Sex, Gender, and Popular Culture Spring 2015 Look through popular magazines, and see if you can find advertisements that objectify women in order to sell a product. Alternately, you may use an advertisement on television (but make sure to provide a link to the ad so I can see it!). Study these images then write a paper about objectification that deals with all or some of the following: • What effect(s), if any, do you think the objectification of women’s bodies has on our culture? • Jean Kilbourne states “turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step toward justifying violence against that person.” What do you think she means by this? Do you agree with her reasoning? Why or why not? • Some people would argue that depicting a woman’s body as an object is a form of art. What is your opinion of this point of view? Explain your reasoning. • Why do you think that women are objectified more often than men are? • How does sexualization and objectification play out differently across racial lines? • Kilbourne explains that the consequences of being objectified are different – and more serious – for women than for men. Do you agree? How is the world different for women than it is for men? How do objectified images of women interact with those in our culture differently from the way images of men do? Why is it important to look at images in the context of the culture? • What is the difference between sexual objectification and sexual subjectification? (Ros Gill ) • How do ads construct violent white masculinity and how does that vision of masculinity hurt both men and women? Throughout your written analysis, be sure to make clear and specific reference to the images you selected, and please submit these images with your paper. Make sure you engage with and reference to at least 4 of the following authors: Kilbourne, Bordo, Hunter & Soto, Rose, Durham, Gill, Katz, Schuchardt, Ono and Buescher. Guidelines:  Keep your content focused on structural, systemic, institutional factors rather than the individual: BE ANALYTICAL NOT ANECDOTAL.  Avoid using the first person or including personal stories/reactions. You must make sure to actively engage with your readings: these essays need to be informed and framed by the theoretical material you have been reading this semester.  Keep within the 4-6 page limit; use 12-point font, double spacing and 1-inch margins.  Use formal writing conventions (introduction/thesis statement, body, conclusion) and correct grammar. Resources may be cited within the text of your paper, i.e. (Walters, 2013).

Sex, Gender, and Popular Culture Spring 2015 Look through popular magazines, and see if you can find advertisements that objectify women in order to sell a product. Alternately, you may use an advertisement on television (but make sure to provide a link to the ad so I can see it!). Study these images then write a paper about objectification that deals with all or some of the following: • What effect(s), if any, do you think the objectification of women’s bodies has on our culture? • Jean Kilbourne states “turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step toward justifying violence against that person.” What do you think she means by this? Do you agree with her reasoning? Why or why not? • Some people would argue that depicting a woman’s body as an object is a form of art. What is your opinion of this point of view? Explain your reasoning. • Why do you think that women are objectified more often than men are? • How does sexualization and objectification play out differently across racial lines? • Kilbourne explains that the consequences of being objectified are different – and more serious – for women than for men. Do you agree? How is the world different for women than it is for men? How do objectified images of women interact with those in our culture differently from the way images of men do? Why is it important to look at images in the context of the culture? • What is the difference between sexual objectification and sexual subjectification? (Ros Gill ) • How do ads construct violent white masculinity and how does that vision of masculinity hurt both men and women? Throughout your written analysis, be sure to make clear and specific reference to the images you selected, and please submit these images with your paper. Make sure you engage with and reference to at least 4 of the following authors: Kilbourne, Bordo, Hunter & Soto, Rose, Durham, Gill, Katz, Schuchardt, Ono and Buescher. Guidelines:  Keep your content focused on structural, systemic, institutional factors rather than the individual: BE ANALYTICAL NOT ANECDOTAL.  Avoid using the first person or including personal stories/reactions. You must make sure to actively engage with your readings: these essays need to be informed and framed by the theoretical material you have been reading this semester.  Keep within the 4-6 page limit; use 12-point font, double spacing and 1-inch margins.  Use formal writing conventions (introduction/thesis statement, body, conclusion) and correct grammar. Resources may be cited within the text of your paper, i.e. (Walters, 2013).

The objectification of women has been a very controversial topic … Read More...
With regard to contraceptives in the United States, the Comstock Act of 1873 Question 9 options: outlawed the dissemination of birth control through mail or across state lines made it legal for women to purchase contraceptives openly both A and B are correct declared contraceptives as acceptable

With regard to contraceptives in the United States, the Comstock Act of 1873 Question 9 options: outlawed the dissemination of birth control through mail or across state lines made it legal for women to purchase contraceptives openly both A and B are correct declared contraceptives as acceptable

info@checkyourstudy.com With regard to contraceptives in the United States, the … Read More...
. What are the main tenets and concerns of the Epicurean philosophy? Are you persuaded by this general approach? Why or why not?

