Sentences with phrase «teaching means using»

Good teaching means using repetition and multiple modalities to help students remember information.

Successful schoolwide technology integration ultimately requires a schoolwide cultural shift in which good teaching means using technology effectively (Ertmer and Ottenbreit - Leftwich, 2010; Levin and Wadmany, 2008).

Not exact matches

In his book, The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses, author Eric Ries highlights how «startup success can be engineered by following the right process, which means it can be learned, which means it can be taught.»

When one of my kids finds him or herself in a predicament in which they're having a negative attitude or they're portraying selfishness, I'll often use those situations as teaching moments for what it means to be light.

That means that if these eager witnessing beavers took the money and gave the damn sign to Coca - Cola and instead bought into Uganda's Water School program that uses the suns UV rays to cleanse water, 3,000 families would have clean water for LIFE and the education to teach their neighbors how to use the Water School!

Moreover, preachers admit that they fail to make use of significant events in the lives of their people and ignore their meaning instead of making them a part of the curriculum of Christian teaching by affirming, complementing, and evaluating them.

Throughout its history it has used a variety of means to accomplish this — preaching, teaching, music, and all the visual resources of art and architecture.

While we have not been able to buy into any of these titles in our common sense reconstruction, we do use the messianic title of «the Christ», redefined to mean the one through whose life and teachings we interpret God, the one through whom we find focus and meaning for our lives.

II 24.6, that this parable was much used by Gnostics, and, both in Thomas and in the Gospel of Truth where a version of it is also to be found, it has become so much a vehicle for expressing gnostic teaching that the versions do not help us to reconstruct the teaching of Jesus (for a good discussion of the meaning and use of this parable in its gnostic setting, see B. Gärtner, Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas, pp. 234 ff.)

The word «Bible,» for example, can have a repressive moralistic meaning for one person because the Bible and its teaching was used to suppress gay and spontaneous responses during his childhood.

Christianity has drifted away from the core teachings and message that people use it as a means of earnings!

the Bible explicitly teaches otherwise (God often uses people / secondary means to accomplish things).

It's clear that at least some of the bible is meant as metaphor and parable, since Jesus himself is quoted as using parables to teach.

Although in popular usage the word «myth» is taken as a falsehood or a fairy story, writers on religion use it to mean a traditional narrative involving supernatural or imaginary persons but which teaches significant moral or religious lessons.

But we use them as our only means of referring to the «different» one whose word has taught us that we are his beloved children.

This doesn't mean I am exactly going to use the manuscript when I teach the sermon or Bible study (I am definitely NOT going to read it!)

Though the letters mem - shin - lamed can be translated also as dominions, I think the sense tends more toward failure if this word is used since it tends to mean domination rather than teaching..

This usage went back to biblical examples of condemning false teaching with use of the term «anathematize,» which means «cut off» or «separate.»

Christ uses the image of a heretic Northerner to teach the Jews the meaning of the Law.

If one believes the Bible to be inspired or a guide for Christian living but doesn't necessarily believe it is inerrant or the literal word of God, that doesn't have to mean we just throw it all out... it doesn't have to shatter your worldview (i.e. it's either all true or all false — fundamentalists love to think this way and teach others to do the same) Use the Episcopal 3 - legged stool model (Scripture, reason, tradition) or the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, tradition, reason, experience).

Rigorous use of biblical criticism prevents psychologizing and allegorizing, insofar as the attempt is made to recover what Jesus actually taught and how the church in fact interpreted his teaching, and only then to inquire into its psycho - social and symbolic meaning, both for Jesus and the church, and for us today.

When I describe myself as a «gay,» it is always clear from the broader context that I am not using «gay» to mean that I embrace and affirm my sexual desires in a way contrary to Catholic teaching.

A casual reading of the Synoptic Gospels will disclose how constantly Jesus used that phrase, and if we understood all that he meant by it we should hold the clue to the understanding of all his teaching.

In that conversation, voices have been heard urging a view of conscience that is curious, even dangerous: Under certain circumstances, conscience may permit or even require that a person choose acts that the Church has consistently taught are intrinsically wrong — such as using artificial means of contraception, or receiving Holy Communion while living the married life in a union that's not been blessed by the Church.

Then that means the Holy Spirit is at work in you, teaching you to use the Word.

