Read each question and give me your opinion if you agree or disagree with it
The two articles are interrelated but written in a different literature style. Both discusses the effect of a prior existing traumatic event on children that witnessed the September 11 attacks. However, each article targets different kind of audience The article from â€œArchives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicineâ€ is a scientific research based on a retrospective cohort study. It targets students studying social sciences, professionals working with children and variety of interested researchers. Therefore, this research is considered a scholarly article. It can be used as a reliable resource for building a perspective on the impact of conjoined exposure to the WTC attacks and to other traumatic events on the behavioral problems of preschool children. This research presented information using proper outline starting with an abstract and finishing with discussions. The authors included figures and tables to further represent data in a clear and accurate manner. Table 1 shows that exposure to high intensity WTC events took place independent of other trauma exposure (Chemtob, Nomura and Abramovitz, 2008). The second article written by Carey is a news paper report published by New York Times that targets readers interested in having a general idea about the latest studies concerning the risk associated with prior trauma exposed on children that witnessed the September 11 attacks. This report focuses on the findings of â€œThe Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicineâ€ that shows the negative impact of 9/11 on children that experienced a prior traumatic event (Carey, 2008). This article is less reliable for observing the progress of the research implementation and theory establishment. However, this popular media article gives an overview of the research and insights on the surrounding opinion relating to it. Moreover, Carey expressed her own point of view regarding the research and supported it with additional researches regarding the functioning of the amygdala part of the brain during exposure to a traumatic event.
The manner and format through which data is presented can completely change what the audience takes away from any type of news or informational media. Writers and editors have the power to infuse their opinions into their interpretation of scholarly data sets, compiling fact with opinion in a way that can sensationalize a topic or â€˜dumbs it downâ€™ in a way that makes it more interesting to consumers of the media. Examples of this can be found in any contemporary news broadcast, and constantly fills our social media feeds regardless our network of choice. The Word is a powerful tool, and content creators, editors and aggregators need to understand the responsibility that they have to their audience to produce content that is factual, unbiased and true to the spirit of the original source of the data set.
Benedict Carey provides an example of a writer that chose to refrain from sensationalizing a study related to a very sensitive subject, and instead provides an informed summation of a very detailed experiment. His article â€˜Study finds prior trauma raised childrenâ€™s 9/11 riskâ€™ is a great read, although the title of the article still contained elements of the tabloid flair that is now quite common with the New York Times and other major newspapers. The target reader for this particular article is one that can be considered educated, but someone with an academic interest in the topic. The narrative refrains from being overbearing, and the reader doesnâ€™t come away feeling burdened by facts and statistics. My one concern with his interpretation of the results of the study is that he glosses over the fact that traumatic events had an affect on children, regardless whether they had experienced traumatic events in the past. While both Careyâ€™s article and the original study clearly indicate that prior events resulted in a higher likelihood of chronic stress-related symptoms, Careyâ€™s interpretation doesnâ€™t state clearly enough that children without prior trauma were still very effected by 9/11. According to an article detailing another study detailed in the New England Journal of Medicine, thirty-five percent of parents surveyed throughout the course of the study reported that their children had at least one of five stress syndromes following exposure to the terrorist attacks of September 11th. (Schuster et al., 2001) A scholarly paper covering the same study takes a different approach. Rather than relying on their abilities to craft a narrative, the authors of the article chose to present a very wide sampling of data sets relating to the effect that 9/11 had on children that were privy to the event. The reader is provided much of the raw information, but is also provided room to deduce their own interpretation of the data. The groupâ€™s summation of the study was very informative, going above and beyond in collecting a sampling of demographic information to include factors that didnâ€™t even have a clear correlation to support the hypothesis of the study. The intended audience for the Chemtob, Nomura and Abramovitz article is a psychology professional or an individual interested in an in-depth analysis of the topic. All three of the contributing authors are veritable experts in the field of psychology, with added expertise in child psychology and stress response in children and infants Both articles describe the same experiment but the intention and perspective of each is very different. It is clear that each of the articles was written with a different target audience in mind, and there is nothing wrong with this. Not every reader of Careyâ€™s article is going to want to know the detailed elements of the experimentation, and very few readers of the Chemtob, Nomura and Abramovitz article would prefer a narrative summation to â€˜the real thingâ€™. I am happy to see that a writer from a mainstream news source has the necessary restraint to properly present information on what many still consider to be a sensitive topic in this country, and look forward to taking a closer look at other articles written by Carey on other topics that can command my attention.
