Identify legislative and regulative requirements relative to information security for a bank

Identify legislative and regulative requirements relative to information security for a bank

A number of federal laws directly control the collection and … Read More...
Lesson Planning in Sexuality Education Name: Sexuality Topic: Pregnancy & Reproduction Lesson Title: Pregnancy & Reproduction Audience: 12th Grade students Total Time: 90 minutes Lesson Number: 2/3 Step 1. Desired Results : 10 points a. National Sexuality Education Standard(s) AND performance indicator(s) PR.12.CC.1 Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of abstinence and other contraceptive methods, including, condoms PR.12.INF.1 Analyze influences that may have an impact on deciding whether or when to engage in sexual behaviors PR.12.AI.2 Access medically accurate information and resources about emergency contraception b. Behavioral Objectives: (written in measurable terms) • Participants will list at least 5 points when Comparing and contrasting the advantages and disadvantages of abstinence and other contraceptive methods, including, condoms • Participants will list at least 5 factors that impacts on deciding whether or when to engage in sexual behaviors • Participants will list at least 3 resources that will provide medically accurate information and resources about emergency contraception

Lesson Planning in Sexuality Education Name: Sexuality Topic: Pregnancy & Reproduction Lesson Title: Pregnancy & Reproduction Audience: 12th Grade students Total Time: 90 minutes Lesson Number: 2/3 Step 1. Desired Results : 10 points a. National Sexuality Education Standard(s) AND performance indicator(s) PR.12.CC.1 Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of abstinence and other contraceptive methods, including, condoms PR.12.INF.1 Analyze influences that may have an impact on deciding whether or when to engage in sexual behaviors PR.12.AI.2 Access medically accurate information and resources about emergency contraception b. Behavioral Objectives: (written in measurable terms) • Participants will list at least 5 points when Comparing and contrasting the advantages and disadvantages of abstinence and other contraceptive methods, including, condoms • Participants will list at least 5 factors that impacts on deciding whether or when to engage in sexual behaviors • Participants will list at least 3 resources that will provide medically accurate information and resources about emergency contraception

  Sexuality Topic/Content Area:  Pregnancy & Reproduction     RATIONALE … Read More...
The major duties of regulatory boards include which of the following ? a) Determine standards for admission into the profession. b) Screening application applying for certificate or licensure. c) Regulating the practice of psychotherapy for the public good . d) All of the choices.

The major duties of regulatory boards include which of the following ? a) Determine standards for admission into the profession. b) Screening application applying for certificate or licensure. c) Regulating the practice of psychotherapy for the public good . d) All of the choices.