. What are the main tenets and concerns of the Epicurean philosophy? Are you persuaded by this general approach? Why or why not?

You will discover 3 key tenets as well as concerns … Read More...
CE 309 Fluid Mechanics Laboratory 2015 Assignment: ABET Criterion b You are tasked by SMU to design laboratory equipment for accurately determining discharge coefficients of an orifice in a reservoir discharging into the atmosphere (free jet). The equipment will be used in an undergraduate fluid mechanics laboratory class. You are not allowed to recommend an over-the-shelf system sold by manufacturers but must begin with basic materials. Your design must include the following; • Neat sketches and drawing illustrating your design. Sketches must be to scale. All sections of the sketch must be labeled in detail. As an example, a proposed motor must show the type, horsepower as well as any details necessary for the acquisition of the motor. • Statement of cost of individual items as well as the gross. It must also include installation costs where applicable. You are encouraged to recommend modern instrumentation in you design however costs must be kept as reasonable as possible. An esoteric system with no regard to the cost is of little value. Justify all your choices. • Develop a procedure for students operating the system to achieve the laboratory objectives. Indicate the advantages of your design over the current. • Keep your report to 3 pages maximum.

CE 309 Fluid Mechanics Laboratory 2015 Assignment: ABET Criterion b You are tasked by SMU to design laboratory equipment for accurately determining discharge coefficients of an orifice in a reservoir discharging into the atmosphere (free jet). The equipment will be used in an undergraduate fluid mechanics laboratory class. You are not allowed to recommend an over-the-shelf system sold by manufacturers but must begin with basic materials. Your design must include the following; • Neat sketches and drawing illustrating your design. Sketches must be to scale. All sections of the sketch must be labeled in detail. As an example, a proposed motor must show the type, horsepower as well as any details necessary for the acquisition of the motor. • Statement of cost of individual items as well as the gross. It must also include installation costs where applicable. You are encouraged to recommend modern instrumentation in you design however costs must be kept as reasonable as possible. An esoteric system with no regard to the cost is of little value. Justify all your choices. • Develop a procedure for students operating the system to achieve the laboratory objectives. Indicate the advantages of your design over the current. • Keep your report to 3 pages maximum.

No expert has answered this question yet. You can browse … Read More...
Since the first cloned animal was produced using a fully differentiated cell, a number of observations have been made. Which of the following statements is true in regard to reproductive cloning?

Since the first cloned animal was produced using a fully differentiated cell, a number of observations have been made. Which of the following statements is true in regard to reproductive cloning?

Only a small fraction of cloned embryos develop normally
Need help in Engineering Ethicks , due in 2 hours , and it is essay with one and half to two hand written paper. Essay one : Alan Dengson, John Dewey, Lewis Mumford, and Jessica Wooliams view technology as ” instrumental ‘ . what does it mean, generally speaking, to regard technology as instrumental rather than intrinsically valuable? with respect to two of the aforementioned authors, answer the following questions: 2- what are the moral dangers associated with losing sight of the instrumental value of technology? 1- why is it important, morally speaking, to affirm the instrumental value of technology? Outline: I. thesis statement: what is your overall argument? Three sentences or less II. instrumental VS. intrinsic Goods. – what an instrumental good is. – what an intrinsic good is. – An example of each -what it means to regard technology as either kind of good – An example of what happend when technology is regarded as intrinsically good III. Importance of affirming the instrumental value of technology. – How doe viewing technology in this light make us better off? _Examples – How does viewing technology as intrinsically good make us worse off? – Example IV. conclusion: summary of your previous point, 5 sentence or less Essay two: Aldo Leopold claims that we have a moral duty to protect the biotic community of which we are a part. What are the arguments in favor of this claim? in your view, is this te extension of moral respect to the natural environment a natural progression of mankind’s tendency to expand the scope of the ” moral community” Why or why not? Are there practical and/ or theoretical problems with this philosophical position regarding our duties to the environment? Outline : I. Thesis Statement : What is your overall argument? Three sentences or less. II. anthropological and Darwinian Bases of Leopold’s Argument. – What Leopold through early human societies were like morally – Leopold’s view of moral progress – Examples – How care for the environment forms of a part of moral progress for Leopold III. The limits of moral community, -How might adhering to Leopold’s argument negatively impact human beings? – how might it positively impact human beings as well as the environment ? – Examples IV: Conclusion: Summary of your previous point.

