discussion 1882

As a network administrator of a  Windows 2016 infrastructure, you will be called upon to use some of the  Server 2016 features that enhance performance and security for the  network.  Your network contains many peripheral devices, about 10  computers running Windows 8.1/10 and a server with Windows 2016 Server.

1. Based on your reading and labs that you may have started this  week, what do you think would be a good domain model to fit your  organization and why? 

2. Do you think it might change if you had more or fewer PCs running Windows 8/10? 

Flesh out your thoughts and interact with your classmates.  Post your initial response by Wednesday each week  and then return on a couple of other days to see what’s going on with  the discussions.  The more you interact, the more you learn from your  peers, and the more you share with them about what you know.  You’ll  also be showing your instructor what you’ve picked up.

the balance sheet 2

Choose one of the financial statements that were covered in this module: The Balance Sheet, The Statement of Operations, The Statement of Changes in Net Assets, or the Statement of Cash Flows. In your own words, explain what important information it provides and why it is necessary. Refer to your chosen topic and reference its relevance. Lastly, can you think of some important information not included on your chosen statement? Why do you think the other financial statements are needed?

https://ambassadored.vitalsource.com/#/books/97811…

complete short business assignment 2

Assignment 1: Identifying the Organizational Learning Issues

Due Week 3 and worth 250 points

Suppose that your organization, or an organization with which you are familiar, is dealing with a major issue in transitioning individual learning (e.g., sharing knowledge, training programs, working as a team, experiences, procedures, processes, etc.) into organizational learning. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has asked you, as the Vice President of Human Resources, to assist with the issue and to help the organization transition its culture to this new way of learning. Before you provide any recommendations to address the issue, you must first research the root of the problem and the resistance to this transition.

Note: You may create and / or make all necessary assumptions needed for the completion of this assignment. In your original work, you may use aspects of existing processes from either your current or a former place of employment. However, you must remove any and all identifying information that would enable someone to discern the organization[s] that you have used.

Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:

  1. Assess the organization’s culture as it relates to shared knowledge, then specify the significant issue(s) that you discovered with the culture. Determine the disconnect you observed between the culture and organizational learning using three (3) of the five (5) mystifications. Support your response with at least one (1) example of each selected mystification within the organization.
  2. Give your opinion on the current Organizational Learning Mechanism(s) (OLMs) that hinder organizational learning. Support your response with one (1) example of a training or learning initiative (e.g., sharing knowledge, training programs, working as a team, experiences, procedures, processes, etc.) and the outcome when it was applied to the organization.
  3. Determine which one (1) of the following OLMs is suitable for replacing the identified OLM(s) that hinder organizational learning as a corrective action to facilitate the transition from individual to organizational learning: Off-line/Internal, On-line/Internal, Off-line/External or On-line/External. Justify your selection.
  4. Evaluate the norms of the organization’s learning culture to determine the source(s) that currently prevent productive learning by applying two (2) of the following norms: inquiry, issue orientation, transparency, integrity or accountability. Provide at least one (1) example of each of the selected norms’ manifestation within the organization in your evaluation.
  5. Use at least five (5) quality academic references in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia does not qualify as an academic resource.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

  • Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
  • Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

  • Examine the processes of how organizations learn and organizational barriers that impact the process.
  • Use technology and information resources to research issues in developing a learning organization.
  • Write clearly and concisely about developing a learning organization using proper writing mechanic.

7 4 week 7 short responses

Week 7 Short Responses – Question 1

Name three historical lenses that you could apply to gain a fuller picture of the relationship between Natives and white settlers. Be sure to respond to this question in two to three sentences, using proper grammar.

Week 7 Short Responses – Question 2

Revise the thesis statement at the top of this page to reflect a more complex view of the relationship between Natives and white settlers. Your revised thesis statement should be longer than one sentence.

Conflicts between Natives and white settlers in the early 19th century can be attributable to one overarching cause: disputes over land.

