Guided Response: Respond to two of your classmates’ posts. In your responses, compare the 21st-century skills and cross-cultural skills your peers identified with the ones you described. You are encouraged to ask questions about their posts. Questions might include requests for clarification on points made or for elaboration on an area of their post. Though two replies is the basic expectation for this discussion, for deeper engagement and learning, you are encouraged to provide responses to any comments or questions others have given to you. This will further the conversation and provide you with opportunities to demonstrate your content expertise, critical thinking, and real world experiences with this topic.
relationship and Physical Education
I have three Journals that are dues in the next two weeks. The first journal is due February 4, 2018 Sunday @ 6:00pm and the other two journals are due February 11, 2018 @ 6:00pm each journal has to be 800 words. Arial 10 is the font
Journal #1 Due February 4, 2018 6:00pm What stress responses have you experienced lately? Today? This week? What made them go away? How do you deal with stress? List and identify strategies that you could utilize to help with stressor’s in your life. Using the textbook as a guide, list some strategies that you can use to help you deal with stress. How does your cultural background relate to your stress?
Journal #2 Due February 11, 2018 6:00pm Without commitment, no intimate relationship can flourish. Parents, children, siblings, friends, and lovers all need to acknowledge that they are in it together for the long run. Love.., it seems that no other concept has puzzled humankind as much as this. Communication is the key in all relationships. In your culture are there differences in communication because of gender? If you were to make an attempt to define love, how would you begin to describe your interpretation of this concept? Is your expression of love limited by your level of self-acceptance? In your expression of love to others, do you find that you attach conditions, maybe without realizing it? When was the first time you fell in love? Did it last? Why or why not? What advice can you give to others regarding Love?
Journal #3 Due February 11, 2018 6:00pm What are your ideas about responsibility for contraception? Should one partner be responsible or should responsibility be shared? Where did you get your ideas? Are they tied to other attitudes you have about male and female gender roles? Are you comfortable with your attitude toward contraception and the effect is has on your life? Who taught you about conception? How do you think kids of today learn about conception? What can we do as a society to help prevent unwanted pregnancies? Should schools teach sex education? If so, what should they learn? Does your culture or religion change your personal views regarding contraception?
PREHISTORIC ART
M01 Assignment:
You are responsible for knowing the following items.
Works of Art:
PREHISTORIC ART
Upper Paleolithic Art (c. 42,000-8000 BCE) Define the following
- Lion-Human from Hohlenstein-Stadel
- Woman from Willendorf
- Architecture: (mammoth-bone house, Ukraine)
- Cave and rock paintings, sculpture
- Pech-Merle Cave
- Chauvet Cave
- Lascaux Cave
- Altamira
- Bison, Le Tuc d’Audoubert
Art in the Neolithic Period (8000-3400/2300 BCE)
- Sculpture (Woman and Man from Cernavoda)
- Village settlements (Catal Hoyuk)
- Megalithic Architecture
- Newgrange, Ireland
- Stonehenge
Vocabulary:
sculpture in the round
relief sculpture
abstraction
stylization
attributes
modeling
flying gallop
ceramics
Post-and-lintel construction
corbeling
dolmen
capstones
cairn
passage graves
henge
incised
M01 Assignment
Study Questions
Submit your answers and I will give you feed back on them.
Prehistory
1. Paleolithic humans were nomadic, and Neolithic humans began to live in villages. How did this
affect their art work respectively?
2. How did cave paintings differ from each other throughout the Paleolithic period? What were some of the techniques used? Define flying gallop. What does the term refer to?
3. What are some of the theories why Prehistoric humans may have painted on cave walls?
4.What were the hypothesized uses for some of the megalithic monuments in Europe?
5. What might the appearance of metals mean to early humans?
M02 Assignment : Cultural Values in Advertisements
M02 Assignment : Cultural Values in Advertisements
Our Cultural Values are communicated in a variety of ways. We learn our values from our parents, at school, and often society teaches us values through the advertisements in the media we consume.
