What is your “multitasking tendency” and how does this impact your ability to study and learn?
My “multitasking tendency” refers to my preference for attempting to complete multiple tasks simultaneously rather than focusing on one task at a time. This can be both beneficial and detrimental depending on the situation as it allows me to work quickly when needed but also hinders my ability to absorb information thoroughly (Cain & DeShon, 2020).
When it comes to studying, multitasking can prove particularly distracting as it takes away from the focus needed for retaining knowledge about complex topics (Ophir et al., 2009). Additionally, taking breaks in between tasks or setting aside specific times of day dedicated solely to study can help improve recall by allowing more time for processing new material (Callan & Fitzpatrick , 2019)
I have found that breaking long-term projects into smaller chunks is also helpful as this prevents feeling overwhelmed which often leads me back into multitasking mode(Marzano et al., 2008). Finally , making use of various online tools such as flashcards and quizzes helps break up study sessions while still providing an effective means of learning the necessary material (Hays et al., 2017 )
In conclusion, understanding one’s tendency towards multitasking is important in order maximize one’s potential when studying. By utilizing strategies like breaking down large goals into smaller chunks and taking advantage of available technology tools I believe I will be able to effectively manage my multitasking tendency while successfully retaining knowledge.
ombatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for figh