Week 7 Short Responses – Question 3

Name three historical lenses that you could use to look at the events described in the video you just saw. (transcript below)

The First Thanksgiving

The story of the first Thanksgiving feast in 1621 is familiar to most of us. A couple of English speaking natives named Squanto and Samoset befriend the Pilgrims of Plymouth. Squanto teaches the Pilgrims how to plant corn and, after the harvest comes in, the natives and the Pilgrims join together for a feast. It’s a heartwarming story, really, but most historians would agree that it never happened that way.

For starters, it certainly wasn’t the first. There had been Thanksgiving celebrations in North America well before 1621 among Spanish explorers and settlers in Texas and Florida and among the Jamestown settlers in Virginia. Second, the Pilgrims weren’t much for feasting and merrymaking. They were Puritans, and to them a Thanksgiving was primarily a day of prayer and religious observance declared to express thanks to God for some specific event. While there are records of many days of Thanksgiving being declared in Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies in the 17th century, hardly any of them involved a feast. And there’s no clear record of one in 1621.

Many historians, in fact, believe that traditional Thanksgiving story is a historical myth that for a variety of reasons President Abraham Lincoln seized on when he was trying to unify the North during the Civil War.

But does that mean that Squanto, Samoset, and all the other natives, are just a figment of our historical imaginations? Hardly. These were real people and their story is more complex than most Americans realize.

For starters, there’s Squanto. His name in the Wampanoag language was Tesquantum, which translates roughly to “divine rage.” How did he just happen to speak English, and why did he approach the Pilgrims so readily? Tisquantum was born in a Patuxet village in what is now southeastern Massachusetts. But as a young man, he was taken captive by English explorers and brought back to England as a slave. He learned English and eventually gained his freedom. Close to fifteen years later, as a member of a British expedition, he finally returned to his homeland, only to discover that the Patuxet had been completely wiped out years earlier by an epidemic of smallpox or a similar disease of European origin.

Tisquantum became friendly with Massasoit, the Grand Sachem of the Wampanoag people. The Wampanoag, like the Patuxet, had been devastated by disease, and they were being increasingly threatened by the Narragansett people of what is now Rhode Island. Along with another English-speaking native named Samoset, Tisquantum acted as the intermediary between Massasoit and the pilgrim leaders as they forged a political alliance.

A treaty between the Pilgrims and Wampanoag, signed on March 22, 1621, committed both sides to a mutual defense alliance against their common enemies. The alliance benefited both sides for a while, but the long term consequences were not so felicitous. Relations between the natives and the settlers began to fray as more Englishmen, both Puritans and non-religious settlers, arrived in New England, tipping the balance of power in favor of the English. Massasoit kept the Wampanoag neutral in the Pequot War of the late 1630s, in which hundreds of natives were killed and hundreds more were taken captive and sold into slavery. But many other Wampanoag were outraged by English atrocities.

After Massasoit died, his son Metacomet, often known by his English name King Philip, became leader of the Wampanoag. In 1675, after the English executed three Wampanoag for the murder of another native, Metacomet struck back. In an alliance with their former enemies, the Narragansett, the Wampanoag enjoyed some early battlefield successes in what became known as King Philip’s War. But the alliance between the Wampanoag and Narragansett soon unraveled, and by 1676 the war, the bloodiest confrontation between natives and settlers in the history of New England, was all but over. Metacomet was killed in June of that year. By the end of the war, the native population of southern New England had been reduced by half, and the Wampanoag and Narragansett had virtually ceased to exist.

In late June of 1676, after a series of military successes by the English, the governing counsel of the Puritan town of Charlestown, Massachusetts, decided to celebrate the coming end of “the present war with the heathen natives of this land.” To mark the occasion, of course, they declared a day of Thanksgiving.

Week 7 Short Responses – Question 4

Massasoit’s decision to approach the Pilgrims about an alliance was contingent on what previous event or events? (Name one or two.)

