1. Develop a thought experiment that attempts to uncover hidden assumptions about human freedom. 2. Find a paragraph from a book, magazine, ect. First, tell whether there are claims in the paragraph. If there are, identify the types of claims (descriptive, normative, a priori, a posteriori) in the paragraph

1. Develop a thought experiment that attempts to uncover hidden assumptions about human freedom. 2. Find a paragraph from a book, magazine, ect. First, tell whether there are claims in the paragraph. If there are, identify the types of claims (descriptive, normative, a priori, a posteriori) in the paragraph

Let us think of a thought experiment that wants to … Read More...
TEXT The sole text is Daniel Bonevac’s Today’s Moral Issues. This is an extremely accessible work that organizes the subject matter of ethics into well-structured units involving both general principles and focused ethical dilemmas. The instructor will guide the students through the pertinent readings and discussion topics. Exam #3: WAR ECONOMIC EQUALITY 1. Aquinas 5. Mill 2. Grotius 6. Hospers 3. Clausewitz 7. Anderson 4. Gandhi CONCERNING THE SHORT PAPER Choose one of our dilemma topics from our book as the focus of your short paper. If you have another topic in mind, please consult with me for permission. —length: 4 to 5 pages — format: typed —number of points: 10 — submission via Bb, under “Assignments” — Format: Microsoft Word — Line Spacing: Double-Spaced —Print: Black The following is merely a suggestion for the organization of the paper, but it might be useful as an indication of how it could look: a) Initial statement of your position concerning the moral dilemma; how to resolve it, how you plan to argue for/against it. b) Amplification of your position; your main points or position. c) Backup: some cited references and supporting evidence for your position. d) Your criticisms of alternative or contrary points of view. e) Your conclusion/summing up. Plagiarism is a serious breach of academic integrity. If you submit plagiarized materials you will receive a zero on the assignment. If you need an extension of the due date for the paper, please consult with me.

TEXT The sole text is Daniel Bonevac’s Today’s Moral Issues. This is an extremely accessible work that organizes the subject matter of ethics into well-structured units involving both general principles and focused ethical dilemmas. The instructor will guide the students through the pertinent readings and discussion topics. Exam #3: WAR ECONOMIC EQUALITY 1. Aquinas 5. Mill 2. Grotius 6. Hospers 3. Clausewitz 7. Anderson 4. Gandhi CONCERNING THE SHORT PAPER Choose one of our dilemma topics from our book as the focus of your short paper. If you have another topic in mind, please consult with me for permission. —length: 4 to 5 pages — format: typed —number of points: 10 — submission via Bb, under “Assignments” — Format: Microsoft Word — Line Spacing: Double-Spaced —Print: Black The following is merely a suggestion for the organization of the paper, but it might be useful as an indication of how it could look: a) Initial statement of your position concerning the moral dilemma; how to resolve it, how you plan to argue for/against it. b) Amplification of your position; your main points or position. c) Backup: some cited references and supporting evidence for your position. d) Your criticisms of alternative or contrary points of view. e) Your conclusion/summing up. Plagiarism is a serious breach of academic integrity. If you submit plagiarized materials you will receive a zero on the assignment. If you need an extension of the due date for the paper, please consult with me.

Non-violence as a rule of love   The mainly essential … Read More...
In your opinion, will BitCoins stick around? Why or Why Not?

In your opinion, will BitCoins stick around? Why or Why Not?

In your opinion, will BitCoins stick around? Why or Why … Read More...
Read this article and answer this question in 2 pages : Answers should be from the below article only. What is the difference between “standards-based” and “standards-embedded” curriculum? what are the curricular implications of this difference? Article: In 2007, at the dawn of 21st century in education, it is impossible to talk about teaching, curriculum, schools, or education without discussing standards . standards-based v. standards-embedded curriculum We are in an age of accountability where our success as educators is determined by individual and group mastery of specific standards dem- onstrated by standardized test per- formance. Even before No Child Left Behind (NCLB), standards and measures were used to determine if schools and students were success- ful (McClure, 2005). But, NCLB has increased the pace, intensity, and high stakes of this trend. Gifted and talented students and their teach- ers are significantly impacted by these local or state proficiency stan- dards and grade-level assessments (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). This article explores how to use these standards in the develop- ment of high-quality curriculum for gifted students. NCLB, High-Stakes State Testing, and Standards- Based Instruction There are a few potentially positive outcomes of this evolution to public accountability. All stakeholders have had to ask themselves, “Are students learning? If so, what are they learning and how do we know?” In cases where we have been allowed to thoughtfully evaluate curriculum and instruction, we have also asked, “What’s worth learning?” “When’s the best time to learn it?” and “Who needs to learn it?” Even though state achievement tests are only a single measure, citizens are now offered a yardstick, albeit a nar- row one, for comparing communities, schools, and in some cases, teachers. Some testing reports allow teachers to identify for parents what their chil- dren can do and what they can not do. Testing also has focused attention on the not-so-new observations that pov- erty, discrimination and prejudices, and language proficiency impacts learning. With enough ceiling (e.g., above-grade-level assessments), even gifted students’ actual achievement and readiness levels can be identi- fied and provide a starting point for appropriately differentiated instruc- tion (Tomlinson, 2001). Unfortunately, as a veteran teacher for more than three decades and as a teacher-educator, my recent observa- tions of and conversations with class- room and gifted teachers have usually revealed negative outcomes. For gifted children, their actual achievement level is often unrecognized by teachers because both the tests and the reporting of the results rarely reach above the student’s grade-level placement. Assessments also focus on a huge number of state stan- dards for a given school year that cre- ate “overload” (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006) and have a devastating impact on the development and implementation of rich and relevant curriculum and instruction. In too many scenarios, I see teachers teach- ing directly to the test. And, in the worst cases, some teachers actually teach The Test. In those cases, The Test itself becomes the curriculum. Consistently I hear, “Oh, I used to teach a great unit on ________ but I can’t do it any- more because I have to teach the standards.” Or, “I have to teach my favorite units in April and May after testing.” If the outcomes can’t be boiled down to simple “I can . . .” state- ments that can be posted on a school’s walls, then teachers seem to omit poten- tially meaningful learning opportunities from the school year. In many cases, real education and learning are being trivial- ized. We seem to have lost sight of the more significant purpose of teaching and learning: individual growth and develop- ment. We also have surrendered much of the joy of learning, as the incidentals, the tangents, the “bird walks” are cut short or elimi- nated because teachers hear the con- stant ticking clock of the countdown to the state test and feel the pressure of the way-too-many standards that have to be covered in a mere 180 school days. The accountability movement has pushed us away from seeing the whole child: “Students are not machines, as the standards movement suggests; they are volatile, complicated, and paradoxical” (Cookson, 2001, p. 42). How does this impact gifted chil- dren? In many