Bermuda triangle Essay Example for Free

Bermuda triangle Essay The Bermuda Triangle, also known as the Devils triangle is said to be one of the most dangerous and mysterious areas of the ocean known to man. It has been held responsible for the disappearances of over 2000 vessels, 75 airplanes and many innocent lives in the past 3 centuries. But the question is how? What really happened in this deadly body of water? There are many theories about what is going on in the Bermuda Triangle. From human error, to the lost city of Atlantis all the way to paranormal activity and Extra Terrestrials. Today I will be talking to you about the mysteries of the Bermuda Triangle. The Bermuda Triangle is located between three main points in the Atlantic Ocean, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Miami, Florida and the Island of Bermuda. The triangle is formed by connecting an imaginary line between these three points with an area of the about 500,000 to 1,000,000 square miles. Flight 19 is said to be one of the first known flights to go down in the Bermuda triangle. The aircraft was filled with US naw avenger bombers on a training mission. When the plane went down, it was said that the flight leader was heard saying We are entering white water, nothing seems to be right. We dont know where we are, the water is reen, no white. This raised suspicion about whats really going on in the so called Devils Triangle. It is very possible that the plane had Just run into some bad weather, but some believe weather is not the cause of these vanishing planes. Im not saying I have come up with the answer to what is going on in the Bermuda triangle, but here are some reasonable answers I have come across; 1. Bad weather. The part of the Atlantic in which the Triangle is located is very close to the Caribbean Sea which tends to get many tropical storms. This could be the cause to all of these strange disappearances. Intense storms may be causing ships to sink or planes to crash. But bad weather is only one of the many theories people have come up with. 2. Human error and amateur sailors. The coast guards are said to get over 8000 distress calls a year, thats more than 20 a day! But most of the time, the issue is minor, running into a rough patch of water or a shortage of gas. . Traffic. There are many planes and boats that go through the Bermuda triangle every day. Because its so busy, vessels and planes could be crashing into each other and falling into the ocean below. 4. Underwater earthquakes. In shallow water, underwater earthquakes can cause sunamis in the far east of the triangle. (and) 5. The gas bubble theory. Scientists say that a high concentration of gas hydrates have been fou nd in the Bermuda area which causes the water to become less dense in small patches. This could cause ships to sink quickly without and trace. Believe it or not,some think the tragedies are caused by the lost city of Atlantis. Some even say that government is behind it. The government supposedly runs an underwater base called A. U. T. E. C. It stands for Atlantic Undersea test and evaluation center. It is located in the middle of the triangle where the naw tests new ubmarines, weapons and sonar. Some people think the government has been working with extraterrestrials and that A. U. T. E. C. is actually used for testing reverse engineered alien technology. Some also say the mythical lost city of Atlantis is causing these mysterious disappearances because ot a stone trail called Bimini road. Its supposedly part of the lost city and possesses advanced technology that is interfering with radio signals in vessels and aircrafts. These theories are more farfetched than earthquakes and amateurs but some think this could be the reason to the mysteries in the triangle.

Journal Entry- Russian Immigration Essay Example for Free

Journal Entry- Russian Immigration Essay I was a young man when my familys journey began in the search for freedom. We resided in a decent little neighborhood just in the outskirts of southern Russia. All the families around knew each other very well therefore I could never understand why my family always seemed so miserable. I mean I heard stories and watched the news about bad accidents from muggers to murderers but I never seen anything like that around where we lived. Until one night my father did not come home, my mother told me he was just working late, but I knew something else was wrong, it was way after any working hours. I became so frustrated of waiting for my father I guess I ended up falling asleep because next thing I remember was being woken up at 3:30 am by my mother hysterically crying. I knew it was my father so all I could do was sit there and hug her. The officer told me he had been found in an alley after being brutally beaten, and he was already dead upon their arrival. Witnesses claim they saw him get jumped outside of the synagogue which he had been seen leaving earlier that afternoon. My father always carried his valuables on him, all his money, personal information cards, and bank account numbers. None of this was on him when he had been found, which only meant one thing, they could be coming for us next. My mother spent days searching for friends or family we could stay with for awhile until we could get ourselves together. But with our luck we were helpless. Weve heard many stories about America, that is was the land of opportunity. But we could only dream about living there. A scary thought which never left my mind was that my 18th birthday was approaching, which meant I had to enlist in the Russian army, which for jews was like asking for an early death, because not many Russian jews came out of the army well if even alive. Ive seen it myself that out in the streets Russians would get discriminated against, the hardest thing to believe was that it was in our own country, by our own people. Discrimination occurred mostly because we had different beliefs or a different culture, which was not good to display in public. Judaism was a major religion which had it really hard in Russia. We as  Russian Jews had no way of escaping this society which had been making our lives unbearable. Jews could not speak their minds or walk down the street showing any support in the Jewish belief or they would be punished for it. I told my mother I would rather die than enlist in the Russian army and she broke down in tears. Both she and I knew immediately we needed to get away from this life and we had to do it fast. The next morning we packed our most valuable belongings (which wasnt much) and began out journey to the free world. We had no money, no place to go, and nothing to live for except an ambition for freedom. We took the bus to the nearest train station where we wanted to see the soonest routes away from home. We planned to head all the way out west where we wouldnt know anyone and we could start a new life. But at the ticket counter the lady said there was only tickets left for Ellis Island, neither me, mama or Babushka knew where that was but we were told it was all the way out west so we took the risk and got on the ship. After all we had nothing to lose. We didnt know what to expect and were a bit scared or what might come. Spreading down the ship we heard rumors that we were headed to America but it was hard to believe so I just closed my eyes and tried to go to sleep, but the thoughts of America couldnt leave my mind. Entry 2: February 12,1887 Wow! What a boat ride it has been. I dont even know how many days I was on that boat, long enough but it was well worth the ride. The rumors were true, weve actually made it to America!! The land we only hoped and wished for. On the ride we met many lovely people all with the same hope, a better life. We heard many reasons of why people were leaving Russia, mostly in search for a better life, religious freedom, and to escape persecution. Ellis Island was a major immigration station for the US at which we had arrived at. Upon arrival we were greeted by fairly nice authority officials who told us where to go and what to do. Everyone had to be examined for diseases and checked for being physically and/or mentally fit. Many people were admitted but still some were deported, like my grandmother Maria, she was very old and couldnt walk well on her own so she got deported. I miss her dearly,  but I know she is doing fine. Luckily my mother and I had all our documents confirming who we were with us because all of them were checked. After 5 hours of going through the Ellis island station we had finally entered America! The streets were beautiful, nothing like I had ever seen before, lined with tall trees people cars, and smiles! We stuck with a family which we had met on the boat, they told us they knew people who could help us get situated and help us get an apartment until we can get our own jobs. And they did as they said, we got a little one bedroom apartment right near the port of entry which was very convenient because most of the people we came over with had also lived there, where we formed our own Russian community. As time went by which we had spent in America we came to realize we had no Americans to look up to for help so slowly but gradually the Russian society formed its own community. We didnt receive much respect but no one really gave us any problems. After all we were blessed to be where we were. I remember in Russia not being able to go outside after 9:00 pm at night because of the dangers that walked the streets. But here, any time of night you could receive a smile from at least one person. The lower eastside of New York was were we had been living for almost two months. Recently I began working in a grocery store where I started off making $2.00 an hour, which wasnt bad at all, I made just enough to support mama and myself and to buy food once a week. The working conditions werent bad. I worked just as much and just as well as everyone else. Although the people there werent to nice I learned to deal with it, I was only there to make money, not friends. So in the end this boat ride to nowhere turned out to be a dream come true!!

