Presentation College Admissions ACT Scores, Costs...

Presentation College has an acceptance rate of 99%, but the admissions bar isnt overly high so the school will be easily accessible to those applying with high grades and strong standardized test scores. An application can be filled out online on the schools website. As part of the application, students will also need to submit scores from the SAT or ACT, and official high school transcripts. If you have any questions about the admissions process, be sure to get in touch with a counselor in the admissions office. Also, check out Presentations website for more information about applying, including complete guidelines/instructions, and important dates and deadlines. Admissions Data (2016) Percent of Applicants Admitted: 99%Test Scores -- 25th / 75th PercentileSAT Critical Reading: 400 / 493SAT Math: 420 / 530SAT Writing: - / -What these SAT numbers meanACT Composite: 18 / 22ACT English: 16  / 21ACT Math: 17 / 23What these ACT numbers mean Presentation College  Description Presentation College, located in Aberdeen, South Dakota, was founded in 1951. It was founded by the Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and retains its Catholic traditions today. The school focuses on medical and science-based programs, with over 15 Bachelor programs to choose from, and many more at the Associates Degree level.  Popular choices include Nursing, Biology, Social Work, and Business Management. Academics are supported by a healthy 10 to 1 student/faculty ratio.  Outside of the classroom, students can participate in a number of student-run groups and activities. These range from the academic to the social and artistic, including musical groups, faith-based meetings and projects, and student government. On the athletic front, the Presentation College Saints compete in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA); popular sports include basketball, football, soccer, volleyball, and golf.   Enrollment (2016) Total Enrollment: 821  (all undergraduate)Gender Breakdown: 36% Male / 64% Female65% Full-time Costs (2016  - 17) Tuition and Fees: $19,090Books: $1,200 (why so much?)Room and Board: $8,690Other Expenses: $2,700Total Cost: $31,680 Presentation College  Financial Aid (2015  - 16) Percentage of New Students Receiving Aid: 100%Percentage of New Students Receiving Types of AidGrants: 100%Loans: 81%Average Amount of AidGrants: $10,732Loans: $8,310 Academic Programs Most Popular Majors:  Nursing, Business, Social Work, Radiologic Technology, Biology Transfer, Graduation and Retention Rates First Year Student Retention (full-time students): 59%4-Year Graduation Rate: 37%6-Year Graduation Rate: 44% Intercollegiate Athletic Programs Mens Sports:  Football, Soccer, Golf, Basketball, BaseballWomens Sports:  Volleyball, Soccer, Softball, Golf, Basketball You May Also Like These Schools Augustana CollegeUniversity of South DakotaGrand View UniversityNorthern State UniversityCreighton UniversityWayne State CollegeSouth Dakota School of MinesUniversity of WyomingBellevue University Presentation College  Mission Statement Welcoming people of all faiths, Presentation College challenges learners toward academic excellence and, in the Catholic tradition, the development of the whole person.

Social Class Is Not As Important As It Once - 1042 Words

It could be argued that social class is not as important as it once was. Social class is a distribution of a civilisation on the basis of the economy or social status (Oxforddictionaries.com, 2015). Evidence supporting this idea can be found when examining traditional cultural aspects like stratifications. Stratification refers to an organisation by which a society ranks people into a hierarchy. Major forms of stratification include; Slavery, Caste and Estates. In today s society most of the extreme cases of stratification have been abolished as they have became less superior to civilisation. (Oxforddictionaries.com, 2015) However, many sociologists comment on how social class is still present but more hidden. Durkheim and Marx debate†¦show more content†¦The working class are the most exploited class as they act to serve capitalism. They also have the worse stereotypes because of shows such as the Jeremy Kyle show which produces usually an exaggerated representation of the working class with people who are poorly socialised without basic manners or living concepts. The Functionalist model outlines that social inequality is necessary in our modern society as long as recruitment is based on merit and rewards are distributed fairly. (Marsh, 2013) This indicates that people who work harder will get better opportunities in their life. Durkheim is a key Functionalist who states how society has changed since the 1900s and how traditional society has been replaced with modern society which is more focused on the division of labour (Study.com, 2015). The division of labour promotes differences and weakens social cohesion. Social cohesion refers to the willingness of members of a community to cooperate in order to survive. This means that even though the proletariat is the majority, people will not stand up to the bourgeoisie. Davis and Moore state social inequality is an unconsciously evolved device by which societies insure that the most important positions are conscientiously filled by the most qualified persons which means that people who are more t alented deserve the most important roles