heterogeneous class- rooms, teachers have retreated to traditional subject delineations and traditional instruction in an effort to ensure direct standards-based instruc- tion even though “no solid basis exists in the research literature for the ways we currently develop, place, and align educational standards in school cur- ricula” (Zenger & Zenger, 2002, p. 212). Grade-level standards are often particularly inappropriate for the gifted and talented whose pace of learning, achievement levels, and depth of knowledge are significantly beyond their chronological peers. A broad-based, thematically rich, and challenging curriculum is the heart of education for the gifted. Virgil Ward, one of the earliest voices for a differen- tial education for the gifted, said, “It is insufficient to consider the curriculum for the gifted in terms of traditional subjects and instructional processes” (Ward, 1980, p. 5). VanTassel-Baska Standards-Based v. Standards-Embedded Curriculum gifted child today 45 Standards-Based v. Standards-Embedded Curriculum and Stambaugh (2006) described three dimensions of successful curriculum for gifted students: content mastery, pro- cess and product, and epistemological concept, “understanding and appre- ciating systems of knowledge rather than individual elements of those systems” (p. 9). Overemphasis on testing and grade-level standards limits all three and therefore limits learning for gifted students. Hirsch (2001) concluded that “broad gen- eral knowledge is the best entrée to deep knowledge” (p. 23) and that it is highly correlated with general ability to learn. He continued, “the best way to learn a subject is to learn its gen- eral principles and to study an ample number of diverse examples that illustrate those principles” (Hirsch, 2001, p. 23). Principle-based learn- ing applies to both gifted and general education children. In order to meet the needs of gifted and general education students, cur- riculum should be differentiated in ways that are relevant and engaging. Curriculum content, processes, and products should provide challenge, depth, and complexity, offering multiple opportunities for problem solving, creativity, and exploration. In specific content areas, the cur- riculum should reflect the elegance and sophistication unique to the discipline. Even with this expanded view of curriculum in mind, we still must find ways to address the current reality of state standards and assess- ments. Standards-Embedded Curriculum How can educators address this chal- lenge? As in most things, a change of perspective can be helpful. Standards- based curriculum as described above should be replaced with standards- embedded curriculum. Standards- embedded curriculum begins with broad questions and topics, either discipline specific or interdisciplinary. Once teachers have given thoughtful consideration to relevant, engaging, and important content and the con- nections that support meaning-making (Jensen, 1998), they next select stan- dards that are relevant to this content and to summative assessments. This process is supported by the backward planning advocated in Understanding by Design by Wiggins and McTighe (2005) and its predecessors, as well as current thinkers in other fields, such as Covey (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). It is a critical component of differenti- ating instruction for advanced learners (Tomlinson, 2001) and a significant factor in the Core Parallel in the Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson et al., 2002). Teachers choose from standards in multiple disciplines at both above and below grade level depending on the needs of the students and the classroom or program structure. Preassessment data and the results of prior instruc- tion also inform this process of embed- ding appropriate standards. For gifted students, this formative assessment will result in “more advanced curricula available at younger ages, ensuring that all levels of the standards are traversed in the process” (VanTassel-Baska & Little, 2003, p. 3). Once the essential questions, key content, and relevant standards are selected and sequenced, they are embedded into a coherent unit design and instructional decisions (grouping, pacing, instructional methodology) can be made. For gifted students, this includes the identification of appropri- ate resources, often including advanced texts, mentors, and independent research, as appropriate to the child’s developmental level and interest. Applying Standards- Embedded Curriculum What does this look like in practice? In reading the possible class- room applications below, consider these three Ohio Academic Content Standards for third grade: 1. Math: “Read thermometers in both Fahrenheit and Celsius scales” (“Academic Content Standards: K–12 Mathematics,” n.d., p. 71). 2. Social Studies: “Compare some of the cultural practices and products of various groups of people who have lived in the local community including artistic expression, religion, language, and food. Compare the cultural practices and products of the local community with those of other communities in Ohio, the United States, and countries of the world” (Academic Content Standards: K–12 Social Studies, n.d., p. 122). 3. Life Science: “Observe and explore how fossils provide evidence about animals that lived long ago and the nature of the environment at that time” (Academic Content Standards: K–12 Science, n.d., p. 57). When students are fortunate to have a teacher who is dedicated to helping all of them make good use of their time, the gifted may have a preassessment opportunity where they can demonstrate their familiarity with the content and potential mastery of a standard at their grade level. Students who pass may get to read by them- selves for the brief period while the rest of the class works on the single outcome. Sometimes more experienced teachers will create opportunities for gifted and advanced students Standards-Based v. Standards-Embedded Curriculum to work on a standard in the same domain or strand at the next higher grade level (i.e., accelerate through the standards). For example, a stu- dent might be able to work on a Life Science standard for fourth grade that progresses to other communities such as ecosystems. These above-grade-level standards can provide rich material for differentiation, advanced problem solving, and more in-depth curriculum integration. In another classroom scenario, a teacher may focus on the math stan- dard above, identifying the standard number on his lesson plan. He creates or collects paper thermometers, some showing measurement in Celsius and some in Fahrenheit. He also has some real thermometers. He demonstrates thermometer use with boiling water and with freezing water and reads the different temperatures. Students complete a worksheet that has them read thermometers in Celsius and Fahrenheit. The more advanced students may learn how to convert between the two scales. Students then practice with several questions on the topic that are similar in structure and content to those that have been on past proficiency tests. They are coached in how to answer them so that the stan- dard, instruction, formative assess- ment, and summative assessment are all aligned. Then, each student writes a statement that says, “I can read a thermometer using either Celsius or Fahrenheit scales.” Both of these examples describe a standards-based environment, where the starting point is the standard. Direct instruction to that standard is followed by an observable student behavior that demonstrates specific mastery of that single standard. The standard becomes both the start- ing point and the ending point of the curriculum. Education, rather than opening up a student’s mind, becomes a series of closed links in a chain. Whereas the above lessons may be differentiated to some extent, they have no context; they may relate only to the next standard on the list, such as, “Telling time to the nearest minute and finding elapsed time using a cal- endar or a clock.” How would a “standards-embed- ded” model of curriculum design be different? It would begin with the development of an essential ques- tion such as, “Who or what lived here before me? How were they different from me? How were they the same? How do we know?” These questions might be more relevant to our con- temporary