Need help in Engineering Ethicks , due in 2 hours , and it is essay with one and half to two hand written paper. Essay one : Alan Dengson, John Dewey, Lewis Mumford, and Jessica Wooliams view technology as ” instrumental ‘ . what does it mean, generally speaking, to regard technology as instrumental rather than intrinsically valuable? with respect to two of the aforementioned authors, answer the following questions: 2- what are the moral dangers associated with losing sight of the instrumental value of technology? 1- why is it important, morally speaking, to affirm the instrumental value of technology? Outline: I. thesis statement: what is your overall argument? Three sentences or less II. instrumental VS. intrinsic Goods. – what an instrumental good is. – what an intrinsic good is. – An example of each -what it means to regard technology as either kind of good – An example of what happend when technology is regarded as intrinsically good III. Importance of affirming the instrumental value of technology. – How doe viewing technology in this light make us better off? _Examples – How does viewing technology as intrinsically good make us worse off? – Example IV. conclusion: summary of your previous point, 5 sentence or less Essay two: Aldo Leopold claims that we have a moral duty to protect the biotic community of which we are a part. What are the arguments in favor of this claim? in your view, is this te extension of moral respect to the natural environment a natural progression of mankind’s tendency to expand the scope of the ” moral community” Why or why not? Are there practical and/ or theoretical problems with this philosophical position regarding our duties to the environment? Outline : I. Thesis Statement : What is your overall argument? Three sentences or less. II. anthropological and Darwinian Bases of Leopold’s Argument. – What Leopold through early human societies were like morally – Leopold’s view of moral progress – Examples – How care for the environment forms of a part of moral progress for Leopold III. The limits of moral community, -How might adhering to Leopold’s argument negatively impact human beings? – how might it positively impact human beings as well as the environment ? – Examples IV: Conclusion: Summary of your previous point.

info@checkyourstudy.com
In the global business environment,issues of human resource management should be regarded as a core factor for achievement of business objectives. clearly discuss with practical examples this statement in regard to an existing business entity in a country

In the global business environment,issues of human resource management should be regarded as a core factor for achievement of business objectives. clearly discuss with practical examples this statement in regard to an existing business entity in a country

info@checkyourstudy.com Operations Team Whatsapp( +91 9911743277)
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...
Problem 5: Physical Fitness versus Weight. You may have noticed from your analysis in Problem 4 that height does not explain 100% of the variation that we have observed in students’ heights. Is it possible that the amount of time students devote to physical fitness each week may help us to better understand their weights? a. Question 12 of the survey asked students, “About how much time per week (on average) do you devote to physical fitness?” We have named this variable FITNESS. Create a suitable graph to display the distribution of FITNESS and insert it here. b. What is the mode of this distribution? (Please underline one option.) Between 0 & 2 hours Between 2 & 5 hours Between 5 & 9 hours Between 9 & 15 hours Over 15 hours c. Create side-by-side boxplots to display students’ weights for the different levels of FITNESS. (Go to Graph > Boxplot > One Y with Groups > OK. Select WEIGHT for the “Graph variables” slot and FITNESS for the “Categorical variables for grouping” slot.) Insert your graph here. d. Use Minitab to calculate the basic statistics of WEIGHT for each level of FITNESS. Copy and paste the output here. e. With regard to FITNESS levels, which group of students has the lowest mean weight? (Please underline one option.) Between 0 & 2 hours Between 2 & 5 hours Between 5 & 9 hours Between 9 & 15 hours Over 15 hours f. Discuss the results: Describe the distributions of WEIGHT for the different levels of FITNESS as well as draw comparisons (i.e., What do they have in common?) and contrasts (i.e., How are they different?) between these distributions. Are there any surprises in the results? Explain why you think so, or why not. Problem 6 (Even): If your E number ends in an even number (0, 2, 4, 6, or 8) then do this question. (Omit this page/problem if your E# ends with an odd number.) Gender and Nuclear Safety. Question 5 in the survey asked students “How safe would you feel if a nuclear energy plant were built near where you live?” (Students could choose one of these options: Extremely safe, Very Safe, Moderately safe, Slightly safe, or Not at all safe.) Is there a relationship between gender and students’ opinions about nuclear safety? a. Create an appropriate graph to display the relationship between GENDER and NUCLEAR SAFETY. You don’t want to display information for students that didn’t answer both of these questions on the survey, so click on Data Options > Group Options and remove the checks in the boxes beside “Include missing as a group” and “Include empty cells.” Insert your graph here. b. Create an appropriate two-way table to summarize the data. Click on Options > Display missing values for… and put a dot in the circle beside “No variables.” Insert your table here. c. SUPPOSE WE SELECT ONE STUDENT AT RANDOM: (Calculate the following probabilities and show your work.) i. What is the probability that this student is a female and feels “very safe”? P = ii. What is the probability that this student is either a male or that he/she feels “very safe”? P = iii. What is the probability that this student feels “not at all safe” given that the student selected is a female? P = iv. What is the probability that this student is a male given that the student selected feels “not at all safe”? P = d. Do you think there may be an association between GENDER and NUCLEAR SAFETY? Why or why not? Explain your reasoning based on what you see in your graph.