Find three advertisements from popular newspapers, magazines, social media etc. Then analyze the ads to see if you can identify the societal values they communicate
For each of the advertisements
- Identify the societal value(s) the ad is communicating.
- Explain how the ad communicates the value(s) you have identified.
Finally,
In 2-3 paragraphs explain the ways in which you feel advertisements influence your perceptions, worldview, and finally how your communication is influenced by the values you learn through the media.
Assignment 2: Comparative Study of Emerging Technologies
Assignment 2: Comparative Study of Emerging Technologies
Due Week 5 and worth 175 points
Refer to both the Overall Concept for Assignments 1-4 and your responses from Assignment 1 in order to complete this assignment.
Write a four to six (4-6) page paper in which you:
- Debate the overall merits of the selected emerging technology over the three (3) others that you had previously identified from Assignment 1.
- Compare and contrast the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose. Your comparison should address the following:
- Three (3) methods in which the attributes and features of each address the needs and or challenges inherent in the educational setting or related to the scenario you selected in Assignment 1.
- Significant ways in which each technology supports meaningful learning.
- Three (3) attributes and / or features inherent in each emerging technology that instructors may use to address select characteristics of the 21st Century student population that you had previously identified.
- Three (3) aspects of your selected technology that best address two (2) of the NETS-S standards for using technology to guide learning.
- Provide at least five (5) sources that document detailed information about this emerging technology. The sources must be within the last five (5) years.
- Format your assignment according to the following formatting requirements:
- Typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides.
- 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 is not included in the required page length.
- Include a reference page. Citations and references must follow APA format. The reference page is not included in the required page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
- Review current research related to emerging technologies for instruction and learning.
- Analyze the effects of technology in different instructional settings.
- Analyze the characteristics of 21st Century learners to aid in determining effective ways of using technologies for teaching and learning.
- Use technology and information resources to research issues in designing, developing, and evaluating educational technologies.
- Write clearly and concisely about issues in designing, developing, and evaluating educational technologies.
Points: 175
Assignment 2: Comparative Study of Emerging Technologies
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 70% F
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Debate the overall merits of the selected emerging technology over the three (3) others that you had previously identified from Assignment 1.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely debated the overall merits of the selected emerging technology over the three (3) others that you had previously identified from Assignment 1.
Partially debated the overall merits of the selected emerging technology over the three (3) others that you had previously identified from Assignment 1.
Satisfactorily debated the overall merits of the selected emerging technology over the three (3) others that you had previously identified from Assignment 1.
Thoroughly debated the overall merits of the selected emerging technology over the three (3) others that you had previously identified from Assignment 1.
2a. Compare and contrast the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) methods in which the attributes and features of each address the needs and or challenges inherent in the educational setting or related to the scenario you selected in Assignment 1
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) methods in which the attributes and features of each address the needs and or challenges inherent in the educational setting or related to the scenario you selected in Assignment 1.
Partially compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) methods in which the attributes and features of each address the needs and or challenges inherent in the educational setting or related to the scenario you selected in Assignment 1.
Satisfactorily compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) methods in which the attributes and features of each address the needs and or challenges inherent in the educational setting or related to the scenario you selected in Assignment 1.
Thoroughly compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) methods in which the attributes and features of each address the needs and or challenges inherent in the educational setting or related to the scenario you selected in Assignment 1.
2b. Compare and contrast the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing significant ways in which each technology supports meaningful learning.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing significant ways in which each technology supports meaningful learning.
Partially compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing significant ways in which each technology supports meaningful learning.
Satisfactorily compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing significant ways in which each technology supports meaningful learning.
Thoroughly compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing significant ways in which each technology supports meaningful learning.
2c. Compare and contrast the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) attributes and / or features inherent in each emerging technology that instructors may use to address select characteristics of the 21st Century student population that you had previous identified.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3 attributes and / or features inherent in each emerging technology that instructors may use to address select characteristics of the 21st Century student population that you had previous identified.
Partially compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) attributes and / or features inherent in each emerging technology that instructors may use to address select characteristics of the 21st Century student population that you had previous identified.