Intergenerational Observation Scale Analysis

Intergenerational Observation Scale Analysis Abstract Innovative intergenerational programs continue to grow in number and scope. The development of standardized evaluation instruments, however, lags behind, leaving many researchers and practitioners without tools to effectively assess their programs. Evaluation data often focus on outcomes without attention to the nature of the interactions between generations. Understanding the process of intergenerational contact is central to understanding its outcomes. We developed the Intergenerational Observation Scale to assess the social interactions and affect of young and old participants during intergenerational activities. Our 3-step observer training process demonstrated good scale reliability. We present the process of developing the scale, achieving observer reliability, and next steps to continue exploring the scales utility across intergenerational populations and settings. Development of a standardized tool for intergenerational programming: The Intergenerational Observation Scale Providing opportunities for meaningful engagement to persons with dementia challenges family and professional caregivers alike. While some practitioners and researchers seek innovative means to support client well-being (e.g., Allen-Burge, Burgio, Bourgeois, Sims, Nunnikhoven, 2001; Orsulic-Jeras, Judge, Camp, 2000), many dementia care programs are characterized by extreme levels of inactivity (Ice, 2002), which may result from infantilization (Salari Rich, 2001) and can lead to agitation and depression and detract from well-being (Teri et al., 2003; Voelkl, 1986). Kitwood and Bredin (1992) emphasized caregivers responsibility for supporting the personhood of individuals with diminished capacity to do so for themselves. Personhood, or the dignity and respect owed to each individual, encompasses an individuals experiences, preferences and values. For many people, their social history involves significant time spent interacting with and caring for children. Recently, care profession als have turned to intergenerational programming (IGP) as one therapeutic method to support personhood and well-being of persons with dementia (e.g., Camp et al., 1997; Jarrott Bruno, 2001). Though contact between young and old generations remains an integral part of most families (Eggebeen Davey, 1998), non-familial IGP remains a relatively new treatment milieu in elder care. IGP as a whole varies widely, depending on the populations involved, program objectives, and available resources. Interventions targeting children at risk for drug use (Taylor, LoSciuto, Fox, Hilbert, Sonkowsky, 1999), older adults needing employment (Larkin Newman, 2001), and foster care families needing community support (Eheart Hopping, 2001) have utilized intergenerational strategies to achieve program goals. Programs have employed IGP to promote positive affect and engagement of older adults (Xaverius Matthews, 2003), improved attitudes about aging among children (Middlecamp Gross, 2002), and greater sense of community among staff (Jarrott, Morris, Kemp, Stremmel, 2004). Despite the significant cognitive impairment of many elder care clients, practitioners have found elders experiences interacting with and caring for children so ingrained that they remain able to interact appropriately and positively with children until late in the progress of a dementing illness (Camp et al., 1997). The means of assessing IGP vary as much as the programs themselves. Researchers have utilized interviews (Jarrott Bruno, 2007), observational scales (Marx, Pannell, Papura-Gill, Cohen-Mansfield, 2004; Xaverius Matthews, 2003), attitudinal surveys (Jantz, Seefeldt, Galper, Serlock, 1977; Kocarnik Ponzetti, 1986), drawings (Lichtenstein, et al., 2001), and cognitive assessments (Newman, Karip, Faux, 1995) to evaluate the impact of IGP on one or more groups of participants. While the range of scales utilized is not inherently problematic, the current state of intergenerational research tools requires significant improvement for several reasons. First, scales are often created for a single study without any report of psychometric properties (Kuehne, 2004). Consequently, researchers reinvent the wheel rather than use valid, reliable scales. Second, most scales assess the experiences of a single generation (e.g., Camp et al., 1997; Underwood Dorfman, 2006) although IGP should, by de finition (Newman Smith, 1999), provide mutual benefit for young and old participants. Third, the developmental and disease characteristics of a large portion of IGP participants, pre-school age children and frail elders (e.g., Epstein Boisvert, 2006; Middlecamp Gross, 2002; Salari, 2002), limit the opportunity for valid self-report measures. Consequently, researchers often rely on proxy report and direct observation to tap participants experiences with IGP. A critical limitation of much IGP research lies in the black box that conceals the process of bringing young and old together. That is, assessments targeting the impact of IGP often neglect what actually transpired during the IGP. Useful process data will vary from project to project; it might detail the level of activity, the type of interpersonal interactions, the physical environment, facilitators behaviors, or the activitys age appropriateness. For example, Xaverius and Matthews (2003) assessed the impact of IGP involving fourth graders and senior center participants who met for six intergenerational activities. The authors described the theme and setting of activities where elderly participants engagement was coded. Data were not gathered regarding the nature of the activities or what happened when participants were engaged in the intergenerational activity (i.e., if they engaged with the activity materials, with an age peer, or with an intergenerational partner). In contrast, Taylor and colleagues (1999) reported on a senior mentoring program targeting attitudes towards aging, drug use, and civic engagement of participating at-risk youth. The treatment group as a whole demonstrated improved attitudes towards school, civic engagement, aging, and resisting drug use compared to a control group. The authors also tapped into important process data by rating seniors intensity of involvement as a mentor. The researchers found a greater degree of attitudinal improvement among children whose senior mentors were more intensely involved with their student partners. Such studies exemplify the importance of capturing process as well as outcome data. The variety of populations and settings that avail themselves of IGP supports the study of multiple paths leading to positive outcomes. Most would agree that a one-size-fits-all model of IGP is impossible and inappropriate; however, identification of practices and processes that optimize outcomes improves the overall quality of IGP and enhances understanding of how IGP uniquely meets individuals needs across the lifecourse. In turn, greater understanding of the processes by which positive IGP outcomes are achieved informs development of theory pertaining to intergenerational relationships. For example, while the contact theory (Allport, 1954) provides necessary conditions for achieving positive intergroup contact, Allport did not describe the processes by which these outcomes would be achieved (Pettigrew, 1998). The limitations of IGP and related research stem from the relative infancy of IGP research. Researchers have been studying IGP for only the last 30 years (e.g., Jantz, et al., 1977), yet they are trying to raise the field to match those of child and adult development. Practitioners are anxious to know how IGP affects the physical, cognitive, and mental health of participants, yet the more basic question about whether and how children and elders interact with each other during proscribed IGP remains largely unanswered. Before we can reliably draw conclusions about the effects of IGP on children and elderly participants, we must determine the nature of their time spent together. Kuehnes (2003) state of our art report on intergenerational research implored researchers to tap the experiences of young and old participants and to develop and disseminate standardized measures relevant to IGP. By addressing these points, researchers can better inform practitioners efforts and build a cohesiv e body of research. The scale described in the current paper addresses each of these recommendations. We sought to address the challenge of measuring the experiences of young and old IGP participants, focusing on frail elders and pre-school age children because they constitute a large portion of participants involved in IGP (Goyer Zuses, 1998). We conducted a three-phase study to develop an observational scale tapping the social behavior and affect of both young and old IGP participants. We turned to the child development literature, with its long history of observational research, for inspiration. Partens (1933) categories of childrens play behaviors appealed to us; they encompassed categories reflecting a continuum of social behaviors ranging from non-engagement to cooperative engagement. Rubin (2001) developed the Play Observation Scale, drawing on Partens work and childrens cognitive development research. The broad social behaviors of unoccupied, watching, solitary, parallel, and cooperative captured by the Play Observation Scale reflect behaviors of interest to practitioners working to support meaningful engagement among elders and children. For example, a code for unoccupied behavior is salient given the high rates of inactivity found at elder care programs (Ice, 2002) and the goal of utilizing intergenerational strategies to promote positive social engagement. Furthermore, our experiences with IGP (e.g., Gigliotti, Morris, Smock, Jarrott, Graham, 2005; Jarrott Bruno, 2003; Jarrott Bruno, 2007; Jarrott, Gigliotti, Smock, 2006; Jarrott, Gladwell, Gigliotti, Papero 200 4; Jarrott et al., 2004; Weintraub Killian, 2007) highlighted interaction as the central mechanism for achieving mutual benefit during IGP. Thus, a code for solitary behavior is relevant as it reflects engagement in a presented activity without social interaction. The first author used the original Play Observation Scale to observe elders during structured IGP (Gladwell Jarrott, 2003), determining that older adults engagement was greater during IGP than non-IGP. However, Gladwell and Jarrott found the scale cumbersome as they gathered salient data as well as information of little contemporary significance to IGP. Furthermore, they violated some of the scales specifications by utilizing the Play Observation Scale in a structured activity setting. We made several adaptations to Rubins Play Observation Scale for use with structured IGP (see Table 1 for descriptions of the scale categories).   