Sentences with phrase «much teaching time»

If every local UTC, studio school, apprentice provider, FE college wanted to address all pupils then it would take up much teaching time.

A Year 2 teacher from Norfolk said: «It feels like so much time is spent on preparation for SATS tests, and then teacher assessment on top of this takes too much teaching time that the children are entitled too.

Not exact matches

Consider how much time politicians, educators and researchers spend talking about how to teach the next generation to be innovative.

Their business stood out because, despite accepting both male and female clientele, the Westropp sisters wanted to have an all - female board of directors and teach women about money during a time when men still controlled much of family and business finance.

I had hoped to be on holiday by now, but I'm woefully behind because I've spent so much time chasing that damned Elder Scroll (spoiler: it teaches you how to defeat a particularly bad - ass dragon).

«Something we try to teach [students] is you don't need much time or a big amount of money to prove if a startup may work or not.»

Any company that values learning and teaching as much as doing needs a responsive, agile communications strategy to avoid wasting time and money.

It's the Times itself, of course, that has done so much to spark the current conversation around harassment with its exposés on Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K.. There's probably no loftier perch in all of political journalism from which one could teach the trade and enlist young women into the calling — or, as the case may be, betray them.

You teach yourself not to challenge yourself as much the next time.

In just a week's time, I liked this site so much that every day morning I look forward for new teaching from Safal Niveshak.»

Loving one another (family specifically) unconditionally and teaching love by example is far more of a noble focus than spending much of our time obsessing over and trying to please a god whom there is zero proof of existence.

In the middle of 1999 I expected that I would spend much of my time promoting the distinctive areas of the Church's teaching.

All too much of the time we consider our preaching to be an exercise in theological teaching, in moral exhortation, or in pious meditation.

Because I have the gift of teaching, I feel that there's so much to teach and not enough time.

WMN differs from Disciple in its cost (less), its time and reading requirements (also less), its training requirements for leaders (much, much less) and most important, in offering the sort of sustained teaching from a single professor that normally only courses in seminaries provide.

And «I'm a neurotic skeptic who thinks she's a Christian most of the time, but hates so much of what Christianity stands for, yet loves the teachings of Jesus, but struggles to actually follow them» tends to frighten people a bit.

Jesus hated religion so much he came to shake the very foundations of what was being taught at his time.

By the time the Gospels start including such OT material the Christians are pretty much kicked out of the synagogues, so they don't have access to the proper teaching.

for one group that gathers on a certain day in a certain place to focus more on teaching and knowledge gifts, and not as much on service and evangelism, while another group at another place and time focuses on service and evangelism, but not as much on teaching and knowledge, and that from God's perspective, this is all okay?

Jeremy Myers, i think you are wrong and David is right, so many out there are preaching you can live any way you want and be right that Grace covers any sin, they really believe that, that is not what the bible says, God was very concerned about sin so much he sent Jesus his son to die on a cross for us, if we accept Jesus as our savor then we are to obey his commandments, not break them, we are to live a righteous and holy life as possible, the bible plainly list a whole list of things if we live in will not to to heaven unless we repent, if we die while in these sins, we will not go to heaven, what is the difference, between someone who said a prayer and someone who did not, and they are living the same way, none, i think, if we are truly saved it should be hard to do these things let alone live and do them everyday, i would be afraid to tell people that it does not matte grace covers their sins, i really think it is the slip ups that we are convicted of by the Holy Spirit and we ask for forgivness, how can anyones heart be right with God and they have sex all the time out of marriage, lie, break every commandment of God, i don't think this is meaning grace covers those sins, until they repent and ask for forgiveness, a lot of people will end up in hell because preachers teach Grace the wrong way,, and those preachers will answer to God for leading these people the wrong way, not saying you are one of them, but be careful, everything we teach or preach must line up with the word of God, God hates sin,

well just thinking about these wars in the muslim / mid-east world over religious differences (which may reflect mental states in many ways) in a world where most realize that living in the present moment is best way to happiness and being in the moment in non-strife and awareness through the teachings of masters such as found in the buddhist, taoist, zen, etc., etc., etc. spriritually based practices of religious like thought and teachings, etc. that to ask these scientifically educated populace whom have access to vast amounts of knowledges and understandings on the internet, etc. to believe in past beliefs that perhaps gave basis and inspiration to that which followed — but is not the end all of all times or knowledges — and is thus — non self - sustaining in a belief that does not encompass growth of knowledge and understanding of all truths and being as it is or could be — is to not respect the intelligence and minds and personage of even themselves — not to be disrespected nor disrespectful in any way — only to point out that perhaps too much is asked to put others into the cloak of blind faith and adherance to the past that disregards the realities of the present and the potential of the future... so you try to live in the past — and destroy your present and your future — where is the intelligence in that — and why do people continually fear monger or allow to be fear — mongered into this destructive vision of the future based upon the past?

