“How to Date a Black girl, Brown girl, Halfie or White girl” written by Junot Diaz

“How to Date a Black girl, Brown girl, Halfie or White girl” written by Junot Diaz

A story “How to Date a Black girl, Brown girl, … 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...
1 Before-class Preparation: Project Management Use the following questions to guide your reading and preparation for the iRAT/tRAT quiz. 1. Pre-lecture reading: Read the Textbook Chapter 7 from page 59 to page 63 “Step 3: Plan and manage the project”. 1) What is the three-part basic sequence of project management activities? 2) Fill in the blanks. During the “Plan” activity, a schedule shows will work on issues and materials will be applied to task? 3) Fill in the blank. During the “Assess” activity, periodic help keep team and customers informed of the state of the project. 2. Pre-lecture reading: Read the handout “Project Management – Creating a Project Schedule”. 1) What are the three aspects that need to be addressed when planning a project? 2) What are the two ways of presenting a WBS? Are task dependencies considered when creating a WBS? 3) In a network diagram, why do some tasks have to be completed in a specific order? What is the predecessor(s) of a task? 4) In a Gantt chart, what information can be derived from the “bar” for each task? What about the arrows? 5) What is a critical path? How to determine the total duration of a project? In order to reduce the project duration, should tasks on the critical path get additional resources or tasks not on the critical path? 3. Pre-lecture homework: answer all questions above. First copy each question then write down the answer. Submit the homework to Blackboard and also bring in the completed homework to the RAT quiz to use as a cheat sheet.

1 Before-class Preparation: Project Management Use the following questions to guide your reading and preparation for the iRAT/tRAT quiz. 1. Pre-lecture reading: Read the Textbook Chapter 7 from page 59 to page 63 “Step 3: Plan and manage the project”. 1) What is the three-part basic sequence of project management activities? 2) Fill in the blanks. During the “Plan” activity, a schedule shows will work on issues and materials will be applied to task? 3) Fill in the blank. During the “Assess” activity, periodic help keep team and customers informed of the state of the project. 2. Pre-lecture reading: Read the handout “Project Management – Creating a Project Schedule”. 1) What are the three aspects that need to be addressed when planning a project? 2) What are the two ways of presenting a WBS? Are task dependencies considered when creating a WBS? 3) In a network diagram, why do some tasks have to be completed in a specific order? What is the predecessor(s) of a task? 4) In a Gantt chart, what information can be derived from the “bar” for each task? What about the arrows? 5) What is a critical path? How to determine the total duration of a project? In order to reduce the project duration, should tasks on the critical path get additional resources or tasks not on the critical path? 3. Pre-lecture homework: answer all questions above. First copy each question then write down the answer. Submit the homework to Blackboard and also bring in the completed homework to the RAT quiz to use as a cheat sheet.

Module Overview Summary of Module Description For full details, go to Module Descriptor. Aims The aim of this module is to: • Develop individuals for a career in business and management • Enhance and develop employability , professional and lifelong learning skills and personal development Learning Outcomes Learners will be able to critically evaluate the acquisition of a range of academic and professional skills using a number of theoretical frameworks. Assessment – Summary Category Assessment Description Duration Word Count Weight (%) Written Assignment Essay 1 Reflective Essay N/A 3000 45 For full details, go to Assessment. Additional Information Remember that a variety of Resources is available to support your learning materials.Skills and character audit This document provides an initial picture of your skills and character. It will also provide the basis of further documents that make up the first assignment on the module. It is based on the skills statements that form a fundamental part of your Masters programme which were approved by a validation panel that consisted of members of staff in the Business School, academic staff from other higher education institutions and employers. The statements in the form are there for you and you will not be judged on whether your responses are positive or negative. The responses should enable you to identify what you are good or bad at from which you can create a personal SLOT analysis (Strengths, Limitations, Opportunities, Threats). From this SLOT analysis you can then concentrate on developing certain areas that will enhance your academic and professional development. We would very much like to” get to know” you through this document and would encourage you to also complete the notes section. In this you could give us a rationale for your responses to the questions. As a guide to how you should gauge your response consider the following: Strongly agree – I have a wide range of experience in this area and have been commended by a tutor or employer for my efforts in this area Agree – I am comfortable with this aspect and have been able to demonstrate my ability Disagree – I am Ok with this but realise that I do need to improve Strongly disagree – I know I am weak in this area and need to focus on this as I could fine this weakness to be detrimental to my progression Explain why – please take the room to consider the reasons for your answer as this is the reflection that is of most value. Do not worry if your section spills onto the next page.   