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

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

Non-violence as a rule of love   The mainly essential … Read More...
/The following graphs depict the motion of an object starting from rest and moving without friction. Describe how you would calculate the object’s acceleration, instantaneous speed, and distance at time “p” from each graph (slope, area-under-curve, etc.). 15. An object is launched at an angle of 450 from the ground of a mystery planet. The object hits the ground 20m away after a total flight time of 4.0s. Assume no air resistance. a. What are the initial vertical and horizontal velocities? b. Calculate the acceleration due to gravity. c. Draw graphs to quantitatively represent the vertical and horizontal velocities for the entire 4.0s of flight. Linear Dynamics 1. A block of mass 3 kg, initially at rest, is pulled along a frictionless, horizontal surface with a force shown as a function of time by the graph above. Calculate the acceleration and speed after 2s. Questions 2-4: Two blocks of masses M and m, with M > m, are connected by a light string. The string passes over a frictionless pulley of negligible mass so that the blocks hang vertically like Atwood’s machine. The blocks are then released from rest as shown above. 2. Draw a free-body diagram for each mass. Compare and contrast the tension on each. 3. Compare and contrast the net-force acting on each block. 4. Draw a free-body diagram for the string holding the pulley. Explain whether the force increases, decreases, or remains the same as the blocks accelerate. Questions 5-6: A ball is released from the top of a curved hill as shown above; the hill has sufficient friction so that the ball rolls as it moves down the hill. 5. What can be inferred about the ball’s linear acceleration and speed as the ball goes from the top to the bottom? (Increase, decrease, or remain the same) 6. Draw a free-body diagram for each location in the diagram to compare the weight, normal, and friction forces as it rolls down hill. Questions 7-8: Consider the above block sitting on a smooth tabletop. It is connected by a light string that passes over a frictionless and massless pulley to a pulling force of 30N downward. 7. Use Newton’s 2nd Law to determine what will happen to the net force, mass, and acceleration of the entire system if the pulling force of 30N is replaced with another block weighing 30N. 8. What will happen to the tension on each body?

/The following graphs depict the motion of an object starting from rest and moving without friction. Describe how you would calculate the object’s acceleration, instantaneous speed, and distance at time “p” from each graph (slope, area-under-curve, etc.). 15. An object is launched at an angle of 450 from the ground of a mystery planet. The object hits the ground 20m away after a total flight time of 4.0s. Assume no air resistance. a. What are the initial vertical and horizontal velocities? b. Calculate the acceleration due to gravity. c. Draw graphs to quantitatively represent the vertical and horizontal velocities for the entire 4.0s of flight. Linear Dynamics 1. A block of mass 3 kg, initially at rest, is pulled along a frictionless, horizontal surface with a force shown as a function of time by the graph above. Calculate the acceleration and speed after 2s. Questions 2-4: Two blocks of masses M and m, with M > m, are connected by a light string. The string passes over a frictionless pulley of negligible mass so that the blocks hang vertically like Atwood’s machine. The blocks are then released from rest as shown above. 2. Draw a free-body diagram for each mass. Compare and contrast the tension on each. 3. Compare and contrast the net-force acting on each block. 4. Draw a free-body diagram for the string holding the pulley. Explain whether the force increases, decreases, or remains the same as the blocks accelerate. Questions 5-6: A ball is released from the top of a curved hill as shown above; the hill has sufficient friction so that the ball rolls as it moves down the hill. 5. What can be inferred about the ball’s linear acceleration and speed as the ball goes from the top to the bottom? (Increase, decrease, or remain the same) 6. Draw a free-body diagram for each location in the diagram to compare the weight, normal, and friction forces as it rolls down hill. Questions 7-8: Consider the above block sitting on a smooth tabletop. It is connected by a light string that passes over a frictionless and massless pulley to a pulling force of 30N downward. 7. Use Newton’s 2nd Law to determine what will happen to the net force, mass, and acceleration of the entire system if the pulling force of 30N is replaced with another block weighing 30N. 8. What will happen to the tension on each body?

info@checkyourstudy.com The following graphs depict the motion of an object … Read More...
Which of the following statement is NOT TRUE about a safety plan? a) They replaced the use of no-suicide contracts. b) It involves collaborating with the client to develop a written list of healthy coping responses. c) The last line should always include calling local law enforcement, a mobile crisis number or the telephone number of the counselor. d) Safety plans are equally as effective and as ethical as no-suicide contracts.

