Annotated Bibliography On Metacognitive Strategies

Journal article review on topic: Metacognitive strategies to improve reading comprehension Research over the years has highlighted the fact that highly proficient strategic readers employ strong metacognitive strategies and have a high degree of cognizance of the reading strategies they employ. To give a quick understanding of metacognition, one can think of it as the ability to take a bird’s eye view as to the processes involved in mental activities—frequently referred to by educators as thinking about thinking (Anderson, 2002, p.23). Because metacognition has proven to be vital to reading comprehension, most quality English as a second language (ESL) programs teach and model reading strategies in order to ensure better reading comprehension. Tools to measure metacognitive awareness are the MARSI (Metacognitive-Awareness-of-Reading Strategies Inventory) or the SORS (Survey of Reading Strategies) inventory. The SORS is intended for use with students who are post-secondary, whether native or non-native. This test is divided into three areas: Global reading str ategies (GLOB), Problem-solving (PROB), and Support Reading Strategies (SUP) (Sheory Mokhtari, 2001). Since academic preparedness in college students, especially international students, can be molded by socio-cultural factors, research as to the impact of culture on metacognition, particularly in reading strategy choice, is of interest. The improvement of reading comprehension for international students through theShow MoreRelatedHow and Understanding of Metacognition Improves the Way a Student Learns2074 Words   |  9 Pagesof two components: knowledge and regulation. Metacognitive learning includes knowledge about oneself as a learner and the factors that might impact performance, knowledge about strategies, and knowledge about when and why to use strategies. Metacognitive regulation is the monitoring of one’s cognition and includes planning activities, awareness of understanding and task performance, and assessment of the efficacy of monitoring processes and strategies. Metacognition also improves with suitable instruction

McCullen v Coakley - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1808 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Narrative essay Topics: Crime Essay Did you like this example? Running Head: Case Opinion Analysis: Mccullen V. Coakley McCULLEN V. Coakley Case Opinion Analysis For the purpose of this paper I choose to place an opinion applet to the case of Supreme Court of the United States no. 12–1168. Eleanor McCULLEN, et al., petitioners v. Martha Coakley, attorney general of Massachusetts, et al .on writ of certiorari to the United States court of appeals for the first circuit argued on January 15, 2014 and decided June 26, 2014. Following an enactment of the legislature to regulate speech on designated areas on health facilities offering abortion. Holding: The Massachusetts law which makes it a crime to stand on a public road or sidewalk within thirty-five feet of a reproductive health care facility violates the First Amendment. The most important enquiry presented by this appeal is the tolerable extent to which the Massachusetts statute is at par with the constitution and whether the statute violates the First Amen dment with regards to the petitioners talking to the women in health facilities in the aim of talking them down not to take the abortion procedure Some of the those who stand outside Massachusetts abortion clinics are impartially described as protestors, who express their moral or religious antagonism to abortion through signs and chants or, in some cases, more aggressive methods such as head-on opposition. Petitioners take a different method. They try to engage women approaching the clinics in what they call â€Å"sidewalk counseling,† which involves offering information about alternatives to abortion and help taking those options. The Massachusetts statute confers it a crime to knowingly stand on a public way or sidewalk within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any place, other than a hospital, where abortions are performed. Mass. Gen. Laws, Ch. 266, 120E ½ (a), (b) (West 2012). The Petitioners are the entities who approach and talk to women outside such amenities, trying to discourage them from ta king the abortions. The statute inhibits petitioners from doing so near the facilities entrances. The epicenter of this case is based on the mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 266 120E  ½ (2007) the act. the pertinent provisions of the act are detailed in some detail in which the alleged persons are restricted from the public and sidewalks of reproductive health care amenities which are within the marked buffer zones which span 35 feet of any portion of the driveway entrance or exit or such an area created by extending the boundaries of the same locations to the point which there is intersection with the street sideline in front of such a driveway, entrance or exit. This act in the revision of 2000 however exempts the persons leaving or entering the indicated facilities, the employees and the agents of the facility, the law enforcement personnel, utility personnel firefighting ambulances and public works staff. It also exempts the people using the areas with the sole purpose of right of