Satisfactorily compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) attributes and / or features inherent in each emerging technology that instructors may use to address select characteristics of the 21st Century student population that you had previous identified.
Thoroughly compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) attributes and / or features inherent in each emerging technology that instructors may use to address select characteristics of the 21st Century student population that you had previous identified.
2d. Compare and contrast the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) aspects of your selected technology that best address two (2) of the NETS-S standards for using technology to guide learning.
Weight: 15%
Did not submit or incompletely compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) aspects of your selected technology that best address two (2) of the NETS-S standards for using technology to guide learning.
Partially compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) aspects of your selected technology that best address two (2) of the NETS-S standards for using technology to guide learning.
Satisfactorily compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) aspects of your selected technology that best address two (2) of the NETS-S standards for using technology to guide learning.
Thoroughly compared and contrasted the emerging technology that you chose with the three (3) other emerging technologies that you did not choose addressing three (3) aspects of your selected technology that best address two (2) of the NETS-S standards for using technology to guide learning.
3. 5 references
Weight: 5%
No references provided
Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices.
Meets number of required references; most references high quality choices.
Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.
4. Writing Mechanics, Grammar, and Formatting
Weight: 5%
Serious and persistent errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.
Partially free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.
Mostly free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.
Error free or almost error free grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.
5. Appropriate use of APA in-text citations and reference section
Weight: 5%
Lack of in-text citations and / or lack of reference section.
In-text citations and references are provided, but they are only partially formatted correctly in APA style.
Most in-text citations and references are provided, and they are generally formatted correctly in APA style.
In-text citations and references are error free or almost error free and consistently formatted correctly in APA style.
6. Information Literacy/Integration of Sources
Weight: 5%
Serious errors in the integration of sources, such as intentional or accidental plagiarism, or failure to use in-text citations.
Sources are partially integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.
Sources are mostly integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.
Sources are consistently integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.
7. Clarity and Coherence of Writing
Weight: 5%
Information is confusing to the reader and fails to include reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.
Information is partially clear with minimal reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.
Information is mostly clear and generally supported with reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.
Information is provided in a clear, coherent, and consistent manner with reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.
take a position on which mode of communication better facilitates learning overall—synchronous or asynchronous
“Communicating with Technologies” Please respond to the following:
- Based on your professional and personal experience, take a position on which mode of communication better facilitates learning overall—synchronous or asynchronous. Next, choose two (2) social media apps or sites that support your preferred mode of communication, and discuss how they support communication and engagement.
reaction paper
Write a reaction paper
Joseph Renzulli is the theorist who is considered to be the most knowledgeable about Education for the Gifted. This article gives you strong background in what he has done and stands for: https://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/what_is_giftedness/ After reading this, write a reaction to what you have read. Additionally describe your understanding of Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 activities.
Critique of an article
Critique one article
© Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 19, Number 1, p. 1, (2015)
Copyright © 2015 by the University of Georgia. All rights reserved. ISSN 1534-6104
Systemic Engagement: Universities as Partners in Systemic Approaches to Community Change
Miles A. McNall, Jessica V. Barnes-Najor, Robert E. Brown, Diane Doberneck, and Hiram E. Fitzgerald
Abstract The most pressing social problems facing humanity in the 21st century are what systems theorist Russell Ackoff referred to as “messes”—complex dynamic systems of problems that interact and reinforce each other over time. In this article, the authors argue that the lack of progress in managing messes is in part due to the predominance of a university-driven isolated-impact approach to social problem solving. The authors suggest an alter- native approach called systemic engagement (SE), which involves universities as partners in systemic approaches to community change. The six principles of SE are presented and illustrated with a case example. Barriers to SE are discussed, and strategies are proposed for increasing faculty use of this methodology. The promises and perils of SE as an alternative community-engaged approach to social problem solving are considered.
