Get help from the best in academic writing.

Week 4 Tech. based training methods

Homework Market / By
Week 4 Tech. based training methods. I don’t understand this Management question and need help to study.

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:
Recall the readings and activities you have completed this week and research a TED Talk or other academic video that applies to one or more of your weekly objectives.
Objective: Technology based training methods

Answer the following questions and include a link to the video:

What do you find interesting or surprising about the information in the video?
How does it relate back to your weekly objectives?

Reply to at least two of your classmates. Be constructive and professional in your responses.
Student One
Today I watched a Ted Talks video with speaker Tony Wiggins titled Re-thinking the way we value older workers. Older workers this day in age are around 45 years or older. By the year 2020 4 out of 10 workers at the age of 45 or older will be out of work. Tony suggested if companies re-engaged worker 45 plus in age this would: create 625, 000 more workers, boost the economy, decrease homelessness, improve personal health and create support to farmers and regional towns. Employees forget that older workers something very vital to the company and that is workplace wisdom. They have well development communication, life experience, and resilience in turbulent times. I enjoyed this video because it relates to this week reading centered on training older workers. Although there may be a major change in how older workers adapt to changes in job demands, they have the ability to overcome because of their resilience.
Video viewed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVaeNy3QGec
Student Two
I chose a video this week involving a discussion on improving team performance. The video, “How to Turn a Group of Strangers into a Team,” by Amy Edmondson on TED talk, https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_edmondson_how_to_turn_a_group_of_strangers_into_a_team?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare, discusses what “Teaming” is and the formal definition of a team, and the difference between the two. Amy defines team as, “a stable, bounded group of individuals interdependent in achieving a shared goal.” She also defines “Teaming” as “teamwork on the fly” or the frequent changing of team members and how best to work together. The modern workforce is ever changing, so do the people doing the work. Everyone doesn’t get to choose their team members but working together is an integral part of the success of a business. Amy used the 2010 mine collapse in Chile as an example of her term “Teaming”. She went on to explain how different people from all over the world, different professionals, volunteers, and special forces came together to create a solution to recover the men trapped in the collapsed mine and rescue them as quickly and safely as possible.
Week 4 Tech. based training methods