answer d
What is the prime purpose of selecting a composite material over material from the other family groups? MODULE 3 – STRUCTURE OF SOLID MATERIALS The ability of a material to exist in different space lattices is called a. Allotropic b. Crystalline c. Solvent d. Amorphous Amorphous metals develop their microstructure as a result of ___________. a. Dendrites b. Directional solidification c. Slip d. Extremely rapid cooling In an alloy, the material that dissolves the alloying element is the ___________. a. Solute b. Solvent c. Matrix d. Allotrope What is the coordination number (CN) for the fcc structure formed by ions of sodium and chlorine that is in the chemical compound NaCl (salt) ? a. 6 b. 8 c. 14 d. 16 What pressure is normally used in constructing a phase diagram? a. 100 psi b. Depends on material c. Ambient d. Normal atmospheric pressure What line on a binary diagram indicates the upper limit of the solid solution phase? a. Liquidus b. Eutectic c. Eutectoid d. Solidus What holds the atoms (ions) together in a compound such as NaCl are electrostatic forces between ___________. a. Atom and ion b. Covalent bonds c. Electrons and nuclei d. Neutrons Diffusion of atoms through a solid takes place by two main mechanisms. One is diffusion through vacancies in the atomic structure. Another method of diffusion is ___________. a. Cold b. APF c. Substitutional d. Interstitial Give a brief explanation of the Lever rule (P117) Grain boundaries ___________ movement of dislocations through a solid. a. Improve b. Inhibit c. Do not affect Iron can be alloyed with carbon because it is ___________. a. Crystalline b. Amorphous c. A mixture d. Allotropic Metals can be cooled only to crystalline solids. a. T (true) b. F (false) Sketch an fcc unit cell. Metals are classified as crystalline materials. Name one metal that is an amorphous solid and name at least one recent application in which its use is saving energy or providing greater strength and/or corrosion resistance. MODULE 4 – MECHANICAL PROPERTIES Give two examples of a mechanical property. a. Thermal resistance b. Wear resistance c. Hardness d. Strength Scissors used in the home cut material by concentrating forces that ultimately produce a certain type of stress within the material. Identify this stress. a. Bearing stress b. Shearing stress c. Compressive stress An aluminum rod 1 in. in diameter (E =10.4 x 106psi) experiences an elastic tensile strain of 0.0048 in./in. Calculate the stress in the rod. a. 49,920 ksi b. 49,920 psi c. 49,920 msi A 1-in.-diameter steel circular rod is subject to a tensile load that reduces its cross-sectional area to 0.64 in2. Express the rod’s ductility using a standard unit of measure. a. 18.5% b. 1.85% c. 18.5 d. (a) and (c) What term is used to describe the low-temperature creep of polymerics? a. Springback b. Creep rupture c. Cold flow d. Creep forming MODULE 7 – TESTING, FAILURE ANALYSIS, STANDARDS, & INSPECTION Factors of safety are defined either in terms of the ultimate strength of a material or its yield strength. In other words, by the use of a suitable factor, the ultimate or yield strength is reduced in size to what is known as the design stress or safe working stress. Which factor of safety would be more appropriate for a material that will be subjected to repetitious, suddenly applied loads? Product liability court cases have risen sharply in recent years because of poor procedures in selecting materials for particular applications. Assuming that a knowledge of a material’s properties is a valid step in the selection process, cite two examples where such lack of knowledge could or did lead to failure or unsatisfactory performance. Make a sketch and fully dimension an Izod impact test specimen. Which agency publishes the Annual Book of standard test methods used worldwide for evaluation of materials? a. NASA b. NIST c. ASTM d. SPE

