Nursing Today Essay Example for Free

Nursing Today Essay Nurses these days have positive and negative images from the general public. Negative stereotypes portray nurses as being overbearing, sexual, and incompetent. For example: Naughty Nurses, Airheaded, and Doctor’s Handmaiden. These stereotypes are portrayed in the media constantly even though nursing is a challenging respectable profession. Some of the positive images that are portrayed by the public are strong, patient advocates, dedicated, trustworthy, profession highly in demand, and highly intelligent. There are numerous actions that can be taken to actively fight the negative stereotypes. It generally starts by promoting positive images of the nursing students. This could start at the college setting or even the clinical setting where a lot of interactions will be done with the general public and strangers. I also think that if you actively educate others on the true meaning of nursing then that would also help fight negative stereotypes. This could generally be done in health career fairs, schools, colleges, and health centers where nurses are actively involved. Also establishing public image committee in the local neighborhood or city would also help. There are also popular celebrities that actively help with stereotypes. For example: Christina Aguilera as both a nurse and patient, exploited negative stereotypes of nurses. If popular celebrities can take active role in helping stop negative stereotypes for nurses then anyone can. It would definitely take a lot of hard work to stop it but eventually the word would come across. Moreover, television nurses also promote positive nursing its understood that medical dramas are meant to entertain, not serve as documentaries. Nevertheless, media-driven messages are also very powerful, influencing the culture and collective mindset. There are numerous current images of nurses in the media and challenges nurses to engage in professional and public service designed to promote a positive media and public image of nursing. In conclusion, if we actively did take a part in stopping negative stereotyping for nurses or any other profession it would benefit and bring more respect to the nursing world. It doesn’t take much to down grade a rofession but it takes a lot of hard work and time to stop the negative stereotyping. As I listed examples above to help reduce negative stereotyping all it takes is active participants to bring a change. In this time and age we often get influenced by individuals very fast and so why couldn’t we actively bring positive influence to society and help the nursing profession in general to lower negative stereotyping. Because it will greatly help our profession of nursing become more respectable in society.

Internet Security :: essays research papers

Internet Security What will US politics and the economy be like as we progress through the twenty-first century? There is no single vision, but many people perceive a type of digital democracy. The use of information via Internet or World Wide Web will dramatically change politics and the way government takes place. For example, a digital democracy can inform people about political candidates and issues. Volunteers also use email and web sites to encourage people to go to the polls and vote for their candidate. (1) This really boosts voting and political participation but the problem of security and privacy comes along with this â€Å"digital democracy†. Security would seem easy with today’s technology but how do you secure something that is changing faster than you can find a solution?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Internet has had security problems since its earliest days as a pure research project. Even today, after several years and orders of magnitude of growth, it still has security problems. It is being used for a purpose for which it was never intended: commerce. (2) It is somewhat ironic that the early Internet was design as a prototype for a command and control network that could resist outages resulting from enemy actions, but it cannot resist college undergraduates. (2) The problem is that the attackers are on, and make up a part of, the network they are attacking. Designing a system that is capable of resisting attack from within, while still growing and evolving at a breakneck pace, is probably impossible. (1) Deep infrastructure changes are needed, and once you have achieved a certain amount of size, the sheer inertia of the installed base may make it impossible to apply repairs. (1) As general-purpose scripts were introduced on both the client and the serv er’s sides, the dangers of accidental and malicious abuse grew. It did not take long for the Web the move form the scientific community to the commercial world. At this point, the security threats became much more serious. The incentive for malicious attackers to exploit vulnerabilities in the underlying technologies is at an all-time high.(1) When business and profit are at stake, we cannot assume anything less than the most dedicated and resourceful attackers typing their utmost to steal, cheat, and perform malice against users of the Web. (2)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  With the web being the single, largest source of information in the world, people are capable of obtaining stock quotes, tax information from the International Revenue Service, conduct election polls, register for a conference and the list goes on.