Intellectual (thinking) skills Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I am a creative person who can adapt my thinking to circumstances I am able to organise my thoughts, analyse, synthesise and critically appraise situations I can identify assumptions, evaluate statements in terms of evidence, detect false logic or reasoning, identify implicit values, define terms adequately and generalise appropriately Explain why: Professional/Vocational skills Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I use a wide range of techniques in approaching and solving problems. I am comfortable with a range of research techniques I am able to analyse and interpret quantitative data I am able to analyse and interpret qualitative data My leadership skills are well developed and I can adapt them to different situations I am able to manage people effectively Motivating myself and others comes easy to me I am aware of my responsibilities to myself, the organisation and other people I treat people with respect and consideration Explain why:   Key/Common skills Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I am able to use mathematical techniques to analyse data I can effectively interpret numerical data including tables and charts I am able to use a wide range of software on a PC I use a range Information Technology devices to communicate and access information I am a good listener I am able to communicate my ideas well in a face-to-face situation I can adapt my written style to suit an audiences needs I am comfortable presenting my ideas to an audience Whenever I have completed a task I always reflect on the experience with a view to seeking continuous improvement I manage my time effectively I am always prompt when asked to complete a task I am aware of the need to be sensitive to the cultural differences to which I have been exposed I am keen to learn about other people and their country and culture I enjoy working with others to complete a task I know my own character and am sensitive of this in a group situation I understand that a group is made of individuals and I am sensitive to the needs and preferences of others I will always ensure that I get my views across in a meeting I am willing to accept the viewpoint of others I always give 100% in a group task Explain why: SLOT Analysis Having responded to the statements above you should now be in a position to look forward and recognise those areas on which your development will be based. The SLOT analysis can help you to arrange this. Strengths – can be those skills and characteristics to which you have responded positively to in the previous section. It is worth noting that whilst you may be strong in these areas that does not mean you ignore their development. Indeed you may be able to utilise these strengths in the development of areas identified as weaknesses or to overcome strengths, this will enhance those skills and characteristics. Limitations – All of us can identify some sort of limitation to our skills. None of us should be afraid of doing this as this is the first stage on the improvement and development of these weaknesses. Opportunities – These arise or can be created. When thinking of this look ahead at opportunities that will arise in a professional, academic or social context within which your development can take place. Threats – Many threats from your development can come from within – your own characteristics e.g. poor time management can lead to missing deadlines. However we could equally identify a busy lifestyle as a threat to our development. Once again think widely in terms of where the threat will come from. Do not worry if you find that a strength can also be a limitation. This is often true as a characteristic you have may be strength in one situation but a limitation in another. E.g. you may be an assertive person, which is positive, but this could be negative in a group situation. Please try and elaborate this in the notes section at the foot of the table. SLOT Analysis (you may need to use two pages to set out this analysis) Strengths Limitations Opportunities Threats Analysis of the Bullet points in the SLOT table Objectives Having undertaken some analysis of your skills and characteristics the aim of this next section is to identify various aspects of your development during the course of this module, other modules on your course, and extra-curricular activities. Make sure the objectives are SMART:- S – Specific. Clearly identified from the exercises undertaken M – Measurable. The outcomes can be easily demonstrated (to yourself, and where possible others) A – Achievable. They can be done given the opportunities available to you R – Relevant. They form part of your development either on this award, in your employability prospects or in your current job role T – Timebound. They can be achieved within a given timescale Whilst there are 5 rows in the table below, please feel free to add more. However be sure that you need to do this development and that they fit within the scope of the above criteria. Area What I am going to do. How I am going to do it When I am going to do it by Force Field Analysis This technique was designed by Kurt Lewin (1947 and 1953). In the business world it is used for decision making, looking at forces that need to be considered when implementing change – it can be said to be a specialised method of weighing up the pros and cons of a decision. Having looked at your personal strengths and weaknesses we would like you to use this technique to become aware of those factors that will help/hinder, give you motivation for or may act against, your personal development. Whilst you could do this for each of your objectives we want you to think in terms of where you would like to be at the end of your Masters programme. In the central pillar, put in a statement of where you want to be at the end of the course. Then in the arrows either side look at those factors/forces that may work in your favour. Be realistic and please add as many arrows that you think may be necessary; use a separate page for the module if it makes it easier to structure your thoughts. Forces or factors working for achieving your desired outcome Where I want to be Forces or factors against working against you achieving your desired outcome