Introduction
T he most pressing problems facing humanity in the 21st century (e.g., climate change and social inequality) are not isolated problems, but what systems theorist Russell Ackoff (1999) referred to as “messes”—complex dynamic systems of problems that interact and reinforce each other over time. The complexity of messes presents daunting challenges to our collec- tive problem-solving capacities, let alone the capacities of any par- ticular engaged scholar. In the context of calls to strengthen the role of universities in addressing social problems (Boyer, 1990; Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, 1999), it is reasonable to ask whether prevailing forms of engaged scholarship are capable of managing messes. In this article, we argue that the lack of progress in effectively managing complex problems is due in part to the predominance of a particular approach to engagement called the isolated-impact approach (Kania & Kramer, 2011). In the isolated-impact approach, universities and communities collabo- rate to design and implement interventions that address a partic- ular problem, with limited attention paid to the contextual factors that perpetuate the problem. Such interventions, if designed well and implemented with fidelity, may have strong short-term effects
Copyright © 2015 by the University of Georgia. All rights reserved. ISSN 1534-6104
Systemic Engagement: Universities as Partners in Systemic Approaches to Community Change
Miles A. McNall, Jessica V. Barnes-Najor, Robert E. Brown, Diane Doberneck, and Hiram E. Fitzgerald
Abstract The most pressing social problems facing humanity in the 21st century are what systems theorist Russell Ackoff referred to as “messes”—complex dynamic systems of problems that interact and reinforce each other over time. In this article, the authors argue that the lack of progress in managing messes is in part due to the predominance of a university-driven isolated-impact approach to social problem solving. The authors suggest an alter- native approach called systemic engagement (SE), which involves universities as partners in systemic approaches to community change. The six principles of SE are presented and illustrated with a case example. Barriers to SE are discussed, and strategies are proposed for increasing faculty use of this methodology. The promises and perils of SE as an alternative community-engaged approach to social problem solving are considered.
Introduction
T he most pressing problems facing humanity in the 21st century (e.g., climate change and social inequality) are not isolated problems, but what systems theorist Russell Ackoff (1999) referred to as “messes”—complex dynamic systems of problems that interact and reinforce each other over time. The complexity of messes presents daunting challenges to our collec- tive problem-solving capacities, let alone the capacities of any par- ticular engaged scholar. In the context of calls to strengthen the role of universities in addressing social problems (Boyer, 1990; Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, 1999), it is reasonable to ask whether prevailing forms of engaged scholarship are capable of managing messes. In this article, we argue that the lack of progress in effectively managing complex problems is due in part to the predominance of a particular approach to engagement called the isolated-impact approach (Kania & Kramer, 2011). In the isolated-impact approach, universities and communities collabo- rate to design and implement interventions that address a partic- ular problem, with limited attention paid to the contextual factors that perpetuate the problem. Such interventions, if designed well and implemented with fidelity, may have strong short-term effects
2 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
within a narrow range of outcomes for targeted populations, but the dynamics of the larger system that generated the problem remain unchanged. In addition, isolated-impact efforts are frequently con- ducted as stand-alone projects that are disconnected from other related efforts, thereby failing to realize the synergies possible with more coordinated strategies. In this article, we propose an alter- native to the isolated-impact approach to problem solving called systemic engagement (SE). We discuss the six principles of SE and provide a case example to illustrate the principles. We then con- sider barriers to faculty involvement in SE and how these barriers might be surmounted to allow for the wider use of SE.
Systemic Engagement Simply put, SE involves universities as partners in systemic
approaches to social problem solving. SE has six key principles:
1. Systems thinking 2. Collaborative inquiry 3. Support for ongoing learning 4. Emergent design 5. Multiple strands of inquiry and action 6. Transdisciplinarity
Although SE includes within its scope all community–univer- sity partnerships that use systemic approaches to social problem solving, the focus of this article is on SE within the context of place- based initiatives, or what we refer to here as systemic approaches to community change.