Week 7 Short Responses – Question 5

Name one short-term consequence and one long-term consequence of the alliance between the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims

Week 7 Short Responses – Question 6

How has your understanding of the historical event in your essay changed as a result of your research? Describe one instance of a misconception or a wrong idea you had about your topic that has been corrected after researching and writing about it. (Topic is Apollo Missions to the moon)

Week 7 Short Responses – Question 7

Name four historical lenses through which you could analyze the events of the Cherokee Removal. Specify one aspect of this event for each lens that you cite.

Week 7 Short Responses – Question 8

Agree or disagree with the following thesis statement: “The Treaty of New Echota was invalid, and the National Party was correct to oppose it.” Cite at least three historical facts that support your position.

five page single spaced argumentative essay on judges beliefs in a particular vase philosophy essay

Read the DIRECTIONS Carefully!!

Paper must FLOW when making arguments and writing the paper. Meaning no confusing paragraphs or sentences!!

Articles you must read: Macintrye, Cristiano, Hurd, Smith, McGarth, Raz, and the two handouts

I don’t want you to use other sources beside the article I have uploaded

READ ALL OF THE ARTICLES I’VE GIVEN YOU TO READ AND YOU MUST INCLUDE OTHER AUTHORS IN THE ESSAY. YOU MUST COMPARE AND CONTRAST YOUR ARGUMENT WITH THEIR ARGUMENTS. WHAT YOU AGREE AND DISAGREE WITH THE AUTHORS ARGUMENTS!!!!!!! YOU CAN’T MAKE THE EXACT SAME POINTS AS THE AUTHORS. THINK ABOUT HOW THE AUTHORS AND AUDIENCE WOULD RESPOND TO YOUR ARGUMENTS , ESPECIALLY FOR COUNTEREXAMPLES. MAKE STRAIGHT FORWARD ARGUMENTS!! YOU CANNOT USE THE AUTHORS ARGUMENTS . MAKE YOUR OWN UNIQUE ARGUMENT !!

You might want to do a little bit of research paper writing the thesis proposal.

There must be NO plagiarism or grammatical errors of any kind!! PLEASE PROOFREAD THREE TIMES BEFORE SUBMITTING IT TO ME

I want someone who is an EXPERT in philosophy and philosophical questions !! THIS IS NOT AN EASY WRITING ASSIGNMENT . IT WILL REQUIRES A LOT OF CRITICAL THINKING

Paper 2 topics and theses

Craft a thesis which answers all of the following questions:

Do beliefs affect whether it is morally wrong/permissible/obligatory for a judge to adhere or deviate in a particular case?
– If so, whose beliefs? (The judge’s? The voters’? The legislature’s? Someone else’s?)
– If so, which beliefs of those believers? (Any? Just the reasonable ones? Just the ones that are produced through social deliberations? Just the true ones? Etc.)
– If so, how? (Do they fully determine what is wrong or permissible? Do they just provide some reasons, and if so, how weighty of reasons?)
– If not, why not?

You can limit your thesis to being just about moral beliefs, or talk about both moral and descriptive beliefs, but you cannot just talk about descriptive beliefs. If you think only descriptive beliefs affect what a judge should do, your paper would have to also argue that moral beliefs do not. If you do limit your thesis, make that clear in your thesis.

If you want, you can talk about beliefs only, or beliefs and credences, or credences only.

A note on trivial theses
This applies to both pre-approved and novel theses. A trivial thesis is one that no one can argue against, because it is true basically by definition. For example: “Judges have an obligation to adhere when the reasons strongly favor adherence over deviation.” That’s not worth writing about; the thesis is not saying anything of substance. You are not allowed to write on trivial, or partly trivial, theses.

Paper grading rubric

Paper Part 1:
60% of your grade.

Thesis:
These criteria on the thesis are a minimum bar for a passing paper. If you far exceed them, it’s not going to push your grade up. But if you fail to meet them, it will be very hard to get even a decent grade. This is because your thesis is what makes sense of everything else you say in the paper.