Assessing the English Language Learner

Assessing the English Language Learner (ELL) The Growth of ELL (ESL) The number of human beings who speak a language other than English continues to increase in the United States, Canada, and Australia, for example, as the number of immigrants grows. In 2006, 34. 70% of the population of Los Angeles, California, was foreign born; 25. 50% of Miami, Florida; 39. 60% of Vancouver, British Columbia; 45. 70% of Toronto, Ontario; 28. 90% of Melbourne, Australia; and 31. 70% of Sydney, Australia (Statistics Canada, 2008).In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2004) reported that â€Å"The number and percentage of language minority youth and young adults— that is, individuals who speak a language other than English at home—increased steadily in the United States between 1979 and 1999† (p. 1). NCES added, Of those individuals ages 5–24 in 1979, 6 million spoke a language other than English at home. By 1999, that number had more th an doubled, to 14 million. Accordingly, of all 5- to 24-year-olds in the United States, the percentage who were language minorities increased from 9 percent in 1979 to 17 percent in 1999. p. 1) The number of ESL students in U. S. public schools has almost tripled over the last decade (Goldenberg, 2006). In 2004 Crawford observed that one-fourth of the school-age students in the United States were from homes where a language other than English was spoken. The school-age population (K–12) will reach about 40% ESL in about 20 years (Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence, 2002). Between 1990 and 2000, the number of Spanish speakers increased from about 20 to 31 million (U. S.Census Bureau, 2001). The Census Bureau report also showed a significant increase in the number of speakers from other linguistic groups, particularly Chinese and Russian. Individuals at all ages enter school to learn the English skills they need to learn, gain employment and participate in society. Planning for their instruction is a significant issue for teachers at all levels and assessment becomes central. In this chapter we first define and differentiate terms such as ESL and ELL and describe the populations they represent.The use of assessment measures to place students into appropriate instructional groups is described and the distinction between interpersonal and academic language is reviewed. The use of assessment in the classroom and as a gate-keeping tool is addressed in addition to the appropriateness of the use of published measures to assess ESL students. The first issue addressed is terminology. Defining ELL Over the years students who speak a language other than English have been titled English as a Second Language (ESL) learners.However, English in some cases is not the second language (L2), but may be the third (L3), the 4th (L4), etc. , language, and, as a result, members of this population have different linguistic resources to draw on. The term â€Å"English Language Learner† (ELL) has been adopted by educators, primarily in the United States, to describe better the notion that English may not be the L2. However, it is not a particularly good term because students who speak English as a First Language (L1) are also English language learners (Gunderson, 2008).The term â€Å"Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages† (TESOL) is used outside of the United States. Students who learn English in environments where it is not the language of the community are referred to as English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students. The pedagogy related to EFL is different from ESL (ELL) because students are not immersed in English in the community and the major task of the teacher is to try to provide them English models (Gunderson, 2008, 2009). An added difficulty with the term â€Å"ESL† or â€Å"ELL† is that it does not adequately characterize the diversity of human beings it represents.Those who use the t erm â€Å"ELL† do so to describe those K–12 students who come from homes in which the language used for daily communications is not English and who must learn English to succeed in schools where the medium of instruction is English. The ELL (ESL) Population A serious problem with the ELL (ESL) conceptualization is that it does not adequately describe the underlying complexities of differences in age, motivation, literacy background, and first and second language achievement (Gunderson, 2008, 2009).Those classified as ELL or ESL vary in age from pre-school to senior adults. Many speak no English at all, while others vary in oral English proficiency. Many have never attended school, while others have earned high academic credentials in the language of instruction in their home countries. They are from diverse cultural backgrounds that vary in the way they perceive the importance of teaching and learning. Many are immigrants to an English-speaking country, while many ELL learners are born in an English-speaking country, but speak a different language at home (Gunderson, 2008, 2009).Indeed, in the Vancouver, Canada, school district 60% of the kindergarten students are ESL and 60% of this number are born in Canada (Gunderson, 2007, 2009). Many immigrant ESL students come from impoverished refugee backgrounds, others have high levels of education and socioeconomic status. Thus, ESLs or ELLs