Which of the following statement is NOT TRUE about a safety plan? a) They replaced the use of no-suicide contracts. b) It involves collaborating with the client to develop a written list of healthy coping responses. c) The last line should always include calling local law enforcement, a mobile crisis number or the telephone number of the counselor. d) Safety plans are equally as effective and as ethical as no-suicide contracts.

answer a
When the sheep Dolly was successfully cloned, it was produced by growing an in vitro fertilized egg where the normal egg nucleus had been removed and replaced by a nucleus from an adult. Since this nucleus is from an old mature animal, we would expect it to ______. Interestingly, tests show that this did not happen, a fact that currently puzzles researchers. Select one: have additional Barr bodies be mutated have shorter telomeres have longer telomeres express transcription and translation more rapidly

When the sheep Dolly was successfully cloned, it was produced by growing an in vitro fertilized egg where the normal egg nucleus had been removed and replaced by a nucleus from an adult. Since this nucleus is from an old mature animal, we would expect it to ______. Interestingly, tests show that this did not happen, a fact that currently puzzles researchers. Select one: have additional Barr bodies be mutated have shorter telomeres have longer telomeres express transcription and translation more rapidly

When the sheep Dolly was successfully cloned, it was produced … Read More...
Member OBC and pulley C have a combined mass of 500 kg with mass center at G. Collar A provides horizontal support only. (a) Replace the 3kN force applied to the cable wrapped around the pulley by a force and a couple system at the center of the pulley (C). (5 points) (b) Draw a clear free body diagram of the member OBC after you have replaced the 3kN force by a force-couple system at C. (15 points) (c) Compute the reaction force at the collar A. (10 points) (d) Find the horizontal component of the reaction force supported by the pin at O. (10 points)

Member OBC and pulley C have a combined mass of 500 kg with mass center at G. Collar A provides horizontal support only. (a) Replace the 3kN force applied to the cable wrapped around the pulley by a force and a couple system at the center of the pulley (C). (5 points) (b) Draw a clear free body diagram of the member OBC after you have replaced the 3kN force by a force-couple system at C. (15 points) (c) Compute the reaction force at the collar A. (10 points) (d) Find the horizontal component of the reaction force supported by the pin at O. (10 points)