Although The Treaty of Versailles set up certain conditions that had to be followed, especially for Germany, the treaty did not stop Germany from carefully examining and analyzing WW I. Germany used the interwar period in order to use an after action review to develop different lessons and to carefully examine every aspect of military employment, not only during WW I, but also possible employments in the future. Signing The Treaty of Versailles, on June 28, 1919, year, between Allied powers and Germany, the WW I officially ended. The treaty had fifteen (15) parts and four hundred and forty (440) articles which defined different aspects of future postwar relationships between countries involved in the war, and also limited postwar development of Germany in various fields. According to part five (5) of the treaty, Germany was forced to limit its military capabilities down to the one hundred thousand (100,000) soldiers and four thousand (4000) officers, and in addition, the treaty prohibited Germany from possessing different classes of weapons. Facing strict and radical treaty demands, Germany appointed general Hans von Seeckt as commander-in-chief of the army, and that was the most important and most crucial element in German after war innovation. General von Seeckt put general staff in control of the army, along with officer’s corps, carefully choosing, promoting and leading the most capable and experienced officers, and the rigorous selection induced officers who were able to understand future military engagements. Soon after as a result of this change, German army became “the only European force to undertake a ruthless, clear-headed analysis of recent military experience.”[1] According to General von Seeckt, a detailed analysis was supposed to provide German army with enough materials and lessons learned which would become guidance and later on a doctrinal template for future army development. As he noted: “it is absolutely necessary to put the experience of the war in a broad light and collect this experience, while the impressions won on the battlefield are still fresh, and a major proportion of experienced officers are still in leading positions.”[2] In order to reexamine and analyze WW I, General von Seeckt established no less than fifty-seven (57) different committees, in various branches of the army, chaired by general officers and composed of men who had great experience and knowledge from WW I. The committee 57, as already mentioned was established in different army branches, chaired by most experienced officers-generals and composed of roughly four hundred (400) officers who had huge experience from WW I. Most of those officers already have developed offensive and defensive doctrines, which were proved during WW I. The task for committee was concise and straightforward, the committee was supposed to examine everything that the war had brought. The final product was intended to be a short and concise examination of newly gained experiences and should include following: What new situation arose in the war that had not been considered before the war? How effective were prewar views in dealing with mentioned situations? What new guidelines have been developed for the use of new weapons in the war? Which new problems put forward by the war, the solution was not found yet? The outcome and final reports and answers to questions mentioned above were robust and realistic assessments and provided detailed explanations of almost every situation that occurred during WWI, especially in the period between 1917 – 1918 year.[3] Examining those questions that general von Seeckt wanted to be reviewed by his committees, it showed that Germans used profound and complete research of last war reviewing recent battlefield experience as some kind of starting point for possible military engagements in future wars. Germans proved that creation of revolutionary military capabilities during a peace time definitely depends on detailed analysis of recent past.[4] Lessons learned from WWI, especially those developed from “Committee 57” had been used to develop famous military doctrine “Truppenführung” (Troop Leadership). That doctrinal document was an intellectual framework that would guide the future military engagements, and how to conduct war at the tactical level both in the air and on the ground. As already mentioned, careful examination of recent past and lessons learned from WW I were incorporated into extraordinary Army Regulation 487 (Leadership and Battle with Combined Arms) or “Truppenführung”. This doctrine was a solid foundation for future military employments and actually was the way for future interwar innovation processes that Germany conducted. According to the new doctrine, maneuver played the most important role for future military engagements and those who would be able to move forces quickly with a combination of firepower and other enablers, would have a significant advantage. Offensive mindset, flexibility, initiative at all levels, exploitation and coherent leadership with decentralized execution down to the lowest possible level were explained in details and provided guidance for leaders at all levels in German Army. In addition to maneuver, the doctrine emphasized the ability to transform and ability to adapt. Transformation and adaptation were crucial points for decentralized leadership mindset that Germany army adapted based on experience and lessons learned from the previous war. Although Germany was restricted by treaty, army leaders realized that there was a need to adapt and transform to new technological changes such us mechanized and armored units, and according to that they were seeking how to incorporate tanks and other armored carriers into new doctrine. They realized that future warfare would be highly dependent on the integration of mechanized and armored units, artillery and other technological advantages and recently discovered utilities such as radios. They already examined British use of tanks and one of the reports from the 1926 year emphasized speed, ability to strike independently and combined arms maneuver possibilities. From the 1929 year till the 1933 year, Germans used the opportunity to train their crews at the Kazan tank school in Russia, and it will lead to the development of armored units with a combination of firepower, maneuver, speed, radios and artillery fire support. Later on, at the beginning of WW II, this form of warfighting will be known as “Blitzkrieg” or Lightening war.[5] Development of Armored units – tanks at the early part of the 1930 year in Germany, and the creation of armored warfare expanded military capabilities and possible employments, and when Hitler came to power, in the 1933 year, he initiated a massive rearmament program and requested development of first armored units. By the 1935 year, the German army had three armored (panzer) divisions and by the 1940 year ten armored divisions.[6] As already mentioned, at the beginning of WW II, Germans used “Blitzkrieg” as a new form of warfighting, combined with the maneuver, speed, artillery support, and close air support and shocked the rest of the world. In the 1939 year, Germany invaded Poland and using already mentioned a form of warfighting it took them less than a month to crush resistance in Poland. It is important to mention that immediately after the invasion of Poland, German army conducted another after action review in order to prepare them self for following actions. Next country on Hitler’s wish list was France. The Invasion of France started on May 10th 1940 year, and for less than six weeks Germany conquered Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, and France. The allied forces were defeated and forced to retreat to Great Britain. The French collapse was sudden and totally unexpected. “The end came with the surrender of France on 22 June. Hitler insisted on signing the document of capitulation in the same railway carriage used when Germany had surrendered in 1918. The humiliation of France was complete”.[7] The combined-arms and armored warfare were proved by the end of the June 1940 year. The devastating victory against France and allied forces was described by French observer flying high over the advancing Germans, he described the outcome: “The German tank detachments that move easily across the countryside because no French tanks oppose them produce irreparable damage even though the actual destruction they cause is apparently superficial. the tanks play the role of those chemical agents that destroy not the organism as whole, but its nervous system. Throughout the landscape across which the Germans have swept like lightening, the French army, even it appears almost intact, has ceased to be an army.the enemy moves as he wishes..”.[8] Even though German Armed Forces were limited by The Treaty of Versailles, the treaty did not stop them to examine and incorporate the best practices from WWI into the newly developed doctrine, and to develop capable officer’s corps which will lead the German Army during World War II. It showed that Germany used interwar period for adaptation, innovation, and development of combined arms maneuver incorporating speed, audacity, tempo, radios, artillery fire support and close air support and decentralized execution down to the lowest possible units. It became clear and obvious, even today, that after action reviews play an important role in the most armies of the world. Lessons learned and their incorporation into different manuals with constant innovation and adaptation can help commanders and staffs to avoid any possible problem or surprise. For example, the United States Army is constantly conducting after action reviews and adopting the best possible practices in order to be able to answer to any challenge or threat. Since the 2001 year, when global war on terror started, the US Army adopted several manuals and operating procedures as a countermeasure for terrorist actions. Notes: Geoffrey Parker, The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare, Chapter 15, The World in Conflict, Cambridge University Press, NY, pages 299-300 2 James S. Corum, The Roots of Blitzkrieg, Hans von Seeckt and German Military Reform (Lawrence, KS, 1992), p. 37. 3 Murray
Art, Music, and Creative Writing homework help. This is a paper that focuses on leading change and change in the current environment. Below is a section of instructions that you are to follow.,Leading change and change in the current environment,T‌‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‍ask:,Firstly, write a one page summary/abstract approximately 370 to 400 words long. However it should not be longer than one page. Increase the word count from the current paper from 2,000 words to 6,100 using New Times Roman font – size 12, use the same spacing included in the existing paper and use the Harvard format system. Counting the Introduction section, part 1 – critical review section, part 2 – evaluation section, part 3 – also reflection on and assessment section and the conclusion section, the word count will be 6,100 words. The abstract/one page summary, figures/models and their naming convention, the titles of each section, the reference section and the appendix section do not count toward the word count. Only the in body text counts., Also, this assessment is by one assignment, a critical essay of 6100 words which integrates theory and practice.,Structure,Secondly, the assignment must include a clear structure, a list of references and, where appropriate, appendices and diagrams. However, you must make appropriate use of journal articles and texts. The reference sources, journals and books, are all listed below starting on page 5 (Recognizing the Need for Change). Do not use any other sources or references. Additionally, only use the sources that I have provided. 1. ,Recognizing the Need for Change, 2. Analyzing the Change Required 3. Skills of Leaders of Change 4. Changing Systems and Processes 5. Successful Change 6. Resources for Innovation Please concentrate on my professors comments when you edit the existing 2,000 and write the new 4,000 words.,Do try to use the references and sources in the reading/reference lists that I provided. The reading lists can be found at the end of every Power Point Presentation that I have submitted and I also included the same information in the provided Word documents and they are titled with, references and further readings.,Attachments,Click Here To Download,Art, Music, and Creative Writing homework help
compare and contrast the characteristics of external, internal, and construct validity, health and medicine homework help.