do not adequately represent the underlying complexity of the human beings in the category. Assessment Issues in ELLInstruction in mainstream classes, those typically enrolling students of different abilities but of the same relative age in the same classrooms, is based broadly on the notion that the acquisition of English is developmental and occurs over time as human beings grow into maturity. It is also thought that there is a relationship between language development and â€Å"grade level. † Grade 1 students differ from Grade 7 students in systematic ways. Their teachers design instruction that is appropriate for their grade levels.ESL (ELL) students represent a more complex problem because their English and their cultural and learning backgrounds vary in many different ways, even in individuals who are the same chronological age (Gunderson, 2009). In addition, Cummins (1979a, 1979b, 1981, 1983, 2000) and Cummins and Swain (1986) argued there are two basic kinds of English a learner has to learn; â€Å"basic interpersonal communicative skill† [BICS] and â€Å"cognitive academic language proficiency† [CALP], the language of instruction and academic texts. BICS appears to take about 2 to 3 years to develop and CALP about 5 to 7. â€Å"Hello, how are you? and â€Å"What is your name† represent BICS, while â€Å"Identify a current controversial world political issue and develop and defend your position† is an example of CALP. Teachers are faced with the task of determining what learning activities and materia ls are appropriate for instruction and measurement of learning, while institutions such as universities and some governments are interested in determining whether or not an individual’s English ability is advanced enough for them to either enter a post-secondary program or to have the skills necessary to be integrated into a society and, therefore, be eligible to immigrate.Thus, in some instances, assessment serves to guide learning by informing teachers of students’ needs while in others it serves as a gatekeeper by excluding those who do not meet its standards. Instructional Levels—Determining Appropriate Instructional Strategies Language teachers have for some time opted to assess their students to ascertain their â€Å"level† of English language proficiency. The difficulty with the levels approach is that they do not really exist (Gunderson, 2009). A popular levels approach was developed in 1983 by the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Lang uages (ACTFL).The assessment is a one-on-one assessment focusing primarily on oral language. Three levels of beginner, intermediate, and advanced are distinguished (see, ACTFL, 1983). A learner can be identified as a low beginner or a high intermediate, etc. The behaviors that determine inclusion in a particular group are usually described in an assessment matrix. The assessor asks a series of questions to elicit knowledge of vocabulary, syntax, and pragmatics. The following is an example of a matrix developed by Gunderson (2009) showing oral language â€Å"levels† and their attendant features. * 0-Level English 1.Cannot answer even yes/no questions 2. Is unable to identify and name any object 3. Understands no English 4. Often appears withdrawn and afraid * Beginner 1. Responds to simple questions with mostly yes/no or one-word responses 2. Speaks in 1–2 word phrases 3. Attempts no extended conversations 4. Seldom, if ever, initiates conversations * Intermediate 1. Re sponds easily to simple questions 2. Produces simple sentences 3. Has difficulty elaborating when asked 4. Uses syntax/vocabulary adequate for personal, simple situations 5. Occasionally initiates conversations * Advanced 1. Speaks with ease 2. Initiates conversations 3.May make phonological or grammatical errors, which can then become fossilized 4. Makes errors in more syntactically complex utterances 5. Freely and easily switches codes More elaborate approaches involve the assessment of English listening, speaking, reading and writing skills, e. g. , the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CCLB, 2007). The notion of levels is an important one for teachers because they are thought to predict a student’s probability of succeeding within a particular teaching and learning environment. A beginner is different from an intermediate in various ways, and the instruction they are involved in is also different.Teachers often refer to ESL students as Level 1 or Level 5, depending upon their performance on an assessment measure. The notion of levels varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some cases there are 3, 4, 5, 8, or 10 levels, which are determined most often by locally developed informal assessment measures (Gunderson & Murphy Odo, 2010). Good assessment is essential to the design of appropriate instructional programs. The difficulty for classroom teachers is that there are few, if any, appropriate measures for them to use. Classroom AssessmentBlack and William (1998) reviewed more than 250 studies and found that there was a relationship between good classroom assessment and student performance. Most classroom-based assessment has been developed by teachers (Frisby, 2001; Wiggins, 1998). Unfortunately, most teachers report they are unprepared to assess and teach ESL students (Fradd & Lee, 2001). According to Pierce (2002), the majority