Problem 5: Physical Fitness versus Weight. You may have noticed from your analysis in Problem 4 that height does not explain 100% of the variation that we have observed in students’ heights. Is it possible that the amount of time students devote to physical fitness each week may help us to better understand their weights? a. Question 12 of the survey asked students, “About how much time per week (on average) do you devote to physical fitness?” We have named this variable FITNESS. Create a suitable graph to display the distribution of FITNESS and insert it here. b. What is the mode of this distribution? (Please underline one option.) Between 0 & 2 hours Between 2 & 5 hours Between 5 & 9 hours Between 9 & 15 hours Over 15 hours c. Create side-by-side boxplots to display students’ weights for the different levels of FITNESS. (Go to Graph > Boxplot > One Y with Groups > OK. Select WEIGHT for the “Graph variables” slot and FITNESS for the “Categorical variables for grouping” slot.) Insert your graph here. d. Use Minitab to calculate the basic statistics of WEIGHT for each level of FITNESS. Copy and paste the output here. e. With regard to FITNESS levels, which group of students has the lowest mean weight? (Please underline one option.) Between 0 & 2 hours Between 2 & 5 hours Between 5 & 9 hours Between 9 & 15 hours Over 15 hours f. Discuss the results: Describe the distributions of WEIGHT for the different levels of FITNESS as well as draw comparisons (i.e., What do they have in common?) and contrasts (i.e., How are they different?) between these distributions. Are there any surprises in the results? Explain why you think so, or why not. Problem 6 (Even): If your E number ends in an even number (0, 2, 4, 6, or 8) then do this question. (Omit this page/problem if your E# ends with an odd number.) Gender and Nuclear Safety. Question 5 in the survey asked students “How safe would you feel if a nuclear energy plant were built near where you live?” (Students could choose one of these options: Extremely safe, Very Safe, Moderately safe, Slightly safe, or Not at all safe.) Is there a relationship between gender and students’ opinions about nuclear safety? a. Create an appropriate graph to display the relationship between GENDER and NUCLEAR SAFETY. You don’t want to display information for students that didn’t answer both of these questions on the survey, so click on Data Options > Group Options and remove the checks in the boxes beside “Include missing as a group” and “Include empty cells.” Insert your graph here. b. Create an appropriate two-way table to summarize the data. Click on Options > Display missing values for… and put a dot in the circle beside “No variables.” Insert your table here. c. SUPPOSE WE SELECT ONE STUDENT AT RANDOM: (Calculate the following probabilities and show your work.) i. What is the probability that this student is a female and feels “very safe”? P = ii. What is the probability that this student is either a male or that he/she feels “very safe”? P = iii. What is the probability that this student feels “not at all safe” given that the student selected is a female? P = iv. What is the probability that this student is a male given that the student selected feels “not at all safe”? P = d. Do you think there may be an association between GENDER and NUCLEAR SAFETY? Why or why not? Explain your reasoning based on what you see in your graph.

info@checkyourstudy.com