Sentences with phrase «of teaching for understanding»

The principle of establishing clear performance targets and the goal of teaching for understanding fit together as a powerful means of linking curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

Jacob possessed the goal of teaching for understanding and appeared to view mathematics as a process.

A visual and metaphorical framework to guide planning for understanding using ideas of the Teaching for Understanding Framework.

Research and practice were connected in the development of the Teaching for Understanding Framework, a collaborative approach for effective teaching developed, tested, and refined by faculty at the Harvard Graduate School of Education along with many experienced teachers and researchers.

The notion of teaching for understanding, and really trying to get to grips with the challenges that learners face when you are developing teaching materials.

Not exact matches

Armed with a greater understanding of what's behind the apps that we all use on our smart phones, Buchanon went on to successfully develop and launch two of them — Vite Exclusive Events, a sort of Tinder for parties across the country, and New Money Bash, a Candy Crush-esque game that teaches financial literacy.

But it's mostly an elaborate system of business education, teaching employees to understand — and take responsibility for — the numbers that govern SRC's financial health every week and every month.

Valdis Krebs of Orgnet explains that «Schools are still stuck on teaching 20th century math for building things rather than 21st century math for understanding things» and suggests that curriculums focus less on the mathematics of engineering (e.g. algebra and calculus) and more on the mathematics of patterns (e.g. set theory, graph theory, etc.).

Google has been working for years on teaching machines to understand language, make sense of images and videos, and navigate real - world environments.

His passion to teach Value Investing is contagious and his informal yet definitive style of teaching is par excellence... He has a great grasp of the subject and yet, makes it easy for others to understand.

You can't teach understanding and compassion and love for thy neighbor and then not allow LGBT individuals into your fold, or in the case of the Catholic church, not allow divorcees (or those that marry a divorcee) to participate in all your sacraments.

What fishon fails to realize is the teachings of the NT (synoptics for sure) are based on teachings of the Torah (5 books of the law)... he does not understand law and the debating of law for the formation of understanding the idea better.

A tension arises between West's incredibly positive understanding of sex and the body and his teaching that sex in itself or anything else of this world, for that matter can never fully satisfy.

As a result of this type of thinking, most non-fundamentalist Rabbis have been taught a non-literal understanding of Genesis for many decades.

In our time and place the media will almost always be on the side of those who claim conscientious freedom; they will seldom be able to understand sympathetically a church's need for a magisterial voice to articulate and sustain its public teaching.

Guiding Principles Religious and theological studies depend on and reinforce each other; A principled approach to religious values and faith demands the intellectual rigor and openness of quality academic work; A well - educated student of religion must have a deep and broad understanding of more than a single religious tradition; Studying religion requires that one understand one's own historical context as well as that of those whom one studies; An exemplary scholarly and teaching community requires respect for and critical engagement with difference and diversity of all kinds.

We are not them or Him what have you, Yet we as so many christians especialy the born again ones cause their so out spoken, because of their false teaching or lack of understanding or thinking for themselves.

Philosophy as taught, he thought, had long ago been «forced out of the context of teaching and living»» which is to say, teaching for living, philosophy understood as «a life that poses the questions of the true and the good.»

Now as a Christian I follow the new testament, and so striving to be Christ like as a Christian I accept everyone for who they are, I love them and do not presume to know the right way for them to live their life, instead I simply open my arms to others and know that all people of all faiths are just fine it doesn't matter to me what you do with your life all that matters is the way that you do it... that was my understanding of christs teachings anyways

I am a Mormon who has actually read the Book of Mormon, and I encourage anyone with doubts or questions to actually read it for themselves and study the churches teachings from primary sources — the scriptures, words of the prophets, the church itself — rather than trusting 3rd party interpretations or claims of understanding Mormonism.

While I understand and appreciate the number of Christians who fight for social justice and are compassionate towards homosexuals, it is contradictory to the teachings in the Bible (see Lev.

Simply put, the beliefs and understandings that directly affect our salvation are the essentials (Jesus, His divinity, His death and Resurrection for the forgiveness of our sins, our ability to be in relationship with God through His Son and Spirit and how our life should be lived as taught by the Bible etc.).

It is useful for teaching, morality, and understanding the story of salvation.

Sometimes the wound is apparently random and meaningless; to teach us there isn't a reason for everything, that we can't get our heads around it all, that not understanding and just trusting is the essence of faith — faith that takes us beyond our concept of God, which is always limited, towards a place of knowing the unknowable.

There is no room for «personal salvation» in my understanding of Jesus» teaching.

By saying there is no room for «personal salvation» in your understanding of Jesus» teaching and then claiming that personal salvation gets us to the topic of atonement theory — what was it that you were wanting to say if not making a link between atonement theory and salvation?

Earlier you wrote «There is no room for «personal salvation» in my understanding of Jesus» teaching.»