First, Rubins social behavior categories included sub-categories indicative of cognitive development; however, given our emphasis on interactions irrespective of developmental abilities, we eliminated cognitive behaviors from our scale. Second, the Play Observation Scale was designed to be used during free play sessions where children self-initiate behaviors. However, intergenerational researchers have repeatedly emphasized the need for structure to optimize IGP (e.g., Camp et al., 1997; Jarrott, 2006; Xaverius Matthews, 2003), and so we developed the scale with planned IGP in mind. Finally, we expanded the IOS to distinguish between social behaviors with age peers and intergenerational partners (i.e., interactive peer versus interactive intergenerational). The first phase of the study involved qualitative observations of IGP conducted at a shared site intergenerational program serving frail elders and pre-school age children. The observations were then used to modify Rubins Play Observation Scale for use in a structured intergenerational setting. Phase two involved piloting the scale with two observers coding video of IGP and working with the second author to reach consensus and create a master coding scheme for the video sessions. In phase three, the scale was further modified and tested with a larger group of four observers coding video and live IGP. The current paper describes the three phases of the development and initial validation of the Intergenerational Observation Scale (IOS). While the IOS captures both behavior and affect of targeted child and elderly participants, the current paper focuses on social behaviors, which comprise the more complex sub-scale of the instrument. Method Participants Virginia Techs Neighbors Growing Together, is a shared site intergenerational program designed to improve the lives of people across the lifespan through intergenerational collaboration involving teaching, research, and outreach. Neighbors Growing Together includes two co-located programs: Adult Day Services and the Child Development Center for Learning and Research. Adult Day Services provides activities, care, and supervision daily to approximately 15 adults (50+ years old) with cognitive and/or physical impairments. The Child Development Center provides year-round, full-day care for 41 children ages 15 months to 5 years. Through daily programming designed to nurture development, enhance competencies, and facilitate positive social interactions between the generations, Neighbors Growing Together provides high quality services to children, older adults, and their families. Children from each of three classrooms have one to two weekly opportunities to join their elderly â€Å"neighb ors† for IGP, which typically involves three children and three older adults in a variety of activities, such as gardening, art, or sensory projects. Children and adults work together in a group facilitated by staff and students from the Child Development Center and Adult Day Services. Staff partners plan and implement activities that support an overarching goal of positive interactions. Activities further target developmental goals for both generations, such as fine motor skills or cooperation. Children and adults meet in a shared space adjoining the two programs. Child- and adult-sized chairs designed to put all participants at eye level and developmentally appropriate books and art materials are provided. Procedures Phase 1: Scale development In fall 2005, four research students gathered qualitative observations of IGP involving Adult Day Services participants and Child Development Center children. Observers attended different intergenerational sessions. Each week, observers had a distinct focus, starting with holistic observation to orient the observers to the setting and proceeding to target the environment, the participants, and the facilitators. Following their weekly observations, the observers and the first and second authors discussed the observational data, focusing on the interactions between participating children and elders and factors that influenced those interactions. After observing 3-5 intergenerational sessions apiece, observers read and reviewed the IOS scale and codebook developed by Gladwell and Jarrott (2003) and closely mirroring the Play Observation Scale developed by Rubin (2001). They discussed how well the categories applied to the intergenerational context they observed and how to modify the sca le to reflect the social behaviors critical to intergenerational interactions in planned activities. Through an iterative process, the first two authors used observers notes and conversations to modify the Play Observation Scale to capture data reflecting the interactive process of IGP. Based on the observations from Phase 1, we further developed and refined the IOS (see Table 1). The scale builds on earlier observational research (Rubin, 2001) by coding participants behavior and affect and the affect of intergenerational partners with whom a target participant interacts.   The IOS was developed for live coding. It captures observations for the duration of an intergenerational activity, which tends to last 15-30 minutes. Each observer identifies 4-5 participants for observation and watches them for 1-2 minutes to become familiar with the participants behaviors before beginning to record data. He or she codes a participant for one 15-second interval, then codes the next participant for 15 seconds, followed by the third participant, etc. After the last participant is coded, the observer cycles back to begin observing participant one again. All observers in a session start coding when the facilitators begin the activity and end when the activity completes. When coding, if a behavior occurs for the majority of the coding interval, it is coded as the predominant behavior. When multiple behaviors are observed for equal intervals during a 15-second coding episode, we use the following hierarchy to code the predominant behavior most indicative of intergenerational interactions: Interactive Intergenerational, Parallel Intergenerational, Interactive Peer, Parallel Peer, Staff, Watching, Solitary, and Unoccupied. Phase 2: Establishment of reliability Video coding of the observations was introduced during Phase 2 of scale development because learning the IOS through the use of video has several advantages. When first learning the scale, observers watched a 15-second interval repeatedly to better understand the IOS behavioral scoring. The video coding procedure allowed observers to review their coding with the second author, who is experienced in observational coding. Weekly meetings were held during which observers coding was reviewed and discussed until observers reached a consensus on what behaviors constituted the IOS categories. Weekly review helped observers achieve acceptable reliability in assigning predominant codes to participants social behaviors. The video procedure enabled us to refine the IOS manual. The video coding process began with two observers who both had experience with live coding during IGP. After studying the manual, observers filmed three weekly sessions of planned IGP between the elders and each of the three classrooms of children (one session per classroom per week). The procedure for using video to establish acceptable reliability was completed in three steps. First, observers independently coded sessions in 15-second intervals and re-watched these as many times as necessary to determine the predominant social behavior. In the second step, observers more closely approximated live coding by watching the 15-second intervals on video only once to code the predominant social behavior.   In the third step, observers coded live sessions (scoring participant behaviors individually but observing the same participants at the same intervals) and filmed the activities, which allowed observers to review their coding at the weekly meetings and resolve discrepancies. Based on the consensus between the two coders and the expert coder, master coding sheets were developed indicating agreement on the predominant behavior for each 15-second interval of the coded sessions. Before observers could proceed to the next step in the training process, they had to achieve acceptable inter-rater reliability measured by Cohens kappa. A kappa score of .60 or higher was considered acceptable (Cohen, 1960). The kappa scores for the two observers in Phase 2 were .67 for the first step, .85 for the second step, and .81 for the live coding in the third step. Replication of reliability In Phase 3, we used the IOS video coding procedure to train four new observers. In addition to establishing that the video coding procedure would work with observers new to the IOS, we wanted to determine the amount of training necessary to achieve acceptable reliability with our 3-step process. The observers started with an introductory period where they read the manual and watched live IGP to observe the range of behaviors common to IGP. Observers attended weekly meetings where they watched IGP videos and received instruction on using the IOS. The introductory period lasted approximately 3 weeks or until observers felt comfortable with the coding, which was an additional 2 weeks for one of the observers. After the introductory period, the observers started on step 1 in the video coding procedure. Each step lasted approximately 4 weeks. At the weekly coding meetings, observers reviewed any discrepancies between their coding and the master codes determined in Phase 2. Once the observers achieved acceptable reliability in step 1, they moved on to step 2. Coding pairs were formed, and they coded live IGP during step 3, achieving acceptable kappas of .92, .69, and .75. Discussion In the current paper, we discuss the development of the IOS, a scale designed to measure young and old participants social interaction and affect during IGP.   In developing the IOS, we began with qualitative observations of IGP to refine a well-established child development observational scale (Rubin, 2001). We modified the scale for observations of elder and child participants in a typical range of intergenerational programs.   Based on two groups of observers, we present a system for training individuals to use the scale and establish inter-rater reliability.   Currently, the use of standardized measure within the field of IGP research is extremely limited, and our goal is to develop a scale to address this need. The IOS addresses several of Kuehnes (2003) recommendations for advancing   intergenerational research and evaluation.   First, the IOS is grounded in theory that shaped our view of positive IGP outcomes. Personhood theory (Kitwood Bredin, 1992) leads us to intergenerational relationships as a once common source of positive social interaction for many elders that can continue to support their well-being in late life. Contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew Tropp, 2000) elucidates necessary conditions for positive intergroup exchange, such as that between youth and elders. The conditions of cooperation and shared goals inform our expectation that the central mechanism of effective IGP is positive intergenerational interactions. The IOS captures the level of interactive behaviors between generations, thus reflecting the presence or absence of cooperation and shared goals of participants. Second, we draw from standardized measures of social interaction, namely the work of Parten (1933) and Rubin (2001).   Working from their concepts, we qualitatively looked at the behaviors seen during IGP.   We then refined the social behaviors described within Rubins scale to fit an intergenerational population and to capture levels of social engagement or interaction during IGP.   Third, we steer away from the over-reliance on attitudinal measures, moving instead to behavioral and affective outcomes of IGP. Fourth, by taking steps to develop a standardized scale, we contribute to the research tools available to IGP researchers, which increases the capacity to compare outcomes across studies, thus advancing the collective understanding of IGP. Our results establish the IOS as a replicable measure of social interactions during IGP.   The three-step process we used to achieve acceptable inter-rater reliability proved effective with two groups of observers. The process allows observers to develop a thorough understanding of the social behaviors in the IOS. Observers coding is checked against the master coding scheme to insure observers accuracy coding observed behaviors.   The master coding scheme allows for faster, more accurate training on the use of the IOS. Now that we have developed a successful process for training observers to use the IOS and achieve acceptable inter-rater, observers could be trained relatively quickly, most likely within four to eight weeks. A reliable, quick training method will allow data collection to begin at an earlier date and will allow more researchers to use the scale with confidence. An important strength of the IOS is its utility with both generations of IGP participants. Most research on individual outcomes of IGP participation focuses on one generation or the other (e.g., Middlecamp Gross 2002), neglecting the experiences of the other generation. When researchers do evaluate both age groups, they typically use non-parallel measures because parallel scales for disparate age groups rarely exist.   Not only will the IOS allow for standardized data collection across sites; it enables standardized data collection across generations. We expect the IOS to yield valuable process and outcome data for practitioners and researchers. Considering first the IOS as a source of outcome data, a program introducing or modifying an IGP could, for example, use IOS data to determine the affect and social behavior of participants during IGP with a goal of achieving high levels of positive affect, increasing intergenerational interaction, and reducing inactivity. In regards to process data, the IOS can be used in conjunction with salient outcome measures (e.g., depression or attitudes towards aging) to help interpret the effects of IGP (another recommendation by Kuehne, 2003). In asserting that IGP positively affects (or does not affect) targeted outcomes, researchers analyses would be strengthened by including data on the level of intergenerational interaction and affect that transpired among participants. For example, Seefeldt (1987) reported that children who participated in regular intergenerational visits to a nursing home h ad worse attitudes about aging than children who did not.   