Category: Writing

The use of digital assessment tools by InformationTechnology teachers (PE86).

AI tools may be used to support the writing of the thesis; however, their use must be appropriate and careful. The text should be coherent, without unnecessary repetition, and supported by accurate and relevant academic references. Proper citation and integration of the literature are essential throughout the writing process.

The SPSS analysis must be conducted according to the instructions provided below.

You may translate the Excel file into English and use the literature review that I have already sent you as the basis for the theoretical framework.

Here is a summary of the data analysis process according to the professors instructions:

At the beginning of the research, we can analyze the questionnaire we used and indicate from which studies each question was derived (this will also help expand the written content of the thesis).

Before interpreting any results, we should briefly explain what kind of results will be presented. For example, before presenting the factor analysis, we should explain based on the literature why factor analysis is used and which statistical values help interpret the results. This will also help increase the word count and incorporate more references.

Factor analysis will be conducted separately for each section of the questionnaire:

• Technology and pedagogical knowledge
• Digital assessment practices
• Advantages / benefits of digital assessment
• Disadvantages / barriers to digital assessment

For the last section, Disadvantages / Barriers to digital assessment, factor analysis divides the questions into two factors.

For section 5, I received the following instruction from the professor because the questionnaire responses did not produce the expected results:
Split the factor into two sub-factors as indicated by the initial factor analysis. Calculate Cronbachs alpha using all seven variables; the value is 0.709.

After that, I was instructed to name:

• the first four questions of the first factor as Disadvantages
• the remaining three questions of the second factor as Barriers,
  since this is how the section is titled in the questionnaire.

In summary, factor analysis will be conducted separately for each questionnaire section (excluding demographic data).
In sections 2, 3, and 4, one factor will be created, while in section 5, two factors will be created, as shown in the analysis output.

Further analyses will be conducted based on the factors created, except for Cronbachs alpha, which will be calculated for the total number of questions in each questionnaire section. For example, in section 5, all seven questions will be used.

Next, I was instructed to divide the last factor into two research questions. So far, in the literature we have:

Research Question 4 (RQ4):
What barriers do PE86 teachers face when implementing digital assessment?

This will be split into:

Research Question 4A (RQ4A):
What disadvantages do PE86 teachers perceive in the implementation of digital assessment?
(first factor of section 5)

Research Question 4B (RQ4B):
What barriers do PE86 teachers face in implementing digital assessment?
(second factor of section 5)

Additionally, I was told to analyze Research Question 5 from the literature:

Research Question 5 (RQ5):
What is the relationship between PE86 teachers self-efficacy and the digital assessment practices they implement?

However, neither the professor nor I were able to clearly understand how this relates to the questionnaire items. I was told that if I find a way to connect it, I should proceed; otherwise, I should modify it and create a new research question.

If you are able to connect it, that would be ideal; otherwise, we may need to develop a new research question.

IMPORTANT: If possible, I would like you to send me the .sav file generated by SPSS for each analysis, in case I am asked to provide them later.

I am doing a group project. The group topic is borderline personality disorder. Some of my classmates already started on it you can combine all the information into one. Please finish what has not been done yet no plagiarism whatsoever please.

Review Case Study 2.1: Choosing a New Director of Research on pages 45-46 of Northouse.

1. Based on the information provided about the trait approach in Table 2.1 and 2.2, if you were Sandra, whom would you select?
2. In what ways is the trait approach helpful in this type of selection?

3. In what ways are the weaknesses of trait approach highlighted in this case.

Read and review the assigned case study then respond to the three specific questions related to that case study. (The questions for each individual Module are listed below.) You will write your responses and post them to the Discussion for that specific Module. Your response should be a minimum of 400 words and should be formatted in APA style. Your response should include a minimum of two academic references and one biblical concept.

Case 2.1 Choosing a New Director of Research

Sandra Coke is vice president for research and development at Great Lakes Foods (GLF), a large snack food company that has approximately 1,000 employees. As a result of a recent reorganization, Sandra must choose the new director of research. The director will report directly to Sandra and will be responsible for developing and testing new products. The research division of GLF employs about 200 people. The choice of directors is important because Sandra is receiving pressure from the president and board of GLF to improve the companys overall growth and productivity.

Sandra has identified three candidates for the position. Each candidate is at the same managerial level. She is having difficulty choosing one of them because each has very strong credentials. Alexa Smith is a longtime employee of GLF who started part-time in the mailroom while in high school. After finishing school, Alexa worked in as many as 10 different positions throughout the company to become manager of new product marketing. Performance reviews of Alexas work have repeatedly described her as being very creative and insightful. In her tenure at GLF, Alexa has developed and brought to market four new product lines. Alexa is also known throughout GLF as being very persistent about her work: When she starts a project, she stays with it until it is finished. It is probably this quality that accounts for the success of each of the four new products with which she has been involved.

A second candidate for the new position is Kelsey Metts, who has been with GLF for five years and is manager of quality control for established products. Kelsey has a reputation for being very bright. Before joining GLF, she received her MBA at Harvard, graduating at the top of her class. People talk about Kelsey as the kind of person who will be president of her own company someday. Kelsey is also very personable. On all her performance reviews, she received extra-high scores on sociability and human relations. There isnt a supervisor in the company who doesnt have positive things to say about how comfortable it is to work with Kelsey. Since joining GLF, Kelsey has been instrumental in bringing two new product lines to market.

Thomas Santiago, the third candidate, has been with GLF for 10 years and is often consulted by upper management regarding strategic planning and corporate direction setting. Thomas has been very involved in establishing the vision for GLF and is a company person all the way. He believes in the values of GLF, and actively promotes its mission. The two qualities that stand out above the rest in Thomass performance reviews are his honesty and integrity. Employees who have worked under his supervision consistently report that they feel they can trust Thomas to be fair and consistent. Thomas is highly respected at GLF. In his tenure at the company, Thomas has been involved in some capacity with the development of three new product lines.