I am shocked by the Christian teachings that instruct people specifically «how» to study God's Word in the «right» way — «how much time to spend» praying and studying the Bible — «how» to come to the «right» interpretation of each Scripture verse / passage (guided by them — tying the hands of God and Jesus» Holy Spirit, and ignoring that God's Word is living and active...)-- insistence that increased Bible study, prayer and intersession, by their sheer weight, automatically make us closer to being better Christians — closer to perfection and more pleasing to our Lord and Savior.

After much study, prayer and thought I am convinced that the idea that only men are allowed to teach scripture, be a pastor, be an elder etc. etc. was a teaching that came about due to the status of women during a particular time and culture and continued because of the patriarchal system that most churches have continued to operate under.

This is why I spend so much time studying during the week and why we spend half of our service in teaching the Word.

His focus during this time was on teaching and training them, so this event was just as much for their benefit as it was for the 10 lepers.

So even if you don't believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (whom Ahmadis believe to be the promissed Messiah) according to the prophecies of the Prophet (s.a.w) how can you not believe that the Muslim world has deteriorated to the point that now it is time for that foretold Messiah to come and re-introduce the true teachings of Islam which people have twisted and turned so much, as to give this beautiful and perfect faith such an unbecoming face before the world?

What spoke to me through this story, is how much this pastor knew the people in his church (you and I have the same definition of church, however I'm using the word here as it applies to this group of people I feel the problem in many churches today (and why dialogue during sermons wouldn't go over well) is that the pastors do not take the time to invest in the people they are trying to teach.

Yes, I have taught through Jonah several times, and always try to point out how much we are like Jonah.

Islam relegion he peached, that also includes Jews and Jesus teachings, is much better than some of religiouns Arabs had at that time.

When someone teaches something that is contrary to your view, rather than take the time to understand their perspective and then deal with it logically and Scripturally, and maybe even correct your own view in the process, it is much easier to just call them «biblically illiterate» and move on.

All this «having» students do this, «asking» them to do that, and «instructing» them to do the other thing, as anyone knows with as much experience teaching college students as Professor Neuliep has (and I have over thirty years» experience myself), is going to result, some of the time, in compliance --- sometimes immediate compliance, even from inwardly squeamish students.

(Hades, Sheol, the common grave of mankind) Please take the time since you have given too much time to those who would have you believe pagan teachings from Egypt, Babylon and other pagan lands.

I guess it must be true - no matter how much time one has, one can't teach a pig to sing.

We who are followers of the teachings in the bible spend so much time not doing what the Lord clearly teaches.

But do Christians (republican or democrat) help as much as we should in giving our money, time and resources we have been blessed with, as the Bible teaches?

There are debates about expository versus topical preaching, whether women should be allowed to preach, how long the sermon should be, whether the teaching should be participatory or a monologue, how much time should be given to illustration and application, whether to use powerpoint and encourage sermon notes or not, and on and on.

It took me a long time to realize that not only did these assumptions misrepresented the teachings of the Catholic Church, but they contributed to that common narrative that plagues much of evangelicalism — that people are damned for having the «wrong» doctrine (and by «wrong,» I mean «not evangelical.»)

The records of Jewish saints and teachers, and of their teaching, were likewise handed down orally, as tradition, for a long time before they were committed to writing — for a much longer period of time, in fact, than was true of the Gospels.

At the same time there is much in the teaching of Jesus in the fourth gospel which all critics would allow to have an authentic ring.

The teaching at the first church I attended was much the same as what Piper advocates which I thought strange and didn't quite fit at the time.

God has put all of us on a journey and as much as we might want to dash to the finish line, we're going to have to take our time to let Him teach us what exactly that finish line is.

These amazing individuals have so much to teach us if we simply take the time to learn.

You'd never believe how much time I spend with my college freshmen, unteaching them what they've been taught in high school.

While teaching BODYPUMP was my first love, I spend much more of my time teaching BODYATTACK these days, which is a one - hour sports cardio class, and it's pretty darn fun to teach and to take.

We see the same flour / water combination behaving differently from one time of year to another (or even from day to day); and it's as much experience as science that teaches us what's going on, and how to adapt.

I bet that workshop taught you so much, Ive always thought about taking one, just reading about it all the time doesn't exactly cut it:) This sounds SO good!

If history has taught us anything through the brash talk of champions like Mohammed Ali, Floyd Money Mayweather and even the much hated Jose Mourinho, it is that beating your opponent psychology usually works to your advantage 90 % of the time.

When you do this head coaching football job «'' and Justin I'm sure is aware of it because he's been working just as much and just as hard as I have «'' what you have time for is teaching, coaching, family and about six rounds of golf and that takes up the entire year - long calendar usually.

But with experience playing DB in college and so much time as a WR coach, Babers brings a WR's sensibility to teaching the system he took from Baylor.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits