A computer is an _____device that _____data ______it, stores or______ information.

electronic, accepts, processes, output

processes, accepts, electronic, output

electronic, processes, output, accepts

ouput, processes, electronic, accepts

All of these computers fall under the category of minicomputers except:

https://uploads.quizalize.com/c99ff863-5c66-4a57-a9e3-38bed04fa08f/question/487c73047cc45d6ab25c1c8a55067e03696b4eb7.jpg

https://uploads.quizalize.com/c99ff863-5c66-4a57-a9e3-38bed04fa08f/question/52e75ec688c4bd562d5cfb17e168c7f8ca85440a.jpg

https://uploads.quizalize.com/c99ff863-5c66-4a57-a9e3-38bed04fa08f/question/97c851ad69e286e1f23bbfdd2bf881de3ba0963e.jpg

https://uploads.quizalize.com/c99ff863-5c66-4a57-a9e3-38bed04fa08f/question/344d21f20644e609293a80afd83668daaa1f159b.jpg

Fundamentals of Computing

Fundamentals of Computing - Midterm Review

FUNDAMENTALS OF COMPUTING TEST 2

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

The advantage of direct method is that the teacher can control the class and fit in a lot of activity into a short class period. This leaves plenty of opportunities for the students to hone their skills, especially new ones. On the other hand, because the class is centered around the teacher, some students may not receive proper feedback, and creativity is limited. Also, the lesser talented athletes often tend to get lost in the shuffle while the great athletes shine. However, there are now a multitude of various teaching strategies that can be employed in addition to that method. Ex: Announcements, Module/Unit introductions, Descriptions/modeling of assignments and learning activities, Written or video lectures, Demonstration videos, Presentations, Discussions moderated by instructors, Interactive tutorials. Indirect Method The Indirect Teaching Style allows students to be involved in their own learning through experience and other peer’s knowledge. Students can use critical thinking to expand their learning capabilities by seeing what others may be doing correct and adjusting this to their own knowledge. The Indirect approach is the opposite of what the direct style suggests, but they are both strictly related, meaning you can’t have one without the other. Direct teaching: The instructor stands in front of the class or group and lectures or advises. Indirect teaching: The instructor assumes a more passive role and guides the student interactions. Movement exploration: Incorporates the use of equipment that involves movement. Movement Exploration The movement exploration class is founded on developing a strong, positive association to physical activity. Classes are aimed at developing movement skills and foundational strength through fun and engaging activities. The activities are age appropriate and include games, challenges, and exploration that positively challenge children’s competency while improving their physical capabilities. Skills such as the ability to climb, hold animal shapes, gymnastic style activities, and the introduction to athletic motor skill competencies are the foundations to youth training. This class provides the introduction to strength training to give children the opportunity to learn the skills required to safely and confidently engage in resistance training. Cooperative Skills Cooperative activities teach students to work together for their group's common good. By participating in these activities, students can learn the skills of listening, discussing, thinking as a group, group decision making, and sacrificing individual wants for the common good. There are two primary objectives guiding the teaching of cooperative activities. First, cooperative activities allow students to apply a variety of fundamental motor skills in a unique setting. Students are typically asked to perform motor skills in a specific way, such as “skip in general space” or “balance on one foot and one elbow.” Cooperative activities ask students to perform different activities such as skip with their hands on the shoulders of someone in front of them, walk with big steps while placing their feet on small spots, or walk across an area blindfolded while someone directs their moves. Due to the uniqueness of such experiences, students often find cooperative activities exciting and motivating. Second, cooperative activities are a wonderful medium for teaching social and emotional learning (SEL). SEL offers students an opportunity to understand and manage their emotions. In addition, such activities offer an opportunity to show empathy for others and develop positive relationships. Cooperative activities demand that all students play a role in completing the task or solving the movement problem. Every student, regardless of ability level, is important and contributes to group goals. 9 traits a PE teacher often needs Here are nine essential traits of an effective PE teacher: 1. Athletic ability Athletic ability is an essential trait for a PE teacher because they're often showing kids how to perform exercises. To demonstrate proper form and encourage the kids to continue their fitness education, it's important they can perform the exercises themselves. Having experience with fitness training can enhance a PE teacher's lesson planning because they're familiar with how each exercise affects a person's body. Athletic ability can also refer to an aptitude for sports and games. PE teachers can instruct students on how to play these games or lead after-school activities involving them, like soccer or basketball. An aptitude for sports and games can help a PE teacher encourage students to participate in the activities during class. If the PE teacher enjoys physical activity, they may make the lessons more enjoyable for the student. 