What is the prime purpose of selecting a composite material over material from the other family groups? MODULE 3 – STRUCTURE OF SOLID MATERIALS The ability of a material to exist in different space lattices is called a. Allotropic b. Crystalline c. Solvent d. Amorphous Amorphous metals develop their microstructure as a result of ___________. a. Dendrites b. Directional solidification c. Slip d. Extremely rapid cooling In an alloy, the material that dissolves the alloying element is the ___________. a. Solute b. Solvent c. Matrix d. Allotrope What is the coordination number (CN) for the fcc structure formed by ions of sodium and chlorine that is in the chemical compound NaCl (salt) ? a. 6 b. 8 c. 14 d. 16 What pressure is normally used in constructing a phase diagram? a. 100 psi b. Depends on material c. Ambient d. Normal atmospheric pressure What line on a binary diagram indicates the upper limit of the solid solution phase? a. Liquidus b. Eutectic c. Eutectoid d. Solidus What holds the atoms (ions) together in a compound such as NaCl are electrostatic forces between ___________. a. Atom and ion b. Covalent bonds c. Electrons and nuclei d. Neutrons Diffusion of atoms through a solid takes place by two main mechanisms. One is diffusion through vacancies in the atomic structure. Another method of diffusion is ___________. a. Cold b. APF c. Substitutional d. Interstitial Give a brief explanation of the Lever rule (P117) Grain boundaries ___________ movement of dislocations through a solid. a. Improve b. Inhibit c. Do not affect Iron can be alloyed with carbon because it is ___________. a. Crystalline b. Amorphous c. A mixture d. Allotropic Metals can be cooled only to crystalline solids. a. T (true) b. F (false) Sketch an fcc unit cell. Metals are classified as crystalline materials. Name one metal that is an amorphous solid and name at least one recent application in which its use is saving energy or providing greater strength and/or corrosion resistance. MODULE 4 – MECHANICAL PROPERTIES Give two examples of a mechanical property. a. Thermal resistance b. Wear resistance c. Hardness d. Strength Scissors used in the home cut material by concentrating forces that ultimately produce a certain type of stress within the material. Identify this stress. a. Bearing stress b. Shearing stress c. Compressive stress An aluminum rod 1 in. in diameter (E =10.4 x 106psi) experiences an elastic tensile strain of 0.0048 in./in. Calculate the stress in the rod. a. 49,920 ksi b. 49,920 psi c. 49,920 msi A 1-in.-diameter steel circular rod is subject to a tensile load that reduces its cross-sectional area to 0.64 in2. Express the rod’s ductility using a standard unit of measure. a. 18.5% b. 1.85% c. 18.5 d. (a) and (c) What term is used to describe the low-temperature creep of polymerics? a. Springback b. Creep rupture c. Cold flow d. Creep forming MODULE 7 – TESTING, FAILURE ANALYSIS, STANDARDS, & INSPECTION Factors of safety are defined either in terms of the ultimate strength of a material or its yield strength. In other words, by the use of a suitable factor, the ultimate or yield strength is reduced in size to what is known as the design stress or safe working stress. Which factor of safety would be more appropriate for a material that will be subjected to repetitious, suddenly applied loads? Product liability court cases have risen sharply in recent years because of poor procedures in selecting materials for particular applications. Assuming that a knowledge of a material’s properties is a valid step in the selection process, cite two examples where such lack of knowledge could or did lead to failure or unsatisfactory performance. Make a sketch and fully dimension an Izod impact test specimen. Which agency publishes the Annual Book of standard test methods used worldwide for evaluation of materials? a. NASA b. NIST c. ASTM d. SPE