******THESIS MUST BE TRUE AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE!! THESIS MUST BE AN ARGUMENT!!
1. Your topic and questions are either pre-approved or Brian has approved it in writing. Topics/questions that are different in any meaningful way from what has been approved can potentially result in an F.
1a. Your thesis is your answer to all the questions posed for your topic.
* Your thesis must be the first thing you say in the paper, and explained immediately after.
2. Your thesis is not trivial or partly trivial. Trivial theses can potentially result in an F. A thesis can be graded down for being somewhat trivial.
3. Any terms that are vague, ambiguous, or unclear are defined or explained early in your paper. A reader should be able to think of example situations and determine exactly what your thesis says about them.

Argument for your thesis:
4. The argument gives evidence which could be compelling to a reasonable person who has understood the course material and started out not agreeing with your thesis.
5. The evidence is sufficient to establish that your entire thesis is true – you sufficiently argue for all of the answers to all of the relevant questions.
6. It is clear and well explained how the evidence supports your thesis, and why the evidence is sufficient to establish that your thesis is true.

Response to “obvious” objections.
7. You identify and explain all of the obvious objections to your thesis or to the points you made in making your arguments.
* An obvious objection is anything discussed in class or in the reading that seems to go against your thesis or the points you make in arguing for your thesis. Obvious objections also include any objections that would come to mind to a reasonable and attentive reader who had taken this class, given a modicum of reflection about your claims.
8. For each objection, you correctly characterize what the disagreement is and why it exists.
9. You respond to each obvious objection. This involves either explaining why the apparent disagreement is not a real disagreement, or why the objection is mistaken or irrelevant.
10. The response to the objection must be clear, and must be able to able to convince a reasonable person who had made that objection.
(Note: I will apply 8-10 separately to each obvious objection you discuss. If you leave out an obvious objection, this is like getting an F for that objection)

Grading standards 4, 5, and 9 are the most heavily weighted in determining the grade for part 1.

Part 2. Non-obvious objection
20% of your grade

11. Gives one counterexample to your thesis. This must be significantly different from anything discussed in class or in the readings.

* A counterexample to your thesis is a specific example (not a general worry) that is supposed to directly show that your thesis is false (rather than undermining one of the arguments for your thesis).
12. The counterexample is plausible, relevant to the thesis, and not ruled out by what is said in Part 1. A reasonable person who had read Part 1 and taken this class could think that this counterexample disproves your thesis.
* It must not be the case that small changes to the counterexample would clearly make it a better counterexample.
13. It is explained why the counterexample is relevant to the thesis, why it shows that the thesis is false, and why a reasonable person would believe it is a strong counterexample.

Part 3. Response to the non-obvious objection
20% of your grade

Note: If part 2 is very weak, then part 3 cannot get a high grade. A response to a bad objection does not demonstrate philosophical understanding.
14. Gives an argument that the objection does not show your thesis is false.
* This must not misinterpret the objection.
* This does not change the thesis.
* The response does not rely on details of the counterexample that could easily be changed.
15. The response gives evidence which could be compelling to a reasonable person who was initially convinced by the example from Part 2.
16. The evidence is sufficient to show that the counterexample does not disprove your thesis.
17. It is clear and well explained how the evidence responds to the counterexample.
18. The response does not change or misuse the meanings of any terms discussed in class or in the reading.
19. The response does not rely on any misunderstandings of concepts or arguments from class or the reading.

General standards:
These apply to the entire paper.
20. Any discussion of ideas, terms, or arguments from class or the readings is correct and accurate (This is extremely important; mistakes about class material can bring down your grade significantly).
21. The meaning of every sentence is clear.
22. No significant grammar/spelling/word choice errors.
23. No use of quotations unless absolutely necessary. My general policy is to not read quotes at all. I should be able to understand everything in your paper without them.