These findings would have been more easily interpreted if they incorporated process data such as the affect and level of interaction between children and elders.   Because these data were not included in the analyses, readers are left to speculate whether all IGP involving nursing home residents would negatively affect childrens attitudes or if the nature of the IGP in that study contributed to the negative outcomes. Seefeldt described IGP that yielded little support for intergenerational interaction (i.e., children performing in the center of the room, surrounded by the elders). She also indicated that elders were largely non-responsive to the children, suggesting that the negative outcomes may have been due to the nature of the IGP. While IGP professionals advocate standards of IGP practice (Epstein Boisvert, 2006; Rosebrook Larkin, 2003), significant variability on dimensions of IGP likely affects targeted outcomes and should be assessed. By capturing data that reflect the process of connecting generations, the IOS promotes understanding of why IGP succeeds or fails. As outlined above, the IOS provides many benefits for IGP research and evaluation. Our next step in establishing the scales value and utility to the intergenerational field entails establishing the reliability for coding occurrence of behaviors and predominance and occurrence of affect. Second, we plan to use a variety of means to establish validity, including video training to address substantive validity, expert panels to assess content validity, and statistical modeling of IOS data and related measures to determine convergent or divergent validity. Third, the scale was developed within the Neighbors Growing Together shared site intergenerational program, which involves structured programming between preschoolers and frail older adults. Generalizability is a critical indicator of validity and depends on the scales utility across intergenerational sites, populations, and programmatic approaches. Fourth, the behavior category codes are developmentally salient for pre-school age child ren and frail elders; we need to determine if the categories will be equally informative when applied to older children and well elders. Finally, the scale should be tested across cultures to support Kuehnes (2003) recommendation to take a more global view of IGP innovation. Initial indicators reveal that the IOS could become a useful tool to researchers and practitioners alike. As they seek to develop, improve, and sustain IGP while linking programming data to instrumental outcomes of interest to practitioners and funders, the availability of a standardized scale appropriate for use with young and old will prove invaluable. At a time characterized by tremendous creative energy and innovation in the intergenerational field, the IOS can capture the essence of IGP as practitioners support meaningful outcomes through intergenerational relationships. References Allen-Burge, R., Burgio, L. D., Bourgeois, M. S., Sims, R., Nunnikhoven, J. (2001). Increasing communication among nursing home residents.   Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 7, 213-230. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Camp, C. J., Judge, K. S., Bye, C. A., Fox, K. M., Bowden, J., Bell, M., et al.. (1997). An intergenerational program for persons with dementia using Montessori methods. The Gerontologist, 37, 688-692. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. Eggebeen, D. J., Davey, A. (1998). Do safety nets work? The role of anticipated help in times of need. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 939-950.   Eheart, B. K., Hopping, D. (2001). Generations of hope. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 675-682 Epstein, A. S., Boisvert, C. (2006). Lets do something together: Identifying effective components of intergenerational programs. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(3), 87-109. Gigliotti, C. M., Morris, M., Smock, S., Jarrott, S. E., Graham, B. (2005). Supporting community through an intergenerational summer program involving persons with dementia and pre-school children. Educational Gerontology, 31, 425-441. Gladwell, M. S., Jarrott, S. E. (2003, November). An observational assessment of elders with dementia during intergenerational activities. Poster presented at the meetings of the Gerontological Society of America, San Diego, CA. Goyer, A., Zuses, R. (1998). Intergenerational Shared Site Project, A Study of Co-located Programs and Services for Children, Youth, and Older Adults: Final Report. Washington, DC: AARP. Ice, G. H. (2002). Daily life in a nursing home: Has it changed in 25 years?   Journal of Aging Studies, 16, 345-359. Jantz, R. K., Seefeldt, C., Galper, A., Serlock, K. (1977). Childrens attitudes toward the elderly. Social Education, 41, 518-523. Jarrott, S. E. (2006). Tried and true: A guide to successful intergenerational activities at shared site programs. Washington, DC: Generations United. [Electronic version available at www.gu.org] Jarrott, S. E., Bruno, K. A. (2003). Intergenerational Activities Involving Persons with Dementia: An Observational Assessment. American Journal of Alzheimers and Related Diseases, 18, 31-38. Jarrott, S. E., Bruno, K. (2007). Shared site intergenerational programs: A case study. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 26, 239-257. Jarrott, S. E. Gigliotti, C. M., Smock, S. A.,   (2006). Where do we stand? Testing the foundation of a shared site intergenerational program. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4. Jarrott, S. E., Gladwell, M. S., Gigliotti, C. M., Papero, A. L. (2004). Fostering intergenerational community between child adult care programs: A Results Management approach. Canadian Children, 29(2), 4-13. Intergenerational Observation Scale Analysis Intergenerational Observation Scale Analysis Abstract Innovative intergenerational programs continue to grow in number and scope. The development of standardized evaluation instruments, however, lags behind, leaving many researchers and practitioners without tools to effectively assess their programs. Evaluation data often focus on outcomes without attention to the nature of the interactions between generations. Understanding the process of intergenerational contact is central to understanding its outcomes. We developed the Intergenerational Observation Scale to assess the social interactions and affect of young and old participants during intergenerational activities. Our 3-step observer training process demonstrated good scale reliability. We present the process of developing the scale, achieving observer reliability, and next steps to continue exploring the scales utility across intergenerational populations and settings. Development of a standardized tool for intergenerational programming: The Intergenerational Observation Scale Providing opportunities for meaningful engagement to persons with dementia challenges family and professional caregivers alike. While some practitioners and researchers seek innovative means to support client well-being (e.g., Allen-Burge, Burgio, Bourgeois, Sims, Nunnikhoven, 2001; Orsulic-Jeras, Judge, Camp, 2000), many dementia care programs are characterized by extreme levels of inactivity (Ice, 2002), which may result from infantilization (Salari Rich, 2001) and can lead to agitation and depression and detract from well-being (Teri et al., 2003; Voelkl, 1986). Kitwood and Bredin (1992) emphasized caregivers responsibility for supporting the personhood of individuals with diminished capacity to do so for themselves. Personhood, or the dignity and respect owed to each individual, encompasses an individuals experiences, preferences and values. For many people, their social history involves significant time spent interacting with and caring for children. Recently, care profession als have turned to intergenerational programming (IGP) as one therapeutic method to support personhood and well-being of persons with dementia (e.g., Camp et al., 1997; Jarrott Bruno, 2001). Though contact between young and old generations remains an integral part of most families (Eggebeen Davey, 1998), non-familial IGP remains a relatively new treatment milieu in elder care. IGP as a whole varies widely, depending on the populations involved, program objectives, and available resources. Interventions targeting children at risk for drug use (Taylor, LoSciuto, Fox, Hilbert, Sonkowsky, 1999), older adults needing employment (Larkin Newman, 2001), and foster care families needing community support (Eheart Hopping, 2001) have utilized intergenerational strategies to achieve program goals. Programs have employed IGP to promote positive affect and engagement of older adults (Xaverius Matthews, 2003), improved attitudes about aging among children (Middlecamp Gross, 2002), and greater sense of community among staff (Jarrott, Morris, Kemp, Stremmel, 2004). Despite the significant cognitive impairment of many elder care clients, practitioners have found elders experiences interacting with and caring for children so ingrained that they remain able to interact appropriately and positively with children until late in the progress of a dementing illness (Camp et al., 1997). The means of assessing IGP vary as much as the programs themselves. Researchers have utilized interviews (Jarrott Bruno, 2007), observational scales (Marx, Pannell, Papura-Gill, Cohen-Mansfield, 2004; Xaverius Matthews, 2003), attitudinal surveys (Jantz, Seefeldt, Galper, Serlock, 1977; Kocarnik Ponzetti, 1986), drawings (Lichtenstein, et al., 2001), and cognitive assessments (Newman, Karip, Faux, 1995) to evaluate the impact of IGP on one or more groups of participants. While the range of scales utilized is not inherently problematic, the current state of intergenerational research tools requires significant improvement for several reasons. First, scales are often created for a single study without any report of psychometric properties (Kuehne, 2004). Consequently, researchers reinvent the wheel rather than use valid, reliable scales. Second, most scales assess the experiences of a single generation (e.g., Camp et al., 1997; Underwood Dorfman, 2006) although IGP should, by de finition (Newman Smith, 1999), provide mutual benefit for young and old participants. Third, the developmental and disease characteristics of a large portion of IGP participants, pre-school age children and frail elders (e.g., Epstein Boisvert, 2006; Middlecamp Gross, 2002; Salari, 2002), limit the opportunity for valid self-report measures. Consequently, researchers often rely on proxy report and direct observation to tap participants experiences with IGP. A critical limitation of much IGP research lies in the black box that conceals the process of bringing young and old together. That is, assessments targeting the impact of IGP often neglect what actually transpired during the IGP. Useful process data will vary from project to project; it might detail the level of activity, the type of interpersonal interactions, the physical environment, facilitators behaviors, or the activitys age appropriateness. For example, Xaverius and Matthews (2003) assessed the impact of IGP involving fourth graders and senior center participants who met for six intergenerational activities. The authors described the theme and setting of activities where elderly participants engagement was coded. Data were not gathered regarding the nature of the activities or what happened when participants were engaged in the intergenerational activity (i.e., if they engaged with the activity materials, with an age peer, or with an intergenerational partner). In contrast, Taylor and colleagues (1999) reported on a senior mentoring program targeting attitudes towards aging, drug use, and civic engagement of participating at-risk youth. The treatment group as a whole demonstrated improved attitudes towards school, civic engagement, aging, and resisting drug use compared to a control group. The authors also tapped into important