way to get to their destination. On 16th of January 2008 this action was brought against the Massachusetts attorney general in the federal district court with an allegation of a varied constitutional claims and invoking 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court separated the plaintiff’s facial challenge from their as applied challenge thus addressing the facial challenge and upholding the act. Following an appeal the court held that the act was a content neutral, valid and viewpoint neutral. The plaintiffs over breadth claim was rebuffed by citing the Hill v. Colorado 530 U.S 703(2000) from which the Supreme Court upheld a Colorado statue which controlled communicative activities within 100 feet of healthcare facility entrances. Finally, it was ruled that the Act did not constitute an unlawful prior restraint on protected speech. What remained then was the plaintiffs as applied challenge. As a threshold matter it invokes the case of doctrine counteratta cked the plaintiffs effort to reargue the facial constitutionality of the Act. Next, it allowed the defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to seven as-applied counts. Id. at 141-45. Resulting to whether the Act, as applied, constituted a valid time-place-manner directive, the court concluded that the only trial worthy subject concerned the suitability of alternative channels of communication at the affected facilities. Id. at 145. Following a bench trial, the court upheld the Act as applied. McCullen III, 844 F. Supp. 2d at 213-25. The essential or salient facts; In line with magistrate court holding the act on its face is constitutionally valid time place manner regulation .the court had a finding that the law of the case doctrine barred re litigation of the issue. The law of the case e doctrine constitutes of two branches which both apply in the case brought forward; one which embodies the mandate rule prevents re litigation in the trial court of matters that were explicitly or implicitly decided by an earlier appellate decision in the same case. United States v. Matthews, 643 F.3d 9, 13 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The second binds a successor appellate panel in a second appeal in the same case to honor fully the original decision. For certainty, the law of the case doctrine concedes of certain exceptions. But the conditions giving escalation to those exceptions are scarcely bounded: A party may avoid the application of the law of the case doctrine only by showing that, in the relevant time frame, controlling legal authority has changed dramatically; or by showing that significant new evidence, not earlier obtainable in the exercise of due diligence, has come to light; or by showing that the earlier decision is blatantly erroneous and, if uncorrected, will work a miscarriage of justice. Although the plaintiffs refer in desultory fashion to the third exception, they make no reference to the second exceptio n and their only claim pertains to the first exception. The plaintiffs base their claim on recent verdicts of the Supreme Court standing for the wholly unremarkable proposition that content-based and speaker-based speech restrictions are disfavored, Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011); Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). The propositions for which the plaintiffs quote the above cases are no more than conservative First Amendment principles declaimed by the Supreme Court in the setting of actual scenarios far different form the scenario presented by the issue at hand . The verdict on which the plaintiffs depend on most profoundly Citizens United — is symbolic of this point. Citizens United domineered Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), which had held that corporate entities, with contrast to other speakers, could be forbidden from engaging in partisan speech. The plaintiffs contend that Citizens United proclaimed, at first, an umbrella ban on all speaker distinctions, whatever the situation. This unconditional ban, they say, should serve to invalidate the Act as a speaker-specific restriction. This is an imprecise interpretation of Citizens United. The Citizens United Court alleged that government cannot entirely forbid corporate political speech. In support, it raised the central principle laid out in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), to the effect that the First Amendment does not permit political speech limitations based on a speakers corporate affiliation . Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 903. Going by fact, the act makes no such distinction. The plaintiffs, however, are undeterred. They seize upon a remote statement in Citizens United: Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.