Formatting
Your grade will be reduced 1/3 of a grade (e.g. from a B+ to B) for each of these rules you break.
* ID page: after the last body page, add a new page with nothing on it but your name; put your name at the bottom of this page. This allows us to grade all papers anonymously.
* Do not put your name, or any other identifying marks, anywhere on the paper except for your ID page.
* Single spaced, 1″ margins, 12 point font (Times New Roman or something very similar. I recommend Garamond).
* No introduction or conclusion. You thesis is the first thing you say.
* Must be in .doc or .docx format.
* The file name must be “[your student id number] [course number] PAPER 1.doc” or “.docx”.
* Please label “Part 1,” “Part 2,” and “Part 3” of your paper (see above for what goes in each part).
* If you are writing on a topic or questions that was not pre-approved, you must have gotten approval by email from Brian. If you did, please put a footnote after your thesis saying “This thesis was approved by Brian on [date].”

Length
* The paper can be as long as you want. However, if it goes over 5 single spaced pages, excluding bibliography and ID page, you will be marked down for any unnecessary material. Material is unnecessary if it is not needed to fulfill the above grading standards. So, going over 5 pages is fine as long as it is done to satisfy the above grading standards

Paper overview

This is my attempt to explain in plain language what the paper is supposed to do. The official grading rubric, which I will use to grade, is posted on a different page.

Audience( keep this in mid as you are writing the paper)

YOU MUST THINK ABOUT ALL THE POSSIBLE QUESTION THE AUDIENCE MIGHT HAVE WHILE READING THE ESSAY.

FOR EXAMPLE , WHAT ARE YOU NOT ADDRESSING WITH YOUR ARGUMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE PERSPECTIVE

The audience for the paper is a reasonable person who has taken this class, understood everything we have covered, and starts off disagreeing with your thesis. Keep this audience in mind as you write your paper.

Part 1
Part 1 will be read and graded independently from part 2 and 3. Ideas and arguments in part 2 or 3 will not contribute to your grade for part 1.

Part 1 gets an A if it could convince the audience that your thesis is true. This means that Part 1 must do all of the following:

Part 1 must explain what your thesis means. Any unclear or ambiguous terms should be explained. Given this explanation, a person should be able to think of example situations and determine what your thesis would say about them. If they cannot, then no one can tell whether or not Part 1 could convince your audience, since we don’t know what it is trying to convince the audience.

Part 1 must contain an argument for your thesis. The argument must give evidence that your thesis is true, evidence which could convince the audience. Remember, your audience starts off disagreeing with you; don’t give arguments that would only convince someone who already shares your view. The argument should address every aspect of your thesis: if your thesis has multiple conditions, or answers multiple questions, you must argue for all of these.

Part 1 must address all obvious objections. Your thesis, and/or your arguments, will seemingly disagree with arguments we covered in class, or ideas in the readings. Or, there may be problems with your arguments, or counterexamples to your thesis, that your audience would very easily think of. These are “obvious” objections – objections that your audience will know of, which must be addressed in order to convince your audience.

So, your paper must state all the obvious objections. For each, it must explain why this objection would seem relevant to your thesis or arguments.

Your paper must respond to each objection (showing that your thesis is still true) in a way that could satisfy your audience. This will require giving evidence that your audience would find compelling.

Part 2
In Part 2, you must give a reasonable counterexample to your thesis.

This must be a specific example, which is significantly different from any we have covered in class, or anything that was in the reading. You must clearly explain the specific situation that is your counterexample. And you must clearly explain why someone would think that this is a strong counterexample to your thesis.

To get an A, you must both give a counterexample to your thesis that could convince a reasonable person that your thesis is false, and also clearly explain why a reasonable person could be convinced by it, in a way that shows that you understand (some of) those who disagree with you.

Part 3
In Part 3, you must respond to the counterexample given in Part 2. You may not change your thesis, nor change any part of the objection from Part 2.

Your response should be able to convince a person who was originally compelled by the example in Part 2.

If your response shows that there is a better counterexample to your thesis than the one in Part 2 (e.g. it focuses on a detail of Part 2 that could easily be changed to make Part 2 a better counterexample), that is bad for your grade.

If Part 2 is a weak or bad counterexample to your thesis, then you cannot get a good grade for Part 3; this is because Part 3 does not demonstrate your ability to really engage with people who disagree with you.