The challenge confronting Sandra is to choose the best person for the newly established directors position. Because of the pressure she feels from upper management, Sandra knows she must select the best leader for the new position.

Requirements

1. Title your paper.
2. Keep the length of your paper within 57 pages (1,2501,750 words).
3. Adhere to MLA guidelines for formatting.
4. You must include a Works Cited page that lists the two works you are discussing. Also, while we dont encourage you to use outside sources, if you do, include those in your list of works cited. Your Works Cited page must adhere to MLA works cited page guidelines, and it does not count as part of the page-length requirement.

---

Guidance

First, review Writing Tools: The Elements of Fiction and Literary Analysis.
Next, please take advantage of SMCs Free Tutoring.
Finally, refer to this list as your plan, write, and revise your essay:

• By the end of your first paragraph, include a clear, direct thesis statement in your essays introduction that provides focus for your discussion. Your thesis must answer the question:
  How do the changes in the storys elements and details change the storys meaning?
• Write in present tense. When you write about literature, use present tensethe words continue to speak to you from the page.
• Make sure you supply sufficient textual evidence to support your ideas. In each body paragraph of your essay, strive to provide 2 to 3 direct quotations to indicate a close reading of the literature. This does not mean padding your essays with lengthy quotations. Choose quotations wisely, integrate them correctly, and analyze them in your discussion.
• Rememberand we cant stress this enoughthe essay is not merely a series of plot summaries. Rather, we are more interested in what you have to say about the literature and any comparisons or contrasts you can make.

Attached Files (PDF/DOCX): discussion 6 SPST200.docx

Note: Content extraction from these files is restricted, please review them manually.

Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh

Hai saya Ria anggeraini di sini saya mau memberitahu apa itu cerpen

Cerpen adalah karangan saskra yg memisahkan sisi plubere matika menulis secara tidak utuh.hanya sebagian sisi pronabumatika yg di tampilkan dalam cerpen merupakan karya yg tidak sempurna. Bagian yg terdapat dalam cerpen adalah.

1.alur lebih sederhana

2.hanya sebagian tokoh yang di libatkan

3.latar cerita sempit, kadang hanya terpukus pada 1 latar saja

4.tema bisa nya mengupas 1 per soal lan yg sederhana

Unsur dalam cerpen di menjadi dua, yaitu unsur intersi dan unsur eks untuk intelasi meliputi.

Dan sampai situ saja yg saya bisa kasih

Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh

Attached Files (PDF/DOCX): WRTG393_WA3_Report_to_the_Supervisor_2026_.pdf

Note: Content extraction from these files is restricted, please review them manually.

Assignment Overview:

Upton Sinclairs The Jungle exposed the harsh realities of the meatpacking industry and sparked major Progressive Era reforms. In this assignment, you will analyze the text as a primary source to understand working-class conditions, industrial capitalism, and reform movements in the early 20th century.

Your Task:
Write a 3 page analysis that:

• Identifies Sinclairs purpose in writing The Jungle
• Examines what the text reveals about labor, immigration, poverty, and industrialization
• Explains how this source reflects Progressive Era concerns
• Discusses the impact the book had on policy and public opinion

Uses specific quotes (with page numbers if available)

Rubric

The Jungle Rubric

The Jungle Rubric

Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeUnderstanding of Text & Purpose	25 to >22.5 PtsExcellentClearly identifies Sinclairs purpose; deeply explains themes of labor, immigration, poverty, industrialization.22.5 to >20.0 PtsProficientAddresses most themes; generally clear understanding. 20 to >17.5 PtsDevelopingLimited explanation; misses key themes.17.5 to >0 PtsNeeds ImprovementMisinterprets text; missing major elements.	25 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeProgressive Era Connections	15 to >13.5 PtsExcellentStrong explanation of how the book reflects Progressive concerns.13.5 to >12.0 PtsProficientGood connections with minor gaps. 12 to >10.5 PtsDevelopingSurface-level connections.10.5 to >0 PtsNeeds ImprovementLittle to no connection made.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeUse of Quotes & Evidence	20 to >18.0 PtsExcellentUses specific quotes with page numbers; evidence strongly supports analysis.18 to >16.0 PtsProficientQuotes used but may lack depth or integration. 16 to >14.0 PtsDevelopingMinimal or general evidence; missing page numbers.14 to >0 PtsNeeds ImprovementNo textual evidence.	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeImpact on Policy & Public Opinion	15 to >13.5 PtsExcellentThorough explanation of public reaction and policy outcomes (Pure Food & Drug Act, Meat Inspection Act).13.5 to >12.0 PtsProficientSome explanation with minor detail gaps. 12 to >10.5 PtsDevelopingLimited or vague explanation.10.5 to >0 PtsNeeds ImprovementIncorrect or missing information.	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeOrganization & Writing Quality	15 to >13.5 PtsExcellentClear structure, strong thesis, polished writing.13.5 to >12.0 PtsProficientMostly organized; minor clarity issues. 12 to >10.5 PtsDevelopingSome organization problems; writing inconsistent.10.5 to >0 PtsNeeds ImprovementDisorganized; hard to follow	15 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeFormatting & Requirements	10 to >9.0 PtsExcellentClear structure, strong thesis, polished writing.9 to >8.0 PtsProficientMostly organized; minor clarity issues. 8 to >7.0 PtsDevelopingSome organization problems; writing inconsistent.7 to >0 PtsNeeds ImprovementDisorganized; hard to follow	10 pts

Total points: 100