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...
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AT BOSE CORPORATION Bose Corporation, headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts, offers an excellent example of integrated supply chain management. Bose, a producer of audio premium speakers used in automobiles, high-fidelity systems, and consumer and commercial broadcasting systems, was founded in 1964 by Dr. Bose of MIT. Bose currently maintains plants in Massachusetts and Michigan as well as Canada, Mexico, and Ireland. Its purchasing organization, while decentralized, has some overlap that requires coordination between sites. It manages this coordination by using conference calls between managers, electronic communication, and joint problem solving. The company is moving toward single sourcing many of its 800 to 1,000 parts, which include corrugated paper, particle board and wood, plastic injected molded parts, fasteners, glues, woofers, and fabric. Some product components, such as woofers, are sourced overseas. For example, at the Hillsdale, Michigan, plant, foreign sourcing accounts for 20% of purchases, with the remainder of suppliers located immediately within the state of Michigan. About 35% of the parts purchased at this site are single sourced, with approximately half of the components arriving with no incoming inspection performed. In turn, Bose ships finished products directly to Delco, Honda, and Nissan and has a record of no missed deliveries. Normal lead time to customers is 60 working days, but Bose can expedite shipments in one week and airfreight them if necessary. The company has developed a detailed supplier performance system that measures on-time delivery, quality performance, technical improvements, and supplier suggestions. A report is generated twice a month from this system and sent to the supplier providing feedback about supplier performance. If there is a three-week trend of poor performance, Bose will usually establish a specific goal for improvement that the supplier must attain. Examples include 10% delivery improvement every month until 100% conformance is achieved, or 5% quality improvement until a 1% defect level is reached over a four-month period. In one case, a supplier sent a rejected shipment back to Bose without explanation and with no corrective action taken. When no significant improvement occurred, another supplier replaced the delinquent supplier. Bose has few written contracts with suppliers. After six months of deliveries without rejects, Bose encourages suppliers to apply for a certificate of achievement form, signifying that they are qualified suppliers. One of the primary criteria for gaining certification involves how well the supplier responds to corrective action requests. One of the biggest problems observed is that suppliers often correct problems on individual parts covered by a corrective action form without extending these corrective actions to other part families and applicable parts. Bose has adopted a unique system of marrying just-in-time (JIT) purchasing with global sourcing. Approximately half of the dollar value of Bose’s total purchases are made overseas, with the majority of the sourcing done in Asia. Because foreign sourcing does not support just-in-time deliveries, Bose “had to find a way to blend low inventory with buying from distant sources,” says the director of purchasing and logistics for Bose. Visualizing itself as a customer-driven organization, Bose now uses a sophisticated transportation system—what Bose’s manager of logistics calls “the best EDI system in the country.” Working closely with a national less-than-truckload carrier for the bulk of its domestic freight movements, including shipments arriving at a U.S. port from oversees, Bose implemented an electronic data interchange (EDI) system that does much more than simple tracking. The system operates close to real time and allows two-way communication between every one of the freight handler’s 230 terminals and Bose. Information is updated several times daily and is downloaded automatically, enabling Bose to perform shipping analysis and distribution channel modeling to achieve reliable lowest total cost scenarios. The company can also request removal from a terminal of any shipment that it must expedite with an air shipment. This state-of-the-art system provides a snapshot of what is happening on a daily basis and keeps Bose’s managers on top of everyday occurrences and decisions. Management proactively manages logistics time elements in pursuit of better customer service. The next step is to implement this system with all major suppliers rather than just with transportation suppliers. In the future, Bose plans to automate its entire materials system. Perhaps one of the most unique features of Bose’s procurement and logistics system is the development of JIT II. The basic premise of JIT II is simple: The person who can do the best job of ordering and managing inventory of a particular item is the supplier himself. Bose negotiated with each supplier to provide a full-time employee at the Bose plant who was responsible for ordering, shipping, and receiving materials from that plant, as well as managing on-site inventories of the items. This was done through an EDI connection between Bose’s plant and the supplier’s facility. Collocating suppliers and buyers was so successful that Bose is now implementing it at all plant locations. In fact, many other companies have also begun to implement collocation of suppliers. Assignment Questions The following assignment questions relate to ideas and concepts presented throughout this text. Answer some or all of the questions as directed by your instructor. 1. Discuss how the strategy development process might work at a company like Bose. 2. What should be the relationship between Bose’s supply management strategy and the development of its performance measurement system? 3. Why is purchased quality so important to Bose? 4. Can a just-in-time purchase system operate without total quality from suppliers? 5. Why can some components arrive at the Hillsdale, Michigan, plant with no incoming inspection required? 6. Discuss the reasons why Bose has a certificate of achievement program for identifying qualified suppliers. 7. Bose is moving toward single sourcing many of its purchased part requirements. Discuss why the company might want to do this. Are there any risks to that approach? 8. Discuss some of the difficulties a company like Bose might experience when trying to implement just-in-time purchasing with international suppliers. 9. Why does Bose have to source so much of its purchase requirements from offshore suppliers? 10. What makes the JIT II system at Bose unique? Why would a company pursue this type of system? 11. Why is it necessary to enter into a longer-term contractual arrangement when pursuing arrangements like the one Bose has with its domestic transportation carrier? 12. Why is it important to manage logistics time elements proactively when pursuing higher levels of customer service? 13. What role does information technology play at Bose? 14. What advantages do information technology systems provide to Bose that might not be available to a company that does not have these systems? 15. Why has Bose developed its supplier performance measurement system? 16. Do you think the performance measurement systems at Bose are computerized or manual? Why?