highly mobile students. It would involve place and time. Using this intriguing line of inquiry, students might work on the social studies stan- dard as part of the study of their home- town, their school, or even their house or apartment. Because where people live and what they do is influenced by the weather, students could look into weather patterns of their area and learn how to measure temperature using a Fahrenheit scale so they could see if it is similar now to what it was a century ago. Skipping ahead to consideration of the social studies standard, students could then choose another country, preferably one that uses Celsius, and do the same investigation of fossils, communities, and the like. Students could complete a weather comparison, looking at the temperature in Celsius as people in other parts of the world, such as those in Canada, do. Thus, learning is contextualized and connected, dem- onstrating both depth and complexity. This approach takes a lot more work and time. It is a sophisticated integrated view of curriculum devel- opment and involves in-depth knowl- edge of the content areas, as well as an understanding of the scope and sequence of the standards in each dis- cipline. Teachers who develop vital single-discipline units, as well as inter- disciplinary teaching units, begin with a central topic surrounded by subtopics and connections to other areas. Then they connect important terms, facts, or concepts to the subtopics. Next, the skilled teacher/curriculum devel- oper embeds relevant, multileveled standards and objectives appropriate to a given student or group of stu- dents into the unit. Finally, teachers select the instructional strategies and develop student assessments. These assessments include, but are not lim- ited to, the types of questions asked on standardized and state assessments. Comparing Standards- Based and Standards- Embedded Curriculum Design Following is an articulation of the differences between standards-based and standards-embedded curriculum design. (See Figure 1.) 1. The starting point. Standards- based curriculum begins with the grade-level standard and the underlying assumption that every student needs to master that stan- dard at that moment in time. In standards-embedded curriculum, the multifaceted essential ques- tion and students’ needs are the starting points. 2. Preassessment. In standards- based curriculum and teaching, if a preassessment is provided, it cov- ers a single standard or two. In a standards-embedded curriculum, preassessment includes a broader range of grade-level and advanced standards, as well as students’ knowledge of surrounding content such as background experiences with the subject, relevant skills (such as reading and writing), and continued on page ?? even learning style or interests. gifted child today 47 Standards-Based v. Standards-Embedded Curriculum Standards Based Standards Embedded Starting Points The grade-level standard. Whole class’ general skill level Essential questions and content relevant to individual students and groups. Preassessment Targeted to a single grade-level standard. Short-cycle assessments. Background knowledge. Multiple grade-level standards from multiple areas connected by the theme of the unit. Includes annual learning style and interest inventories. Acceleration/ Enrichment To next grade-level standard in the same strand. To above-grade-level standards, as well as into broader thematically connected content. Language Arts Divided into individual skills. Reading and writing skills often separated from real-world relevant contexts. The language arts are embedded in all units and themes and connected to differentiated processes and products across all content areas. Instruction Lesson planning begins with the standard as the objective. Sequential direct instruction progresses through the standards in each content area separately. Strategies are selected to introduce, practice, and demonstrate mastery of all grade-level standards in all content areas in one school year. Lesson planning begins with essential questions, topics, and significant themes. Integrated instruction is designed around connections among content areas and embeds all relevant standards. Assessment Format modeled after the state test. Variety of assessments including questions similar to the state test format. Teacher Role Monitor of standards mastery. Time manager. Facilitator of instructional design and student engagement with learning, as well as assessor of achievement. Student Self- Esteem “I can . . .” statements. Star Charts. Passing “the test.” Completed projects/products. Making personal connections to learning and the theme/topic. Figure 1. Standards based v. standards-embedded instruction and gifted students. and the potential political outcry of “stepping on the toes” of the next grade’s teacher. Few classroom teachers have been provided with the in-depth professional develop- ment and understanding of curric- ulum compacting that would allow them to implement this effectively. In standards-embedded curricu- lum, enrichment and extensions of learning are more possible and more interesting because ideas, top- ics, and questions lend themselves more easily to depth and complex- ity than isolated skills. 4. Language arts. In standards- based classrooms, the language arts have been redivided into sepa- rate skills, with reading separated from writing, and writing sepa- rated from grammar. To many concrete thinkers, whole-language approaches seem antithetical to teaching “to the standards.” In a standards-embedded classroom, integrated language arts skills (reading, writing, listening, speak- ing, presenting, and even pho- nics) are embedded into the study of every unit. Especially for the gifted, the communication and language arts are essential, regard- less of domain-specific talents (Ward, 1980) and should be com- ponents of all curriculum because they are the underpinnings of scholarship in all areas. 5. Instruction. A standards-based classroom lends itself to direct instruction and sequential pro- gression from one standard to the next. A standards-embedded class- room requires a variety of more open-ended instructional strate- gies and materials that extend and diversify learning rather than focus it narrowly. Creativity and differ- entiation in instruction and stu- dent performance are supported more effectively in a standards- embedded approach. 6. Assessment. A standards-based classroom uses targeted assess- ments focused on the structure and content of questions on the externally imposed standardized test (i.e., proficiency tests). A stan- dards-embedded classroom lends itself to greater use of authentic assessment and differentiated 3. Acceleration/Enrichment. In a standards-based curriculum, the narrow definition of the learning outcome (a test item) often makes acceleration or curriculum compact- ing the only path for differentiating instruction for gifted, talented, and/ or advanced learners. This rarely happens, however, because of lack of materials, knowledge, o

Read this article and answer this question in 2 pages : Answers should be from the below article only. What is the difference between “standards-based” and “standards-embedded” curriculum? what are the curricular implications of this difference? Article: In 2007, at the dawn of 21st century in education, it is impossible to talk about teaching, curriculum, schools, or education without discussing standards . standards-based v. standards-embedded curriculum We are in an age of accountability where our success as educators is determined by individual and group mastery of specific standards dem- onstrated by standardized test per- formance. Even before No Child Left Behind (NCLB), standards and measures were used to determine if schools and students were success- ful (McClure, 2005). But, NCLB has increased the pace, intensity, and high stakes of this trend. Gifted and talented students and their teach- ers are significantly impacted by these local or state proficiency stan- dards and grade-level assessments (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). This article explores how to use these standards in the develop- ment of high-quality curriculum for gifted students. NCLB, High-Stakes State Testing, and Standards- Based Instruction There are a few potentially