For this experiment I chose case study 2. Based on the information, my hypothesis is that during weeks 1 and 3 Jacob will take less time to finish his homework due to the implementation of an incentive, that is early completion of work results in longer play time. On weeks 2 and 4, there will be a longer time to completion because the incentive for work completion is already given. In this experiment, the independent variable is Jacob’s homework, the dependent variable would be the amount of play time awarded to Jacob. When conducting this experiment, the two extraneous variables that would play a factor is the amount of homework Jacob is assigned and Jacob’s mastery of the material. Part II There is a study that I simulated in Stats that helped me lay the foundation for the actual study. The topic of the study is “The Perception of Manhood in Minority Communities and its Effects on the Family Dynamic”ï¿½. The mood regarding minorities and manhood is often misunderstood and misrepresented by those who live that reality. I believe that a positive trend in the perception of manhood in minority communities will provide a significant boost in male confidence level (where confidence level is equal to a numerical value) and in some way challenge the legacy definition of manhood. The independent variables are the race and gender of the participants whereas the dependent variables are the individual’s sociocultural definition of manhood and the post interview adjusted confidence level. There are several extraneous variables that could also be dependent variables in this study such as: engagement in an interracial vice intra-racial relationship (assuming that those in interracial relationships definitions would be different from those in intra-racial relationships), educational level (since those with higher educational levels would have a more modern definition of manhood) and positive paternal involvement (assuming negative paternal involvement would affect the definitions of those with positive paternal involvement).
â€œKarl wants to determine whether adding a gas treatment to his full gas tank really does help increase the number of miles to the gallon his car gets. He suspects it does help but wants to test it to be sure he is getting his money’s worth for the treatment. He decides that for one month, he will track his gas mileage without the treatment. He records his gas mileage for the month. The next month, he adds the treatment each time he fills his tank. He records his gas mileage for the month and compares the mileage of the two months.â€ In example A, the hypothesis would be the outcome that Karl is attempting to predict in regards to his gas mileage. Since the example tells us Karl suspects adding the gas treatment to his gas tank does benefit his gas mileage, in this case, we could formulate Karlâ€™s hypothesis would look something like this: â€œAdding a gas treatment to a full tank of gas will increase the number of miles to the gallon the car gets to a clinically or statistically significant degree.â€ The independent variable, which is the factor that Karl is manipulating in order to test his hypothesis, would be adding the gas treatment to his carâ€™s full gas tank. The dependent variable, the factor that is being tested for dependency on the independent variable, would be the carâ€™s gas mileage, or how many miles it gets to the gallon. A possible extraneous variable would be the temperature outside while driving, as temperature is an extraneous factor that affects gas mileage that also would generally be outside of Karlâ€™s control and independent of the gas treatmentâ€™s effects Iâ€™ve always been interested in the natural ecological environments that exist around us. However, as we know, recent climate change has affected that plant life rate. An experiment I would like to conduct would be one concerning the rate of plant growth in relation to recent significant climactic change events on planet Earth. My hypothesis would be that places with a more industrialized, more highly concentrated population will see a greater negative effect on plant growth rate in those geographical locations due to higher amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. The independent variable would be concentration of greenhouse gases, and the dependent variable would be plant growth. Extraneous variables would of course be any factor that could possibly affect the plant growth independently of the greenhouse gases, such as fertilizer, soil, light, water, and pest population.