Module Overview Summary of Module Description For full details, go to Module Descriptor. Aims The aim of this module is to: • Develop individuals for a career in business and management • Enhance and develop employability , professional and lifelong learning skills and personal development Learning Outcomes Learners will be able to critically evaluate the acquisition of a range of academic and professional skills using a number of theoretical frameworks. Assessment – Summary Category Assessment Description Duration Word Count Weight (%) Written Assignment Essay 1 Reflective Essay N/A 3000 45 For full details, go to Assessment. Additional Information Remember that a variety of Resources is available to support your learning materials.Skills and character audit This document provides an initial picture of your skills and character. It will also provide the basis of further documents that make up the first assignment on the module. It is based on the skills statements that form a fundamental part of your Masters programme which were approved by a validation panel that consisted of members of staff in the Business School, academic staff from other higher education institutions and employers. The statements in the form are there for you and you will not be judged on whether your responses are positive or negative. The responses should enable you to identify what you are good or bad at from which you can create a personal SLOT analysis (Strengths, Limitations, Opportunities, Threats). From this SLOT analysis you can then concentrate on developing certain areas that will enhance your academic and professional development. We would very much like to” get to know” you through this document and would encourage you to also complete the notes section. In this you could give us a rationale for your responses to the questions. As a guide to how you should gauge your response consider the following: Strongly agree – I have a wide range of experience in this area and have been commended by a tutor or employer for my efforts in this area Agree – I am comfortable with this aspect and have been able to demonstrate my ability Disagree – I am Ok with this but realise that I do need to improve Strongly disagree – I know I am weak in this area and need to focus on this as I could fine this weakness to be detrimental to my progression Explain why – please take the room to consider the reasons for your answer as this is the reflection that is of most value. Do not worry if your section spills onto the next page.   Intellectual (thinking) skills Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I am a creative person who can adapt my thinking to circumstances I am able to organise my thoughts, analyse, synthesise and critically appraise situations I can identify assumptions, evaluate statements in terms of evidence, detect false logic or reasoning, identify implicit values, define terms adequately and generalise appropriately Explain why: Professional/Vocational skills Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I use a wide range of techniques in approaching and solving problems. I am comfortable with a range of research techniques I am able to analyse and interpret quantitative data I am able to analyse and interpret qualitative data My leadership skills are well developed and I can adapt them to different situations I am able to manage people effectively Motivating myself and others comes easy to me I am aware of my responsibilities to myself, the organisation and other people I treat people with respect and consideration Explain why:   Key/Common skills Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree I am able to use mathematical techniques to analyse data I can effectively interpret numerical data including tables and charts I am able to use a wide range of software on a PC I use a range Information Technology devices to communicate and access information I am a good listener I am able to communicate my ideas well in a face-to-face situation I can adapt my written style to suit an audiences needs I am comfortable presenting my ideas to an audience Whenever I have completed a task I always reflect on the experience with a view to seeking continuous improvement I manage my time effectively I am always prompt when asked to complete a task I am aware of the need to be sensitive to the cultural differences to which I have been exposed I am keen to learn about other people and their country and culture I enjoy working with others to complete a task I know my own character and am sensitive of this in a group situation I understand that a group is made of individuals and I am sensitive to the needs and preferences of others I will always ensure that I get my views across in a meeting I am willing to accept the viewpoint of others I always give 100% in a group task Explain why: SLOT Analysis Having responded to the statements above you should now be in a position to look forward and recognise those areas on which your development will be based. The SLOT analysis can help you to arrange this. Strengths – can be those skills and characteristics to which you have responded positively to in the previous section. It is worth noting that whilst you may be strong in these areas that does not mean you ignore their development. Indeed you may be able to utilise these strengths in the development of