Based on your topic of interest, write a paper in which you compare and contrast the characteristics of external, internal, and construct validity. In addition, please identify the threats to external and construct validity. Please discuss how validity issues could impact your envisioned research.Support your paper with a minimum of 5 resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.Length: 5-7 pages not including title and reference pagesReferences: Minimum of 5 scholarly resources.Your paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts that are presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your paper should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.
compare and contrast the characteristics of external, internal, and construct validity, health and medicine homework help

urgent homework help

Obtain the most recent annual report for the two companies that your group has chosen. The reports should contain at least three (3) years of income statement data and two (2) years of balance sheet data. Analyze at least 3 (three) items on the income statement for each company that would be important to an investor and or user of the financial information, and discuss whether each company’s performance related to these items appeared to be improving, deteriorating, or remaining stable over the two years. Justify your answer. Analyze at least 3 (three) items on the balance sheet for each company that would be important to an investor and or user of the financial information, and discuss whether each company’s performance related to these items appeared to be improving, deteriorating, or remaining stable over the two years. Justify your answer. Analyze each company’s investing and financing activities for the most recent year as identified in the statement of cash flows, specifically identifying the two largest investing activities and the two largest financing activities. Discuss whether you agree or disagree with the investing and financing strategies that each company appears to be employing. Identify 2 (two) items not included in (or derived from) the financial statements that you think would be important to someone considering whether to invest in each company. Discuss your reasons for believing that these two items about the company would be important in making an investment decision. (Hint: you might want to consider items discussed in other business classes.) Compare the results you obtained above for both companies. Based on the analysis done by your group on the financial statements, if you were making a decision to invest in one of the two companies, which company would you choose? Why? (Note: your answer in this section must include some financial issues, but your answer need not be limited to a discussion of financial issues.) Note: You must submit the entire annual report for each company being discussed. (these can be submitted in electronic format) Your analysis must include page references to relevant portions of the annual reports, and the relevant portions of the annual reports must be highlighted. Your report must also contain appropriate quotation marks for quoted material and appropriate references for material taken from sources outside the financial statements. Your analysis (body of the report, excluding Title page, Table of Content, References and Attachments) is limited to 6 to 10 (six to ten) pages, and must be typed, double-spaced, and have at least a 12-point font. (This report should be submitted electronically via Canvas in Excel, Word and or pdf format.)

