Epidemiology and global health

International epidemiology principles

Analyze the criteria for establishing a cause and effect relationship with respect to health/disease and explain how these criteria can be researched by using epidemiological measures.

WE ALL KNOW CLASSWORK IS BORING. THUS, OUR ESSAY HELP SERVICE EXISTS TO HELP STUDENTS WHO ARE OVERWHELMED WITH STUDIES. ORDER YOUR CUSTOM PAPER FOR 20% DISCOUNT. USE CODE SAVE20

Source link


Epidemiology and global health was first posted on July 30, 2020 at 2:28 pm.
©2020 "My Assignment Geek". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at savvyessaywriters@gmail.com

Dissemination of Science throughout culture in Renaissance

Science

As you have been witnessing, historically science has been an elite road traveled by the rich, religious leaders, and the privately educated. Today, we are seeing a movement in STEM and STEAM to promote scientific endeavors in the public school system and in the community. In fact, you have just finished a community based science project. Your job is to compare and contrast the ways in which science was disseminated throughout the culture in the renaissance to today. Your ultimate question to answer is… Is our education system serving scientific thought and the creation of new scientists and scientific discovery?

Hint: You may wish to look at what STEM and STEAM programs are and what the NGSS standards are for public education.

Requirements:

  1. Four different sources using APA citation
  2. A minimum of 500 words
  3. A complete thesis statement
  4. Evidence and Analysis that prove your point of view
  5. Accurate quotations from your sources / I will be checking for plagerism
  6. Please edit your work for grammar and spelling

Rubric

ClEAR Writing Style Rubric

ClEAR Writing Style Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClaimThe text introduces a clear, arguable claim that can be supported by reasons and evidence.

5.0 pts

Skilled

Text contains a compelling claim that is clearly arguable and takes a purposeful position and relates directly to the experimental design.

4.0 pts

Proficient

Claim is easily identified OR clearly stated but continues to relate directly to the experimental design.

3.0 pts

Developing

Claim is vague but does attempt a structure to support the position.

2.0 pts

Revise

Claim is not related to the experimental design but still attempts some organization to support a position.

1.0 pts

Inadequate

Arguable claim is missing.

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidenceThe text provides sufficient data and evidence to back up the claim as well as a conclusion that supports the argument.

10.0 pts

Skilled

Excellent supporting evidence AND concrete details directly related to claim.

8.0 pts

Proficient

Sufficient supporting evidence OR concrete details to support claim.

7.0 pts

Developing

Vague supporting evidence OR concrete details, may wander from claim.

6.0 pts

Revise

Claim is not supported accurately, some support does not favor the claim, lack of concrete details.

5.0 pts

Inadequate

Missing concrete evidence to support claim.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysisThe text uses words, phrases and clauses to link the major sections of the text, creates cohesion, and clarifies the relationships between the claim and evidence.

10.0 pts

Skilled

Clear focus and unity of analysis. Direct comparison of outcomes and explains relationships between the claim and evidence.

8.0 pts

Proficient

Clear focus of analysis with some attempt at comparing the evidence.

7.0 pts

Developing

Lacks focus or unity. No real comparison of evidence, more of a summary of evidence.

6.0 pts

Revise

No clear focus or unity, merely restates the evidence.

5.0 pts

Inadequate

Text does not connect the claims and evidence.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReasoningGives scientific and supportable reasons to claim.

10.0 pts

Skilled

Use of correct science principles WITH extra relevant information.

8.0 pts

Proficient

Correct science principles WITHOUT extra relevant information.

7.0 pts

Developing

Vague use of scientific principles.

6.0 pts

Revise

No supporting scientific principles, but some indirect attempts at explanations.

5.0 pts

Inadequate

No scientific reasons provided, purely speculative.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStyleThe text presents a formal objective tone that demonstrates proper grammar, spelling, usage, and mechanics appropriate to science.

5.0 pts

Skilled

Engaging and formal tone. Use of scientific vocabulary, no repetition of ideas, proper grammar and spelling.

4.0 pts

Proficient

Good tone. Sentence structure is grade level appropriate. Some repetition of ideas. Limited errors in mechanics.

3.0 pts

Developing

Proper tone, but limited use of science vocabulary, repetitive ideas and frequent spelling and grammar errors.

2.0 pts

Revise

Limited awareness of tone. Frequent spelling and grammar errors. Lack of usage of science vocabulary.