positive outcomes of this evolution to public accountability. All stakeholders have had to ask themselves, “Are students learning? If so, what are they learning and how do we know?” In cases where we have been allowed to thoughtfully evaluate curriculum and instruction, we have also asked, “What’s worth learning?” “When’s the best time to learn it?” and “Who needs to learn it?” Even though state achievement tests are only a single measure, citizens are now offered a yardstick, albeit a nar- row one, for comparing communities, schools, and in some cases, teachers. Some testing reports allow teachers to identify for parents what their chil- dren can do and what they can not do. Testing also has focused attention on the not-so-new observations that pov- erty, discrimination and prejudices, and language proficiency impacts learning. With enough ceiling (e.g., above-grade-level assessments), even gifted students’ actual achievement and readiness levels can be identi- fied and provide a starting point for appropriately differentiated instruc- tion (Tomlinson, 2001). Unfortunately, as a veteran teacher for more than three decades and as a teacher-educator, my recent observa- tions of and conversations with class- room and gifted teachers have usually revealed negative outcomes. For gifted children, their actual achievement level is often unrecognized by teachers because both the tests and the reporting of the results rarely reach above the student’s grade-level placement. Assessments also focus on a huge number of state stan- dards for a given school year that cre- ate “overload” (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006) and have a devastating impact on the development and implementation of rich and relevant curriculum and instruction. In too many scenarios, I see teachers teach- ing directly to the test. And, in the worst cases, some teachers actually teach The Test. In those cases, The Test itself becomes the curriculum. Consistently I hear, “Oh, I used to teach a great unit on ________ but I can’t do it any- more because I have to teach the standards.” Or, “I have to teach my favorite units in April and May after testing.” If the outcomes can’t be boiled down to simple “I can . . .” state- ments that can be posted on a school’s walls, then teachers seem to omit poten- tially meaningful learning opportunities from the school year. In many cases, real education and learning are being trivial- ized. We seem to have lost sight of the more significant purpose of teaching and learning: individual growth and develop- ment. We also have surrendered much of the joy of learning, as the incidentals, the tangents, the “bird walks” are cut short or elimi- nated because teachers hear the con- stant ticking clock of the countdown to the state test and feel the pressure of the way-too-many standards that have to be covered in a mere 180 school days. The accountability movement has pushed us away from seeing the whole child: “Students are not machines, as the standards movement suggests; they are volatile, complicated, and paradoxical” (Cookson, 2001, p. 42). How does this impact gifted chil- dren? In many heterogeneous class- rooms, teachers have retreated to traditional subject delineations and traditional instruction in an effort to ensure direct standards-based instruc- tion even though “no solid basis exists in the research literature for the ways we currently develop, place, and align educational standards in school cur- ricula” (Zenger & Zenger, 2002, p. 212). Grade-level standards are often particularly inappropriate for the gifted and talented whose pace of learning, achievement levels, and depth of knowledge are significantly beyond their chronological peers. A broad-based, thematically rich, and challenging curriculum is the heart of education for the gifted. Virgil Ward, one of the earliest voices for a differen- tial education for the gifted, said, “It is insufficient to consider the curriculum for the gifted in terms of traditional subjects and instructional processes” (Ward, 1980, p. 5). VanTassel-Baska Standards-Based v. Standards-Embedded Curriculum gifted child today 45 Standards-Based v. Standards-Embedded Curriculum and Stambaugh (2006) described three dimensions of successful curriculum for gifted students: content mastery, pro- cess and product, and epistemological concept, “understanding and appre- ciating systems of knowledge rather than individual elements of those systems” (p. 9). Overemphasis on testing and grade-level standards limits all three and therefore limits learning for gifted students. Hirsch (2001) concluded that “broad gen- eral knowledge is the best entrée to deep knowledge” (p. 23) and that it is highly correlated with general ability to learn. He continued, “the best way to learn a subject is to learn its gen- eral principles and to study an ample number of diverse examples that illustrate those principles” (Hirsch, 2001, p. 23). Principle-based learn- ing applies to both gifted and general education children. In order to meet the needs of gifted and general education students, cur- riculum should be differentiated in ways that are relevant and engaging. Curriculum content, processes, and products should provide challenge, depth, and complexity, offering multiple opportunities for problem solving, creativity, and exploration. In specific content areas, the cur- riculum should reflect the elegance and sophistication unique to the discipline. Even with this expanded view of curriculum in mind, we still must find ways to address the current reality of state standards and assess- ments. Standards-Embedded Curriculum How can educators address this chal- lenge? As in most things, a change of perspective can be helpful. Standards- based curriculum as described above should be replaced with standards- embedded curriculum. Standards- embedded curriculum begins with broad questions and topics, either discipline specific or interdisciplinary. Once teachers have given thoughtful consideration to relevant, engaging, and important content and the con- nections that support meaning-making (Jensen, 1998), they next select stan- dards that are relevant to this content and to summative assessments. This process is supported by the backward planning advocated in Understanding by Design by Wiggins and McTighe (2005) and its predecessors, as well as current thinkers in other fields, such as Covey (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). It is a critical component of differenti- ating instruction for advanced learners (Tomlinson, 2001) and a significant factor in the Core Parallel in the Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson et al., 2002). Teachers choose from standards in multiple disciplines at both above and below grade level depending on the needs of the students and the classroom or program structure. Preassessment data and the results of prior instruc- tion also inform this process of embed- ding appropriate standards. For gifted students, this formative assessment will result in “more advanced curricula available at younger ages, ensuring that all levels of the standards are traversed in the process” (VanTassel-Baska & Little, 2003, p. 3). Once the essential questions, key content, and relevant standards are selected and sequenced, they are embedded into a coherent unit design and instructional decisions (grouping, pacing, instructional methodology) can be made. For gifted students, this includes the identification of appropri- ate resources, often including advanced texts, mentors, and independent research, as appropriate to the child’s developmental level and interest. Applying Standards- Embedded Curriculum What does this look like in practice? In reading the possible class- room applications below, consider these three Ohio Academic Content Standards for third grade: 1. Math: “Read thermometers in both Fahrenheit and Celsius scales” (“Academic Content Standards: K–12 Mathematics,” n.d., p. 71). 2. Social Studies: “Compare some of the cultural practices and products of various groups of people who have lived in the local community including artistic expression, religion, language, and food. Compare the cultural practices and products of the local community with those of other communities in Ohio, the United States, and countries of the world” (Academic Content Standards: K–12 Social Studies, n.d., p. 122). 3. Life Science: “Observe and explore how fossils provide evidence about animals that lived long ago and the nature of the environment at that time” (Academic Content Standards: K–12 Science, n.d., p. 57). When students are fortunate to have a teacher who is dedicated to helping all of them make good use of their time, the gifted may have a preassessment opportunity where they can demonstrate their familiarity with the content and potential mastery of a standard at their grade level. Students who pass may get to read by them- selves for the brief period while the rest of the class works on the single outcome. Sometimes more experienced teachers will create opportunities for gifted and advanced students Standards-Based v. Standards-Embedded Curriculum to work on a standard in the same domain or strand at the next higher grade level (i.e., accelerate through the standards). For example, a stu- dent might be able to work on a Life Science standard for fourth grade that progresses to other communities such as ecosystems. These above-grade-level standards can provide rich material for differentiation, advanced problem solving, and more in-depth curriculum integration. In another classroom scenario, a teacher may focus on the math stan- dard above, identifying the standard number on his lesson plan. He creates or collects paper thermometers, some showing measurement in Celsius and some in Fahrenheit. He also has some real thermometers. He demonstrates thermometer use with boiling water and with freezing water and reads the different temperatures. Students complete a worksheet that has them read thermometers in Celsius and Fahrenheit. The more advanced students may learn how to convert between the two scales. Students then practice with several questions on the topic that are similar in structure and content to those that have been on past proficiency tests. They are coached in how to answer them so that the stan- dard, instruction, formative assess- ment, and summative assessment are all aligned. Then, each student writes a statement that says, “I can read a thermometer using either Celsius or Fahrenheit scales.” Both of these examples describe a standards-based environment, where the starting point is the standard. Direct instruction to that standard is followed by an observable student behavior that demonstrates specific mastery of that single standard. The standard becomes both the start- ing point and the ending point of the curriculum. Education, rather than opening up a student’s mind, becomes a series of closed links in a chain. Whereas the above lessons may be differentiated to some extent, they have no context; they may relate only to the next standard on the list, such as, “Telling time to the nearest minute and finding elapsed time using a cal- endar or a clock.” How would a “standards-embed- ded” model of curriculum design be different? It would begin with the development of an essential ques- tion such as, “Who or what lived here before me? How were they different from me? How were they the same? How do we know?” These questions might be more relevant to our con- temporary highly mobile students. It would involve place and time. Using this intriguing line of inquiry, students might work on the social studies stan- dard as part of the study of their home- town, their school, or even their house or apartment. Because where people live and what they do is influenced by the weather, students could look into weather patterns of their area and learn how to measure temperature using a Fahrenheit scale so they could see if it is similar now to what it was a century ago. Skipping ahead to consideration of the social studies standard, students could then choose another country, preferably one that uses Celsius, and do the same investigation of fossils, communities, and the like. Students could complete a weather comparison, looking at the temperature in Celsius as people in other parts of the world, such as those in Canada, do. Thus, learning is contextualized and connected, dem- onstrating both depth and complexity. This approach takes a lot more work and time. It is a sophisticated integrated view of curriculum devel- opment and involves in-depth knowl- edge of the content areas, as well as an understanding of the scope and sequence of the standards in each dis- cipline. Teachers who develop vital single-discipline units, as well as inter- disciplinary teaching units, begin with a central topic surrounded by subtopics and connections to other areas. Then they connect important terms, facts, or concepts to the subtopics. Next, the skilled teacher/curriculum devel- oper embeds relevant, multileveled standards and objectives appropriate to a given student or group of stu- dents into the unit. Finally, teachers select the instructional strategies and develop student assessments. These assessments include, but are not lim- ited to, the types of questions asked on standardized and state assessments. Comparing Standards- Based and Standards- Embedded Curriculum Design Following is an articulation of the differences between standards-based and standards-embedded curriculum design. (See Figure 1.) 1. The starting point. Standards- based curriculum begins with the grade-level standard and the underlying assumption that every student needs to master that stan- dard at that moment in time. In standards-embedded curriculum, the multifaceted essential ques- tion and students’ needs are the starting points. 2. Preassessment. In standards- based curriculum and teaching, if a preassessment is provided, it cov- ers a single standard or two. In a standards-embedded curriculum, preassessment includes a broader range of grade-level and advanced standards, as well as students’ knowledge of surrounding content such as background experiences with the subject, relevant skills (such as reading and writing), and continued on page ?? even learning style or interests. gifted child today 47 Standards-Based v. Standards-Embedded Curriculum Standards Based Standards Embedded Starting Points The grade-level standard. Whole class’ general skill level Essential questions and content relevant to individual students and groups. Preassessment Targeted to a single grade-level standard. Short-cycle assessments. Background knowledge. Multiple grade-level standards from multiple areas connected by the theme of the unit. Includes annual learning style and interest inventories. Acceleration/ Enrichment To next grade-level standard in the same strand. To above-grade-level standards, as well as into broader thematically connected content. Language Arts Divided into individual skills. Reading and writing skills often separated from real-world relevant contexts. The language arts are embedded in all units and themes and connected to differentiated processes and products across all content areas. Instruction Lesson planning begins with the standard as the objective. Sequential direct instruction progresses through the standards in each content area separately. Strategies are selected to introduce, practice, and demonstrate mastery of all grade-level standards in all content areas in one school year. Lesson planning begins with essential questions, topics, and significant themes. Integrated instruction is designed around connections among content areas and embeds all relevant standards. Assessment Format modeled after the state test. Variety of assessments including questions similar to the state test format. Teacher Role Monitor of standards mastery. Time manager. Facilitator of instructional design and student engagement with learning, as well as assessor of achievement. Student Self- Esteem “I can . . .” statements. Star Charts. Passing “the test.” Completed projects/products. Making personal connections to learning and the theme/topic. Figure 1. Standards based v. standards-embedded instruction and gifted students. and the potential political outcry of “stepping on the toes” of the next grade’s teacher. Few classroom teachers have been provided with the in-depth professional develop- ment and understanding of curric- ulum compacting that would allow them to implement this effectively. In standards-embedded curricu- lum, enrichment and extensions of learning are more possible and more interesting because ideas, top- ics, and questions lend themselves more easily to depth and complex- ity than isolated skills. 4. Language arts. In standards- based classrooms, the language arts have been redivided into sepa- rate skills, with reading separated from writing, and writing sepa- rated from grammar. To many concrete thinkers, whole-language approaches seem antithetical to teaching “to the standards.” In a standards-embedded classroom, integrated language arts skills (reading, writing, listening, speak- ing, presenting, and even pho- nics) are embedded into the study of every unit. Especially for the gifted, the communication and language arts are essential, regard- less of domain-specific talents (Ward, 1980) and should be com- ponents of all curriculum because they are the underpinnings of scholarship in all areas. 5. Instruction. A standards-based classroom lends itself to direct instruction and sequential pro- gression from one standard to the next. A standards-embedded class- room requires a variety of more open-ended instructional strate- gies and materials that extend and diversify learning rather than focus it narrowly. Creativity and differ- entiation in instruction and stu- dent performance are supported more effectively in a standards- embedded approach. 6. Assessment. A standards-based classroom uses targeted assess- ments focused on the structure and content of questions on the externally imposed standardized test (i.e., proficiency tests). A stan- dards-embedded classroom lends itself to greater use of authentic assessment and differentiated 3. Acceleration/Enrichment. In a standards-based curriculum, the narrow definition of the learning outcome (a test item) often makes acceleration or curriculum compact- ing the only path for differentiating instruction for gifted, talented, and/ or advanced learners. This rarely happens, however, because of lack of materials, knowledge, o

Standard based Curriculum In standard based curriculum, the initial point … Read More...
1000 words Total. Answer each question in paragraph form https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzicXbnmllc In the video, presented by Brooke Deterline, talks about creating ethical cultures in a business. One of Brooke’s main point was courage. She defines courage as our ability to act from our hearts in the face of fear and is a skill that we can build with practice. Brooke gives an example of life without courage and shows us many scenarios where it is still happening today, 10 years after the ENRON scandal. Courage is something that lacks in social situations where wrong is being done. She states that we all are vulnerable to situation influence all the time and that it is natural human wiring. It seems that most of us, including myself, can become a bystander to follow a leader or a group that we know is doing wrong because we want to be accepted. (1) Why do you think that the most ethical and compassionate among us can easily betray our values, in the face of challenging situations? What challenges does one face when they are presented with a difficult situation? (2) Do you believe that with practice we can retrain our brains to override our natural fear response when we are put in these challenging situations? Managers sometimes face business problems that raise difficult questions. When being faced with these problems they must choose between two ways of resolving it. Each of these alternatives is the right thing to do, but they can not do both ways. Badaracco characterizes right-versus-right dilemmas as “dirty-hands problems,” where managers or any employee often have to “get their hands dirty” by making tough choices between competing virtues such as honesty, fairness, respect, objectivity, and responsibility. He shows us three managers that face different right- versus-right conflicts. We see that these managers have the responsibilities to live up to the commitments they have made and the standards by which they want live by. However, it is not that simple to choose from wanting to be a successful manager and a decent, responsible person. (3) After reading the three different extremes of right- versus- right, why do you think that Badaracco emphasizes on the statement made by Oliver Wendell Holmes, “I do not give a fig for the simplicity on the this side complexity, but i would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity,” and what do you think it means? A manager often encounters right-versus-right dilemmas where professional responsibilities conflict with personal values. For example, a senior manager may have knowledge of plans to lay off an employee-friend who is planning the purchase of a new home. Warning the friend about the upcoming layoff would certainly help the friend avoid the difficulty of paying for a new home without a job, but it may also violate an agreement with senior management and shareholders to keep such plans confidential until these plans are properly implemented. (4) In a challenging situation like this, should mangers rely on fundamental ethical principles and the company’s mission statement to help them decide what to do or should they consult their own moral instincts and intuitions?

1000 words Total. Answer each question in paragraph form https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzicXbnmllc In the video, presented by Brooke Deterline, talks about creating ethical cultures in a business. One of Brooke’s main point was courage. She defines courage as our ability to act from our hearts in the face of fear and is a skill that we can build with practice. Brooke gives an example of life without courage and shows us many scenarios where it is still happening today, 10 years after the ENRON scandal. Courage is something that lacks in social situations where wrong is being done. She states that we all are vulnerable to situation influence all the time and that it is natural human wiring. It seems that most of us, including myself, can become a bystander to follow a leader or a group that we know is doing wrong because we want to be accepted. (1) Why do you think that the most ethical and compassionate among us can easily betray our values, in the face of challenging situations? What challenges does one face when they are presented with a difficult situation? (2) Do you believe that with practice we can retrain our brains to override our natural fear response when we are put in these challenging situations? Managers sometimes face business problems that raise difficult questions. When being faced with these problems they must choose between two ways of resolving it. Each of these alternatives is the right thing to do, but they can not do both ways. Badaracco characterizes right-versus-right dilemmas as “dirty-hands problems,” where managers or any employee often have to “get their hands dirty” by making tough choices between competing virtues such as honesty, fairness, respect, objectivity, and responsibility. He shows us three managers that face different right- versus-right conflicts. We see that these managers have the responsibilities to live up to the commitments they have made and the standards by which they want live by. However, it is not that simple to choose from wanting to be a successful manager and a decent, responsible person. (3) After reading the three different extremes of right- versus- right, why do you think that Badaracco emphasizes on the statement made by Oliver Wendell Holmes, “I do not give a fig for the simplicity on the this side complexity, but i would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity,” and what do you think it means? A manager often encounters right-versus-right dilemmas where professional responsibilities conflict with personal values. For example, a senior manager may have knowledge of plans to lay off an employee-friend who is planning the purchase of a new home. Warning the friend about the upcoming layoff would certainly help the friend avoid the difficulty of paying for a new home without a job, but it may also violate an agreement with senior management and shareholders to keep such plans confidential until these plans are properly implemented. (4) In a challenging situation like this, should mangers rely on fundamental ethical principles and the company’s mission statement to help them decide what to do or should they consult their own moral instincts and intuitions?

1 ACTIVITY PURPOSE The purpose of this activity is to give you practice preparing a four-week work schedule. PROCESS Follow the steps listed below to prepare a schedule. 1. Read the Information Sheet: Scheduling Employees. 2. The pay week for this medical record service runs Sunday – Saturday. The pay period is two pay weeks. Each full-time employee cannot work more than 40 hours per pay week, or 80 hours per pay period. Each part-time employee works 20 hours per pay week – 40 hours per pay period. 3. The first Friday of the four – week period is a holiday. 4. The medical record service has 24 hour coverage, seven days a week. All full-time employees work a five day pay week, eight hours per day, with rotating weekend coverage. Part-time employees work four hours Monday – Friday, except for their rotation weekend. On those days they work an eight hour shift. Remember to adjust their time accordingly. 5. The Assistant Director and all supervisors, except the Tumor Registry Supervisor, should be scheduled for rotating weekend coverage. 2 6. All employees, except the Tumor Registry employees, should be scheduled on a rotating basis for weekend coverage. 7. For weekend and holiday coverage, there needs to be at least two clerks and one transcriptionist on days and evenings, one clerk and one transcriptionist at night. 8. The Department Director has scheduled a two – week vacation for the first two full weeks of the four – week schedule. 9. Employees who work holidays must take the holiday time within the pay period in which the holiday occurs. 10.Use the following marks on the schedule: X – work eight hours V – vacation H – holiday D – day off 4 – hours for part-time employees 3 PERSONNEL OF HUFFMAN MEMORIAL MEDICAL RECORD DEPARTMENT DAYS (7:00 A.M. – 3:30 P.M.) Director Diane Lucas Assistant Director JoAnn DeWitt Coding 1 Supervisor – Nina Long 3 Coding/PAS Clerks – Cheryl Newman Pam Rogers Janet Bennett Transcription 1 Supervisor – 6 Transcribers – Jessica DuBois Eileen Andrews Iris Williams Diane Henderson Vivian Thomas Lois Fisher Emma Daily Filing/Retrieval 1 Supervisor – 4 Clerks – 1 Part-time Clerk – Bill James Darlene Cook Janice Stivers Larry Patterson Don Williamson Susan Evanston Tumor Registry 1 Supervisor – 1 Clerk – 1 Part-time Clerk – Mabel Smith Pauline Erskine Suzanne Chapman EVENING (3:00 P.M. – 11:00 P.M.) Transcription 1 Part-time – Beth Richman Filing/Retrieval 1 Supervisor – 2 Clerks – 1 Part-time Clerk – Daniel Johnson Harry Skinner Matthew Scott Anne Madison NIGHTS (11:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M.) Transcription 3 Transcribers – Louise Wilson Jane Matters Nancy Lipman Filing/Retrieval 2 Clerks – Lily Jamison Helen Benson 4 INFORMATION SHEET SCHEDULING EMPLOYEES In addition to the planning, organizing and controlling of a medical record service, managers must accurately plan the work pattern for employees. This plan must insure that all duties are adequately covered, all shifts have sufficient numbers of people to perform duties, and employees are given appropriate days off. Scheduling encompasses both short term and long term plans. Short term scheduling involves planning work on a daily and/or weekly basis. Long term scheduling generally covers a four – to six – week time period, as well as yearly planning for holidays. In larger health care facilities with the medical record service providing 24 hour service, seven days a week, advanced planning is a requisite to a smooth operation. In smaller facilities with shorter hours of service, the schedule is less complex. The number of employees needed for weekend work for those facilities open on weekends is totally dependent upon the weekend workload. A volume of seventy (70) to ninety (90) discharges per day generally requires two (2) medical record clerks to process those discharges, as well as to perform the other daily responsibilities of the medical record service. It is also advisable to schedule a supervisor during the weekend in the event that any problems arise which a clerk might not be able to handle (i.e. medico-legal questions, irate patients or physicians). If you work in a department that has an active work 5 measurement program, valuable scheduling information can be obtained from the data reported. In planning for holidays, it is important to remember to: 1. obtain employee preferences for which holidays they might choose to work; 2. keep track of who has worked which holidays; 3. if a holiday occurs on a Friday or a Monday and the employee must work on the holiday, try to give them a Friday or Monday off to compensate. It is important for you to be fair in terms of assigning employees weekend work and scheduling Holidays. Everyone should share the responsibility equally. If you have all supervisors work one weekend per month, then that schedule should be followed. If you have clerks working every other weekend, then that pattern should be followed consistently. When preparing a schedule it is best to put in all the “givens” first. For example, if you have vacations scheduled for the four weeks you’re preparing, then those should be marked in first. Also included in this category would be employees who do not work weekends (i.e. personnel in the Tumor Registry). Once all work times have been scheduled, you must be certain that an employee receives two (2) days off for every seven (7) days. If an employee works more than forty (40) hours in one (1) week, the facility must pat time-an-a-half for all hours over forty. Some facilities are experimenting with a variety of scheduling techniques: flex time and the four-day work week. Both techniques have been 6 heavily debated. The final questions regarding these nontraditional alternatives end up being: 1. Are your employees willing to try it? 2. Are you ready to handle the extra planning these alternatives may warrant? 3. Do you have the necessary resources, including equipment, to accommodate a nontraditional scheduling alternative? 4. Will administrator of the facility support your proposal? Once you have established answers to those questions you are ready to embark on a new technique of scheduling. Scheduling employees can be one of the most challenging tasks that a manager faces. Whether you elect to try one of the nontraditional alternatives or use the five-day work week, the manager must: 1. be fair; 2. apply all guidelines to every employee consistently 3. utilize all available data to arrive at appropriate numbers for weekend and holiday staffing requirements; and 4. maximize the utilization of equipment and resources.

1 ACTIVITY PURPOSE The purpose of this activity is to give you practice preparing a four-week work schedule. PROCESS Follow the steps listed below to prepare a schedule. 1. Read the Information Sheet: Scheduling Employees. 2. The pay week for this medical record service runs Sunday – Saturday. The pay period is two pay weeks. Each full-time employee cannot work more than 40 hours per pay week, or 80 hours per pay period. Each part-time employee works 20 hours per pay week – 40 hours per pay period. 3. The first Friday of the four – week period is a holiday. 4. The medical record service has 24 hour coverage, seven days a week. All full-time employees work a five day pay week, eight hours per day, with rotating weekend coverage. Part-time employees work four hours Monday – Friday, except for their rotation weekend. On those days they work an eight hour shift. Remember to adjust their time accordingly. 5. The Assistant Director and all supervisors, except the Tumor Registry Supervisor, should be scheduled for rotating weekend coverage. 2 6. All employees, except the Tumor Registry employees, should be scheduled on a rotating basis for weekend coverage. 7. For weekend and holiday coverage, there needs to be at least two clerks and one transcriptionist on days and evenings, one clerk and one transcriptionist at night. 8. The Department Director has scheduled a two – week vacation for the first two full weeks of the four – week schedule. 9. Employees who work holidays must take the holiday time within the pay period in which the holiday occurs. 10.Use the following marks on the schedule: X – work eight hours V – vacation H – holiday D – day off 4 – hours for part-time employees 3 PERSONNEL OF HUFFMAN MEMORIAL MEDICAL RECORD DEPARTMENT DAYS (7:00 A.M. – 3:30 P.M.) Director Diane Lucas Assistant Director JoAnn DeWitt Coding 1 Supervisor – Nina Long 3 Coding/PAS Clerks – Cheryl Newman Pam Rogers Janet Bennett Transcription 1 Supervisor – 6 Transcribers – Jessica DuBois Eileen Andrews Iris Williams Diane Henderson Vivian Thomas Lois Fisher Emma Daily Filing/Retrieval 1 Supervisor – 4 Clerks – 1 Part-time Clerk – Bill James Darlene Cook Janice Stivers Larry Patterson Don Williamson Susan Evanston Tumor Registry 1 Supervisor – 1 Clerk – 1 Part-time Clerk – Mabel Smith Pauline Erskine Suzanne Chapman EVENING (3:00 P.M. – 11:00 P.M.) Transcription 1 Part-time – Beth Richman Filing/Retrieval 1 Supervisor – 2 Clerks – 1 Part-time Clerk – Daniel Johnson Harry Skinner Matthew Scott Anne Madison NIGHTS (11:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M.) Transcription 3 Transcribers – Louise Wilson Jane Matters Nancy Lipman Filing/Retrieval 2 Clerks – Lily Jamison Helen Benson 4 INFORMATION SHEET SCHEDULING EMPLOYEES In addition to the planning, organizing and controlling of a medical record service, managers must accurately plan the work pattern for employees. This plan must insure that all duties are adequately covered, all shifts have sufficient numbers of people to perform duties, and employees are given appropriate days off. Scheduling encompasses both short term and long term plans. Short term scheduling involves planning work on a daily and/or weekly basis. Long term scheduling generally covers a four – to six – week time period, as well as yearly planning for holidays. In larger health care facilities with the medical record service providing 24 hour service, seven days a week, advanced planning is a requisite to a smooth operation. In smaller facilities with shorter hours of service, the schedule is less complex. The number of employees needed for weekend work for those facilities open on weekends is totally dependent upon the weekend workload. A volume of seventy (70) to ninety (90) discharges per day generally requires two (2) medical record clerks to process those discharges, as well as to perform the other daily responsibilities of the medical record service. It is also advisable to schedule a supervisor during the weekend in the event that any problems arise which a clerk might not be able to handle (i.e. medico-legal questions, irate patients or physicians). If you work in a department that has an active work 5 measurement program, valuable scheduling information can be obtained from the data reported. In planning for holidays, it is important to remember to: 1. obtain employee preferences for which holidays they might choose to work; 2. keep track of who has worked which holidays; 3. if a holiday occurs on a Friday or a Monday and the employee must work on the holiday, try to give them a Friday or Monday off to compensate. It is important for you to be fair in terms of assigning employees weekend work and scheduling Holidays. Everyone should share the responsibility equally. If you have all supervisors work one weekend per month, then that schedule should be followed. If you have clerks working every other weekend, then that pattern should be followed consistently. When preparing a schedule it is best to put in all the “givens” first. For example, if you have vacations scheduled for the four weeks you’re preparing, then those should be marked in first. Also included in this category would be employees who do not work weekends (i.e. personnel in the Tumor Registry). Once all work times have been scheduled, you must be certain that an employee receives two (2) days off for every seven (7) days. If an employee works more than forty (40) hours in one (1) week, the facility must pat time-an-a-half for all hours over forty. Some facilities are experimenting with a variety of scheduling techniques: flex time and the four-day work week. Both techniques have been 6 heavily debated. The final questions regarding these nontraditional alternatives end up being: 1. Are your employees willing to try it? 2. Are you ready to handle the extra planning these alternatives may warrant? 3. Do you have the necessary resources, including equipment, to accommodate a nontraditional scheduling alternative? 4. Will administrator of the facility support your proposal? Once you have established answers to those questions you are ready to embark on a new technique of scheduling. Scheduling employees can be one of the most challenging tasks that a manager faces. Whether you elect to try one of the nontraditional alternatives or use the five-day work week, the manager must: 1. be fair; 2. apply all guidelines to every employee consistently 3. utilize all available data to arrive at appropriate numbers for weekend and holiday staffing requirements; and 4. maximize the utilization of equipment and resources.