areas identified as weaknesses or to overcome strengths, this will enhance those skills and characteristics. Limitations – All of us can identify some sort of limitation to our skills. None of us should be afraid of doing this as this is the first stage on the improvement and development of these weaknesses. Opportunities – These arise or can be created. When thinking of this look ahead at opportunities that will arise in a professional, academic or social context within which your development can take place. Threats – Many threats from your development can come from within – your own characteristics e.g. poor time management can lead to missing deadlines. However we could equally identify a busy lifestyle as a threat to our development. Once again think widely in terms of where the threat will come from. Do not worry if you find that a strength can also be a limitation. This is often true as a characteristic you have may be strength in one situation but a limitation in another. E.g. you may be an assertive person, which is positive, but this could be negative in a group situation. Please try and elaborate this in the notes section at the foot of the table. SLOT Analysis (you may need to use two pages to set out this analysis) Strengths Limitations Opportunities Threats Analysis of the Bullet points in the SLOT table Objectives Having undertaken some analysis of your skills and characteristics the aim of this next section is to identify various aspects of your development during the course of this module, other modules on your course, and extra-curricular activities. Make sure the objectives are SMART:- S – Specific. Clearly identified from the exercises undertaken M – Measurable. The outcomes can be easily demonstrated (to yourself, and where possible others) A – Achievable. They can be done given the opportunities available to you R – Relevant. They form part of your development either on this award, in your employability prospects or in your current job role T – Timebound. They can be achieved within a given timescale Whilst there are 5 rows in the table below, please feel free to add more. However be sure that you need to do this development and that they fit within the scope of the above criteria. Area What I am going to do. How I am going to do it When I am going to do it by Force Field Analysis This technique was designed by Kurt Lewin (1947 and 1953). In the business world it is used for decision making, looking at forces that need to be considered when implementing change – it can be said to be a specialised method of weighing up the pros and cons of a decision. Having looked at your personal strengths and weaknesses we would like you to use this technique to become aware of those factors that will help/hinder, give you motivation for or may act against, your personal development. Whilst you could do this for each of your objectives we want you to think in terms of where you would like to be at the end of your Masters programme. In the central pillar, put in a statement of where you want to be at the end of the course. Then in the arrows either side look at those factors/forces that may work in your favour. Be realistic and please add as many arrows that you think may be necessary; use a separate page for the module if it makes it easier to structure your thoughts. Forces or factors working for achieving your desired outcome Where I want to be Forces or factors against working against you achieving your desired outcome

  Intellectual (thinking) skills   Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly … Read More...
Learning Objectives This part begins with what are probably the basic questions for a designer of a computing sytem’s human interface: • How should the functionality of the system be described and presented to the user? • How can the design of the interface help the user to understand and successfully use the system? Learning Goals At the conclusion of this module you will be able to: • define the user’s movement among the displays that make up the system; • the addition of visual and spatial cues to the information organization; and • methods of structuring and presenting the interface. Introduction This module deals with the development and utilization of a system. We all have systems for doing things. For instance, we may have a system for handling routine situations around the house that makes sense only to us. Or, we may be oriented toward systems that have a more widespread understanding such as personal finance or how to fill out our IRS forms. When humans use a system, whether natural or man-made, they do so based on their understanding of that system. A totally accurate understanding of a system is not a necessary condition for effective use of that system. Key Terms Systems, User Model, Model, Metaphor, Concept Modeling The Development of Human Systems I. The organization of knowledge about a phenomenon or system constitutes the human’s conceptual model of that system. Information gained from experience with a system contributes to the model, and the model in turn provides a reference or guide for future experience with the system. A. (Reinstein and Hersh, 1984) – a set of concepts a person gradually acquires to explain the behavior of a system. …. That enables that person to understand and interact with the system. 