Aveda Institute New York Challenges Facing Bilingual Education Essay

essay writing service free Aveda Institute New York Challenges Facing Bilingual Education Essay.

I’m working on a research & summaries writing question and need a sample draft to help me understand better.

Research at least two educational challenges involving bilingual education. How can teachers assist schools in overcoming these issues?POSSIBLE RESOURCES:-https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1788/Bilingual-Education.html)-Bilingual vs. ESL and Bilingual vs. Dual Languagehttp://eslpartytown.com/bilingual-esl-dual-language.html”Teaching Diverse Students: Bilingual and English as a Second Language (ESL),” by Hassaen from SAGE Video (2015). (VIDEO TRANSCRIPT)(ATTACHED FILE)-Read “Bilingual Education in the United States: An Historical Overview and Examination of Two-Way Immersion,” by Kim, Hutchinson, and Winsler from Educational Review (2015).(ATTACHED FILE)
Aveda Institute New York Challenges Facing Bilingual Education Essay

DeVry University Module 1 Culture and Communication Response Discussion 1

DeVry University Module 1 Culture and Communication Response Discussion 1.

I’m working on a writing discussion question and need an explanation to help me learn.

Description: This is a 2 part assignment. The 1st part is the discussion post. The 2nd part is responding to 3 classmates posts. After the initial discussion post is completed I will then add 3 of the classmates posts so that you can write 1 short response to each post. Materials: I am attaching screenshots of the Learning Objectives reading which looks long because they are screenshots and several of them but tit’s really not long at all.Assignment: Review the concepts in module 1 and be sure to review the Learning Objects before answering the discussion question.Discussion 1:One misconception about communication clarified in your book is that “Communication is always a good thing.” Meaning, that really there are some situations when communication is not a good thing and we create problems. Problems can occur when we are at a heightened emotional state, or when we do not have all of the information and we create a negative communication climate.1. Knowing this, describe a situation when cultural and/or co-cultural factors have played a role in the failure of communication with others from different backgrounds (national or international). You may use one you experienced or one that you witnessed.2. Why does this happen (perceptions, misunderstandings, etc.)?3. And, what suggestions to you propose that should be used to be a more competent communicator in this situation, or others like it?After you submit your initial post, reply to three or more of your classmates’ postings.
DeVry University Module 1 Culture and Communication Response Discussion 1

