Getting to Know Our Online Students Through Their Computer Screens

I will be sharing a few examples of assignments and exercises that I have done or have students do in the courses I teach at Marian. They allow students to get to know myself, so they don\u27t think of me as just an authority on the other side of the computer, and as a way for me to get to know them through their work. I have found this give and take helps students to feel more comfortable with me as an instructor, and with completing my assignments and exercises. This also has given them a space to openly discuss topics and feelings and past experiences behind the computer screen. In doing this, it lets the student relate the assignment to their real life, and having them use the concepts they\u27ve learned through the textbook or reading articles

Decision Making of Building Level Administrators and Their Perceptions on Groupthink

This research study examined how groupthink affects educational decision making for building level administrators by identifying the most prominent symptoms of groupthink and by exposing the characteristics that create an increase of vulnerability to groupthink. Participants for this study included building level administrators of 25 public high schools in a Midwest suburban county. These volunteers completed a three part survey which addressed the central research questions for the study: 1) What perceptions do current building level administrators have about the shared system of belief within their institution? 2) Among the administrators that believe they were hired because they share the district\u27s belief system, within which of the following area(s) (curriculum, assessment, discipline, and safety), have they experienced symptoms of groupthink? 3) Among the administrators that acknowledged symptoms of groupthink within any of these four areas of educational decision making, which symptom was the most prominent? 4) Within the most prominent symptom(s) of groupthink, what characteristics seem to influence building level administrators\u27 vulnerability to groupthink? A quantitative analysis was completed in order to answer the four research questions. The results of the study found that (1) when administrators are hired into a leadership position, their personal beliefs vastly matched that of the district they got hired to serve, (2) the educational decision making areas of curriculum, assessment, discipline, and safety embodied symptoms of groupthink, but in which no one area greatly exceeded the others, (3) unanimity and mindguarding were two symptoms that had significantly higher contrasting group means, and (4) the categories of change agent, mission driving decision making, mutual respect of colleagues, conversations between administrator and superintendent, the inclusion of curricular decision making, and the inclusion of assessment decision making yielded significant results

The influence of body satisfaction, weight satisfaction, and BMI on sexual behaviors among female college students

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)This paper describes the influence of body satisfaction, weight satisfaction, and BMI on sexual behaviors among female college students

Predicted Sexual Risk by Sexual Minority Emerging and Young Adults Who Had Sex Education in School

The topic of abstinence-only sex education and comprehensive sex education in schools, as well as its effectiveness, have been a subject of conversation in the United States since the beginning of the 21st century. The lack of applicable sex education for sexual minorities has been missing from the conversation, and has led to STIs, HIV/AIDs, and pregnancy. The purpose of this study was to test whether sexual minority emerging, and young adults would score higher or lower on sexual risk scale, depending on the type of sex education they received in school. The research question concerned whether the type of sex education received predicted sexual risk scale scores among emerging and young adult sexual minorities. A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was used. Participants (N = 320 participants) met the eligibility criteria of identifying themselves as between 18-30 years old and as any other sexual orientation than heterosexual or straight. A group comparison was made between the sexual risk scale scores for those who had abstinence only sex education and those who had comprehensive sex education. Analysis of variance was completed, and a post hoc analysis found that the sexual risk scale scores for those who had primarily abstinence-only sex education differed significantly from those sexual risk scale scores for those who had primarily comprehensive sex education. This research shows these individuals are split in their sexual risk scores, with over half high, showing that sex education of both types (abstinence-only and comprehensive) is failing to lower the sexual risk of sexual minority emerging and young adults. This study can lead to positive social change by helping educators and advocates to develop more effective sex education for sexual minorities

Mound Laboratory annual report CY 1974

This 1974 annual report presents a brief overview of work being performed in the following areas at the Mound Plant: explosive operations, nuclear operations, analytical developments, environmental control and waste management, computer programming, and supporting activities