1. For the user, the important thing about a model is its ability to predict: when confronted with unfamiliar or incompletely understood situations, the user relies on their model, their conceptual understanding of the system, to make educated guesses about how to proceed. If the user’s model accurately reflects the effects of the system, then he will be more successful in learning and using the system, and likely will perceive the system as easy to use. 2. Because the model can server this important role in design of helping to create an understandable and predictable system, the creation of the user’s conceptual model should be the first task of system development. One of the more important examples of the use of conceptual model, the XEROX Star office automation system (whose design greatly influenced Apple’s Lisa and Macintosh systems), started with thirty man-years of design work on the user interface before either the hardware or the system software was designed (Smith, Irby, Kimball, Verplank and Harselm, 1982). 3. The conceptual model does not have to be an accurate representation of how the system actually functions. Indeed, it can be quite different from reality, and in most if not all circumstances for systems as complex as computers, should be. 4. The model may be a myth or metaphor, that explains the system: it “suggests that the computer is like something with which the user is already familiar” (Rubinstein and Hersh, 1984, p. 43), or provides a simple explanation of the system which can be used to predict the system’s behavior. 5. ….the conceptual models people form are based on their interactions with an environment … “people who have different roles within an environment … will form different conceptual systems of those environments. 6. People whose essential interaction with an environment is to create it will almost inevitably have an understanding and conceptualization of it which is different from those whose major interaction with it is to use it” Action Assignment Based on the readings for this module, please identify a personal “system” with which you act and perform within. This should be from personal experience and one that assists in providing a model for organization, understanding and problem solving.

Learning Objectives This part begins with what are probably the basic questions for a designer of a computing sytem’s human interface: • How should the functionality of the system be described and presented to the user? • How can the design of the interface help the user to understand and successfully use the system? Learning Goals At the conclusion of this module you will be able to: • define the user’s movement among the displays that make up the system; • the addition of visual and spatial cues to the information organization; and • methods of structuring and presenting the interface. Introduction This module deals with the development and utilization of a system. We all have systems for doing things. For instance, we may have a system for handling routine situations around the house that makes sense only to us. Or, we may be oriented toward systems that have a more widespread understanding such as personal finance or how to fill out our IRS forms. When humans use a system, whether natural or man-made, they do so based on their understanding of that system. A totally accurate understanding of a system is not a necessary condition for effective use of that system. Key Terms Systems, User Model, Model, Metaphor, Concept Modeling The Development of Human Systems I. The organization of knowledge about a phenomenon or system constitutes the human’s conceptual model of that system. Information gained from experience with a system contributes to the model, and the model in turn provides a reference or guide for future experience with the system. A. (Reinstein and Hersh, 1984) – a set of concepts a person gradually acquires to explain the behavior of a system. …. That enables that person to understand and interact with the system. 1. For the user, the important thing about a model is its ability to predict: when confronted with unfamiliar or incompletely understood situations, the user relies on their model, their conceptual understanding of the system, to make educated guesses about how to proceed. If the user’s model accurately reflects the effects of the system, then he will be more successful in learning and using the system, and likely will perceive the system as easy to use. 2. Because the model can server this important role in design of helping to create an understandable and predictable system, the creation of the user’s conceptual model should be the first task of system development. One of the more important examples of the use of conceptual model, the XEROX Star office automation system (whose design greatly influenced Apple’s Lisa and Macintosh systems), started with thirty man-years of design work on the user interface before either the hardware or the system software was designed (Smith, Irby, Kimball, Verplank and Harselm, 1982). 3. The conceptual model does not have to be an accurate representation of how the system actually functions. Indeed, it can be quite different from reality, and in most if not all circumstances for systems as complex as computers, should be. 4. The model may be a myth or metaphor, that explains the system: it “suggests that the computer is like something with which the user is already familiar” (Rubinstein and Hersh, 1984, p. 43), or provides a simple explanation of the system which can be used to predict the system’s behavior. 5. ….the conceptual models people form are based on their interactions with an environment … “people who have different roles within an environment … will form different conceptual systems of those environments. 6. People whose essential interaction with an environment is to create it will almost inevitably have an understanding and conceptualization of it which is different from those whose major interaction with it is to use it” Action Assignment Based on the readings for this module, please identify a personal “system” with which you act and perform within. This should be from personal experience and one that assists in providing a model for organization, understanding and problem solving.

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...