What Are the Statistics on Cooperative Learning Free Essays

WHAT ARE THE STATISTICS ON COOPERATIVE LEARNING ANYWAY? Cooperative learning has been debated by educators for a long time and continues to be questioned today. Many educators feel that cooperative learning strips students of the benefits of direct instruction. Proponents of homogeneous learning tend to stray from cooperative learning because it seems to deprive gifted students of learning with their gifted peers. We will write a custom essay sample on What Are the Statistics on Cooperative Learning or any similar topic only for you Order Now Five studies will be summarized that look at different aspects of cooperative learning: effects with the learning disabled, the advantage of helping behaviors, math achievement, strategic reading in groups, social support, and heterogeneous vs. homogeneous grouping. A study was conducted to find out if students with learning difficulties interacted positively in cooperative learning groups. This study also looked at the importance of training students to work together as opposed to just putting them in groups to complete tasks (Gillies Ashman, 2000). The study looked at 152 third grade students from Australia. Twenty-two of those students had learning difficulties (12 boys and 10 girls). The students were randomly placed in cooperative learning groups of five to six students consisting of one high-ability student, two medium-ability students, and one low-ability student. The Otis-Lennon School Ability Test measured learning ability and grade level readiness. An ANOVA test showed no significant difference between the structured groups (those trained to work cooperatively) and the unstructured groups (those not trained to work together) at the onset of the study. During the study period the structured group received the treatment of cooperative learning training before completing a social studies unit (independent variable). The unstructured group was encouraged to work together as a group and given the same time period to complete the social studies unit, but they never received training for such group work. The students were videotaped twice during the study to observe behaviors and interactions, and they were given comprehension and word reading pre- and posttests. The researchers focused their findings on the students with learning difficulties. There was no significant difference in the behaviors of students in the structured or unstructured groups. However, there were significant findings regarding group interactions. Those students in the structured groups interacted and benefited from interactions significantly more than students in the unstructured groups. Students in the structured group also reached greater achievement on the comprehension posttest than those from the unstructured groups. No significant findings resulted in the word reading posttest between the two groups. The authors did find that this study supported that students with learning difficulties do benefit from working in small, structured cooperative groups (Gillies Ashman, 2000). Nattiv’s study of cooperative learning (1994) focused on four topics: Do helping behaviors found in cooperative groups have a link to achievement gains in third, fourth, and fifth grade math students? Did gender, grade, or ability level within cooperative groups affect achievement? Do all helping behaviors benefit academic achievement? Does gender, grade, or ability level have an effect on the helping behaviors exhibited? Nattiv, 1994)). The subjects included 36 third-grade students, 34 fourth-grade students, and 31 fifth-grade students. Fifty-four of those students were male and the remaining 47 were females. The children were ability grouped from the results of the California Test of Basic Skills and the Southwest Regional Lab (both math assessments). Males and females were separately grouped as high- , medium-, and low-ability. The author states that these pretest results could be seen as achievement rather than ability, but the teachers of the students were consulted about the placement of the students (Nattiv, 1994). All of the students received direct instruction, modeling, and practice of helping behaviors in cooperative group learning. Teachers also received training in this area. The groups, then, participated in grade-level appropriate math units. Students were further encouraged to work cooperatively because individual improvement on assessments also earned team points. Data was collected by audio and video recordings. The research team hypothesized that helping behaviors would be related to achievement. Achievement gain would be used as the dependent variable and would be measured by an ANCOVA test. The team found that there was a significant relationship to students using helping behaviors in cooperative learning groups to academic achievement gain. The only behaviors that did not show significant growth were the giving and receiving of answers without explanation (Nattiv, 1994). Another study conducted in Southeastern United States focused on a different type of cooperative learning called Collaborative Strategic Reading. Klingner, Vaughn, and Schumm (1998) sought to discover if this program would be effective in a heterogeneous classroom. They further wanted to analyze reading comprehension, social studies content, and student interactions in conjunction with this technique (Klingner, Vaughn, Schumm, 1998). The participants included 141 students. Eighty-five students were split into three classes to represent the treatment group (or intervention condition), and 56 students were split into two classes to represent the control condition. To ensure equal groupings the students were assessed with the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, then paired and randomly assigned to conditions. Both conditions received the same instruction, number of sessions, time periods per session, and homework activities. The intervention condition received instructions on how to use specific reading strategies to read strategically. The strategies were modeled, practiced, used in small groups, and then encouraged when students broke off into their cooperative groups of five to six students. The control condition received direct instruction for the same social studies material and participated in all lessons as a whole group. Sessions within the intervention condition were audiotaped to hear student interactions. The Gates-MacGinitie Standardized Reading test and a social studies unit test served as dependent variables to measure student achievement. The researchers of this study did find these strategies to be successful. The strategies caused the students of the intervention condition to participate more and discuss more academic content. The students also received higher achievement gains in reading comprehension, while also finding success on the social studies testing. LD students and LEP students did not show statistically significant growth, but did show some growth. Not all of the strategies proved to be successful for the intervention condition, but most did serve their purpose (Klingner, et al. , 1998). Johnson, Johnson, Buckman, and Richards (2001) were only interested in the social aspects of cooperative learning. â€Å"The purpose of the present study was to determine whether cooperative learning experiences are related to social support in the classroom,† (Johnson, Johnson, Buckman, Richards, 2001). The researchers used The Classroom Life Instrument to measure their data. It included 59 Likert-type questions rating statements on a five point scale of truthfulness. The measure was taken in November and January of the same school year. The sample included five eighth-grade classes with 45 girls and 46 boys. They were divided by those who reported being in cooperative groups less than half of the time (35 students) and participating half of the time or more (56 students). The hypothesis was that students would feel more social support in classrooms experiencing cooperative learning more often. Between November and January, research found that students did indeed feel more support with more exposure to cooperative learning. Support was felt by teachers and other students. Students felt more comfortable with materials presented and felt less alienated in the classroom. Students felt more responsible for what they were doing and had a better relationship among classmates both academically and personally (Johnson, et al. , 2001). Grouping students heterogeneously is typically a cooperative learning â€Å"must. Watson and Marshall (1995) wanted to test that theory in a study comparing the effectiveness of heterogeneous grouping and homogeneous grouping in cooperative task structures (Watson Marshall, 1995). Thirty-five undergraduate elementary education students in a life science class were chosen to participate in this study. In this 13 week treatment, the independent variable was in the grouping of students. Six of the groups were arranged heterogeneously and six groups wer e arranged homogeneously. All groups were exposed to cooperative task structures, cooperative incentive structures, and individual accountability. Control was measured by the National Association of Biology Teachers/ National Science Teachers Association test (form A) before the treatment began. The dependent variable was taken from the results of the NABT/NSTA (form B) posttest. A five-item, five-point Liken scale was used to measure student response to the cooperative learning experiences. The authors felt that greater achievement would be gained by students heterogeneously placed in cooperative learning groups. They were rejected. Findings indicated no significant difference in test results from the heterogeneous groups to the homogeneous groups. In fact, in measuring the students’ perceptions of their experiences the homogeneous groups rated their experiences higher than those of the heterogeneous groups. The authors concluded that further studies should be done to find out if heterogeneous grouping is the most beneficial in all cooperative learning tasks (Watson Marshall, 1995). I am a strong supporter, and user, of cooperative learning. I feel that students best learn from the modeling of those they can relate to most: their peers. After reviewing these studies I have not only gained a better understanding of what might be needed to strengthen cooperative learning in the education of my students, but I also feel validated in my use of cooperative learning as an effective learning tool. While some of the researchers did reject initial hypotheses, all of them showed value in the practice of cooperative learning. It is important to teach students how to work cooperatively, model good helping behaviors, and help students to receive not only strong academic support but strong social support as well. Finally, heterogeneous grouping may not be best in every experience in the classroom. Different group experiences may be needed to enhance the benefits. References Gillies, R. M. Ashman, A. F. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on students with learning difficulties in the lower elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 19-27. Johnson, D. W. , Johnson, R. T. , Buckman, L. A. , Richards, P. S. (2001). The effect of prolonged implementation of cooperative learning on social support within the classroom. The Journal of Psychology, 119(5), 405-411. Klingner, J. K. , Vaughn, S. , Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3-22. Nattiv, A. (1994). Helping behaviors and math achievement gain of students using cooperative learning. The Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 285-297. Watson, S. B. Marshall, J. E. (1995). Heterogeneous grouping as an element of cooperative learning in an elementary education science course. School Science Mathematics, 95(8), 401-406. How to cite What Are the Statistics on Cooperative Learning, Papers