of teachers employ assessments they remember they were involved in when they were in school: multiple-choice, cloze -like measures, matching, and true/false tests.This seems to have been the pattern for 50 years (Bertrand, 1994). Unfortunately, it seems, â€Å"†¦ many teachers are unprepared for the special needs and complexities of fairly and appropriately assessing ELLs† (Ehlers-Zavala, Daniel, & Sun-Irminger, 2006, p. 24). Gunderson and Murphy Odo (2010) have recently reviewed the measures used by teachers in 12 local school districts to assess ESL students. The number of different measures and approaches in use was surprising. The Idea Proficiency Test (IPT) (see Ballard, Dalton, & Tighe, 2001a, 2001b) was the measure most often used for primary level ESL students.Other assessments mentioned were the Brigance, (1983) the Bilingual Syntax Measure (Burt, Dulay, & Hernandez, 1976), the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (Woodcock, various dates), the Woodcock-Munoz (Woodcock-Munoz-Sandoval, 1993), the Pre-IPT, the Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT; Harris & Palmer, 1986), informal reading inventories, the Waddington Diagnostic Reading Inventory (Waddington, 2000), the Alberta Diagnostic Reading Inventory, the SLEP, the Gap (McLeod & McLeod, 1990), PM Benchmarks (a system for placing students in leveled books), the RAD (Reading Achievement District—a local assessment measure), the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1997), and a variety of locally developed listening, speaking, reading, and writing assessments. A serious difficulty is that most of these measures were not designed to provide ESL instructional levels so different heuristics in different districts were developed to translate them into levels.The designation â€Å"beginner,† for instance, varies significantly across districts as a result of the measures involved and the number of levels districts chose to identify. Two school districts reported the development and norming of tests for elementary and secondary students comprised of leveled passages taken from academic textbooks that were transformed into maze passages (see Guthrie, Seifert, Burnham, & Caplan, 1974). Scores from these measures were used to compute ESL levels; four in one case and five in the other. Interestingly, different metrics were used to compute instructional levels. So, for instance, a CELT score was used to determine ESL levels based on local intuition and experience.Most often the locally developed assessments involved one-on-one interviews in which students respond to tasks that require recognition of colors, body parts, school items, and the ability to answer simple questions (see, for example, Gunderson, 2009). There are also standardized assessments used by personnel at post-secondary institutions to make decisions concerning admissions to their programs. Predicting Academic Success The best known standardized English assessment measure is the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) published by Educational Testing Service (ETS). The publisher notes: In fact, m ore institutions accept TOEFL test cores than any other test scores in the world — more than 7,000 colleges, universities and licensing agencies in more than 130 countries, to be exact. (ETS, 2009a) There are different forms of the TOEFL. The classic paper-and-pencil form had standardized scores with 500 being the mean and 50 being the standard deviation. There are newer versions including a computer- and an Internet-based version that have different scoring criteria (see score comparison tables (ETS, 2009b)). The online version is based on a â€Å"communicative competence† model that requires learners to view clips of science lessons, for example, take notes, and respond to questions.TOEFL scores are used by post-secondary institutions to screen students for admission to their programs. The criteria for admission to programs varies from institution to institution and among departments in institutions (see, for instance, University of British Columbia, 2009). There is evidence that TOEFL scores are not highly predictive of success in university (Al-Musawi & Al-Ansari, 1999), however, although they continue to be used to do so. ETS also produces the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) and the Secondary Level English Proficiency (SLEP), both standardized assessment measures. The primary users of the SLEP are secondary teachers.The SLEP â€Å"measures the ability to understand spoken English,† and â€Å"the ability to understand written English† focusing on grammar, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (ETS, 2009c). The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) is a test of English language proficiency developed by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (2009). There are two versions: individuals who want to gain admission to a university in an English-speaking country take the academic version, while the other version is appropriate for trade schools and other purposes. Scores range f rom 1 to 9 with 1 being zero-level English, while 9 indicates native-like ability. Different universities require different IELTS scores to be eligible for admission.Both ETS and Cambridge have international centers around the world where students can take these tests. ELL assessment issues