2. Teaching ability A PE teacher is a member of a school faculty, so it's essential they have the teaching ability that allows them to communicate lessons to students. There are various skills involved in teaching, including the technical capabilities associated with each professional's particular field. Learning these skills can help PE teacher plan their lessons effectively and connect with their students, meaning they can encourage students to practice fitness skills in optimal ways for their health. Here are some important teaching skills for PE teachers: Having an engaging classroom presence  Real-world learning  Project building  Lesson planning  Technology 3. Interpersonal skills PE coaches are part of faculty teams, so working alongside other teachers is an essential part of their job. They often collaborate with a student's general education teacher to address any behavioral issues that arise. They can also team up with other classes to plan activities for students, like field days and special field trips. Communicating with peers can ensure these interactions remain productive and create opportunities for more fulfilling lessons. Teachers can also model emotional skills for their students by displaying positive social interactions. Interpersonal skills can also help PE teachers interact with students and their families. If a student can make a student feel comfortable expressing their needs and preferences, they can often perform physical exercises or play games to the best of their individual capacities. Understanding how to soothe nerves and support students' emotional needs are important examples of interpersonal skills. When interacting with family members, you may use some of these same techniques to communicate effectively and best uplift students. 4. Written and verbal communication Both verbal and written communication is important for PE teachers because they often communicate with students, families and various personnel on a day-to-day basis. For example, a PE teacher uses their communication skills in a lesson plan to describe any student assignments or expectations accurately. They may also write instructions in a document, then explain them in a classroom lecture. They also use communication skills to share their lesson plans with other PE teachers during conferences or classroom development exercises. Many teachers continue to learn their trade even after working as a teacher for many years. They may share tips with each other or special lessons they've developed if they feel another teacher may benefit from it. Creating a community can help PE teachers continue to expand their teaching methodology and receive feedback on their lessons. 5. Patience and adaptability Working with children can require patience and adaptability because they're encountering many new concepts at the same time and learning how to regulate their emotions. As a result, it's important to treat them with patience and care while they're in your class so they can feel comfortable and feel motivated to complete assignments. As children become teenagers, they may require patience and adaptability to account for their changing bodies and attention spans. Like any job where you perform tasks in real-time, certain circumstances may occur that require you to adapt lesson plans. For example, if the weather turns from sunshine to rain on a day you planned for students to run a mile outside, you may need to adapt the lesson plan so they can practice endurance sports inside a gymnasium instead. 6. Organization PE teachers can use organization skills to improve their lesson planning sessions. For example, they can keep their plans in one place, and determine which parts of a semester or quarter to introduce new concepts. Throughout the year, these objectives may change because of unforeseen setbacks, but organizational skills can help PE teachers control the trajectory of their class curriculum. PE teachers can also use organizational skills to maintain their classroom space. Physical education frequently requires balls, equipment and tools to play games that may be on a lesson plan. They also organize equipment and decide where to store it within their classroom or storage space. 7. Creativity Creativity can help a PE teacher develop fun ways to introduce new material to their students or reinforce previous lessons. They can teach new games or devise interesting ideas to change the rules of a game to help keep students engaged. To find inspiration for their lesson plans, they can turn to personal hobbies or media aspects they enjoy, like movie scenes, songs or dances. A varied lesson plan can foster more engagement among students who prefer action- based learning activities, rather than lectures. 8. Focus Focus is an essential trait of a PE teacher because students often require their full attention during class, especially if they're learning a complicated physical task. You can focus your lesson plans around specific elements of physical education you believe are essential for students of a certain age group or skill level. If students require mentorship, you can also focus on each student's needs to supply them with a steady support system. Focusing on your students can help guide your career purpose. It can give you a core value system that informs your lesson plans and mentorship activities. This passion for your student's well-being can also help you become an advocate for each student in your class. You can also help organize funding for different field trips or establish after-school activities to support their interests. 9. Enthusiasm for teaching sports and fitness Enthusiasm is essential for a PE teacher. Many physical education activities require high energy and may suit someone who enjoys teaching them to others. Being an effective PE teacher also requires an enthusiasm for working with kids and making a positive impact on their lives.

FUNDAMENTALS OF DRAWING

Fundamentals of Accountancy, Business and Management 2

Related quizzes

Related quizzes