Screening for Domestic Violence Among Adult Women in the United States

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence is a problem frequently encountered in health care settings and a risk factor for physical and mental health problems. OBJECTIVE: To provide nationally representative estimates of rates of domestic violence screening among women, to identify predictors of screening, and to describe settings where women are screened. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We examined 4,821 women over the age of 18 from the second wave of Healthcare for Communities, a nationally representative household telephone survey conducted in 2000–2001. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reports concerning whether the respondent was ever asked about domestic or family violence by any health care provider. RESULTS: Only 7% (95% CI, 6%–8%) of women reported they were ever asked about domestic violence or family violence by a health care professional. Of women who were asked about abuse, nearly half (46%) were asked in a primary care setting, and 24% were asked in a specialty mental health setting. Women with risk factors for domestic violence were more likely to report being asked about it by a health care professional, but rates were still low. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported rates of screening for domestic violence are low even among women at higher risk for abuse. These findings reinforce the importance of developing training and raising awareness of domestic violence and its health implications. This is especially true in primary care and mental health specialty settings

Domestic Violence and Health Care: Opening Pandora¿s Box ¿ Challenges and Dilemmas

In this article we take a critical stance toward the rational progressive narrative surrounding the integration of domestic violence within health care. Whilst changes in recent UK policy and practice have resulted in several tangible benefits, it is argued that there may be hidden dilemmas and challenges. We suggest that the medical model of care and its discursive practices position women as individually accountable for domestic violence-related symptoms and injuries. This may not only be ineffective in terms of service provision but could also have the potential to reduce the political significance of domestic violence as an issue of concern for all women. Furthermore, it is argued that the use of specific metaphors enables practitioners to distance themselves from interactions that may prove to be less comfortable and provide less than certain outcomes. Our analysis explores the possibilities for change that might currently be available. This would appear to involve a consideration of alternative discourses and the reformulation of power relations and subject positions in health care

Predicted Sexual Risk of Sexual Minority Emerging and Young Adults Who Had Sex Education in School

