interview paper

/in /by

This report should be easy and perhaps even fun. Your job is to interview an older person (a relative, a parent, guardian, aunt or uncle, or acquaintance). A grandparent or great grandparent is even better. Ask them about their experiences with new communication technology (e.g., television, cable TV, the Internet, texting). For example, do your parents remember their first computer, or the first time they went on the Internet? Do your grandparents remember their first television set? Ask them to describe the experience. How did it affect their lives? Write up a 200 400 word report (not a verbatim transcript) of your interview. Include your reaction to their experiences. What surprised you? What did you find most interesting? Do you see any similarities with your media experiences?

Guidelines:

Type AND SAVE your report in a Word file.
When you are ready to submit the assignment, select Submit Assignment in the upper right corner of this page and copy and paste your document into the text box below.  Make sure you submit the assignment before Tuesday at 9:00 AM.  Late assignments will NOT be accepted.
Write complete sentences with proper spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Proofread before you submit!

Open Source Intelligence

/in /by

The purpose of the assignment is for you to critically evaluate open sources for reliability and for you to explore your biases. As an intelligence analyst or OSINT professional you will have to provide the decision maker with the best available intelligence analysis. So choose your sources carefully and keep your mind open as you select ONE of the below topics for your paper. This four (4) to six (6) page paper is due at the end of week 4. As always, the page count does not include the title or references pages.

1. Who is Anonymous? Research the answer, gather evidence to support your argument, and give your best speculation on who it is and why. You must nominate one person and dont focus on more than one person.  An article was published in the New York Times in September of  2018: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html. And a book was published in November 2019: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/trump-admin-targets-soon-be-published-insider-book-anonymous-n1076161 The search continues to identify who is Anonymous and you are part of that search if you should choose to accept this assignment. https://youtu.be/rq3cBMleNiM

2. Describe and explain the Clinton e-mail controversy. Does the evidence show there was damage to national security or just damage to her campaign?

3. To what degree did the Trump Campaign, transition team, and administration collude (be sure to review the definition) with the Russians? What impact did they have on it and is America more prepared now for future attempts by any adversary? A thorough review and use of The Mueller Report, part I, is required to answer this question: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

4. Describe and explain the Uranium One Deal. To what degree did Hillary Clinton collude with the Russians?

5. You are the Chief of OSINT for country X. The president is trying to understand what was going on with the POTUS, Giuliani, the “three amigos”, and all this quid pro quo business with Ukraine to see if there is room for exploitation vis-a-vis your country. Describe what happened, what impact it had on international relations, and what vulnerabilities does it expose the administration to?

Please review the attached information literacy tools that may help you with your research and writing of this paper.

Citation and Reference Style

Students will follow the Chicago Style as the sole citation and reference style used in written work submitted as part of coursework to the course. See http://www.apus.edu/Online-Library/tutorials/chicago.htm. A quick guide may be found at: The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017 available online at: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html The Author-Date system is recommended. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/717/10/

All written submissions should be submitted in Times New Roman 12pt font with 1 margins, typewritten in double-spaced format.  College-level work is expected to be free of grammar, usage, and style errors.

Raising the Bar

/in /by

At a minimum, this critique should address the following questions or issues. If, in your opinion, your article does not address one or more of them, then you should say so and defend or justify why you believe that to be the case. In all cases, defend or justify your answers with specific references to words, phrases, or passages in the article and corresponding references to the assigned readings for the course. In other words, while your critique should be written in your own words (third person only), you do need to make references to specific words, phrases, and relevant passages in the text of your article, as well as

corresponding references to the assigned readings for the course. Each of the following items in BOLD must be listed as a heading on your critique. Do not use bullet points. Discuss in your critique the questions/issues under each bolded item. If a question/issue does not apply, please explain why.
    Summary (1-2 pages)
o    Summarize the contents of your article.
o    Who wanted the policy or program evaluated? In other words, why did the author(s) conduct the evaluation?
    Evaluation Goal(s) (1 page)
o    What were the goals or desired outcomes of the policy or program under examination?
o    How did the author(s) propose to evaluate the policy or program in terms of its goals or outcomes?
    Theoretical Perspective (2-3 paragraphs)
o    What theory connects the policy or program to the goals or outcomes?
o    What rival or plausible explanations or theories were ruled out?
o    How did the theory guide the author(s) in their conduct of the evaluation?
    Research Methods (2-3 paragraphs)
o    What principal research method(s) did the author(s) use in the conduct of the evaluation?
o    Did any unintended or unanticipated consequences arise? If so, what were they?
o    How and why did they arise?
    Conclusion (1 page)
o    What did the author(s) conclude? On what basis?
o    Did the policy or program achieve its intended goals or outcomes in whole, in part, or not at all? If so, why or why not?
o    To what uses were the results of the evaluation to be put?
o    Based on the results of the evaluation, what principal recommendations did the author(s) make?
    Evaluation Concepts (1-2 pages)
o    After you have written your summary, identify which of the following apply to the article. Be sure to define the concept and explain how each of your selections applies to your article.

Read chapters 3 – 6 from Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer, editors, Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, Latest Edition as well as Module 2 lecture materials (and journal articles).

stereotypes

/in /by

Scholarly work often builds upon what has been done by others. This is perfectly ethical, presuming that the work is properly credited and there is a clear delineation between the writers original thought and what they are borrowing from others.

Review the following abstracts from three journal articles. Then, open a new Word document and, entirely in your own words, describe your understanding of gender self-stereotyping given this material. Attempt to integrate the articles together into a cohesive statement, making sure to use APA citations as appropriate. All articles must be referenced at least once. Suggested length is 12 paragraphs.

Article 1 (Chiu et al., 1998):

Abstract: Recent research has shown that the presence of stereotype-relevant environmental cues can inadvertently bias people’s judgments of others in the direction of the stereotype. The present research demonstrated analogous activation effects on self-stereotyping. In two experiments, the effects of stereotype activation on the tendencies to stereotype others and to self-stereotype were examined. Experiment 1 tested whether incidental exposure to gender-related materials might activate gender stereotypes and hence affect perception of another person. Experiment 2 investigated gender stereotype activation effects on female and male high school students’ self-presentation behaviors. The results showed that incidental exposure to stereotype-relevant environmental cues increased both stereotyping and self-stereotyping tendencies. The findings were discussed in terms of their implications for understanding the basic principles of knowledge activation and application, and for reducing stereotyping and self-stereotyping. (p. 401)

Article 2 (Heyder & Kessels, 2013):

Abstract: One cause proposed for boys relatively lower academic achievement is a feminisation of schools that might result in a lack of fit between boys self-concept and academic engagement. Research so far has investigated math-male and language-female stereotypes, but no school female stereotypes. Our study tested for implicit gender stereotyping of school and its impact on boys achievement in N=122 ninth-graders from a large city in Western Germany using the Go/No-go Association Task (GNAT). Gender role self-concept and grades in math (representing an academic domain stereotyped as male) and German (domain stereotyped as female) were assessed using written questionnaires. It was found that, overall, students associated school more strongly with female than with male, and that this association of school with female was related to boys academic achievement. The more strongly boys associated school with female and the more they ascribed negative masculine traits to themselves, the lower their grades in German were. Boys academic achievement in math was unrelated to the extent to which they perceived school as feminine and themselves as masculine. Girls grades in both German and math were unrelated to their gender stereotyping of school. These findings emphasize the importance of fit between a students gender, gender role self concept and gender stereotyping of school for academic achievement. Strategies to improve this fit are discussed. (p. 605)

Article 3 (Hirnstein, Andrews, & Hausmann, 2014):

Abstract: Sex differences in specific cognitive abilities are well documented, but the biological, psychological, and sociocultural interactions that may underlie these differences are largely unknown. We examined within a biopsychosocial approach how gender stereotypes affect cognitive sex differences when adult participants were tested in mixed- or same-sex groups. A total of 136 participants (70 women) were allocated to either mixed- or same-sex groups and completed a battery of sex-sensitive cognitive tests (i.e., mental rotation, verbal fluency, perceptual speed) after gender stereotypes or gender-neutral stereotypes (control) were activated. To study the potential role of testosterone as a mediator for group sex composition and stereotype boost/threat effects, saliva samples were taken before the stereotype manipulation and after cognitive testing. The results showed the typical male and female advantages in mental rotation and verbal fluency, respectively. In general, men and women who were tested in mixed-sex groups and whose gender stereotypes had not been activated performed best. Moreover, a stereotype threat effect emerged in verbal fluency with reduced performance in gender stereotyped men but not women. Testosterone levels did not mediate the effects of group sex composition and stereotype threat nor did we find any relationship between testosterone and cognitive performance in men and women. Taken together, the findings suggest that an interaction of gender stereotyping and group sex composition affects the performance of men and women in sex-sensitive cognitive tasks. Mixed-sex settings can, in fact, increase cognitive performance as long as gender-stereotyping is prevented. (p. 1663)
Reference

Chiu, C., Hong, Y., Lam, I. C., Fu, J. H., Tong, J. Y., & Lee, V. S. (1998). Stereotyping and self-presentation: Effects of gender stereotype activation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1(1), 81-96. doi:10.1177/1368430298011007

Heyder, A., & Kessels, U. (2013). Is school feminine? Implicit gender stereotyping of school as a predictor of academic achievement. Sex Roles,69(11-12), 605-617. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0309-9

Hirnstein, M., Andrews, L. C., & Hausmann, M. (2014). Gender-stereotyping and cognitive sex differences in mixed- and same-sex groups.Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 43(8), 1663-1673. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0311-5