† But they tug this statement from its context and they neglect to mention that the Court cites Bellotti a case th at substantially precedes this proposition. It appears that The Courts dependence on Bellotti is not a mere chance. After all, the Citizens United Court pronounced its decision as a reappearance to classic First Amendment jurisprudence rather than a withdrawal therefrom. The Court did not withdrawal from its well-settled abortion clinic/buffer zone jurisprudence. Seen in this light, the court of appeal could not read Citizens United as undermining the First Amendment foundation on which our rejection of the plaintiffs facial challenge rested. With reference to the Snyder case, in which the Court held that the First Amendment excludes tort liability against persons who had peacefully remonstrated, on public property, at the funeral of a Marine. Snyder, 131 S. Ct. at 1213-14, 1220-21. For another time the Court did no more than refer to the long-recognized First Amendment principles. And while it restated the special status of public streets as the epitome of a customary public mee ting, it ensued to confirm that even public settings are subject to reasonable time-place-manner regulations. It is particularly telling that, in making this point, the Court referred explicitly to the abortion clinic buffer zone that it had upheld in Madsen. The plaintiffs dependence on Sorrell is similarly mislaid. The Sorrell Court overturned a Vermont law that regulated the sale, expose, and use of pharmacy records for marketing purposes. Sorrell, 131 S. Ct. at 2659. The law by fact was content-based and speaker-based, and had been endorsed with the avowed purpose of diminishing the efficiency of marketing by manufacturers of brand-name drugs. It is the courts holding that the Massachusetts law is one viewpoint neutral and that it does not discriminate on the basis of content. It treats the Massachusetts law like it bans all manner of speech within the stipulated buffer zones. While this law would be content neutral on its face, there are situations in which the law prohib iting all speech at a particular location would not be content neutral in fact. Suppose, for instance, that a facially content-neutral law is enacted for the purpose of suppressing speech on a particular topic. Such a law would not be content neutral. The bottom line is that, to be cognizable, a claim of uneven enforcement requires state action. The First Amendment is concerned with government interference, not private jousting in the speech marketplace. In this case, I don’t think it was possible to reach a ruling about the intentions of the Massachusetts Legislature without taking into account the fact that the law that the legislature enacted deliberately discriminates on the basis of a viewpoint. In light of this proposition, as well as the over breadth that the Court recognizes, it cannot be said, based on the current record, that the law would be content impartial even if the exemption for clinic employees and agents were excised. However, if the law were truly conte nt neutral, I would agree with the Court that the law would still be unconstitutional on the ground that it burdens more speech than is necessary to serve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests. References Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132, 96 S. Ct. 2857, 49 L. Ed. 2d 844 (1976). Citizens United v. Federal Election Comn, 130 S. Ct. 876, 558 U.S. 310, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010). First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1978). Lessig, L. (2000). Copyrights First Amendment. UCLA L. Rev., 48, 1057. McCullen v. Coakley, 571 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2009). Merkle, S. E. (2009). Snyder v. Phelps. SCL Rev., 61, 657. Mass. Gen. Laws, Ch. 266, 120E ½ (a), (b) (West 2012). Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 562 U.S. 09, 179 L. Ed. 2d 172 (2011). Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "McCullen v Coakley" essay for you Create order

Benefit of Smoking Free Essays

BENEFIT OF SMOKING 1. Smoking lowers risk of knee-replacement surgery While smokers might go broke buying a pack of cigarettes, they can at least save money by avoiding knee-replacement surgery. Surprising results from a new study have revealed that men who smoke had less risk of undergoing total joint replacement surgery than those who never smoked. We will write a custom essay sample on Benefit of Smoking or any similar topic only for you Order Now The study, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, appears in the July issue of the journal Arthritis Rheumatism. What could be the connection? Knee-replacement surgery was more common among joggers and the obese smokers rarely jog and they are less likely to be morbidly obese. After controlling for age, weight and exercise, the researchers were at a loss to explain the apparent, albeit slight protective effects of smoking for osteoporosis. It could be that the nicotine in tobacco helps prevent cartilage and joint deterioration. 2. Smoking lowers risk of Parkinson’s disease Numerous studies have identified the uncanny inverse relationship between smoking and Parkinson’s disease. Long-term smokers are somehow protected against Parkinson’s and its not because smokers die of other things earlier. The most recent, well-conducted study was published in a March 2010 issue of the journal Neurology. Far from determining a cause for the protective effect, these researchers found that the number of years spent smoking, more so than the number of cigarettes smoked daily, mattered more for a stronger protective effect. Harvard researchers were among the first to provide convincing evidence that smokers were less likely to develop Parkinson’s. In a study published in Neurology in March 2007, these researchers found the protective effect wanes after smokers quit. And they concluded