Evaluation Of Fountas And Pinnell Benchmark

The Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System, created by Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell, is designed to place students appropriately into a guided reading program, show the gains in student achievement, progress monitoring and identify students in need of intervention (those who are not meeting the district’s proficiency levels). In short, it relates reading ability. The sub-contents addressed include: Word Analysis Skills, Reading Strategies, Comprehending Reading Materials, Literary Elements and Techniques and Literary Works. The test consists primarily of running records, in which the teacher records oral fluency, reading errors and self-correction ratios. In addition, it is followed by a retelling and comprehension conversation between the student and teacher. Finally a writing prompt (optional) is given to the student. In the setting where I am directly working with the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark, we are requiring all students to complete the writing prompt. I have addressed the reason for the issue below in the evaluation portion. The test is administered in kindergarten through eighth grade at the end of each quarter. The assessment usually takes twenty to thirty minutes. This could take longer if more than one assessment is needed to find the appropriate benchmark level. Specific features of the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System allows you “to determine your students’ independent and instructional reading levels, group students for reading instruction, select texts that will be productive for a student’s instruction, assess the outcomes of teaching, assess a new student’s reading level for independent reading and instruction, identify students who need intervention and extra help, document student progress across a school year and across grade levels, create class profiles and inform parents.” (Heinemann, 2011) In addition to an accuracy percentage, reading rate, self-correction rate and fluency score, the assessment has a “Comprehension Conversation” that completes the assessment procedures. Students are required to read a text and to have this comprehension conversation, with specific prompts to obtain key understandings for three kinds of thinking- “Thinking Within the Text (getting the literal meaning by processing words and stated ideas), Thinking Beyond the Text (getting the implied meaning and synthesizing information) and Thinking About the Text (responding to the author’s craft).” (Placeholder1) The content that is covered in the benchmark includes reading accuracy, reading comprehension, reading fluency and self-correction ratio. This is similar to the informal assessments being given to students through- out a literacy block in a reading workshop approach. This assessment can be used both formatively and summatively. It is a standardized, teacher-administered, one-on-one assessment; it is hand-scored by the teacher. The assessment should be administered by classroom teacher after they have been trained to administer the test. A video is provided to view for staff development or individual teacher viewing. This can help to ensure that the assessment is delivered in a standardized way. The BAS (Benchmark Assessment System) is based on research in language development, vocabulary expansion, reading acquisition, and reading difficulties. Five areas addressed by the National Reading Panel as “fundamental to student success in literacy acquisition” are assessed in the BAS. These are: phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The assessment also addresses student motivation and interest in overall reading. According to the official field study document of the assessment: The field data were collected systematically and analyzed on an ongoing basis to determine the program’s achievement of its objectives. Reports were developed and used as a basis for determining the soundness, complexities, and utility of the program. Due to the process incorporating ongoing feedback gathered by field-test examiners, the program authors and developers were able to make informed decisions regarding adjustments and refinements. At the conclusion of the field study, an independent data-analysis team was brought in to evaluate the program’s reliability and validity. This formative research was conducted in two phases. Phase I of the study addressed research questions 1 and 2; Phase II addressed research question 3. Prior to the formative evaluation, an editorial process was used to establish the text leveling. Field testing included a total of 497 students spanning grades K-8. Field testing of System 1 included 252 students and System 2 included 245 students. School sites from which these students were drawn were socioeconomically, ethnically, and geographically diverse. The research goal was to identify “typical students.” Accordingly, students were selected on the basis of their ability to read and understand texts that were written approximately at grade level or above. Participants were also proficient speakers of English. Each field test examiner determined an individual student’s eligibility after discussing his or her reading profile with their respective teachers. Thirteen field-test examiners were selected. All field-test examiners were educators who had extensive training in administering running records and in using other forms of benchmark assessments to assess students’ reading levels. Field-test examiners were not affiliated with the field sites and therefore could be objective in both identifying students and in administering assessments. Prior to the beginning of the field testing, a two-day intensive training session led by the authors, guided the field-test examiners in the formative evaluation’s protocols and procedures. A total of 22 different schools participated in field testing of either System 1 or System 2 (some schools participated in both field tests). Field testing took place across the following geographic regions of the United States: Boston Metropolitan area 1 examiner; 1 school / Providence, Rhode Island 1 examiner; 2 schools / Houston Metropolitan area 2 examiners; 5 schools / Los Angeles area 4 examiners; 6 schools / Columbus, OH, area 3 examiners; 5 schools / Orlando, FL, area 2 examiners; 3 schools. (Field Study of Reliability and Validity of the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment Systems 1 and 2). (Fountas and Pinnell, 2011, pp. 2-3) Assessment Appearance and Content The assessment includes two options of books for each level- “System 1 (Grades K-2, Levels A-N) contains 28 Books (14 Fiction and 14 Nonfiction) and System 2 (Grades 3-8, Levels L-Z) contains 30 Books (15 Fiction and 15 Nonfiction). The Fountas and Pinnell levels gradient is a defined continuum of characteristics related to the level of support and challenges that a reader meets in a text. At each level (A to Z) texts are analyzed using ten characteristics: (1) genre/form; (2) text structure; (3) content; (4) themes and ideas; (5) language and literary features; (6) sentence complexity; (7) vocabulary; (8) word difficulty; (9) illustrations/graphics; and (10) book and print features. Texts are leveled using a highly reliable process in which teams of trained teachers, working independently and then through consensus, assign a level to books after analyzing them according to the ten factors. They are then analyzed by Fountas and Pinnell. The benchmark books were actually created to precisely match the gradient, and they were independently analyzed using the same process.” (Heinemann, 2011) The Assessment Guide to the BAS describes the administration of the assessment as follows: The student’s appropriate reading level for the assessment to be administered is based in the student’s current guided reading level, or can be determined by a “Where to Start” word list that was developed by the authors to assist examiners in quickly placing a student at his or her appropriate reading level. Next, the administer is to assess the student’s ability to read and comprehend three levels of books. They are to determine one book that is easy – the student’s independent reading level; one book that offered just enough difficult vocabulary and/or concepts to make the reading interesting and challenging – , the student’s instructional reading level; and a third book that was too challenging – the student’s hard reading level. Accuracy of reading guidelines, consistent with Fountas and Pinnell’s framework (2006b), is as follows: independent level (95-100 percent accuracy); instructional level (90-94 percent accuracy), and hard level (below 90 percent accuracy). (Fountas