and standardized testing are procedures relevant to large-scale achievement testing in the United States. Large Scale or High-Stakes Testing According to Abedi, Hofstetter, and Lord (2004), â€Å"Historically, English language learners in the United States were excluded from participation in large-scale student assessment programs; there were concerns about the confounding influences of language proficiency and academic achievement† (p. 1). However, the United States has seen a focus on large-scale assessments due to the accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110).No Child Left Behind permits assessing ELLs in their first language for up to 3 years, but few states do. In 2005 a group of school districts sued the state of California to force it to allow Spanish-speaking students to take state-mandated tests in Spanish. Plaintiffs in Coachella Valley Unified School District v. California argued that the state â€Å"violated its duty to provide valid and reliable academic testing† (King, 2007). On July 30, 2009, â€Å"The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco rejected arguments by bilingual-education groups and nine school districts that English-only exams violate a federal law’s requirement that limited-English-speaking students ‘shall be assessed in a valid and reliable manner’† (Egelko, 2009).A lawyer for the school districts and advocacy groups stated, The court dodges the essential issue in the lawsuit, which is: What is the testing supposed to measure? If you don’t have to evaluate the testing, California gets a free pass on testing kids (who) don’t speak English, using tests that they have literally no evidence of their validity. (Egelko, 2009) The ruling was that â€Å"The law does not authorize a court to act as â€Å"the official second-guesser† of the reliability of a state’s testing methods. † The difficulty is that English measures are neither reliable nor valid when ESL students are involved. In some cases, accommodations are made for them.The procedures of providing ELL students accommodations during assessment sessions varies across jurisdictions, but includes such activities as lengthening the time allowed to take a test, allowing ELLs to be tested in separate rooms, allowing students to use bilingual dictionaries, the use of two versions of the test at the same time written in English and students’ first languages, providing oral translations for students, and composing responses in first languages. In 1998–1999, 39 states reported using test accommodations (Rivera, Stansfield, Scialdone, & Sharkey, 20 00). There is considerable controversy about providing accommodations, however.At the time of the writing of this chapter, accommodating students through the provision of L1 assessments has been judged not to be required. ELLs, Assessment, and Technology Advances in technology have made it possible for assessments to be administered as computer- or Internet-based measures. These developments have already taken place with measures such as the TOEFL (see above). An increasing use of technology to administer standardized and non-standardized assessments has raised interest in issues relating to mode-effects (e. g. , computer displays versus print form) and familiarity with computers, which have significant implications for ELLs.There is evidence that performance in paper-based and computer-based modes of assessment may vary due to ethnicity or gender (Gallagher, Bridgeman, & Cahalan, 2002). In addition, familiarity with computers is known to influence performance in writing (Horkay, Be nnett, Allen, Kaplan, & Yan, 2006) and mathematics (Bennett et al. , 2008) high-stakes tests. These issues need to be taken into consideration with ELLs particularly immigrant and refugee students. A related problem has to do with access. Indeed, access to computer and/or to the Internet is widely varied and, therefore, creates systematic differences in access. These are all areas that need further research. The State of the Art of ELL Assessment ResearchAs noted above, the category ESL or ELL is deceptive in that it represents millions of human beings who vary in age, first-language development, English achievement (both interpersonal and academic), educational backgrounds, immigration status, motivation, socioeconomic background, cultural views of teaching and learning, professional backgrounds, and social and academic aspirations. It is not, therefore, possible to review the breadth and depth of available research in this chapter. There are, however, some overall generalizations that can be made. Generally, the assessment practices and approaches designed for and used with native English speakers have been adopted and used with ELL students. This phenomenon is especially apparent in jurisdictions such as the United States where high-stakes assessments have become so important.There are serious validity and reliability concerns associated with this practice. It is not clear that the notion of accommodation, one borrowed from special education, helps in either case. Leung and Lewkowicz (2008) argue that this â€Å"common educational treatment irrespective of differences in language backgrounds† (p. 305) is emblematic of the view that both treatment and assessment should be inclusive. It does not account, among other features, for cultural differences that can