Following ethical procedures take high precedence in completing this study because of the American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics and Walden University guidelines for completing ethical research. All ethical concerns for recruiting of participants and processes of data collection was addressed with the IRB. If a participant starts the survey but does not fully complete the requirements of questions answered, this survey was thrown out. Since the recruitment was anonymous the individual would not be notified of this event, nor would they be able to contact the recruiters if they chose not to complete the survey. The sampling strategy was a convenient snowball sample. Data for this study was collected from participants between the ages of 18-30 years old, individuals was distributed via Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram, LinkedIn, Walden’s participant pool and through emails. The sample size that needed to be collected was calculated by G*Power analysis which yielded a sample size of 128 based on a using a F test of ANOVA: with fixed effects, omnibus and one way, with an effect f size of .25, an error probability of .05 with a power of .8 and 2 groups (Faul et al. 2007). Data collection occurred over 7 weeks. Once data was collected anonymously through the collecting site, Survey Monkey, then the data was downloaded into a zip file and then encrypted by the researcher into an excel file. That data was then exported into SPSS and was analyzed using the most recent version of SPSS. The researcher was the only one who had access to the downloaded file and any USB drives that they are stored on with a password. All saved Excel files, downloads from Survey Monkey, or SPSS will only be viewed by the researcher. The survey link also included a picture with the visual text of what this study was about and who specifically was being recruited, such as people 18-30 years old and individuals who are men who have sex with women (MSW), women who have sex with men (WSM), men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with women (WSW), lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, demisexual, or another sexual orientation (not including straight/heterosexual only) individuals. Once the participants agreed to participate, they were presented with a demographic questionnaire with five demographic questions based off Walcott, Chenneville, and Tarquini (2011) study, which included age, sex, race/ethnicity, primary language spoken at home during childhood, and religious affiliation. Questions I created and added to the demographic questionnaire included asking participants what sex they were assigned at birth or what appears on their birth certificate and then asking them how they identify, as a man, women, transgender man, or transgender woman. I also created the question that asked about categories of sexual minorities; options including men who have sex with women (MSW), women who have sex with men (WSM), men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with women (WSW), lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, demisexual, straight, as well as individuals being able to include their own identification as a write in option. Transgender was not included in this variable list because it is considered a gender identity not a sexual orientation (American Psychological Association [APA] 2023). Permission to use the instrumentation created by Walcott et al. can be found in Appendix A.Section 2 of the questionnaire included 22 items based on the work of Walcott, Chenneville, and Tarquini (2011) which were designed to obtain information about the primary theme of sex education, amount, quality, location/source, and depth of previous sex education lessons and discussions. The next 5 items included questions such as What would best describe the predominant “theme” across all of your previous sex education experiences?”; To what extent did the sex education you received answer your questions about sex and sex-related practices?”; How would you best describe the duration and intensity of your previous school-based sex education courses, if you had any?; Approximately how many school hours were spent on the subject of sex education during your middle and high school years?; How would you describe the information received from your previous lessons in sex education?The definitions of the primary themes for this question about models of sex education are listed below.Comprehensive sex education: According to Walcott, Chenneville, and Tarquini (2011:832) is defined as “detailed information about STIs, contraception, and abstinence; this model may emphasize that abstinence is the best method for avoiding STIs and unintended pregnancy, but it also teaches about condoms and contraception to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs, including HIV. Comprehensive models also teach interpersonal and communication skills to help young people explore their own values, goals, and options.”Abstinence-only sex education: According to Walcott, Chenneville, and Tarquini (2011:832) is defined as “education that includes discussions of values, character building, and, in some cases, refusal skills. This program promotes abstinence from sex but does not acknowledge that many teenagers will become sexually active. It does not teach about contraception or condom use, avoids discussions of abortion, and cites STIs and HIV as reasons to remain abstinent.”The next 12 items were rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from “not at all” to “extensively addressed.” The last 2 items to be asked will have a yes/no response: “Did your previous sex education include a discussion of how to properly use condoms and/or other forms of contraception?” and “Did your previous sex education include distribution of, or access to, condoms and/or other forms of contraception?”Section 3 of the questionnaire included 42 items based on the work of DeHart and Birkimer 1997; and Walcott, Chenneville, and Tarquini 2011. The first 38 items were used to assess what participants’ current sexual attitudes as well as current sexual behaviors were. These were created to measure perceived susceptibility to HIV/AIDS (human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), substance use, normative beliefs, attitudes about safer sex, intention to try to practice safer sex, and expectations about the feasibility of safer sexual activity. These were presented in 5- point Likert scales from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The results were determined by using the mean ratings for each subscale which were calculated on a 1 to 5 scale. Walcott, Chenneville, and Tarquini (2011) explains that the higher scores represented greater perceived susceptibility to HIV/AIDS, more substance use, greater norm toward safer sex, more positive attitudes about safer sex, greater intention to try to practice safer sex, and greater expectations to practice safer sex. Walcott, Chenneville, and Tarquini (2011) explains that this scale, including its subscales, has evidence of internal reliability (alphas of the subscales range from .76 to .90) and both construct and predictive validity (see DeHart and Birkimer 1997). The last 4 items were added to this survey section to measure current sexual activity and self-reported condom use with steady and nonsteady partners. Walcott, Chenneville, and Tarquini (2011) reviewed that the original creators of the survey instrument DeHart and Birkimer (1997) found differences in what predicted condom use with steady versus nonsteady partners when assessing the predictive validity of the first 38 items, suggesting these subgroups should be considered separately. These items were presented as follows: “When I had sex with a steady partner in the past year, we used a condom;” “When I had sex with someone in the past year who was not a steady partner, we used a condom;” and “When I had sex in the past 2 weeks, we used a condom.” Response choices for these three items were: “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” “very often,” “always,” or “N/A (I have not had sex with a [steady/non-steady] partner in the past year).” The last item in this section will include the question “How many times in the last month have you had sex without a condom? (Select only one) with the options of answers “(I have not had sex in the last month; I have had sex in the past month but always used a condom; once without a condom; 2 times; 3 times; 4 times; 5-10 times; 11-15 times; 16-20 times and more than 20 times).” Data was collected from 512 participants. However, participants who did not answer all the questions needed to complete analysis were removed. This left the number of participants at 320, which met the required threshold of 300 to complete the analysis.Once the participant data that could not be included in the analysis were removed, the negative survey questions 36, 37, 39, 43, 44, 47, 48, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67, 69, and 72 were reverse coded. By reverse coding the Likert scale of 1 to 5, 5 was converted to 1, 4 to 2, 2 to 4, and 1 to 5. In order for the responses that had a high score to be transformed into the corresponding low score on the scale, the answers of the negative worded items were reversed to positive worded items through the reverse coding.</p