It was because these events were so understood, that the little kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which grew out of the invasion of Palestine, made a fertile ground for the later prophetic teaching about God's revelation in history.

His ontological understanding of the priest as the one standing in for Christ who teaches, protects, leads and sanctifies led him to question many of the initiatives in the 1980s which sought to extend to the laity tasks traditionally the function of the priest.

Instead of studying it to understand what it teaches, we'd rather feel / believe something first and then look for verses to convince ourselves that that's what the Bible really says.

Mark and Matthew say that Jesus reproved the disciples also for not remembering the miracles of feeding the crowds, Matthew adds an interpretation different from Luke's: «Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.»

At the same time, when proposing an alternate understanding, we must never accuse those who believe in the traditional view of believing in «Scripture plus tradition» while we believe in «the Bible alone» for even a «new view» is based in some way on previous traditions, and as soon as it is taught, becomes a tradition itself.

This concentration in Jesus» teaching upon his action made it possible for the disciples to conceive of his death also as divine action, which in turn led to the primitive Christian sacraments as custodians of «Jesus» understanding of himself».

Thank you for educating me and teaching me and filling in the gaps in my own understanding and answering some of my long held and difficult questions!

There can be no doubt, of course, that the teaching of our Lord is of enormous significance, not only for its own intrinsic value but also because it enables us to understand the kind of person that Jesus himself was, humanly speaking.

I have always understood the need for theology based on the admonition of Paul's Epistles, but I have come to prefer the translation «salutary teaching» to «sound doctrine.»

Theologies of play and of the body could be understood as the church's teaching on these topics, although in fact they tend to call for some shift in Christian thinking as a whole based on attention to what can be learned as one takes play or the body seriously.

Biblicism falls apart, Smith says, because of the «the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism,» for «even among presumably well - intentioned readers — including many evangelical biblicists — the Bible, after their very best efforts to understand it, says and teaches very different things about most significant topics... It becomes beside the point to assert a text to be solely authoritative or inerrant, for instance, when, lo and behold, it gives rise to a host of many divergent teachings on important matters.»

In his encyclical letter on the importance of St. Thomas» work, Pope Leo also alluded to the Church's need to maintain a deep study of science: «When the Scholastics, following the teaching of the Holy Fathers, everywhere taught throughout their anthropology that the human understanding can only rise to the knowledge of immaterial things by things of sense, nothing could be more useful for the philosopher than to investigate carefully the secrets of Nature, and to be conversant, long and laboriously, with the study of physical science.»

Teaching and learning these things make for truly theological schooling only when they are done in the service of a further end: learning so to love God with the mind as to come to understand God more deeply and more truly.

If he can so lose himself in the service of the spirit that it never occurs to him to take care for meat and drink; if he is certain that want will not distract him, and that distress will not confound for him the structure of his life, and teach him to rue that he did not first master the simple things before he presumed to understand more — then he may indeed venture, and his greatness will be more glorious than the serene security of the lilies of the field.

scott god also told us not to judge, so let cleflo do cleflo and you do you if you do nt understand how to percieve gods word than it could also be you i remember when i first got saved i was taught a lots of religion stuff but i kept running after god and not after man and he revile some things to me thur his holy spirit watch what you say about gods people cause we all have issues and with that being said be blessed and if hes doing wrong by gods word than he has to answer to god not you so why set yourself up to be curse for it god do nt need your help in nothing stay free cause who god set free is free indeed.

Gustav Aulen's contention, for example, that the New Testament teaching on Christ's death is teaching simply about his conquest of the devil — the «classic motif» falls into this category as does Karl Barth's understanding of evil conveyed in his term das Nichtige or Karl Rahner's «supernatural existential.»

Cahill correctly points, for example, to Luke's understanding of Christian poverty, friendship, communal living, and care for the stranger or enemy as based on the teaching and example of Jesus and carried on within the early Christian communities.

After setting forth what Missouri understands to be the Lutheran teaching of justification by «faith alone,» the ad depicts Catholic teaching in this way: «The Roman Catholic Church teaches that something more than trust in Christ is necessary for us to be saved.

Then again, for the average American, I guess it's easier to think of it as a fact rather than trying to correct the years of awful teaching that left this thorough understanding of science unaddressed.

It is obviously very difficult for the hierarchical teaching office, with its understanding of benefiting from the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to recognize that its teaching might be in error.

It is obviously very difficult for the hierarchical teaching office, with its understanding of benefiting from the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to recognize that its teachings might be in error.

At Washington Bible College and Capital Bible Seminary they taught you how to think thru heretical arguments in light of scripture and come to reason it out for yourself AND how can any CHristian Apologist be worth anything if they don't know and understand the heretical views that oppose Orthodox Christianity!?

And a robust vision for pastoral care needn't be understood as a repudiation of Catholic moral teaching.