Lear uses the example of a teacher who is suddenly and inexplicably struck with perplexity, not just about this or that aspect of teaching but about the very meaning of teaching.

If you don't belive that using birth control is wrong and don't agree with Catholic Church teachings that would mean your not a Catholic.

But despite intellectual challenges, issues in his personal life and emotional swings, Lewis is ultimately remembered for his writings on faith: Even when it meant putting aside momentary feelings of uncertainty: «Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods... That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods «where they get off,» you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist.»

«Remenber all scpritures are inspired words from God, my point is, Jesus wants us to be more than religious, but obedient.Jefferson is just stating that American Churches have become more corrupted with its religious practices that they have forgotten about jesus along the way.The church has taken scriptures and have use them according to what is pleasing to themselves.Jesus wants us to forget about what is pleasing to ourselves and follow him, be like him, love him (means be obedient to him) and ignore what we have known as religion.I define religion as jefferson is using in the video as an act of man pretending or decieving himself into believing that he know God and that he is better than others.He shows that by what he know / pratice not really whats in his heart and by serving how we choose which is pleasing to us, so we use God as a vessel praticing holy rituals teaching what we have made tradition and we have a eternal life with God.God created religion in order for us to remenber him and have a personal relationship with him through his son regardless of the many mistakes we have made in the past.We need to remenber God Forgets our past «he sperate our sins from us as far as the east is from the west».

So if you have a gift of teaching, by all means, use it.

If any off you want to do whatever you want to do than it is not my business, God will judge you but does not mean I will approve your ways of life in my life and in teaching my children what is wright and what is wrong, also would be very scared to use God in to my dirty tricks.

God often uses tangible physical expressions as a means to teach us spiritual realities.

And selfish reading is training for selfish action, because it teaches us to use others as means to our own ends.

The same expression is also used of Henoch, whose name means «discipline» or «teaching» and who was «holy, and walked with God, and was seen no more because God took him...» etc..

Pope John Paul was emphatic in teaching that» [t] he use of the infertile periods for conjugal union can be an abuse if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number of births in their family below the morally correct level.This morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one's own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of the whole of mankind.

Yes... if taught the biblical ideal about using «measure» on themself (as it is presented)-- and what responsibility truly means (or as the church calls it — repentance).

The term «informed choice» within a Catholic text is no more to be interpreted as implying the secular rhetoric of choice, than a term used in Catholic teaching like «responsible parenthood» is meant to imply to a secular rhetorician, «contraception».

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

Maitland Niles is a CM who can also play on the wings.Wenger using him in that position is just making him poor.The guy's confidence will really go down.I mean why not just use him in CM?After all it's only preseason.I just don't get Wenger at times.I would have also started Coquelin in this match who looks to be really impressive.This result determines nothing in our season as many preseason matches have taught us.

If Patricia and Pasqualoni think they can teach him how to use his hands better in the run game, then by all means, take him at 20.

My grandma use to say «you can't teach a old dog new tricks» I am not by any means calling arsene a dog but clearly he is out of tricks.

My grandma use to say «you can't teach a old dog new tricks» I am not by no means calling Mr. Wenger a dog but I am saying he is out of tricks (tactics).

None of that precludes painting their nails red (for either of them), but it certainly does mean that I won't be teaching them how to pick up a gun and use it.

Or, you can use it as a teaching experience to teach your kids how babies were meant to eat and that just because formula and bottles exist there is still another method the Original method in which a baby consumes their milk.

To be a Christian father means instructing children about God's love while teaching them how to live their Christian faith; using the Bible to support the words and actions.

It's a type III device, meaning it's not fit for using as an actual life jacket, but it's perfect for teaching them to swim.

School at home means teaching your children at home, and doing it the same way it is done in schools, using the same methods, workbooks, texts, worksheets, etc. that typical schools use.

There are many ways to save money, that are quite effective for teaching (like using lots of library books, using free resources on the Internet, etc. - see our «HS Money Saving Tips» page for more on this), but you will still have to spend some money directly on home schooling, and unless you were already planning to have one of you be a stay - at - home parent, it will mean doing with less money.

Instead, the lecturer suggested that you just use an allowance as a means of teaching saving and give each child a set amount weekly or monthly and increase it annually on the child's birthday.

But does this mean we should attempt to teach them to use all the intelligences, or even to study all the subjects covered in schools?