Systems Thinking Systems theorists have argued that the foundation of systems
thinking is holism (Midgley, 2007), comprehensiveness (Midgley, 2000), or “taking into account the whole” (Burns, 2007, p. 21). In other words, systems thinking involves a widening of the usual scope of inquiry to include a larger share of the contextual factors that contribute to messes. Imam, LaGoy, and Williams (2007) argued that three systems concepts are essential for understanding sys- tems-based interventions: boundaries, perspectives, and entangled systems (or relationships). Because of the inclination toward com- prehensiveness in systems thinking and the practical impossibility of considering every influence on a focal problem, boundaries help
within a narrow range of outcomes for targeted populations, but the dynamics of the larger system that generated the problem remain unchanged. In addition, isolated-impact efforts are frequently con- ducted as stand-alone projects that are disconnected from other related efforts, thereby failing to realize the synergies possible with more coordinated strategies. In this article, we propose an alter- native to the isolated-impact approach to problem solving called systemic engagement (SE). We discuss the six principles of SE and provide a case example to illustrate the principles. We then con- sider barriers to faculty involvement in SE and how these barriers might be surmounted to allow for the wider use of SE.
Systemic Engagement Simply put, SE involves universities as partners in systemic
approaches to social problem solving. SE has six key principles:
1. Systems thinking 2. Collaborative inquiry 3. Support for ongoing learning 4. Emergent design 5. Multiple strands of inquiry and action 6. Transdisciplinarity
Although SE includes within its scope all community–univer- sity partnerships that use systemic approaches to social problem solving, the focus of this article is on SE within the context of place- based initiatives, or what we refer to here as systemic approaches to community change.
Systems Thinking Systems theorists have argued that the foundation of systems
thinking is holism (Midgley, 2007), comprehensiveness (Midgley, 2000), or “taking into account the whole” (Burns, 2007, p. 21). In other words, systems thinking involves a widening of the usual scope of inquiry to include a larger share of the contextual factors that contribute to messes. Imam, LaGoy, and Williams (2007) argued that three systems concepts are essential for understanding sys- tems-based interventions: boundaries, perspectives, and entangled systems (or relationships). Because of the inclination toward com- prehensiveness in systems thinking and the practical impossibility of considering every influence on a focal problem, boundaries help
Systemic Engagement: Universitities as Partners in Systemic Approaches to Community Change 3
define what lies inside or outside the scope of a particular inquiry. However, these boundaries must be placed carefully and provision- ally, with a clear understanding of the implications of their place- ment for what or whom is included or excluded from the inquiry space. Systems thinking also involves considering the subject of inquiry from the perspectives of a wide range of individuals with a stake in managing the problem or from different perspectives on the possible purposes of the system in question. Finally, systems thinking involves an exploration of the key relationships among system elements, between systems and subsystems, and how these relationships contribute to the perpetuation of the problem.
Boundaries. SE expands the boundaries of inquiry based on the understanding that complex problems rarely (if ever) arise from the action of a single isolated cause. Rather, complex problems typi- cally result from the interplay of relationships among several fac- tors. In addition, problems rarely exist in isolation. Instead, they are often subcomponents of dynamic systems of problems that interact and reinforce each other over time (i.e., messes). For this reason, Ackoff (1999) argued that “a partial solution to a whole system of problems is better than whole solutions of each of its parts taken separately” (p. 324). Based on these insights, SE expands the bound- aries of inquiry to bring “whole systems of problems” within the inquiry space of an initiative. For example, a systemic approach to the study of child development, informed by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, would expand the typical bound- aries of inquiry from influences operating within the child’s proximate microsystem (family, school, neighborhood, and peers) to influences operating in the child’s mesosystem (connections between elements of the microsystem), exosystem (industry, social services, neighbors, and mass media), and macrosystem (attitudes and ideologies prevalent in the larger culture).
Perspectives. SE expands the boundaries of inclusion based on the understanding that there is no single correct definition, perspective, or understanding of problems or systems of problems (indeed, whether something is a problem is a matter of perspec- tive), and that those affected by problems should have a voice in how they are addressed. Far too often university-based scholars develop theory-based interventions for testing and dissemination in communities, viewing communities largely as “passive distribu- tion or delivery systems rather than as rich sources of knowledge and skills” (Miller & Shinn, 2005, p. 169). SE pushes the boundaries of inclusion to incorporate the perspectives of a broad range of both community-based and university-based actors with a stake in the
define what lies inside or outside the scope of a particular inquiry. However, these boundaries must be placed carefully and provision- ally, with a clear understanding of the implications of their place- ment for what or whom is included or excluded from the inquiry space. Systems thinking also involves considering the subject of inquiry from the perspectives of a wide range of individuals with a stake in managing the problem or from different perspectives on the possible purposes of the system in question. Finally, systems thinking involves an exploration of the key relationships among system elements, between systems and subsystems, and how these relationships contribute to the perpetuation of the problem.