process data by rating seniors intensity of involvement as a mentor. The researchers found a greater degree of attitudinal improvement among children whose senior mentors were more intensely involved with their student partners. Such studies exemplify the importance of capturing process as well as outcome data. The variety of populations and settings that avail themselves of IGP supports the study of multiple paths leading to positive outcomes. Most would agree that a one-size-fits-all model of IGP is impossible and inappropriate; however, identification of practices and processes that optimize outcomes improves the overall quality of IGP and enhances understanding of how IGP uniquely meets individuals needs across the lifecourse. In turn, greater understanding of the processes by which positive IGP outcomes are achieved informs development of theory pertaining to intergenerational relationships. For example, while the contact theory (Allport, 1954) provides necessary conditions for achieving positive intergroup contact, Allport did not describe the processes by which these outcomes would be achieved (Pettigrew, 1998). The limitations of IGP and related research stem from the relative infancy of IGP research. Researchers have been studying IGP for only the last 30 years (e.g., Jantz, et al., 1977), yet they are trying to raise the field to match those of child and adult development. Practitioners are anxious to know how IGP affects the physical, cognitive, and mental health of participants, yet the more basic question about whether and how children and elders interact with each other during proscribed IGP remains largely unanswered. Before we can reliably draw conclusions about the effects of IGP on children and elderly participants, we must determine the nature of their time spent together. Kuehnes (2003) state of our art report on intergenerational research implored researchers to tap the experiences of young and old participants and to develop and disseminate standardized measures relevant to IGP. By addressing these points, researchers can better inform practitioners efforts and build a cohesiv e body of research. The scale described in the current paper addresses each of these recommendations. We sought to address the challenge of measuring the experiences of young and old IGP participants, focusing on frail elders and pre-school age children because they constitute a large portion of participants involved in IGP (Goyer Zuses, 1998). We conducted a three-phase study to develop an observational scale tapping the social behavior and affect of both young and old IGP participants. We turned to the child development literature, with its long history of observational research, for inspiration. Partens (1933) categories of childrens play behaviors appealed to us; they encompassed categories reflecting a continuum of social behaviors ranging from non-engagement to cooperative engagement. Rubin (2001) developed the Play Observation Scale, drawing on Partens work and childrens cognitive development research. The broad social behaviors of unoccupied, watching, solitary, parallel, and cooperative captured by the Play Observation Scale reflect behaviors of interest to practitioners working to support meaningful engagement among elders and children. For example, a code for unoccupied behavior is salient given the high rates of inactivity found at elder care programs (Ice, 2002) and the goal of utilizing intergenerational strategies to promote positive social engagement. Furthermore, our experiences with IGP (e.g., Gigliotti, Morris, Smock, Jarrott, Graham, 2005; Jarrott Bruno, 2003; Jarrott Bruno, 2007; Jarrott, Gigliotti, Smock, 2006; Jarrott, Gladwell, Gigliotti, Papero 200 4; Jarrott et al., 2004; Weintraub Killian, 2007) highlighted interaction as the central mechanism for achieving mutual benefit during IGP. Thus, a code for solitary behavior is relevant as it reflects engagement in a presented activity without social interaction. The first author used the original Play Observation Scale to observe elders during structured IGP (Gladwell Jarrott, 2003), determining that older adults engagement was greater during IGP than non-IGP. However, Gladwell and Jarrott found the scale cumbersome as they gathered salient data as well as information of little contemporary significance to IGP. Furthermore, they violated some of the scales specifications by utilizing the Play Observation Scale in a structured activity setting. We made several adaptations to Rubins Play Observation Scale for use with structured IGP (see Table 1 for descriptions of the scale categories).   First, Rubins social behavior categories included sub-categories indicative of cognitive development; however, given our emphasis on interactions irrespective of developmental abilities, we eliminated cognitive behaviors from our scale. Second, the Play Observation Scale was designed to be used during free play sessions where children self-initiate behaviors. However, intergenerational researchers have repeatedly emphasized the need for structure to optimize IGP (e.g., Camp et al., 1997; Jarrott, 2006; Xaverius Matthews, 2003), and so we developed the scale with planned IGP in mind. Finally, we expanded the IOS to distinguish between social behaviors with age peers and intergenerational partners (i.e., interactive peer versus interactive intergenerational). The first phase of the study involved qualitative observations of IGP conducted at a shared site intergenerational program serving frail elders and pre-school age children. The observations were then used to modify Rubins Play Observation Scale for use in a structured intergenerational setting. Phase two involved piloting the scale with two observers coding video of IGP and working with the second author to reach consensus and create a master coding scheme for the video sessions. In phase three, the scale was further modified and tested with a larger group of four observers coding video and live IGP. The current paper describes the three phases of the development and initial validation of the Intergenerational Observation Scale (IOS). While the IOS captures both behavior and affect of targeted child and elderly participants, the current paper focuses on social behaviors, which comprise the more complex sub-scale of the instrument. Method Participants Virginia Techs Neighbors Growing Together, is a shared site intergenerational program designed to improve the lives of people across the lifespan through intergenerational collaboration involving teaching, research, and outreach. Neighbors Growing Together includes two co-located programs: Adult Day Services and the Child Development Center for Learning and Research. Adult Day Services provides activities, care, and supervision daily to approximately 15 adults (50+ years old) with cognitive and/or physical impairments. The Child Development Center provides year-round, full-day care for 41 children ages 15 months to 5 years. Through daily programming designed to nurture development, enhance competencies, and facilitate positive social interactions between the generations, Neighbors Growing Together provides high quality services to children, older adults, and their families. Children from each of three classrooms have one to two weekly opportunities to join their elderly â€Å"neighb ors† for IGP, which typically involves three children and three older adults in a variety of activities, such as gardening, art, or sensory projects. Children and adults work together in a group facilitated by staff and students from the Child Development Center and Adult Day Services. Staff partners plan and implement activities that support an overarching goal of positive interactions. Activities further target developmental goals for both generations, such as fine motor skills or cooperation. Children and adults meet in a shared space adjoining the two programs. Child- and adult-sized chairs designed to put all participants at eye level and developmentally appropriate books and art materials are provided. Procedures Phase 1: Scale development In fall 2005, four research students gathered qualitative observations of IGP involving Adult Day Services participants and Child Development Center children. Observers attended different intergenerational sessions. Each week, observers had a distinct focus, starting with holistic observation to orient the observers to the setting and proceeding to target the environment, the participants, and the facilitators. Following their weekly observations, the observers and the first and second authors discussed the observational data, focusing on the interactions between participating children and elders and factors that influenced those interactions. After observing 3-5 intergenerational sessions apiece, observers read and reviewed the IOS scale and codebook developed by Gladwell and Jarrott (2003) and closely mirroring the Play Observation Scale developed by Rubin (2001). They discussed how well the categories applied to the intergenerational context they observed and how to modify the sca le to reflect the social behaviors critical to intergenerational interactions in planned activities. Through an iterative process, the first two authors used observers notes and conversations to modify the Play Observation Scale to capture data reflecting the interactive process of IGP. Based on the observations from Phase 1, we further developed and refined the IOS (see Table 1). The scale builds on earlier observational research (Rubin, 2001) by coding participants behavior and affect and the affect of intergenerational partners with whom a target participant interacts.   The IOS was developed for live coding. It captures observations for the duration of an intergenerational activity, which tends to last 15-30 minutes. Each observer identifies 4-5 participants for observation and watches them for 1-2 minutes to become familiar with the participants behaviors before beginning to record data. He or she codes a participant for one 15-second interval, then codes the next participant for 15 seconds, followed by the third participant, etc. After the last participant is coded, the observer cycles back to begin observing participant one again. All observers in a session start coding when the facilitators begin the activity and end when the activity completes. When coding, if a behavior occurs for the majority of the coding interval, it is coded as the predominant behavior. When multiple behaviors are observed for equal intervals during a 15-second coding episode, we use the following hierarchy to code the predominant behavior most indicative of intergenerational interactions: Interactive Intergenerational, Parallel Intergenerational, Interactive Peer, Parallel Peer, Staff, Watching, Solitary, and Unoccupied. Phase 2: Establishment of reliability Video coding of the observations was introduced during Phase 2 of scale development because learning the IOS through the use of video has several advantages. When first learning the scale, observers watched a 15-second interval repeatedly to better understand the IOS behavioral scoring. The video coding procedure allowed observers to review their coding with the second author, who is experienced in observational coding. Weekly meetings were held during which observers coding was reviewed and discussed until observers reached a consensus on what behaviors constituted the IOS categories. Weekly review helped observers achieve acceptable reliability in assigning predominant codes to participants social behaviors. The video procedure enabled us to refine the IOS manual. The video coding process began with two observers who both had experience with live coding during IGP. After studying the manual, observers filmed three weekly sessions of planned IGP between the elders and each of the three classrooms of children (one session per classroom per week). The procedure for using video to establish acceptable reliability was completed in three steps. First, observers independently coded sessions in 15-second intervals and re-watched these as many times as necessary to determine the predominant social behavior. In the second step, observers more closely approximated live coding by watching the 15-second intervals on video only once to code the predominant social behavior.   