KEY WORDS DEFINITIONS. I WANT YOU TO INCLUDE THEM THE ESSAY AND APPLY THEM ACCORDINGLY. IN OTHER WORD,S THEY MUST FIT THE PARAGRAPH,

FEEL FREE YOU GOOGLE IF YOU NEED A BETTER DEFINITION OF THE WORD!!

Standpoints: Be able to explain what the legal and prudential standpoint are. Be able to give examples that illustrate the difference between the different standpoints of evaluation (legal, prudential, moral) – e.g. give an example of something that is legally wrong but morally permissible, legally wrong but prudentially permissible, morally wrong but legally permissible, morally wrong but prudentially permissible, prudentially wrong but legally or morally permissible. If given claims about what is wrong or permissible, be able to say which standpoint these are most plausible from and why.

Wrongness: Be able to give plausible examples of permissible, wrong, and obligatory actions (from each of three standpoints – moral, legal, prudential). Be able to give examples of acts that are morally wrong but also wrong to prevent, acts that are morally permissible but morally permissible to prevent, and acts that are morally obligatory but morally permissible to prevent. Be able to rewrite sentences using “wrong,” “permissible,” “duty,” or “obligation” into sentences using the other terms, which mean the same things.

Reasons and prima facie duties: Key terms: “reason for,” “reason against,” “prima facie duty,” “overriding,” “conflict.” Be able to explain what each of these mean, and give plausible examples of each. Be able to give examples in which there are moral reasons for doing x and moral reasons against doing x (for the same x, at the same time); be able to explain what is morally wrong or permissible for a person to do in that situation and why. Be able to give examples in which two prima facie moral duties conflict, and one duty overrides the other; be able to explain what is wrong and permissible for the person to do in that situation. If I give you examples of situations, be able to identify the moral reasons for and against the available options.

Free riding / complicity: Key terms: “free ride,” “free riding,” “complicit,” “complicity.” Be able to explain each term in your own words. Be able to give examples of each. If I give you examples of situations, be able to identify if they are examples of free riding or complicity (or neither) and explain why. Be able to give examples where acts seem morally wrong because they are free riding, or morally wrong because they are complicity, and examples where free riding seems morally permissible or complicity seems morally permissible. Note: it is easy to give examples where doing x is wrong and doing x makes a person complicit, but the complicity is not clearly what makes x wrong (the same for free riding). For example, a person who runs someone over with a very polluting car is complicit in climate change. Is this wrong because of the complicity? It’s most clearly wrong because it is a murder, not because of the complicity. When you give examples of acts that are wrong because they free riding/complicity, don’t give examples like that.

Adherence/deviation: Key terms: “adhere,” “deviate.” Be able to explain what each means, and give your own examples of each. If I give you examples of acts, be able to identify if they are acts of adherence or deviation or neither, and to explain why. Be sure that you understand that adhering or deviating involves applying or misapplying legal rules; it’s not the same as what we normally call “breaking the law” (i.e. it is not doing something criminal).

Demandingness: Key term “demanding.” Be able to give an example in which there is usually aprima facie moral duty to do x, but some specific person does not have that duty because it would be too demanding for them. Be able to give an example where a moral duty to do x is somewhat demanding for a person, but that person still has a moral duty to do x. If I give you examples, be able to correctly identify if they are examples involving demandingness. Be able to distinguish between cases where there is no duty to do x because that would be overly demanding, and cases where there is no duty to do x because x is impossible to do.

Authority: Key terms: “authority,” “content independent reason.” Be able to explain what each means. Be able to give plausible examples of authorities outside the context of the law (you don’t have to agree that these are authorities, you just need to have some examples that others will find plausible). If I give examples, be able to explain whether or not these terms apply to them.

First and second order reasons: Key terms: “first order reason,” “second order reason,” “exclusionary reason” (this last one is a concept from Raz and is explained in the Hurd reading). Be able to explain what each of these are. Be able to give plausible examples of each (you may not believe that, e.g., exclusionary reasons exist, but you should be able to give an example that would be plausible to someone who does believe in these types of reasons). Be able to give examples in which a particular fact is (or gives) both first and second order reasons. If I give you examples, be able to explain whether they are first or second order reasons (or both or neither).