Boundaries. SE expands the boundaries of inquiry based on the understanding that complex problems rarely (if ever) arise from the action of a single isolated cause. Rather, complex problems typi- cally result from the interplay of relationships among several fac- tors. In addition, problems rarely exist in isolation. Instead, they are often subcomponents of dynamic systems of problems that interact and reinforce each other over time (i.e., messes). For this reason, Ackoff (1999) argued that “a partial solution to a whole system of problems is better than whole solutions of each of its parts taken separately” (p. 324). Based on these insights, SE expands the bound- aries of inquiry to bring “whole systems of problems” within the inquiry space of an initiative. For example, a systemic approach to the study of child development, informed by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, would expand the typical bound- aries of inquiry from influences operating within the child’s proximate microsystem (family, school, neighborhood, and peers) to influences operating in the child’s mesosystem (connections between elements of the microsystem), exosystem (industry, social services, neighbors, and mass media), and macrosystem (attitudes and ideologies prevalent in the larger culture).
Perspectives. SE expands the boundaries of inclusion based on the understanding that there is no single correct definition, perspective, or understanding of problems or systems of problems (indeed, whether something is a problem is a matter of perspec- tive), and that those affected by problems should have a voice in how they are addressed. Far too often university-based scholars develop theory-based interventions for testing and dissemination in communities, viewing communities largely as “passive distribu- tion or delivery systems rather than as rich sources of knowledge and skills” (Miller & Shinn, 2005, p. 169). SE pushes the boundaries of inclusion to incorporate the perspectives of a broad range of both community-based and university-based actors with a stake in the
4 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
problems, explicitly including both local and indigenous knowl- edge and generalized university-based knowledge both in under- standing problems and in generating solutions to manage them (Fitzgerald, Bruns, Sonka, Furco & Swanson, 2012). SE strives to bring these different sources of knowledge into respectful and appre- ciative dialogue with one another for the purpose of cocreating new understandings and codesigning new solutions to complex problems.
Relationships. SE explores the relationships between sys- tems and subsystems and among the components of systems to reveal the complex dynamics that perpetuate the problem of con- cern. Meadows (2008) argued that whereas changes in system ele- ments (e.g., changes in the individual members of a social group) typically have little to no effect on the functioning of a system, changes in their interconnections will often have very large effects. Consequently, a clear understanding of the relationships among a system’s components is essential to restructuring that system to produce different results. As Meadows (2008) has argued, “the results that systems produce will continue until they are restruc- tured” (p. 4). A systemic study of child development would explore the structure of relationships both within and across micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems. For example, within the level of individual children, it would explore the relationships among four brain systems (executive, regulation, sensory, and relevance; Lillas & Turnbull, 2009) while also examining the influences of factors operating at the micro-, meso-, and exosystem levels on the func- tioning of these same brain systems.
Collaborative Inquiry Collaborative inquiry refers to the use of collaborative and
participatory approaches to research and evaluation. SE inten- tionally solicits multiple perspectives on problems and relevant systems by drawing on both local and indigenous knowledge as well as generalized university-based knowledge to understand problems and to generate strategies for managing them more effectively. The methods of inquiry best suited to fostering deep participation by people with a stake in particular problems and utilizing both university-based and community-based sources of knowledge for understanding and managing them are collabora- tive approaches to inquiry and action such as community-based participatory research (Israel et al., 2001, 2008; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008), participatory action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; McTaggart, 1991; Whyte, 1991), and collaborative and participatory
problems, explicitly including both local and indigenous knowl- edge and generalized university-based knowledge both in under- standing problems and in generating solutions to manage them (Fitzgerald, Bruns, Sonka, Furco & Swanson, 2012). SE strives to bring these different sources of knowledge into respectful and appre- ciative dialogue with one another for the purpose of cocreating new understandings and codesigning new solutions to complex problems.