In the third step, observers coded live sessions (scoring participant behaviors individually but observing the same participants at the same intervals) and filmed the activities, which allowed observers to review their coding at the weekly meetings and resolve discrepancies. Based on the consensus between the two coders and the expert coder, master coding sheets were developed indicating agreement on the predominant behavior for each 15-second interval of the coded sessions. Before observers could proceed to the next step in the training process, they had to achieve acceptable inter-rater reliability measured by Cohens kappa. A kappa score of .60 or higher was considered acceptable (Cohen, 1960). The kappa scores for the two observers in Phase 2 were .67 for the first step, .85 for the second step, and .81 for the live coding in the third step. Replication of reliability In Phase 3, we used the IOS video coding procedure to train four new observers. In addition to establishing that the video coding procedure would work with observers new to the IOS, we wanted to determine the amount of training necessary to achieve acceptable reliability with our 3-step process. The observers started with an introductory period where they read the manual and watched live IGP to observe the range of behaviors common to IGP. Observers attended weekly meetings where they watched IGP videos and received instruction on using the IOS. The introductory period lasted approximately 3 weeks or until observers felt comfortable with the coding, which was an additional 2 weeks for one of the observers. After the introductory period, the observers started on step 1 in the video coding procedure. Each step lasted approximately 4 weeks. At the weekly coding meetings, observers reviewed any discrepancies between their coding and the master codes determined in Phase 2. Once the observers achieved acceptable reliability in step 1, they moved on to step 2. Coding pairs were formed, and they coded live IGP during step 3, achieving acceptable kappas of .92, .69, and .75. Discussion In the current paper, we discuss the development of the IOS, a scale designed to measure young and old participants social interaction and affect during IGP.   In developing the IOS, we began with qualitative observations of IGP to refine a well-established child development observational scale (Rubin, 2001). We modified the scale for observations of elder and child participants in a typical range of intergenerational programs.   Based on two groups of observers, we present a system for training individuals to use the scale and establish inter-rater reliability.   Currently, the use of standardized measure within the field of IGP research is extremely limited, and our goal is to develop a scale to address this need. The IOS addresses several of Kuehnes (2003) recommendations for advancing   intergenerational research and evaluation.   First, the IOS is grounded in theory that shaped our view of positive IGP outcomes. Personhood theory (Kitwood Bredin, 1992) leads us to intergenerational relationships as a once common source of positive social interaction for many elders that can continue to support their well-being in late life. Contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew Tropp, 2000) elucidates necessary conditions for positive intergroup exchange, such as that between youth and elders. The conditions of cooperation and shared goals inform our expectation that the central mechanism of effective IGP is positive intergenerational interactions. The IOS captures the level of interactive behaviors between generations, thus reflecting the presence or absence of cooperation and shared goals of participants. Second, we draw from standardized measures of social interaction, namely the work of Parten (1933) and Rubin (2001).   Working from their concepts, we qualitatively looked at the behaviors seen during IGP.   We then refined the social behaviors described within Rubins scale to fit an intergenerational population and to capture levels of social engagement or interaction during IGP.   Third, we steer away from the over-reliance on attitudinal measures, moving instead to behavioral and affective outcomes of IGP. Fourth, by taking steps to develop a standardized scale, we contribute to the research tools available to IGP researchers, which increases the capacity to compare outcomes across studies, thus advancing the collective understanding of IGP. Our results establish the IOS as a replicable measure of social interactions during IGP.   The three-step process we used to achieve acceptable inter-rater reliability proved effective with two groups of observers. The process allows observers to develop a thorough understanding of the social behaviors in the IOS. Observers coding is checked against the master coding scheme to insure observers accuracy coding observed behaviors.   The master coding scheme allows for faster, more accurate training on the use of the IOS. Now that we have developed a successful process for training observers to use the IOS and achieve acceptable inter-rater, observers could be trained relatively quickly, most likely within four to eight weeks. A reliable, quick training method will allow data collection to begin at an earlier date and will allow more researchers to use the scale with confidence. An important strength of the IOS is its utility with both generations of IGP participants. Most research on individual outcomes of IGP participation focuses on one generation or the other (e.g., Middlecamp Gross 2002), neglecting the experiences of the other generation. When researchers do evaluate both age groups, they typically use non-parallel measures because parallel scales for disparate age groups rarely exist.   Not only will the IOS allow for standardized data collection across sites; it enables standardized data collection across generations. We expect the IOS to yield valuable process and outcome data for practitioners and researchers. Considering first the IOS as a source of outcome data, a program introducing or modifying an IGP could, for example, use IOS data to determine the affect and social behavior of participants during IGP with a goal of achieving high levels of positive affect, increasing intergenerational interaction, and reducing inactivity. In regards to process data, the IOS can be used in conjunction with salient outcome measures (e.g., depression or attitudes towards aging) to help interpret the effects of IGP (another recommendation by Kuehne, 2003). In asserting that IGP positively affects (or does not affect) targeted outcomes, researchers analyses would be strengthened by including data on the level of intergenerational interaction and affect that transpired among participants. For example, Seefeldt (1987) reported that children who participated in regular intergenerational visits to a nursing home h ad worse attitudes about aging than children who did not.   These findings would have been more easily interpreted if they incorporated process data such as the affect and level of interaction between children and elders.   Because these data were not included in the analyses, readers are left to speculate whether all IGP involving nursing home residents would negatively affect childrens attitudes or if the nature of the IGP in that study contributed to the negative outcomes. Seefeldt described IGP that yielded little support for intergenerational interaction (i.e., children performing in the center of the room, surrounded by the elders). She also indicated that elders were largely non-responsive to the children, suggesting that the negative outcomes may have been due to the nature of the IGP. While IGP professionals advocate standards of IGP practice (Epstein Boisvert, 2006; Rosebrook Larkin, 2003), significant variability on dimensions of IGP likely affects targeted outcomes and should be assessed. By capturing data that reflect the process of connecting generations, the IOS promotes understanding of why IGP succeeds or fails. As outlined above, the IOS provides many benefits for IGP research and evaluation. Our next step in establishing the scales value and utility to the intergenerational field entails establishing the reliability for coding occurrence of behaviors and predominance and occurrence of affect. Second, we plan to use a variety of means to establish validity, including video training to address substantive validity, expert panels to assess content validity, and statistical modeling of IOS data and related measures to determine convergent or divergent validity. Third, the scale was developed within the Neighbors Growing Together shared site intergenerational program, which involves structured programming between preschoolers and frail older adults. Generalizability is a critical indicator of validity and depends on the scales utility across intergenerational sites, populations, and programmatic approaches. Fourth, the behavior category codes are developmentally salient for pre-school age child ren and frail elders; we need to determine if the categories will be equally informative when applied to older children and well elders. Finally, the scale should be tested across cultures to support Kuehnes (2003) recommendation to take a more global view of IGP innovation. Initial indicators reveal that the IOS could become a useful tool to researchers and practitioners alike. As they seek to develop, improve, and sustain IGP while linking programming data to instrumental outcomes of interest to practitioners and funders, the availability of a standardized scale appropriate for use with young and old will prove invaluable. At a time characterized by tremendous creative energy and innovation in the intergenerational field, the IOS can capture the essence of IGP as practitioners support meaningful outcomes through intergenerational relationships. References Allen-Burge, R., Burgio, L. D., Bourgeois, M. S., Sims, R., Nunnikhoven, J. (2001). Increasing communication among nursing home residents.   Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 7, 213-230. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Camp, C. J., Judge, K. S., Bye, C. A., Fox, K. M., Bowden, J., Bell, M., et al.. (1997). An intergenerational program for persons with dementia using Montessori methods. The Gerontologist, 37, 688-692. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. Eggebeen, D. J., Davey, A. (1998). Do safety nets work? The role of anticipated help in times of need. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 939-950.   Eheart, B. K., Hopping, D. (2001). Generations of hope. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 675-682 Epstein, A. S., Boisvert, C. (2006). Lets do something together: Identifying effective components of intergenerational programs. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(3), 87-109. Gigliotti, C. M., Morris, M., Smock, S., Jarrott, S. E., Graham, B. (2005). Supporting community through an intergenerational summer program involving persons with dementia and pre-school children. Educational Gerontology, 31, 425-441. Gladwell, M. S., Jarrott, S. E. (2003, November). An observational assessment of elders with dementia during intergenerational activities. Poster presented at the meetings of the Gerontological Society of America, San Diego, CA. Goyer, A., Zuses, R. (1998). Intergenerational Shared Site Project, A Study of Co-located Programs and Services for Children, Youth, and Older Adults: Final Report. Washington, DC: AARP. Ice, G. H. (2002). Daily life in a nursing home: Has it changed in 25 years?   Journal of Aging Studies, 16, 345-359. Jantz, R. K., Seefeldt, C., Galper, A., Serlock, K. (1977). Childrens attitudes toward the elderly. Social Education, 41, 518-523. Jarrott, S. E. (2006). Tried and true: A guide to successful intergenerational activities at shared site programs. Washington, DC: Generations United. [Electronic version available at www.gu.org] Jarrott, S. E., Bruno, K. A. (2003). Intergenerational Activities Involving Persons with Dementia: An Observational Assessment. American Journal of Alzheimers and Related Diseases, 18, 31-38. Jarrott, S. E., Bruno, K. (2007). Shared site intergenerational programs: A case study. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 26, 239-257. Jarrott, S. E. Gigliotti, C. M., Smock, S. A.,   (2006). Where do we stand? Testing the foundation of a shared site intergenerational program. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4. Jarrott, S. E., Gladwell, M. S., Gigliotti, C. M., Papero, A. L. (2004). Fostering intergenerational community between child adult care programs: A Results Management approach. Canadian Children, 29(2), 4-13.