Causal, explanatory, and justificatory reasons: Key terms: “causal reason,” “explanatory reason,” “justificatory reason.” Be able to give an example of causal reasons and explanatory reasons that are not moral justificatory reasons. Be able to give examples of moral justificatory reasons that do not cause any event or explain any event. Be able to give examples of moral reasons that also do cause or explain events.

Moral vs. descriptive beliefs: Be able to give examples of beliefs that are clearly moral and beliefs that are clearly descriptive. Be able to give examples of disagreements about moral questions that are fundamentally driven by disagreements in descriptive beliefs, and disagreements that are based in moral beliefs (for example: when people disagree about how we should fight climate change, this is often based on different beliefs about what would actually work, which are are descriptive beliefs; people who disagree about what is right to do in trolley cases share all the same descriptive beliefs about the cases, but have different moral views). If I give you examples of beliefs, or of disagreements, be able to identify whether they are moral beliefs or descriptive, or whether they involve disagreements in moral or descriptive beliefs, and be able to explain why.

case study in assessment of early childhood education

Analyses of case studies affords you an opportunity to bridge the roles of scholar and practitioner. Make sure to anchor your responses in relevant references and resources. Include information from the course videos, readings, and/or from reputable outside sources (e.g., peer-reviewed journals, professional organizations). Good answers show that you have the ability to connect theory to practice.

As Early Childhood Educators, we are constantly faced with assessing and then instructional planning from the data collected.

Consider the following scenario continuing on from the case study in lesson one about Hudson. A few months later:

Back in September, kindergarten teacher Mrs. Garrard met with the mother of Hudson explaining that he should be encouraged to speak up more at home, and the siblings should allow Hudson to speak for himself. This and other interventions (scaffolding him to share with a partner, then to speak in small groups, and ultimately share in front of the whole group) have really helped Hudson with speaking in front of the class. By late November, Hudson is speaking more comfortably in front of the students. Next, Mrs. Garrard would like to assess the class on Arizona State Standard K.SL.3 – Ask and answer questions in order to seek help, get information, or clarify something that is not understood. Now, Hudson will be challenged to proactively seek help and ask clarifying questions, not just share in front of the group. Mrs. Garrard wants to collect data to share at parent/teacher conferences in early February. This will take some thoughtful planning and require intentional teaching on the part of Mrs. Garrard.

In a one- to two-page paper with proper APA format and citations, respond to the following prompts:

How will Mrs. Garrard use curriculum based measurements that are developmentally appropriate in order to assess K.SL.3?

  • What will be her course of action?
  • How often will she assess?
  • How will she collect the data?
  • How will she document that data?
  • How will she communicate the results of these assessments with Hudson’s family at parent/teacher conferences?

abnormal psychology paper 1

Students will be required to complete a 5 to 7-page paper on a topic in psychology that has been covered in this classroom at some point during the semester. The topics may be chosen from material that was covered in the course textbook or through course lectures. Students may choose their own topic for their paper but are encouraged to notify Professor Jones of what topic they decided to write about. Students may feel free to also ask Professor Jones for advice on choosing a proper topic. Students should choose a research journal article about their topic. Students are asked to summarize the research study, discuss how the article relates to the psychological topics that we discussed in class, and give a brief critique of the article. The paper should be written in 12-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, with one-inch margins. The required length of the paper does not include title or reference pages. This paper may be handed in anytime during the semester, but is required to be handed in by the specified date in the course schedule.

write a one page summary on your understanding of xbrl and ixbrl include references

If you cannot attend the EY event on 4/19 due to a conflict (such as working or taking another class), you can write one page summary on your understanding of XBRL and iXBRL. You can find information in Chapter 10 and also online. Make sure you include references (work cited) in your write up (otherwise, no points). You also need to provide one sentence at the beginning of your writeup to let me know why you cannot go to the EY workshop.

accounting pr 7 1

Please see the attached excel and directions