in their special scientific way that they didn’t have a clue as to why. 3. Smoking lowers risk of obesity Smoking — and, in particular, the nicotine in tobacco smoke — is an appetite suppressant. This has been known for centuries, dating back to indigenous cultures in America in the pre-Columbus era. Tobacco companies caught on by the 1920s and began targeting women with the lure that smoking would make them thinner. A study published in the July 2011 issue of the journal Physiology ; Behavior, in fact is one of many stating that the inevitable weight gain upon quitting smoking is a major barrier in getting people to stop, second only to addiction. The relationship between smoking and weight control is complex: Nicotine itself acts as both a stimulant and appetite suppressant; and the act of smoking triggers behavior modification that prompts smokers to snack less. Smoking also might make food less tasty for some smokers, further curbing appetite. As an appetite suppressant, nicotine appears to act on a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, at least in mice, as revealed in a study by Yale researchers published in the June 10, 2011 issue of the journal Science. No respectable doctor would recommend smoking for weight control, given the toxic baggage accompanying cigarettes. This recent Yale study, however, does offer an inkling of hope for a safe diet drug to help obese people control their appetites. 4. Smoking lowers risk of death after some heart attacks Compared with non-smokers, smokers who have had heart attacks seem to have lower mortality rates and more favorable responses to two kinds of therapy to remove plaque from their arteries: fibrinolytic therapy, which is basically medication; and angioplasty, which removes the plaque by inserting balloons or stents into the arteries. There’s a catch, though. The reason why smokers have heart attacks is that smoke scars the arteries, allowing fat and plaque to build up in the first place. So, one theory as to why smokers do better than non-smokers after such therapies is that they are younger, experiencing their first heart attack approximately 10 years before the non-smoker. A study published in an August 2005 issue of the American Heart Journal, however, states that age alone is not enough to fully explain the survival differences and that â€Å"the smoker’s paradox is alive and well. † No alternative theories have been put forth since. 5. Smoking helps the heart drug clopidogrel work better Clopidogrel is a drug used to inhibit blood clots for those patients suffering from coronary artery disease and other circulatory diseases leading to strokes and heart attacks. Smoking seems to help clopidogrel do its job better. A study by Korean researchers in the October 2010 issue of the journal Thrombosis Research builds upon work by Harvard researchers published in 2009 that demonstrates the benefit of smoking at least 10 cigarettes a day. It seems that something in cigarette smoke activates certain proteins called cytochromes, which convert clopidogrel into a more active state. Again, no respectable doctor is encouraging patients to start smoking to get the most out of clopidogrel. But this and the other four â€Å"benefits† of smoking reveal how tobacco — perhaps not unlike other potentially toxic plants — might contain certain chemicals of real therapeutic value. 6. Smoking Relieves Stress This is the most common thing you hear from smokers about the benefits of smoking. This is because cigarettes create a myriad of conditions that help the body deal with anxiety, stress, and depression. 7. Smoking Relaxes Your Breathing The way you breathe when you smoke helps your body relax and calm down. For people who have panic attacks or stress problems, Doctors recommend patients practice a sort of breathing called relaxation breathing. Among other things, it involves taking a deep breath into the lungs and holding it in for a second or two before exhaling. This is exactly like the act of smoking. This kind of breathing slows your heart rate and relieves tension in your muscles, especially your neck and upper back, which tense up in stressful situations. 8. Outside Smoke Breaks Calm You Down If you go outside for smoke breaks, this simple act can really help you deal with your stress. Say if you’re in a fight with your spouse or close to the deadline on a major project for work, leaving the house or office to step outside for a smoke break helps you deal with the stress. * You get a break from your stressor * You get into the open and fresh air * You leave the stressful environment * You have time to think about your problems from an objective point of view   * The nature and sky outside helps your mind calm down and relax 9. Nicotine is an Anxiety and Depression Medication The nicotine in cigarettes is also a major factor of stress relief. Nicotine is a chemical which mildly and temporarily stops the feelings of anxiety and depression. After an inhale of cigarette smoke, the nicotine reacts in your brain chemistry within seven seconds. Nicotine makes the brain feel better, and stops the chain reaction anxiety and depression can have within the brain. It is no surprise that 1/3 of nicotine addicts claim to have depression or anxiety problems. Cigarettes are a great form of self medication. How to cite Benefit of Smoking, Papers