The Sentiment, Mood, and Philosophy of The Best Slow Dancer :: Free Essay Writer

The Sentiment, Mood, and Philosophy of The Best Slow Dancer Feelings can twist reality in the most peculiar ways. Emotions push the mind to the most stunning conclusions, and stir within the soul the strangest storms. In fact, senses reach their peak in David Wagoner’s poetic work â€Å"The Best Slow Dancer†. In the poem, Wagoner brings out the height of sentiment through the eyes of a teenage boy at a school dance, who overcomes the teenage social hierarchy and his own fear to share in the longed-for dance with one special girl. All the while Wagoner takes his readers into depths of wafting dreaminess, romance, and intimacy they are projected through an unbroken flow of words uninterrupted by punctuation, rhythm, or strict lines. â€Å"The Best Slow Dancer† portrays the mental state of a boy as he experiences a dance. It is a short dance, but one that seems to him prolonged for an eternity, the â€Å"three-second rule forever/ suspended†. The feelings that go through the youth’s soul range from extreme delight to just as extreme tension, and the reader may see them all exhibited in the lines of the poem. His surety when with the girl in his embrace is seen when his â€Å"countless feet light-footed sure to move as they wished wherever [they] might stagger without her†, but then he â€Å"tried†¦to tell her [he wasn’t] the worst one†, the worst of the boys, the one that she would not be seen dead with—which implies that he is fearful of the fact that she might reject him, â€Å"not waving a sister somebody else’s partner†. The full textual image demonstrates that the boy is with all his heart trying to impress the girl, and gets the dance with her against all odds of popularity and such, and then he treasures the experience, as he says to himself â€Å"remember† at the end. All throughout â€Å"The Best Slow Dancer†, the key ingredient to the image within the reader’s mind is the mood set by the poem. The mood is mystical, quixotic, intimate, and continual. This state is accomplished by three techniques—poetic devices, turns of phrase, and contortion of syntax. The main pair of poetic devices that set up all these moods and humors simultaneously are enjambment and synecdoche. Enjambment is bizarre in this poetic work, especially in descriptions of physical setting or position, such as the setting of the dance, â€Å"in the school gym across the key through the glitter/ of mirrored light†, or the position of the main character with his â€Å"cheek against her temple, her ear just under/ that†.

Callie Khouris Thelma and Louise - Moving Beyond the Male Experience E

Even in today's growing world of feminism, young girls, as well as grown women, are being taught by the media to organize their lives around men. Their needs, expectations, work schedules, ideas, and interests become second to the men in their lives. All too often the media associates power and status to men, only to strengthen the barriers between the male and female genders. Take for example Hollywood, where "women get only about a third of all movie and TV roles, and last year earned less than male actors in all age categories..."(Eby, 1). And even though gender should not be used as the determining factor of what one can and cannot do, Hollywood, as well as everywhere else, has proven that the old habits of gender discrimination die hard, if at all. Luckily, there exist screenwriters and filmmakers who aren't afraid to step outside the limitations of gender, stirring up some controversy. Callie Khouri, creator of "Thelma and Louise" is the exception to this rule. Awarded "Best Original Screenplay", the film challenges our preconceived notions of gender limitations by "giving a feminine twist to a pair of all too familiar Hollywood genres, the road picture and the buddy picture"(NY Times, 1991). The "road and buddy movie" usually calls for men in the lead roles, whereas "Thelma and Louise" called for Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon. A film such as this one allowed for two women to get into dangerous trouble, enjoy themselves, and "unmask the other sex"; actions normally reserved for men (NY Times, 1991). According to Ms. Khouri, the script of "Thelma and Louise" was infact, "a conscious effort to counter what [she] sees as Hollywood's tendency to limit women's roles to easily identifiable types such as bimbos, whores, and nagging wives"(NY Times, 1991). She therefore uses the characters in the movie not so much to prove a point, but instead to make a point. At the same time that Ms. Khouri is making her point, the movie becomes somewhat of a catharsis for women. "Thelma and Louise" is supposed to be "about what every woman knows"(Eby,4). Though rape is a major issue that is used in the movie, it is not supposed to be the only issue women relate to. The general comparison between the women on screen and the women in the audience should be the feeling of at one time or another having been threatened, having been treated as inferior, or having foun... ...y she begins to snap under the pressure. In one particular scene, the role reversal becomes most obvious to the audience. Louise finds out that Thelma has left JD alone in her hotel room with the money which Jimmy had brought them. By the time the girls make it back to the room, JD and the money are long gone. Louise comes to the realization that the control she once possessed has now escaped her. Thelma, who watches as her friend crumbles before her eyes, realizes that she needs to break free from her child-like persona and take control of the situation. Thelma takes on a new sense of responsibility and maturity. She gives Louise a chance to finally let her guard down. "This is a movie about the adventures of women, and that's rare. And that really sad that its rare and we can't think of another movie like this"(LA Times, 1991). Thelma and Louise was a movie written and produced to give women an opportunity to finally tell their story in a society where the media is all too often dominated by males. This was an opportunity to move females from the roles of girlfriend and side interest into the leading role. It is no longer about a man's experiences and a man's adventures. Callie Khouri's Thelma and Louise - Moving Beyond the Male Experience E Even in today's growing world of feminism, young girls, as well as grown women, are being taught by the media to organize their lives around men. Their needs, expectations, work schedules, ideas, and interests become second to the men in their lives. All too often the media associates power and status to men, only to strengthen the barriers between the male and female genders. Take for example Hollywood, where "women get only about a third of all movie and TV roles, and last year earned less than male actors in all age categories..."(Eby, 1). And even though gender should not be used as the determining factor of what one can and cannot do, Hollywood, as well as everywhere else, has proven that the old habits of gender discrimination die hard, if at all. Luckily, there exist screenwriters and filmmakers who aren't afraid to step outside the limitations of gender, stirring up some controversy. Callie Khouri, creator of "Thelma and Louise" is the exception to this rule. Awarded "Best Original Screenplay", the film challenges our preconceived notions of gender limitations by "giving a feminine twist to a pair of all too familiar Hollywood genres, the road picture and the buddy picture"(NY Times, 1991). The "road and buddy movie" usually calls for men in the lead roles, whereas "Thelma and Louise" called for Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon. A film such as this one allowed for two women to get into dangerous trouble, enjoy themselves, and "unmask the other sex"; actions normally reserved for men (NY Times, 1991). According to Ms. Khouri, the script of "Thelma and Louise" was infact, "a conscious effort to counter what [she] sees as Hollywood's tendency to limit women's roles to easily identifiable types such as bimbos, whores, and nagging wives"(NY Times, 1991). She therefore uses the characters in the movie not so much to prove a point, but instead to make a point. At the same time that Ms. Khouri is making her point, the movie becomes somewhat of a catharsis for women. "Thelma and Louise" is supposed to be "about what every woman knows"(Eby,4). Though rape is a major issue that is used in the movie, it is not supposed to be the only issue women relate to. The general comparison between the women on screen and the women in the audience should be the feeling of at one time or another having been threatened, having been treated as inferior, or having foun... ...y she begins to snap under the pressure. In one particular scene, the role reversal becomes most obvious to the audience. Louise finds out that Thelma has left JD alone in her hotel room with the money which Jimmy had brought them. By the time the girls make it back to the room, JD and the money are long gone. Louise comes to the realization that the control she once possessed has now escaped her. Thelma, who watches as her friend crumbles before her eyes, realizes that she needs to break free from her child-like persona and take control of the situation. Thelma takes on a new sense of responsibility and maturity. She gives Louise a chance to finally let her guard down. "This is a movie about the adventures of women, and that's rare. And that really sad that its rare and we can't think of another movie like this"(LA Times, 1991). Thelma and Louise was a movie written and produced to give women an opportunity to finally tell their story in a society where the media is all too often dominated by males. This was an opportunity to move females from the roles of girlfriend and side interest into the leading role. It is no longer about a man's experiences and a man's adventures.