info@checkyourstudy.com
Which statement best describes the process of database administration? Answers: Responsible for the proper use of database management technology Responsible for developing and maintaining the organization’s data dictionary Responsible for designing and monitoring the performance of databases and enforcing standards for database use and security All of the choices are correct

Which statement best describes the process of database administration? Answers: Responsible for the proper use of database management technology Responsible for developing and maintaining the organization’s data dictionary Responsible for designing and monitoring the performance of databases and enforcing standards for database use and security All of the choices are correct

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

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

Standard based Curriculum In standard based curriculum, the initial point … Read More...
Evaluation Methodology , Fall 2015 EVALUATION PROPOSAL GUIDELINES The evaluation proposal is a major application of knowledge assignment for this course. The proposal should represent your cumulative knowledge of evaluation research methodology. You may be required to submit part of this assignment in sequential stages. If so, you will be provided, in writing, the due dates for the various aspects of the proposal. The date for the submission of the entire proposal is indicated in your course outline. The below components must be included in the proposal. I. Introduction (maximum 10 pages) A. Description of the Program and Organization (the Evaluand) (In this section, be sure to describe who, what, when, and how long the program has been in place; describe the program, types of people involved in the program, and the types of services offered; briefly discussed need for program as determined by program managers) I. Organizational Overview 1. Program Mission, Goals, SMART Objectives, Activities, Resources 2. Organizational Context of the Program II. Program Logic Model of Evaluand (insert program logic model from your previous assignment, attending to feedback from instructor and classmates) III. Significance of the Program and the Evaluation Discuss the Rationale of the Evaluation B. Evaluation Goals, Objectives, and Stakeholders Objectives of the Evaluation Study Description of Key Direct and Indirect Evaluation Stakeholders (e.g., clients, agents, beneficiaries, etc.) Potential Constraints and Barriers of the Evaluation Evaluation Proposal Guidelines (continued) C. Evaluation Approach, Questions and/or Hypotheses Evaluation Approach/Guiding Framework Evaluation Questions (at least three process and three outcome questions) Describe How Evaluation Questions Will Be Generated II. Methodology (maximum 10 pages) A. Participants Target Population/Sample Plan (describe the target population/sample from whom you intend to obtain collect data; justify sampling procedures by relating them to stakeholder characteristics, evaluation questions and criteria, and constraints of the evaluation) Handling Respondents’ Confidentiality and Ethical Concerns (include Informed Consent Form) B. Instrumentation Data Collection Instruments/Measures Describe Measures, Justify Choices, Address Issues of Validity, Reliability, and Cultural/Contextual Relevance; Rationale for Selection of Instruments C. Evaluation Design Data Collection Procedures (Research Design – Qualitative, Quantitative, Mixed Methods) Explain Choice for Data Collection Methods Selected D. Data Map (set up a data map or summary table to show how each step of the evaluation is related to each other); see example below) Evaluation Methodology Evaluation Proposal Guidelines (continued) Table 1. Data Map of Evaluation of the Kids House Afterschool Program (An Illustrative Example) Evaluation Questions Methodology Data Collection Strategy Timeline Does the program provide individual tutoring to the children in the community three days per week, as intended? (process question) Document analysis Evaluator will review copies of program’s weekly service delivery records Ongoing Has the program reached it intended target population? (process question) Document analysis Evaluator will review documents describing the children being served Six weeks after program start How satisfied are the children and their parents (guardian) with the Kids house Program? Qualitative Focus group interviews with the children in the program and separately with their parents (guardian) Ongoing after two weeks program start Did the children in the Kids House Program demonstrate significant improvements in reading? Quantitative Pretest/Posttest Questionnaire Pretest at first session Posttest at last session E. Projected Statistical Analysis of Data F. Data Collection Schedule (Timetable) (must be described in chart form) G. Standards for Evaluation (describe how your proposed evaluation will meet the Program Evaluation Standards – utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy, accountability and the AEA Guiding Principles for Evaluation) III. Evaluation Products and Communication Plan (maximum two pages) A. Listing of Deliverable or Products Evaluation Methodology Evaluation Proposal Guidelines (continued) B. Communicating Results: The Evaluation Report (describe plan for communicating evaluation findings during the evaluation and at the end of the evaluation – orally? written report? combination? who will you involve in a discussion of the findings and why) . C. Potential Use of Findings for Aiding Direct and Indirect Stakeholders IV. Staffing, Management Plan, and Budget (maximum two pages) A. Describe tasks, deadlines, and who completes them? B. Describe the time, money, and other resources required for addressing your evaluation questions C. Include a narrative a budget and time schedule in table format V. References (minimum of three sources) VI. Appendices (include copies of instruments, consent forms, etc.) VII. Reflective Journaling (Separate Document) Using a diary format, describe// explain what you have learned about yourself and the evaluation profession by taking this course and writing this proposal Other Important Proposal Guidelines A. Typed, double space, 12 point font; one-inch margins on all sides B. Include title page, table of contents, and (if applicable) listing of figures and/or tables C. Maximum of 25 pages (excluding cover page, references, appendices) D. Proper and complete citation for all materials and sources using the American Psychological Association Style Manual (latest edition). Evaluation Methodology Evaluation Proposal Guidelines (cont’d.) E. As a general rule, sources (unless a classic) must be within the past decade and statistical/demographic data no earlier than 2009