None Provided Essay Paper Example For Students

None Provided Essay Paper In ways to limit the growth population the government of India has come up with a few intentions. India is changing and is one of the two countries with populations over one billion. The government will incorporate actions consisting of â€Å"Money given to those who limit number of children in families†. â€Å"The Children needs and funds with a great amount of responsibility†.â€Å"Benefits on tax given on limiting children.† These actions will expectantly motivate them to systemize the growth population to a steady pace. This benefit of giving money to those will give them motive to limit the number of children in families. This is because they will need to spend the money on food for themselves and give them a better future for having money. They could spend it on more fortunate causes and not on toys. Which they would only used for a few years. The government will be giving money to those who contain less than 3 children per house- hold. The Children’s needs and funds would take up and need full responsibilities. Parents would need to pay for insurance, health care, food, clothing, shelter, and education funds. Which would cost a great deal because prices each year would constantly increase. Most families wouldn’t be able to afford or handle the responsibilities for children. This persuasive idea hopefully will keep in mind the tasks detained for children to help India’s growth population lessen. Benefits on tax would consist of limiting children. This profit could help a lot for family’s income and expenses. Benefits on tax could decrease the amount spending on suppliants and could help their payments. Benefits on tax are great deal on just limiting children. And you can also be helping India’s population growth. Tax could be deducted up to half and could also profit money. In my conclusion, India is limiting population growth by openhanded actions to the society and families on benefits of which they can take advantage of knowing and willing to obtain. Statements include of, â€Å"Money given to those who limit number of children in families†. â€Å"The Children needs and funds†.â€Å"Benefits on tax on limiting children.† Expectantly these motives will eager the nation to lessen the population of India. Bibliography: