5. Provide a brief discussion with supporting evidence to the following inquiry: With the responsibility of overseeing career development processes, how does management equip employees with skills that impact their performance in an efficient and effective manner?

5. Provide a brief discussion with supporting evidence to the following inquiry: With the responsibility of overseeing career development processes, how does management equip employees with skills that impact their performance in an efficient and effective manner?

Career development can facilitate we attain superior contentment and accomplishment. … Read More...
Public Communication Campaign Proposal Your public communication campaign proposal should be a minimum of 20 pages campaign proposal or project for a local or international organization. The proposal should address the following campaign design areas: 1. An introduction to your choice of organization 2. Background research about the topic or issue you are proposing the campaign for 3. Theoretical grounding for your campaign a. What theoretical foundation supports your campaign and what is the theory about? Define the theory b. Provide examples from the literature on how your choice of particular theory has been used. 4. Define the target audience and provide justification for your choice of audience 5. I d e n t i f y y o u r c hoice of medium/mediums and provide justification for your choice of medium/mediums and an explanation of how the medium/mediums will be used in the campaign 6. Choice of evaluation and explanation of how the campaign will be evaluated Students will propose campaign projects from the perspective of a consultant. Imagine yourself as consultant and in competition with other consultants to develop a public communication campaign for your topic/issue of choice. Students will be evaluated on the quality and cohesiveness of their public communication campaign proposals with focus on the different components required above.

Public Communication Campaign Proposal Your public communication campaign proposal should be a minimum of 20 pages campaign proposal or project for a local or international organization. The proposal should address the following campaign design areas: 1. An introduction to your choice of organization 2. Background research about the topic or issue you are proposing the campaign for 3. Theoretical grounding for your campaign a. What theoretical foundation supports your campaign and what is the theory about? Define the theory b. Provide examples from the literature on how your choice of particular theory has been used. 4. Define the target audience and provide justification for your choice of audience 5. I d e n t i f y y o u r c hoice of medium/mediums and provide justification for your choice of medium/mediums and an explanation of how the medium/mediums will be used in the campaign 6. Choice of evaluation and explanation of how the campaign will be evaluated Students will propose campaign projects from the perspective of a consultant. Imagine yourself as consultant and in competition with other consultants to develop a public communication campaign for your topic/issue of choice. Students will be evaluated on the quality and cohesiveness of their public communication campaign proposals with focus on the different components required above.

No expert has answered this question yet. You can browse … Read More...
Question 10 (1 point) In contrast to Freud’s theory, object relations theorists Question 10 options: focus on internal drives and conflicts. are interested in the intellectual and emotional development of the infant. are interested in an infant’s relationship with his or her parents. do not believe that children develop unconscious representations of significant objects in their environment. ________________________________________ Question 11 (1 point) The psychologists who developed the frustration aggression hypothesis used or adapted each of the following concepts from Freudian theory except one. Which one? Question 11 options: displacement sublimation catharsis reinforcement Question 12 (1 point) Although he changed his mind during his career, which of the following did Freud eventually decide was the cause of human aggression? Question 12 options: a death instinct frustration projection unresolved Oedipal conflicts Question 13 (1 point) Freud wrote about all of the following types of anxiety except one. Which one? Question 13 options: reality anxiety neurotic anxiety moral anxiety performance anxiety Question 14 (1 point) Which of the following is true about neurotic anxiety, as conceived by Freud? Question 14 options: It is experienced when id impulses are close to breaking into consciousness. It prevents the ego from utilizing defense mechanisms. It is created when id impulses violate society’s moral code. People experiencing neurotic anxiety usually are aware of what is making them anxious. Question 15 (1 point) One explanation for why aggression leads to more aggression is that it is reinforced by the cathartic release of tension. Question 15 options: True False ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Question 1 (1 point) A man is said to have one personality trait that dominates his personality. Allport would identify this personality trait as a Question 1 options: 1) common trait. 2) central trait. 3) cardinal trait. 4) secondary trait. Question 2 (1 point) Which of the following is true about the trait approach to personality? Question 2 options: 1) Trait researchers generally are not interested in understanding and predicting the behavior of a single individual. 2) It is not easy to make comparisons across people with the trait approach. 3) The trait approach has been responsible for generating a number of useful approaches to psychotherapy. 4) Trait theorists place a greater emphasis on discovering the mechanisms underlying behavior than do theorists from other approaches to personality. Question 3 (1 point) Many researchers fail to produce strong links between personality traits and behavior. Epstein has argued that the reason for this failure is because Question 3 options: 1) researchers don’t perform the correct statistical analysis. 2) researchers don’t measure personality traits correctly. 3) researchers don’t measure behavior correctly. 4) none of the above Question 4 (1 point) Which theorist had a strong influence on Henry Murray’s theorizing about personality? Question 4 options: 1) Gordon Allport 2) Alfred Adler 3) Sigmund Freud 4) Carl Jung Question 5 (1 point) Sometimes test makers include the same test questions more than once on the test. This is done to detect which potential problem? Question 5 options: 1) faking good 2) faking bad 3) carelessness and sabotage 4) social desirability

Question 10 (1 point) In contrast to Freud’s theory, object relations theorists Question 10 options: focus on internal drives and conflicts. are interested in the intellectual and emotional development of the infant. are interested in an infant’s relationship with his or her parents. do not believe that children develop unconscious representations of significant objects in their environment. ________________________________________ Question 11 (1 point) The psychologists who developed the frustration aggression hypothesis used or adapted each of the following concepts from Freudian theory except one. Which one? Question 11 options: displacement sublimation catharsis reinforcement Question 12 (1 point) Although he changed his mind during his career, which of the following did Freud eventually decide was the cause of human aggression? Question 12 options: a death instinct frustration projection unresolved Oedipal conflicts Question 13 (1 point) Freud wrote about all of the following types of anxiety except one. Which one? Question 13 options: reality anxiety neurotic anxiety moral anxiety performance anxiety Question 14 (1 point) Which of the following is true about neurotic anxiety, as conceived by Freud? Question 14 options: It is experienced when id impulses are close to breaking into consciousness. It prevents the ego from utilizing defense mechanisms. It is created when id impulses violate society’s moral code. People experiencing neurotic anxiety usually are aware of what is making them anxious. Question 15 (1 point) One explanation for why aggression leads to more aggression is that it is reinforced by the cathartic release of tension. Question 15 options: True False ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Question 1 (1 point) A man is said to have one personality trait that dominates his personality. Allport would identify this personality trait as a Question 1 options: 1) common trait. 2) central trait. 3) cardinal trait. 4) secondary trait. Question 2 (1 point) Which of the following is true about the trait approach to personality? Question 2 options: 1) Trait researchers generally are not interested in understanding and predicting the behavior of a single individual. 2) It is not easy to make comparisons across people with the trait approach. 3) The trait approach has been responsible for generating a number of useful approaches to psychotherapy. 4) Trait theorists place a greater emphasis on discovering the mechanisms underlying behavior than do theorists from other approaches to personality. Question 3 (1 point) Many researchers fail to produce strong links between personality traits and behavior. Epstein has argued that the reason for this failure is because Question 3 options: 1) researchers don’t perform the correct statistical analysis. 2) researchers don’t measure personality traits correctly. 3) researchers don’t measure behavior correctly. 4) none of the above Question 4 (1 point) Which theorist had a strong influence on Henry Murray’s theorizing about personality? Question 4 options: 1) Gordon Allport 2) Alfred Adler 3) Sigmund Freud 4) Carl Jung Question 5 (1 point) Sometimes test makers include the same test questions more than once on the test. This is done to detect which potential problem? Question 5 options: 1) faking good 2) faking bad 3) carelessness and sabotage 4) social desirability

No expert has answered this question yet. You can browse … Read More...
2. Career development process is complex and rapidly evolving and new theories are continually developing presenting challenges to traditional understandings. Discuss why an understanding of career development processes is critical to management, employee and organizational success.

2. Career development process is complex and rapidly evolving and new theories are continually developing presenting challenges to traditional understandings. Discuss why an understanding of career development processes is critical to management, employee and organizational success.

Studies are at the present extrapolative huge employment income in … Read More...
unit 6 only Part 1: Analysis of a unit of work (1000-1500) Part 1 requires you to critically evaluate a unit of work given in terms of: • the range of approaches and methodologies to language learning and teaching this unit of work encompasses. Discuss whether there is a focus on a particular approach, eg, are the students asked to memorise / rote learn/ repeat (audio-lingual); are students required to complete a task (task based learning) or an information-gap type activity (communicative language learning); is there a focus on a specific genre? 300 – 400 • the clarity of the objectives and target language/ exponents being taught 200-300 • the selection and sequencing of the activities 200 – 300 • to what extent language exponents and skills are integrated in the activities 200 -300 • the learner group, their needs and their language level for which the unit of work would be most appropriate 100 Describe the learner group this unit is designed for: ESL students, students of English as an international language etc; what language level the unit assumes and; the students language learning needs. Part 2: Extension, addition, omission and substitution (1500 – 2000) This section of the assignment requires you to focus on the unit of work: • Comment on any extensions, additions, omissions or substitutions you would make if you were teaching this unit to the learner group you identified in Part 1, above. 500 • Give reasons for your decisions. 500 • Describe how you will assess student learning. 300 • Describe how you will evaluate the success of the unit of work. 200 • Identify any problems you anticipate in carrying out the unit of work and suggest how you would go about overcoming these. 300 • For added or substituted activities, list the resources you will need for these, and reference the materials you have used or drawn on. 200

unit 6 only Part 1: Analysis of a unit of work (1000-1500) Part 1 requires you to critically evaluate a unit of work given in terms of: • the range of approaches and methodologies to language learning and teaching this unit of work encompasses. Discuss whether there is a focus on a particular approach, eg, are the students asked to memorise / rote learn/ repeat (audio-lingual); are students required to complete a task (task based learning) or an information-gap type activity (communicative language learning); is there a focus on a specific genre? 300 – 400 • the clarity of the objectives and target language/ exponents being taught 200-300 • the selection and sequencing of the activities 200 – 300 • to what extent language exponents and skills are integrated in the activities 200 -300 • the learner group, their needs and their language level for which the unit of work would be most appropriate 100 Describe the learner group this unit is designed for: ESL students, students of English as an international language etc; what language level the unit assumes and; the students language learning needs. Part 2: Extension, addition, omission and substitution (1500 – 2000) This section of the assignment requires you to focus on the unit of work: • Comment on any extensions, additions, omissions or substitutions you would make if you were teaching this unit to the learner group you identified in Part 1, above. 500 • Give reasons for your decisions. 500 • Describe how you will assess student learning. 300 • Describe how you will evaluate the success of the unit of work. 200 • Identify any problems you anticipate in carrying out the unit of work and suggest how you would go about overcoming these. 300 • For added or substituted activities, list the resources you will need for these, and reference the materials you have used or drawn on. 200

info@checkyourstudy.com
IT 7358 – Human interface Technology Assignment 3 – Observation Exercise The purpose of this exercise is for you to begin learning how to make and record observations of people involved in an activity of some kind. To do this project you will need a pad of paper, a notebook or something else to write on, and a pen or pencil. To begin this exercise, you will be making an observation in a public space. Specifically, you will be observing a cafeteria setting, such as found in the basement of the IU main library, dorm cafeteria, Union cafeteria etc. Choose a time during which there is a good amount of activity. Be aware that too little activity will not give you enough data to work with, and might make people feel like they’re being watched. Once you have chosen the position from which you will make your observations, go through the following steps: • Record the date, day of week, time of day, weather, and other factors you think may have some bearing on what you are observing. • Describe the setting. Note features of the physical environment that seem to be significant. Write a brief and general description of what’s going on. This is mainly for background and context. • Also record your reactions and thoughts about what is going on, but you should keep these reactions distinct from description – perhaps in the margins, or on the back of the page. • Describe in detail the activity you are observing. At this point, you should strive for your description to be concrete, specific, and chronological. For example, it is better to record, “Six people standing single file in line, holding trays horizontal at waist height, advancing several steps in cascading fashion when the cashier says ‘next.’ On each tray is…” instead of “people waiting in line to pay for their food.” Your guiding question right now is ‘What’s going on here?’ Your notes for this part of the exercise should be event-by-event narrative, not generalizations. • Separately (again, in the margins or somewhere else) record the perceptions, motives, and values of the people you are watching. As you observe, begin to focus on something that seems interesting to you, such as a pattern that emerges or a particular aspect of what you are observing. Stop when you’ve done roughly 20 minutes of detailed go back over your notes and fill in any important but missing details from memory, adding questions that came up for you as you were observing, and ideas you could investigate in the future if you were going to do further study. You can also begin adding any of your own interpretations of what you observed.

IT 7358 – Human interface Technology Assignment 3 – Observation Exercise The purpose of this exercise is for you to begin learning how to make and record observations of people involved in an activity of some kind. To do this project you will need a pad of paper, a notebook or something else to write on, and a pen or pencil. To begin this exercise, you will be making an observation in a public space. Specifically, you will be observing a cafeteria setting, such as found in the basement of the IU main library, dorm cafeteria, Union cafeteria etc. Choose a time during which there is a good amount of activity. Be aware that too little activity will not give you enough data to work with, and might make people feel like they’re being watched. Once you have chosen the position from which you will make your observations, go through the following steps: • Record the date, day of week, time of day, weather, and other factors you think may have some bearing on what you are observing. • Describe the setting. Note features of the physical environment that seem to be significant. Write a brief and general description of what’s going on. This is mainly for background and context. • Also record your reactions and thoughts about what is going on, but you should keep these reactions distinct from description – perhaps in the margins, or on the back of the page. • Describe in detail the activity you are observing. At this point, you should strive for your description to be concrete, specific, and chronological. For example, it is better to record, “Six people standing single file in line, holding trays horizontal at waist height, advancing several steps in cascading fashion when the cashier says ‘next.’ On each tray is…” instead of “people waiting in line to pay for their food.” Your guiding question right now is ‘What’s going on here?’ Your notes for this part of the exercise should be event-by-event narrative, not generalizations. • Separately (again, in the margins or somewhere else) record the perceptions, motives, and values of the people you are watching. As you observe, begin to focus on something that seems interesting to you, such as a pattern that emerges or a particular aspect of what you are observing. Stop when you’ve done roughly 20 minutes of detailed go back over your notes and fill in any important but missing details from memory, adding questions that came up for you as you were observing, and ideas you could investigate in the future if you were going to do further study. You can also begin adding any of your own interpretations of what you observed.

Place: Cafeteria Date: 27/05/2013 Day of week: Monday Time of … Read More...
You are to choose 2 websites, with different purposes, and review the websites based on the criteria listed below. 1. Starting Point a. Composition Matches Site Purpose b. Target Audience Apparent c. Composition Appropriate for Target Audience 2. Site design a. Consistency within site b. Consistency among pages 3. Visually Pleasing Composition 4. Visual Style in Web Design a. Consistency b. Distinctiveness 5. Focus and Emphasis a. What is emphasized? b. How is emphasis achieved? 6. Consistency a. Real World b. Internal 7. Navigation and Flow a. Home page identifiable throughout b. Location within site apparent c. Navigation consistent; rule-based; appropriate 8. Grouping a. Grouping with White Space b. Grouping with Borders c. Grouping with Backgrounds 9. Response time 10. Links a. Titled b. Incoming c. Outgoing d. Color 11. Detailed content a. Meaningful headings b. Plain language c. Page chunking d. Long blocks of text e. Scrolling f. Use of “within” page links 12. Articles a. Clear headings b. Plain language 13. Presenting Information Simply and Meaningfully a. Legibility b. Readability c. Information in Usable Form d. Visual Lines Clear 14. Legibility of content a. Font color b. Font size c. Font style d. Background color e. Background graphic 15. Documentation

You are to choose 2 websites, with different purposes, and review the websites based on the criteria listed below. 1. Starting Point a. Composition Matches Site Purpose b. Target Audience Apparent c. Composition Appropriate for Target Audience 2. Site design a. Consistency within site b. Consistency among pages 3. Visually Pleasing Composition 4. Visual Style in Web Design a. Consistency b. Distinctiveness 5. Focus and Emphasis a. What is emphasized? b. How is emphasis achieved? 6. Consistency a. Real World b. Internal 7. Navigation and Flow a. Home page identifiable throughout b. Location within site apparent c. Navigation consistent; rule-based; appropriate 8. Grouping a. Grouping with White Space b. Grouping with Borders c. Grouping with Backgrounds 9. Response time 10. Links a. Titled b. Incoming c. Outgoing d. Color 11. Detailed content a. Meaningful headings b. Plain language c. Page chunking d. Long blocks of text e. Scrolling f. Use of “within” page links 12. Articles a. Clear headings b. Plain language 13. Presenting Information Simply and Meaningfully a. Legibility b. Readability c. Information in Usable Form d. Visual Lines Clear 14. Legibility of content a. Font color b. Font size c. Font style d. Background color e. Background graphic 15. Documentation

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/ http://www.usa.gov/ 1.                  Starting Point a.       Composition Matches Site Purpose … 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...