Relationships. SE explores the relationships between sys- tems and subsystems and among the components of systems to reveal the complex dynamics that perpetuate the problem of con- cern. Meadows (2008) argued that whereas changes in system ele- ments (e.g., changes in the individual members of a social group) typically have little to no effect on the functioning of a system, changes in their interconnections will often have very large effects. Consequently, a clear understanding of the relationships among a system’s components is essential to restructuring that system to produce different results. As Meadows (2008) has argued, “the results that systems produce will continue until they are restruc- tured” (p. 4). A systemic study of child development would explore the structure of relationships both within and across micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems. For example, within the level of individual children, it would explore the relationships among four brain systems (executive, regulation, sensory, and relevance; Lillas & Turnbull, 2009) while also examining the influences of factors operating at the micro-, meso-, and exosystem levels on the func- tioning of these same brain systems.
Collaborative Inquiry Collaborative inquiry refers to the use of collaborative and
participatory approaches to research and evaluation. SE inten- tionally solicits multiple perspectives on problems and relevant systems by drawing on both local and indigenous knowledge as well as generalized university-based knowledge to understand problems and to generate strategies for managing them more effectively. The methods of inquiry best suited to fostering deep participation by people with a stake in particular problems and utilizing both university-based and community-based sources of knowledge for understanding and managing them are collabora- tive approaches to inquiry and action such as community-based participatory research (Israel et al., 2001, 2008; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008), participatory action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; McTaggart, 1991; Whyte, 1991), and collaborative and participatory
Systemic Engagement: Universitities as Partners in Systemic Approaches to Community Change 5
approaches to evaluation (Cousins & Whitmore, 1998). In addition, there are explicitly systemic approaches to collaborative inquiry, including systemic action research (Burns, 2007), systemic interven- tion (Midgley, 2000), and participatory system dynamics modeling (Hovmand, 2014). Despite their differences, these approaches share a commitment to involving community members at some level in all or nearly all phases of inquiry, including identification of the problem or topic of inquiry, selection of research or evaluation questions, choice of research or evaluation methods, collection of data, analysis of data, interpretation of findings, deliberation over the implications of findings for further inquiry or action, and dis- semination of findings.
Support for Ongoing Learning In their review of the successes and failures of comprehen-
approaches to evaluation (Cousins & Whitmore, 1998). In addition, there are explicitly systemic approaches to collaborative inquiry, including systemic action research (Burns, 2007), systemic interven- tion (Midgley, 2000), and participatory system dynamics modeling (Hovmand, 2014). Despite their differences, these approaches share a commitment to involving community members at some level in all or nearly all phases of inquiry, including identification of the problem or topic of inquiry, selection of research or evaluation questions, choice of research or evaluation methods, collection of data, analysis of data, interpretation of findings, deliberation over the implications of findings for further inquiry or action, and dis- semination of findings.
Support for Ongoing Learning In their review of the successes and failures of comprehen-
Power Point Slide Creating Effective Classroom Learning Environment. Grade K-.3
Create and add slides to your presentation: Using APA style. Helpful reference or other references.
One slide on increasing motivation
One slide on effective feedback
One slide on transition strategies
One slide response to student behavior
One slide on problem solving.
One slide on classroom expectations
One slide on school-wide behavior expectations
(View assignment attachment
Create Parent & Staff Only Newsletter Article
Imagine that you have, been, asked by your school principal to write an article for each of your school’s newsletters: one for families and the other for staff.
Include the following: Parent Newsletter 1.
The first article is for the parent newsletter that is, sent to all families. Write a 1- page article on creating positive relationships between school staff and families.
Include the following: Staff only Newsletter 2.
Write a 1-page article on creating positive school professional to student relationships. Keep in mind that all school professional to student relationships are important, including the secretary, the lunchroom aide, the custodian, etc.
(View assignment attachnment)