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AT BOSE CORPORATION Bose Corporation, headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts, offers an excellent example of integrated supply chain management. Bose, a producer of audio premium speakers used in automobiles, high-fidelity systems, and consumer and commercial broadcasting systems, was founded in 1964 by Dr. Bose of MIT. Bose currently maintains plants in Massachusetts and Michigan as well as Canada, Mexico, and Ireland. Its purchasing organization, while decentralized, has some overlap that requires coordination between sites. It manages this coordination by using conference calls between managers, electronic communication, and joint problem solving. The company is moving toward single sourcing many of its 800 to 1,000 parts, which include corrugated paper, particle board and wood, plastic injected molded parts, fasteners, glues, woofers, and fabric. Some product components, such as woofers, are sourced overseas. For example, at the Hillsdale, Michigan, plant, foreign sourcing accounts for 20% of purchases, with the remainder of suppliers located immediately within the state of Michigan. About 35% of the parts purchased at this site are single sourced, with approximately half of the components arriving with no incoming inspection performed. In turn, Bose ships finished products directly to Delco, Honda, and Nissan and has a record of no missed deliveries. Normal lead time to customers is 60 working days, but Bose can expedite shipments in one week and airfreight them if necessary. The company has developed a detailed supplier performance system that measures on-time delivery, quality performance, technical improvements, and supplier suggestions. A report is generated twice a month from this system and sent to the supplier providing feedback about supplier performance. If there is a three-week trend of poor performance, Bose will usually establish a specific goal for improvement that the supplier must attain. Examples include 10% delivery improvement every month until 100% conformance is achieved, or 5% quality improvement until a 1% defect level is reached over a four-month period. In one case, a supplier sent a rejected shipment back to Bose without explanation and with no corrective action taken. When no significant improvement occurred, another supplier replaced the delinquent supplier. Bose has few written contracts with suppliers. After six months of deliveries without rejects, Bose encourages suppliers to apply for a certificate of achievement form, signifying that they are qualified suppliers. One of the primary criteria for gaining certification involves how well the supplier responds to corrective action requests. One of the biggest problems observed is that suppliers often correct problems on individual parts covered by a corrective action form without extending these corrective actions to other part families and applicable parts. Bose has adopted a unique system of marrying just-in-time (JIT) purchasing with global sourcing. Approximately half of the dollar value of Bose’s total purchases are made overseas, with the majority of the sourcing done in Asia. Because foreign sourcing does not support just-in-time deliveries, Bose “had to find a way to blend low inventory with buying from distant sources,” says the director of purchasing and logistics for Bose. Visualizing itself as a customer-driven organization, Bose now uses a sophisticated transportation system—what Bose’s manager of logistics calls “the best EDI system in the country.” Working closely with a national less-than-truckload carrier for the bulk of its domestic freight movements, including shipments arriving at a U.S. port from oversees, Bose implemented an electronic data interchange (EDI) system that does much more than simple tracking. The system operates close to real time and allows two-way communication between every one of the freight handler’s 230 terminals and Bose. Information is updated several times daily and is downloaded automatically, enabling Bose to perform shipping analysis and distribution channel modeling to achieve reliable lowest total cost scenarios. The company can also request removal from a terminal of any shipment that it must expedite with an air shipment. This state-of-the-art system provides a snapshot of what is happening on a daily basis and keeps Bose’s managers on top of everyday occurrences and decisions. Management proactively manages logistics time elements in pursuit of better customer service. The next step is to implement this system with all major suppliers rather than just with transportation suppliers. In the future, Bose plans to automate its entire materials system. Perhaps one of the most unique features of Bose’s procurement and logistics system is the development of JIT II. The basic premise of JIT II is simple: The person who can do the best job of ordering and managing inventory of a particular item is the supplier himself. Bose negotiated with each supplier to provide a full-time employee at the Bose plant who was responsible for ordering, shipping, and receiving materials from that plant, as well as managing on-site inventories of the items. This was done through an EDI connection between Bose’s plant and the supplier’s facility. Collocating suppliers and buyers was so successful that Bose is now implementing it at all plant locations. In fact, many other companies have also begun to implement collocation of suppliers. Assignment Questions The following assignment questions relate to ideas and concepts presented throughout this text. Answer some or all of the questions as directed by your instructor. 1. Discuss how the strategy development process might work at a company like Bose. 2. What should be the relationship between Bose’s supply management strategy and the development of its performance measurement system? 3. Why is purchased quality so important to Bose? 4. Can a just-in-time purchase system operate without total quality from suppliers? 5. Why can some components arrive at the Hillsdale, Michigan, plant with no incoming inspection required? 6. Discuss the reasons why Bose has a certificate of achievement program for identifying qualified suppliers. 7. Bose is moving toward single sourcing many of its purchased part requirements. Discuss why the company might want to do this. Are there any risks to that approach? 8. Discuss some of the difficulties a company like Bose might experience when trying to implement just-in-time purchasing with international suppliers. 9. Why does Bose have to source so much of its purchase requirements from offshore suppliers? 10. What makes the JIT II system at Bose unique? Why would a company pursue this type of system? 11. Why is it necessary to enter into a longer-term contractual arrangement when pursuing arrangements like the one Bose has with its domestic transportation carrier? 12. Why is it important to manage logistics time elements proactively when pursuing higher levels of customer service? 13. What role does information technology play at Bose? 14. What advantages do information technology systems provide to Bose that might not be available to a company that does not have these systems? 15. Why has Bose developed its supplier performance measurement system? 16. Do you think the performance measurement systems at Bose are computerized or manual? Why?

info@checkyourstudy.com