cause difficulties for ESL students (Fox, 2003; Fox & Cheng, 2007; Norton & Stein, 1998). Overall, English proficiency is a significant variable in ELL assessment.In addition to the BICS/CALP dist inction mentioned above, Bailey (2005) proposes that there is a language of tests that is a different â€Å"register† or â€Å"discourse domain. † The use of such language creates a problem of â€Å"face validity. † Is the test actually testing what it is designed to test or is it a test of the language of tests? English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students around the world are assessed using many of the same measurements that are used to assess ELL students. EFL students are enrolled in programs in non-English contexts such as Japan where the language of the community is not English. They do not have ready access to native models of English that ELL students usually do. This is very much like the way students learn Latin in secondary school.It appears that EFL assessments are generally used to measure oral language ability such as the ACTFL mentioned previously. Our review of the assessment procedures and methods in use in K–12 schools in 12 school distr icts raised several issues that related to ESL learners’ assessment that were not found in studies such as Bertrand (1994), so we present them here. First, we found that there was a need for a measure that would discriminate students with language pathologies and/or learning disabilities from those who only needed English instruction. District members also expressed the need for a reliable measure to sort out secondary students’ content knowledge and their linguistic knowledge.Lastly, they contended that assessment should be developed to isolate ESL students’ specific areas of weakness so that teachers could more effectively use them to guide instruction. Summary and Conclusions The use ELL or ESL is unfortunate because it masks the underlying complexity of the human beings included in the category. ELL is inaccurate as a term because native English-speaking adults continue to be English language learners well into old age. Perceptions and pedagogical prescripti ons are the most troubling aspects of the use of these terms. In article after article the ESL or ELL is used as though they represent a homogenous group of human beings.Pedagogical recommendations are made on the notion that they are a single group with the same skills and abilities. Of course, this is far from the truth. Our experience is that teachers use the term to represent all students who speak English as an additional language. In addition, they appear to perceive ESL students as human beings who have trouble learning to read (English). And this too, is far from the truth for some students, but not for others. ESL (ELL) is a term that should either be qualified when used or discarded as a general term. The assessment of ELL/ESL/EFL learners is a significant foundational process for teachers to determine the appropriate teaching and learning programs for their students from kindergarten to the mature adult level.ELL assessment traditionally includes measures of listening, sp eaking, reading, and writing. There are three basic kinds of assessment instruments. The first is purely instructional in that it is designed to indicate the level at which students should be placed for instruction. The second type of measure is designed to provide an estimate of proficiency related to norm groups and involves scores such as percentiles and NCEs. The third is designed to provide predictive information concerning how well a student will succeed academically. Unfortunately, it appears that most measures are based on native English models. Another difficulty is that students’ English proficiency has a profound effect on their ability to succeed on a test.It is often difficult for a student to succeed on a test when the language of the test is difficult or unknown to them. Some have noted that the language of tests is also unique. Recently, assessment measures have been computerized and some have been put on the Internet. This raises serious questions of access, especially for students from countries where access is difficult or non-existent. For example, we have been told that the cost of taking an online test in a country like Zimbabwe is prohibitive. Educators from many jurisdictions have borrowed the concept of accommodation from special education to make the assessment procedures fair to ELLs who differ in various ways from native English speakers.There is disagreement concerning the validity of test results as a result of accommodations since they are not often included in the norming procedures of the instruments. We have heard some opine that accommodation is not itself fair, and that the results of standardized assessment provide information about how well students will do in an English-speaking instructional setting. It has been recommended that assessment measures be constructed that are written in different first languages. Some have argued that the number of first languages in schools would make this an expensive and impractica l approach. In July 2009 the use of English-only assessment measures was upheld in a federal appeals court in California.It is clear from a review of existing assessment practices that school-based personnel use a wide variety of