children. TC has just named the babies â€Å"Megan and Rachel† (which are the children on front of her) TC is now sitting on the ground with the one of the babies up at her shoulder saying† Its Ok†. Adults goes over to TC and asks her â€Å"what happened the babies† TC replies to the Adult â€Å"Megan hit her† Adult says back to TC â€Å"the poor baby† and turns to the other baby TC has and says â€Å"That’s Not Nice†. TC laughs at adult saying this and says â€Å"Rachel is ok now† and laughs.TC then puts down the Babies and walks over to the picture board and says â€Å"that’s me† and points to the picture of her on the wall. TC then points to another picture and says to adult â€Å"there is Luke and Lauren†. Adult replies â€Å"Yes it is†. TC then goes over to Luke and Lauren and says and points at wall and says â€Å"that’s you Luke and that is you Lauren. † The Door bell then rings and TC looks at door and shouts â€Å"Mammy† TC looks at adults and Says â€Å"That mammy† Adults Replies â€Å"no that’s Lukes mammy†. TC then says â€Å"silly Me† and TC then shouts over to Luke â€Å"Luke Mammy here†. TC Then Goes back over to the Corner and picks up baby born again. End Of observation. Evaluation:The aim of this observation was to observe TC a two year old girl while she was in the creche setting to get a better understanding of her intellectual development. I feel that I have achieved this aim very well and that generally TC is meeting hers norms of development in terms of her intellectual development. In this observation TC shows empathy for the baby born when â₠¬Å"Rachel† is crying. TC shows affection here when she lifts her up and puts her head on her holder. According to Flood(2010) at this age this is what TC should be doing. TC also shows that she is meeting her norms of intellectual development when she goes over to the pictures on the wall and recognizes herself, Lauren and Luke in the photos. According to Flood (2010) these are the norms she should be reaching.According to Piaget A child at the age of 2 â€Å"is at the per-operational stage and assumes that everyone and everything is like them. Therefore they think everything feels pain and has emotions like them. Tc shows this when she thinks that â€Å"rachel† is crying and is hurt. Summary: This observation shows that Tc is meeting all her norms for her age. Recommendations for TC: †¢ I would recommend that the creche encourages TC to play with other children and to get her interacting with other children so that she is not playing on her own. †¢ I would a lso recommend that the Adults interacts more with TC if they can so that other children will come over and play with her. Personal learning: †¢ I learned that a child at this age can sense emotions and can comfort people who are upset. I also learned that children of this age can are in a little world of their own and just keep themselves amused by talking to themselves †¢ I also learned that children can remember and recognize different people that they might see in a picture. References: Flood, E. (2010). Child Development for students in Ireland . Dublin: Gill&macmillianPiaget, J. (1975). The child's conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. (Originally published 1932). Language development – precoded (playing play dough) date: 23/11 Time: 20:00-2:10 |Keys |TC(target child C(Child C1(Child 1 A(Adult 1 | |TC(C |This yours? TC doesn’t get an answer of C) | |TC(A |Harry here | |TC(A |Can I play with harry? | |A(TC |Yes | |A(TC |Do you want me t o break that up? | |TC(A |yea | |A(TC |What you making | |TC(A |It for mammy | |A(TC |Good girl | |TC(A |Harry going to sit here |TC(A |There Harry (do-do) | |C1(TC |What you making | |C(C1 |Think she making pancakes | |C(TC |Is it pancakes | |TC(C |I need that | |C(TC |Ok | |C(TC |Shhh† A† on the phone | |TC(C |OK | |TC(C |I need that | |C(TC |Here | |TC(C |Thank you | |C(TC |You’re welcome. | End of observations. Child Initials: TC Age: 2 Sex: female Date: 3/12 time: 10:55-11:03 Setting: creche Observation: social development Min |Activity |Language record |Task |Social | |1 |Sitting in a circle sing singing |TC(adult – do ring-a-ring-a-Rosie |Group time |Group | | |nursery rhymes | | | | |2 |Sitting in a circle sing singing |A(TC ready |Group time |Group | | |nursery rhymes | | | | |3 |Sitting in a circle sing singing |A-TC-1, 2,3,4,5 Once I got a fish alive†¦ Group time |Group | | |nursery rhymes | | | | |4 |Sitting in a circle sing sin ging |Singing songs with group |Group time |Group | | |nursery rhymes | | | | |5 |Sitting in a circle sing singing |A(TC –ready |Group time |Group | | |nursery rhymes |TC nods head | | | |6 |Sitting in a circle sing singing |TC singing row-row |Group time |Group | | |nursery rhymes | | | | |7 |Sitting in circle singing santy |A(TC –what you want to sing? |Group time |Group | | |coming to town |TC- santy | | | |8 |Break |TC(G – Its break time |Group time |Group | Evaluation: The Aim of this observation was to observe TC, a two year old girl every minute for eight minutes while she was doing group time in a creche setting.I carried out this observation to get a better understanding of her social development. I feel that I have achieved this aim very well and that TC is meeting her norms of development with her social development. In this Observation we see that TC is meeting her norms when she responds to the adult when she is asked what she wants to sing, she al so shows that she is meeting her norms when she joins in when an adult sings, so according to flood (2010) as she is doing this she is meeting her norms of development. She is also meeting her norms when she says â€Å"its break time† as according to flood (2010) children at the age of two will ask for food.In this observation these are the only parts of the norms of development in social skills that we could observe, so we don’t know if she has developed any of the other norms as we can not assume she can do these things we have to see a if she is interacting with the group better. Summary: This observation shows that Tc is meeting most of her norms for her age. But I couldnt prove she is meeting them all. Observation: Emotional Development Event sample. Date: 10/12/12 Observation begins: 9:30 observation finished: 2: 30 |No |Time/date/place |Description of incident |Adult involvement |Provoked/un-provoked | |1 |9:00, 10/12 on couches in corner |TC takes toy of child 1.Child |Adult takes toy of TC and says |Un-provoked | | |of room |1 gets upset and cries |â€Å" C1 had that first† and hands | | | | | |toy back to C1 | | |2 |11:00 10/12 preschool room |TC is playing on mat, TC takes |Adult asks TC to give C1 back |Un-provoked | | | |toy of child 1 and wont give it|the toy by saying â€Å" can C1 have| | | | |back |her toy back please† | |3 |11:30 10/12 tables in preschool |TC is at tables doing puzzles, |Adults says to C1 â€Å" give that |Provoked | | |room |child 1 takes a piece of TC’s |piece back to TC that’s for her| | | | |puzzle and TC gets upset |jigsaw† | | |4 |1:00 10/12 table in preschool |TC is having dinner and child 1|Adult asks C1 to stop â€Å"tipping†|Provoked | | |room |is annoying her by tipping her |TC | | | | |on her arm. TC says â€Å"stop† | | | |5 |1:30 10/12 Library space |Child 1 takes book of TC and TC|Adult Asks C1 â€Å"to give her back|Provoked | | |preschool room. | turns to wall and starts |the book† and gives book back | | | | |crying. to TC | | |6 |2:00 10/12 library space |TC then grabs book of child 1 |Adults Takes Book back of TC |Un-provoked | | |preschool room |and wont give book back |and hands to C1 | | |7 |2:30 story-time mat preschool |Child 1 pushes TC out of way so|Adults tells C1 to say â€Å"sorry |provoked | | |room |that she can sit at the front |to Tc† | | | | |of mat. | | | Evaluation: The aim of this observation was to observe TC, a 2 year old girl while she was in the creche setting to get a better understanding of her emotional development. I feel that I have achieved this aim very well and that generally TC is meeting her norms of development in terms of her emotional development.This observation shows that TC is meeting her norms of development as she shows extreme behavioral changes as she takes toys of other children but gets upset when children take things off her. According to flood (2010) this is the w ay a child at the age of two will carry on. This observation also shows that according to flood (2010) a child at the age of two have little concept of sharing this is why TC took the toy off the other child. Flood(2010) also says that children at the age of two doesn’t understand teasing this is why TC gets upset and mad when child 1 is tipping her whilst TC is having her dinner. According to bruner at child at 2 Should be able to â€Å"able to eat with a spoon and fork† TC shows she can do this. Personal Learning: I learned when doing this observation that you have to let children misbehavior for them to learn †¢ I also learned that children shouldn’t be put near another child that may upset or cause conflict with them. †¢ I also learned that you can sort out conflict that happens between children easily and as soon as it occurs. Recommendations for TC: I would recommend that the adults keep TC away from C1 if they keep getting into situations were t hey are annoying eachother. References: Flood, E. (2010). Child Development for students in Ireland . Dublin: Gill&macmillian |Keys |TC – target child, A- adult G-group C- other child | |A(TC |Are uses ready? |G(A |Yes | |TC(A |What that (TC points to glue) | |A(TC |That’s glue | |TC(A |can we use that | |A(TC |yes one minute | |TC(G |Were using glue | |C(TC |Cool what you making | |TC(C |Lambs | |TC(C |What you making | |C(TC |Butterflies | |TC(C |Cool | |TC(G |Look at mine (TC holds up lamb) | |A(TC |That’s lovely | |TC(A |Thanks | |TC(C |I like yours | |C(T.C |I like that colour | |TC(C |Thanks | |TC(C |Luke what you making | |C(TC |Lamb like you | |TC(C |NAP (snap) | |A(G |Use having fun? | |G(A |Yeah | |TC(A |Can I make a butterfly now? |A(TC |Yes course you can | |TC(C |I making butterfly like you | |C(TC |We can be the same | |TC(C |Sure mines pink | |A(TC |When you finish your butterfly we are cleaning up ok | |TC(A |Oktaa | |TC(G |We Have to finish up soon | |G(A |nooooo | |A(G |Its break-time | |TC(A |Can we do it again | |A(TC |Yea later | |A(G |We have to clean up now. end of observation) | Language Development: date: 25/2/13 time: 11:00-11:10 Evaluation: The aim of this observation was to observe TC, A 2 Year old child for 10 minutes in a creche whilst she was taking part in a group activity to get a better understanding of the development of her language from the last time I observed her. I feel that TC has progressed in term of her language skills as she now talking clearer and is using more vocabulary As According to Flood (2010 a child at the age of 2 â€Å"uses 200 or more words. † Flood(2010) also claims that a child at the age of 2 â€Å"constantly pointing out an asking the names of people and objects.TC shows that she is meeting this norm when she asks the adult what the glue is. This also shows that TC has progressed since she was last observed as in the last observation she wasn’t aski ng much questions at all. According to Piaget † the vocabulary of a child is expanded and developed during this as they change from babies to toddlers† Tc shows that she has developed since the last observation as she is having a better conversation in this observation then she was in the last one. According to bowler a child at 2 should â€Å"let people know what they want using words†. TC shows this when she asks adult can she make a butterfly. Personal learning: From doing this observation I learned that children can progress and are always progressing as TC progressed since the last time I observed her. Recommendation for TC: I would recommend that the creche get TC to do more activities like this as in this activity TC was doing lots of interaction with the other children. References: Flood, E. (2010). Child Development for students in Ireland . Dublin: Gill&macmillian Bowler P and Linke P, â€Å"Your Child from One to Ten†. Australian Council for Educ ational Research, Melbourne, Vic. 1996. Piaget, J. , & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Physical development: Checklist – gross Motor.Date:25 /2/13 Time: 11:00- 11:30 | |Yes |No |Comment |Date | |Runs safely. Confidence, |( | |T. C plays outside catch, T. C |23/11 | |avoiding obstacles | | |runs down towards caterpillar | | | | | |toy and avoids slide. | |Rides a trike, pushing it along |( | |TC is playing in the cars with |23/11 | |with the feet | | |the other children in yard. | | |Walks up and down stairs both |( | |Walked down step to go outside |23/11 | |feet to each step, holding wall | | |one step at a time. | | |Squats with ease. Rises without |( | |Plays sleeping bunny.Squats on |23/11 | |using hands | | |ground when saying â€Å" bunny | | | | | |sleeping but doesn’t sit on | | | | | |ground | | |Can climb up on furniture and |( | |Climbed up slide one foot at a |23/11 | |get down again | | |time.Holding onto ra ils with | | | | | |both hands going up. | | |Steers tricycle pushing along |( | |TC is playing in the cars in |23/11 | |with feet. | | |yard. | | |Able to manoeuvre large toys |( | |Pushes child along in toy car |23/11 | |with wheels | | |using both hands. | |Loves to pull along toys on | | |Not in observation | | |string | | | | | |Throws small ball over arm |( | |Playing ball game outside passes|23/11 | | | | |to another child. | | |Kicks a large ball |( | |Passes ball to other child |23/11 | Evaluation:The Aim of this observation was to observe TC, a 2 year old girl while she was in a creche setting doing an outdoor activity to get a better understanding of her physical development to see if she has developed since I last observed her. I feel that I have achieved this aim very well as TC is now meeting all her norms of development with her physical development in terms of her gross motor. The gross motor skills are the use of the large muscles in your body. In the yard TC shows that she can run in the yard towards caterpillar toy avoiding the slide. TC also shows that she can climb up on furniture and get back down holding onto rails with both hands. TC also shows she’s meeting the norms according to flood when she pushes a child in the toy car around the yard.TC also shows that she can kick a large ball when she picks up the soft ball from the ground and throws it to her friends whilst playing hot ball. When returning inside TC went up the step one foot at a time holding the wall for support according to flood 2010 a child at the age of two should be able to carry these tasks without difficulty to