1.0 pts

Inadequate

Frequent and inaccurate use of English conventions in mechanics and tone, no use of science vocabulary.

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAudienceThe text anticipates the audience’s knowledge level and concerns about the claim. The text addresses the specific audience’s needs and presents an appropriate register.

5.0 pts

Skilled

All requirements met and consistently refers to the claim while addressing concerns of audience.

4.0 pts

Proficient

All requirements met and text does address needs but does not always refer specifically to the claim.

3.0 pts

Developing

Most of the requirements met. Text occasionally addresses the needs of the audience but often wanders from the claim.

2.0 pts

Revise

Text inconsistently addresses requirements and needs of audience.

1.0 pts

Inadequate

Text lacks an awareness of the audience’s knowledge and needs.

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitationsEvidence is correctly cited and the Works Cited is correctly formatted in APA.

5.0 pts

Skilled

Number of citations met and formatted properly

4.0 pts

Proficient

Missing one citation but all formatted properly

3.0 pts

Developing

Missing two citations or use of one repeated often, some formatting problems.

2.0 pts

Revise

Repetitive use of same citation, missing more than two.

1.0 pts

Inadequate

APA format not applied

5.0 pts

Total Points: 50.0

Bicycle Thieves: The Cost of Love Film Analysis

Humanities

Task

  • •In a 4-5 page paper (absolute minimum 3.5 pages, absolute maximum 5.5 pages), argue how Bicycle Thieves, directed by Vittorio De Sica, or The Battle of Algiers, directed by Gillo Pontecorvo, represents a particular, narrowly-defined issue or phenomenon by using evidence from one or two film scenes. Your thesis should be original (entirely your idea), and it should indicate not only the issue or phenomenon in question but also the film’s point of view about that issue or phenomenon.
    • To support your original, specific, focused (no lists!), and unobvious thesis, raise evidence from one or two film scenes.Your thesis ought to be insightful enough to give you enough legitimate analysis to do. Do not pad your paper with bullshit!

Objectives

  • Practice engaging with a source’s ideas and using them to further your own intellectual ends
  • To defend a reasoned judgment
  • To quote and paraphrase accurately and gracefully

Criteria for Evaluation

  • Complete: Does the paper include all the necessary parts of the assignment? (thesis, summary of the film/scenes, focusing on a few key details, two portable concepts used in service of your thesis, conclusion, etc.)?
  • Accurate: Do your paraphrases and analyses faithfully represent the source material (both the film and the essays)?
  • Brief: Does the paper use language precisely and economically to say as much as possible in the allotted space?
  • Independent: Would the paper make sense to readers who have not read the essays and seen the movies? Do you define key terms, if necessary?
  • Clarity and Design: Is the paper well-written, easy to understand, and easy to follow? Is it focused on your thesis? Does it have an effective structure and an appropriate style? Are sources properly documented? Are transitions used well? Is it organized and coherent?
  • Editing Skills: Is the paper free of grammatical and mechanical errors?

Grade Range

  • •A – Model paper. Up to a few minor errors and no major errors.
  • •B – A few minor errors and perhaps one or two major errors counterbalanced by better than average execution.
  • •C – Complete assignment. One or more major errors accompanied by many minor errors. On balance, however, the paper does fair work satisfying the requirements. A “C” paper is a successful paper.
  • •D – A medley of major and minor errors. Usually an incomplete assignment. Often times “D” papers demonstrate reading and assignment comprehension issues or are a product of student sloppiness and laziness.
  • •F – Failure.

Major Errors: Result in the loss of anywhere between 8-30 points, depending on the severity. These errors usually involve issues related to the thesis, accuracy and misrepresentation, independence, citation, evidence (analysis/portable concept execution), introduction/conclusion, and completion.

Minor Errors: Result in the loss of anywhere between 1-7 points, depending on the severity. These errors usually involve issues related to grammar and editing, organization, clarity, and neutrality. However, sometimes a problem with the thesis, accuracy, independence, evidence (analysis/portable concept execution), introduction/conclusion, or citation is insignificant enough to fall under this category.

Keep in mind that minor errors can snowball and cause major errors. For instance, minor errors in organization could conceivably make a paper very difficult to follow overall, giving rise to a work that lacks independence.

Review paper!

Humanities

4-5 page double-spaced review papers concerned with an assigned class discussion reading.

Outside research welcome to sustain key points, but analysis, reflection, organization, grammar & style are more important.

Class Discussion: M. GANDHI, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha, 2001 [1961]), section first (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)