Aristocrats in power: making sense of British institutions

• Autorzy: Dabrowska I.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Since the early 1970s, it has been clear that there is neither a single, universal method of foreign language teaching/learning nor a single, unified set of techniques that could guarantee all learner’s successful accomplishment of the complex task of language learning. Learners are different and, therefore, even the most thoroughly planned and well designed syllabuses or learning agendas cannot prove fully effective if we ignore the crucial issue of individual learner differences. Apart from the age factor, which determines human cognitive, linguistic, social, and emotional development, there are many other individual variables which seem to influence the learning process and its outcomes. These comprise the learner’s cognitive/learning styles and personality traits as well as his/her repertoire of strategies for language learning and use. In this series of three articles, the author presents an overview of research studies which show correlations between selected cognitive as well as affective factors and the learner’s individual choice and use of learning strategies. She also discusses implications for foreign language teaching/learning, focusing on the idea of learner strategy training.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

aristocrat; reform; Westminster model; teaching; learning; British institution; institutionalism

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Rozprawy Naukowe. Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Naukowa im. Papieża Jana Pawła II w Białej Podlaskiej
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: 03
• Opis fizyczny: p.77-93,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Dabrowska I.

• Institute of Neophilology, Pope John Paul II State School of Higher Vocational Education in Biala Podlaska, Biala Podlaska, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Bogdanor V., Devolution in the United Kingdom, Oxford, 1999, OUP.
• 2. Carter D., ‘The Powers and Conventions of the House of Lords’, in The Political Quarterly, 74, 3, 2003, 319 - 21.
• 3. Clarke C., Venning L., (2008) House of Lords Reform since 1997: A Chronology, http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HLLReformChronology.pdf.
• 4. Cm 5291 The House of Lords: Completing the Reform, London, 2001 The Stationary Office.
• 5. Cm 4183 Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords, London, 1999, The Stationary Office.
• 6. Cook A., ‘Hawking Peerages’, in History Today, 56, 11, 2006, 36 - 7.
• 7. Cook R., ‘Modernisation? We didn’t mean this’, in New Statesman, 2003, 25 - 6.
• 8. Hall P. A.; Taylor R. C. R., ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, in Political Studies, 44, 5, 1996, 936 - 57.
• 9. Hurst G., ‘Peers vote to retain Lord Chancellor’, in The Times, Jul. 14, 2004.
• 10. Johnson N., ‘Law, Convention and Precedent in the British Constitution’, in Butler, D., et al. (eds.) The Law, Politics and the Constitution, Oxford, 1999, OUP.
• 11. Johnson N., Reshaping the British Constitution: Esseys in Political Interpretation, London, 2004, Palgrave Macmillan.
• 12. Low S., The Governance of England, London, 1904, Unwin.
• 13. Lowndes V., (2002) ‘Institutionalism’, in D. Marsh; G. Stoker (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science, London, Palgrave.
• 14. Manin B., The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge, 1997, CUP.
• 15. Master B., (2001) The Dukes, London, Pimlico.
• 16. McLean I., ‘Mr Asquith’s Unfinished Business’, in The Political Quarterly, 99, 4, 2000, 382 - 8.
• 17. Mitchell J., ‘Devolution’s Unfinished Business’, in The Political Quarterly, 77, 4, 2006, 465 - 74.
• 18. Norton P., ‘The Changing Constitution’, in B. Jones et al. (eds.) Politics UK, London, 2004, Longman, 357 - 80 .
• 19. Norton P., ‘The Crown’, in B. Jones et al. (eds.) Politics UK, London, Longman, 2004, 381 - 406.
• 20. Norton P., The British Polity, London, 1984, Longman.
• 21. Peters B. G., Institutional Theory in Political Science: the ‘New Insti- tuionalism’, London, 1999, Pinter.
• 22. Pierson P., ‘Limits of Design: Explaining Institutional Origins and Change’, in Governance, 13, 4, 2000, 475 - 99.
• 23. Puttnam D., ‘A Democratic and Expert House’, in The Political Quarterly, 70, 4, 1999, 368 - 73.
• 24. The Queen’s Speech (2008), <http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7762675.stm> accessed on Mar. 25, 2009.
• 25. Rhodes R. A., Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham, 1997, Open University Press.
• 26. Richard L; Welfare D., Unfinished Business: Reforming the House of Lords, London, Vintage, 1999.
• 27. Shell D. ‘The Future of the Second Chamber’, in The Political Quarterly, 70, 4, 1999, 390 - 5.
• 28. Taylor A., Lords of Misrule, New York, 2004, Palgrave Macmillan.
• 29. Wakeham L., ‘The Lords: Building a House for the Future’, in The Political Quarterly, 71, 3, 2000, 277 - 81.
• 30. Worf R., (2001) ‘Lord’s revenge. The revival of the House of Lords’, in Harvard International Review, 7 - 8.