instruments and procedures. It is also clear that there is the belief that it is important to identify a student’s â€Å"English level† for instructional purposes, but there is little agreement on how many levels should be identified. The precise process for determining a level is somewhat fuzzy, but it involves the interpretation of a variety of scores from a variety of tests. The research base concerning ELL assessment is not substantial. It focuses on measures originally designed for native English speakers. They do not do well generally on such measures. Indeed, they do not do well in school and a great number drops out, particularly from lower socioeconomic groups.The state of the art of assessment and instruction involving ELLs is extrem ely dire. The issues of ELL assessment needs urgent attention since ELLs are the most rapidly growing group in our schools. References ? Abedi, J. , Hofstetter, C. G. , & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1-28. ? Al-Musawi, N. M. &. Al-Ansari, S. H. (1999). Test of English as a foreign language and first certificate of English tests as predictors of academic success for undergraduate students at the University of Bahrain. System, 27(3), 389-399. American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (1983). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL Materials Center. ? Bailey, A. L. (2005). Language analysis of standardized tests: Considerations in the assessment of English language learners. In Abedi, J. , Bailey, A. , Castellon-Wellington, M. , Leon, S. , & Mirocha, J. (Eds. ), The validity of administering large-scale content asse ssments to English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives (pp. 79-100). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESSR). Ballard, W. , Dalton, E. , & Tighe, P. (2001a). IPT I oral grades K-6 examiner’s manual. Brea, CA: Ballard & Tighe. ? Ballard, W. , Dalton, E. , & Tighe, P. (2001b). IPT I oral grades K-6 technical manual. Brea, CA: Ballard & Tighe. ? Bennett, R. E. , Braswell, J. , Oranje, A. , Sandene, B. , Kaplan, B. , & Yan, F. (2008). Does it matter if I take my mathematics test on computer? A second empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 6(9), 1-40. ? Bertrand, J. E. (1994). Student assessment and evaluation. In Harp, B. (Ed. ), Assessment and evaluation for student centered learning (pp. 7-45). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. ? Black, O. , & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through cl assroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 141-148. ? Burt, M. K. , Dulay, H. C. , & Hernandez, E. (1976). Bilingual syntax measure. New York: Harcourt Brace Javonovich. ? Brigance, A. H. (1983). Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills II (CIBS II). North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates. ? Cambridge University Press. (2009). IELTS catalogue. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www. cambridgeesol. org/. ? Centre for Canadian language benchmarks (CCLB). (2007). Canadian language benchmarks.Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://www. language. ca/display_page. asp? page_id=206. ? Center for Research on Education Diversity and Excellence. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement final report. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://www. crede. ucsc. edu/research/llaa/1. 1_final. html. ? Cummins, J. (1979a). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age que stion and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 175-205. ? Cummins, J. (1979b). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251. ? Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 132-149. ? Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency and academic achievement. In Oller, J. W. (Ed. ), Issues in language testing research (pp. 108-129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. ? Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy. Toronto, ON: Multilingual Matters. ? Cummins, J. , & Swain, M. (1986). Linguistic interdependence: A Central principle of bilingual education. In Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (Eds. ), Bilingualism in education (pp. 80-95). New York: Longman. ? Crawford, J. (2004).Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed. ). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services. ? Dunn, L. M. , & Dunn, D. M . (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. ? Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2009a). TOEFL ® Internet-based Test (iBT). Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://www. ets. org/portal/site/ets/menuitem. 1488512ecfd5b8849a77b13bc3921509/? vgnextoid=f138af5e44df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=b5f5197a484f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD. ? Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2009b). TOEFL ® Internet-based Test (iBT). Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://www. ets. org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/TOEFL_iBT_Score_Comparison_Tabl

How Asia Works Book Review