Pickwick Papers :: Free Essays Online

Pickwick Papers Charles Dickens’ The Pickwick Papers Dickens’ first novel, originally titled The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club, began as a concept first brought forth in the early part of the year 1836. It was at this time when Robert Seymour, an etcher and caricaturist of the day, approached publishers Chapman and Hall with his idea for a series of humorous sketches depicting the mannerisms and way of life of â€Å"Cockney amateurs on holiday in the field.† Seymour had already made a success of sketches that depicted similar subject matter, namely that of Cockney sports, and the follies of members of the fictional â€Å"Nimrod Club.† The publishers agreed to fund the project, under the condition that the sketches be accompanied by some literary commentary. Upon agreement, the publishers set out to find a writer and were turned down several times before they approached Charles Dickens, then a young journalist who had recently published a collection of his own called Sketches by Boz. His role , they informed him, would be to provide a text that was secondary and arising only from the sketches. At the time, Dickens, only twenty-three years old, was about to be married and was willing to take on the project as a means of earning some extra money. He showed his cunning even at that early age, though, when he convinced the publishers that there should be a shift in priorities, telling them that he believed that it would be â€Å"infinitely better for the plates to arise naturally out of the text† (Forster). He also informed the publishers that the original concept, which was to focus on Cockney Sportsmanship was a tired subject, that had been done all too often in the past, and he himself knew very little about the subject. Dickens then proposed to alter the concept and allow for a â€Å"freer range of English scenes and people – a panorama of rural England to complement his mainly urban Sketches by Boz† (Kinsley). On March 26, 1836, The Times announced that â€Å"on the 31st would be published the first shilling of the Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club, edited by Boz. Shortly after, that same publication announced that on April 2nd, Mr.

Interview With Teacher Essay

I interviewed a teacher, Mr. Sameulson, from Stallings Island Middle School. He taught me a lot about his field through our interview in which we covered in the following: his background that prepared him to be the teacher he is today, how he educates students with disabilities, how common instructional accommodations help students, the goals that develop student academic independence and self-advocacy, the research-validated interventions Stallings Island Middle School offers, and how he feels about being adequately prepared for his teaching program. Running Head: INTERVIEW WITH A TEACHER, MR. SAMEULSON 3. I interviewed my mentor teacher Beau Samuelson, who is the resource room teacher for Math, Science, and Social Studies at Stallings Island Middle School. During my interview with Mr. Samuelson, I found out that he had a passion to educate children about sail boating that he wanted to educate other children with their academics. I learned a lot about Mr. Samuelson and his field through our interview in which we covered in the following: his background that prepared him to be the teacher he is today, how he educates students with disabilities, how common instructional accommodations help students, the goals that develop student academic  independence and self-advocacy, the research-validated interventions Stallings Island Middle School offers, and how he feels about being adequately prepared for his teaching program. Mr. Samuelson currently is 33 years old. He went to school for engineering but later realized that this career was not the life for him. He went to Augusta State University to get his Bachelor’s Degree in special education. On his degree he told me he got to pick certain disabilities to be qualified in. He said, â€Å"I picked inter-related. I do not work with severe special education kids but I am certified to. † Mr. Samuelson informed me he is also certified in mind- set-training, which is a nonviolent crisis intervention, to restrain children. He is allowed to work with children with Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI). CPI is a safe environment for children with disruptive and bad behavior. He also works with children with severe Emotional Behavior Disorder (EBD). Children with EBD may cause harm to themselves and others. His aunt noticed that he enjoyed youth sailboat racing. He found out he wanted to work with children when he was a part of a sailboat racing company and he helped educate children about sailing. He had a passion for teaching kids. He said, â€Å"I love helping educate these kid. I am happy to help a child in a learning process with sailboats or academics. † His passion for racing sailboats helped him decide to go to school for special education. His aunt got him a paraprofessional job. This helped Running Head: INTERVIEW WITH A TEACHER, MR. SAMEULSON 4 him get hands-on experience with children with disabilities. He went to school for a total of nine years. He also has a teaching degree in Social Studies and Math. Mr. Samuelson said, â€Å"I am highly qualified for high school Math. I taught enough course work, so I got certified in it. † He has taught a total of 15 years: three-years at Westside High school, one-year at Murphy Middle School, six-years at Riverside Middle School, and five-years at Stallings Middle School. Educating students with disabilities is different from their typical peers, because they fall in the cracks. Mr. Samuelson said, â€Å"They usually are not on grade level so teachers have to have these kids on grade level by eight grades. † These kids typically fall in the gaps. These children need a lot of one-on-one time together. Mr. Samuelson said, â€Å"Intervention programs are appropriate here. † Also there are extra accommodations that help children in the special education program. There are many extra accommodations to help special education students. Mr. Samuelson teaches a class in the morning called Achievement Period Offered (AO). There are also Academic Electives (AE) during the middle of the day. In Academic Elective Mr. Samuelson told me that in the intervention programs that take place organized teaching occurs; teachers teach study skills, how to prepare for assessments, and give a copy of the notes with blanks. Mr. Samuelson said, â€Å"There is one-on-one time and tests read to students. † These accommodations help students so they do not fail the classes they are behind in. There is a plan of a range of goals to help develop student academic independence and self-advocacy. The school looks at every student three years process. Mr. Samuelson said, â€Å"Resource classrooms goal is to get these students into co-taught classes. † These students seemed too developed on their weaknesses. Mr. Samuelson, â€Å"It is a struggle to get kids over learned helplessness, because they will fight that they need help. † This academic independence will gradually reduce overtime. These students get time-in-half to take a test. Mr. Samuelson Running Head: INTERVIEW WITH A TEACHER, MR. SAMEULSON 5 said, â€Å"In reality these kids will not get a time in a half to do their work outside of school. † He feels like this is such a disadvantage with these children. Research has proven that children with disabilities struggle in many academic fields and need a different way to learn the material. There is reading and math research-validated interventions used with struggling students and with disabilities. The reading intervention helps students learn to read naturally. Mr. Samuelson said, â€Å"This is all done by research. † The program where students read naturally works on fluency, compression, and spelling. The Math intervention focuses on number world, transition mathematics, and elevation of mathematics. Mr. Samuelson said, â€Å"These are great intervention programs to help these struggling children with disabilities. † These programs and Mr. Samuelson have helped these students with disabilities accomplish through their struggles with set goals. Mr. Samuelson believes his educational background has prepared him adequately in his  teacher education program to adequately meet the demands of the classroom on a daily basis. Mr. Samuelson said, â€Å"Every county is different by helping teachers with their procedures to teaching. † It is important to know how to accommodate children with disabilities. He believes he is blessed working under a good principle, because his principle helps teachers that need it. The principle is not scared to ask teachers for advice, and he has a great bond with his teachers as well. Mr. Samuelson said, â€Å"He has resources from other teachers if he needs them and he has a good foundation. Augusta State University cannot prepare you for this in a four-year period to be an individual teacher. † He believes his paraprofessional job helped him with hands on learning with children with or without disabilities. Observing in the schools throughout college helped him become the teacher he is today. Mr. Samuelson said, â€Å"Augusta State taught me how to be flexible and roll with changes kind of teacher. † For instance, he has to be able to be a co-teacher Running Head: INTERVIEW WITH A TEACHER, MR. SAMEULSON 6 or teach a resource room as well as a full-time Math teacher for the semester. He informed me when a teacher signs a contract this is what it entitles a special education teacher, too. I have learned a lot about Mr. Samuelson’s life and how Stalling Island Middle school is a welcoming environment for children with or without disabilities. It has a lot of advantages for children with disabilities because it offers a lot of co-teaching, resource rooms, one-on-one time, and it has specific classrooms for students with severe disabilities. The curriculum for students with disabilities has to be flexible and meet the needs for children with disabilities and children without.