Evaluation Methodology , Fall 2015 EVALUATION PROPOSAL GUIDELINES The evaluation proposal is a major application of knowledge assignment for this course. The proposal should represent your cumulative knowledge of evaluation research methodology. You may be required to submit part of this assignment in sequential stages. If so, you will be provided, in writing, the due dates for the various aspects of the proposal. The date for the submission of the entire proposal is indicated in your course outline. The below components must be included in the proposal. I. Introduction (maximum 10 pages) A. Description of the Program and Organization (the Evaluand) (In this section, be sure to describe who, what, when, and how long the program has been in place; describe the program, types of people involved in the program, and the types of services offered; briefly discussed need for program as determined by program managers) I. Organizational Overview 1. Program Mission, Goals, SMART Objectives, Activities, Resources 2. Organizational Context of the Program II. Program Logic Model of Evaluand (insert program logic model from your previous assignment, attending to feedback from instructor and classmates) III. Significance of the Program and the Evaluation Discuss the Rationale of the Evaluation B. Evaluation Goals, Objectives, and Stakeholders Objectives of the Evaluation Study Description of Key Direct and Indirect Evaluation Stakeholders (e.g., clients, agents, beneficiaries, etc.) Potential Constraints and Barriers of the Evaluation Evaluation Proposal Guidelines (continued) C. Evaluation Approach, Questions and/or Hypotheses Evaluation Approach/Guiding Framework Evaluation Questions (at least three process and three outcome questions) Describe How Evaluation Questions Will Be Generated II. Methodology (maximum 10 pages) A. Participants Target Population/Sample Plan (describe the target population/sample from whom you intend to obtain collect data; justify sampling procedures by relating them to stakeholder characteristics, evaluation questions and criteria, and constraints of the evaluation) Handling Respondents’ Confidentiality and Ethical Concerns (include Informed Consent Form) B. Instrumentation Data Collection Instruments/Measures Describe Measures, Justify Choices, Address Issues of Validity, Reliability, and Cultural/Contextual Relevance; Rationale for Selection of Instruments C. Evaluation Design Data Collection Procedures (Research Design – Qualitative, Quantitative, Mixed Methods) Explain Choice for Data Collection Methods Selected D. Data Map (set up a data map or summary table to show how each step of the evaluation is related to each other); see example below) Evaluation Methodology Evaluation Proposal Guidelines (continued) Table 1. Data Map of Evaluation of the Kids House Afterschool Program (An Illustrative Example) Evaluation Questions Methodology Data Collection Strategy Timeline Does the program provide individual tutoring to the children in the community three days per week, as intended? (process question) Document analysis Evaluator will review copies of program’s weekly service delivery records Ongoing Has the program reached it intended target population? (process question) Document analysis Evaluator will review documents describing the children being served Six weeks after program start How satisfied are the children and their parents (guardian) with the Kids house Program? Qualitative Focus group interviews with the children in the program and separately with their parents (guardian) Ongoing after two weeks program start Did the children in the Kids House Program demonstrate significant improvements in reading? Quantitative Pretest/Posttest Questionnaire Pretest at first session Posttest at last session E. Projected Statistical Analysis of Data F. Data Collection Schedule (Timetable) (must be described in chart form) G. Standards for Evaluation (describe how your proposed evaluation will meet the Program Evaluation Standards – utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy, accountability and the AEA Guiding Principles for Evaluation) III. Evaluation Products and Communication Plan (maximum two pages) A. Listing of Deliverable or Products Evaluation Methodology Evaluation Proposal Guidelines (continued) B. Communicating Results: The Evaluation Report (describe plan for communicating evaluation findings during the evaluation and at the end of the evaluation – orally? written report? combination? who will you involve in a discussion of the findings and why) . C. Potential Use of Findings for Aiding Direct and Indirect Stakeholders IV. Staffing, Management Plan, and Budget (maximum two pages) A. Describe tasks, deadlines, and who completes them? B. Describe the time, money, and other resources required for addressing your evaluation questions C. Include a narrative a budget and time schedule in table format V. References (minimum of three sources) VI. Appendices (include copies of instruments, consent forms, etc.) VII. Reflective Journaling (Separate Document) Using a diary format, describe// explain what you have learned about yourself and the evaluation profession by taking this course and writing this proposal Other Important Proposal Guidelines A. Typed, double space, 12 point font; one-inch margins on all sides B. Include title page, table of contents, and (if applicable) listing of figures and/or tables C. Maximum of 25 pages (excluding cover page, references, appendices) D. Proper and complete citation for all materials and sources using the American Psychological Association Style Manual (latest edition). Evaluation Methodology Evaluation Proposal Guidelines (cont’d.) E. As a general rule, sources (unless a classic) must be within the past decade and statistical/demographic data no earlier than 2009

The primary goals of inventory managers are to maintain a sufficient quantity of inventory to meet customers’ needs, ensure inventory quality meets customers’ expectations and company standards, and minimize the cost of acquiring and carrying inventory.

The primary goals of inventory managers are to maintain a sufficient quantity of inventory to meet customers’ needs, ensure inventory quality meets customers’ expectations and company standards, and minimize the cost of acquiring and carrying inventory.

Question 4   The primary goals of inventory managers are … Read More...