How Asia Works Review To paraphrase William Blake’s gripping poem, tiger economy burning bright, what immortal hand or eye has framed thy fearful symmetry? Interestingly enough, the go-to answer these days involves a forelimb of sorts. Specifically, the invisible hand of the market. Is that all to the monolithic success story of East Asia, or is there more to it? Joe Studwell, in his book How Asia Works: Success and Failure in the World’s Most Dynamic Region?, attempts to provide a nuanced answer. The author articulates why some countries in the region boom while others stagnate. The success formula provided by the author involves three essential ingredients – agriculture, manufacturing, and finance – which are alluded to in a table of contents and particularized in the main chapters. Given the notorious intractability of the question, it is a high time for a book like that to emerge and illuminate the issue. This paper aims to provide a concise summary of the key arguments dep loyed by Studwell and assess their validity. The main assertion of the book review is that despite several inconsistencies and omissions, the three-pronged analytical approach used by the author is fairly effective in the elucidation of the Asian Miracle. WRITE MY BOOK REPORT Summary of How Asia Works Analysis Studwell offers the most comprehensive analysis to date on why the dramatic growth of several Asian economies occurred in less than half a century. His examination of the remarkable transformation of East Asia provides the basis for the evaluation of challenges facing underperforming economies of the region and for drawing valuable implications for the rest of the globe. Four countries fell under the lens of the author’s analytical microscope: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China. Studwell posits that per capita GDP of the countries grew twice as fast as that of other regional economies in the period between 1965 and 1990. To put the East-Asian record of success into perspective, the writer contrasts it against the historically slow economic development of the world, thereby emphasizing the scope of the â€Å"economic miracle.† In the author’s estimation, it took the industrial countries of Europe more than 400 years to demonstrate the increase in per capita income attained by East Asia in less than 50 years. Studwell offers a three-pronged analytical approach to account for the dramatic transformation of the countries. The writer maintains that the booming economy was spawned by the agricultural reform and the labor-intensive farming following it, rapid industrialization fueled by agricultural surpluses, and financial backing of the growth. How Asia Works Discussion Questions Before engaging in the in-depth analysis of the chief arguments posited by Studwell, an example of his writing is in order: â€Å"Deregulation policies do not empower a ‘natural’ tendency for finance to lead a society from poverty to wealth, they simply put short-term profit and the interests of consumers ahead of developmental learning and agricultural and industrial upgrading† (Studwell, 2014, p. 97). Quotes like that can serve as a basis for class discussion. For instance, students can be asked whether the weakening of government power in the financial sector creates more or less competition. Other discussion questions might involve the role of government intervention in the fueling of economic growth. BUY BOOK REPORT ONLINE Critique of How Asia Works In his analysis of Asian tigers, Studwell focuses on, inter alia, the three most fundamental drivers of economic growth: 1) the emergence and the consequent accumulation and use of large agricultural surpluses; 2) the implementation of competitive industrial policies; 3) the deployment of financial boosters for the first two drivers. It can be argued that had the writer stopped his investigation there, the book would be a serviceable analysis of the rapid economic development. Unfortunately, the author has succumbed to the siren song of regulatory economics, which is evidenced by the argument that illiberal policies of East Asian super achievers are superior to â€Å"neo-classical ‘efficiency’ economics† christened by him as tyrannical (Studwell, 2014, p. 112). The deployment of the political new speak in the economic analysis resembles the argumentative approach taken by Washington pooh-bahs. Furthermore, his stance is eerily reminiscent of the long-disproved not ion that poor economies can prosper by using a well-trodden route and training offered by well-to-do economies. By denouncing laissez-faire economics, Studwell proffers an alternative view of the Asian success story, the extent of the misreading of which is yet to be ascertained. For this reason, some criticism is in order. Studwell habitually neglected the cost of regulatory policies implemented by the Asian economies in question. In the case of China, he downplays the negative repercussions of the land redistribution preceding the Great Leap Forward and glosses over the reform’s casualties the numbers of which reached into millions. Studwell’s line of inquiry abruptly dropped after the discussion of the countryside investments in Taiwan under Japanese rule in the 1940s. The author seems to be strangely uncurious about moderate alternatives to the implemented policies. Two obvious examples would be the stronger protection of property rights and the introduction of tax cuts it rural Taiwan. Likewise, Studwell focuses on import-protectionism and the resulting GDP spikes without stopping to consider†¦ BUY BOOK REVIEW PAPER