be meeting the norms of development. According to flood at the age of two a child should be able to ride tricycles pushing them along with their feet and to pull toys along with wheels, but these activities were not in my observation so I couldn’t observe that TC could carry out these tasks. In summary I feel like TC is meeting her norms of develop ment in her gross motor skills as she carried out the tasks I set out for her to her full potential.TC Also shows that she is meeting her norms as she shows that she can Rides a trike, pushing it along with the feet as according to flood(2010) she should be doing this at the age of 2 Years also TC shows that she is meeting her norms as she shows that she can Steer a tricycle pushing along with feet. Personal learning: †¢ I learned whilst doing this observation that when you set out tasks for the children that they enjoy them more as they can learn through practice doing them. †¢ I also learned that at such a young age those children have good physical strength eg. TC could push the younger child around in the toy car †¢ I also learned that children at this age are aware of the dangers that can hurt them like when TC avoided the slide when going to the caterpillar Recommendations for T. CI Recommend that the creche do more outdoor activities with them so that TC can ke ep developing her norms. References: Flood, E. (2010). Child Development for students in Ireland . Dublin: Gill&macmillian Social development: flow chart- narrative Date:25/2/13 Time: 9:00-12:00 TC entered the creche and went straight over to the table to get toast and juice. TC sat down beside another child and said â€Å"hi† she then turned around to the adult and said â€Å"can I have some toast† The adult replyed â€Å"yes† and handed Tc some Toast. After her toast TC went over to the library counter and sat alongside another child and read a book. TC and the other child were reading the book aloud and swapping book after they had each book read.After the library counter TC went over to the home corner with two other children and pretending to cook them lunch at the kitchen asking â€Å"what would you like for lunch† TC then told the children that this is what her mammy uses to make her dinner. After this TC went over onto the mat and sang nursery rhy mes with all the other children and held hands when going around in the circle. TC then went back over to the table where she was going to have her break and asked the adult could she sit beside Lauren and luke. The adult said she could so she said beside them. TC then asked could she be the helper to give the children out there lunches and the adult let her. TC then went around giving all the children their lunches and talking to them.After Break TC went and got her coat on as she was going outside to do and outdoor activity TC stood in the line beside Lauren holding her hand singing â€Å"if your happy and you know it† song. TC then went outside with the other children and stood against the wall watching the adult demonstrating the activity. TC then got in a line behind the other children and waited her turn to do activity. After Activity was done TC went back inside as all the children were and went over and took a sit beside another child as they were making mother days c ards TC asked all the children † what colours they were using† after the activity as done it was TC home time so she got up of her chair and said â€Å"bye† to everyone and went to the door to go home. (see flow chart) Evaluation:In this observation we see that TC has progressed since the last time that she observed as she in now interacting with the children more. We see this when TC is sitting next to â€Å"Lauren and luke† and she is taking to them in the last social observation TC was mainly just joining in on what the group was doing she wasnt making her own conversation with the children. According to the Piaget a child at the age of 2 should â€Å"Initiate play activities† TC shows she can do this when she join in indoor and outdoor activities. Also according to Piaget a child at the age of two â€Å"Demonstrate personal preferences about toys, food, and activities† TC show she does this when she pretends to make food for the other chil dren.According to bowler a child at 2 should â€Å"2- 3 year olds love simple picture books with familiar things and simple stories. Read aloud to them and talk about the pictures† TC shows that she can do this when she reads the book at library corner. Summary: In this observation it shows that Tc has developed since the last time i observed her. Recommends: I would recommend that the creche workers keep getting TC involved in activity to make her interact even more with the other children. References: Bowler P and Linke P, â€Å"Your Child from One to Ten†. Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, Vic. 1996. Piaget, J. , & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.