(MY TOPIC IS What effect does daily use of Twitter have on the attention span of 12-16 year-olds?)

You have already done a lot of research, which has resulted so far in an annotated bibliography. For this assignment, you will synthesize the information that you found in all of that research into what is called a literature review—or an overview of the scholarly conversation about your subject. 

A literature review (lit review) is a common and important academic genre, in which you review and synthesize available research on the topic. Like the Op-Ed, your Literature Review will identify camps within the scholarly conversation. The lit review will then explain, describe, and define the stakes associated with the particular positions taken by your source authors. Reviewing the literature is a key step in being able to contribute to an academic conversation. You will very likely use portions of this paper in the next assignment—the research paper.

Synthesis

Synthesis is the process of combining diverse elements into a recognizable whole. In the lit review, this means putting a lot of different sources together. You combine the main ideas of each, and in doing so 1) show how and where the different sources work together, 2) show how and where the different sources work against each other, and 3) create a space for you to position your own argument.

STEP ONE: The first step is to identify the clusters/camps/schools of thought:

• What are the points of convergence?
• Who is talking to each other (via citation)?
• What are the topics and subtopics in the conversation?
• Who is talking about the same topics and subtopics?
• What clusters/camps are forming around the topics and subtopics?
• What are the connection points where ideas intersect and/or push against each other?

STEP TWO: The next step is to group together the clusters and identify the big ideas:

• Are there smallish clusters that can be joined by a slightly larger idea?
• Are some of the ideas emerging as more important than others, by virtue of more citation, more explanation, etc.?
• Do you find some of the clusters more compelling than others? Why?

List three or four of the big ideas under which you can group the clusters. Those clusters that you can’t fit in may just not fit in this literature review. Don’t force ideas together, but make sure you are looking for every angle and every point of connection.

STEP THREE: The next step is to organize the ideas.

• Is one of the ideas more current and treated more favorably in the most recent literature?
• Is there one idea that you prefer?
• What are the logical connections between the ideas?
• How are the clusters/camps building on each other?

The big ideas will become the subheadings for the literature review. You need to decide what order to put the big ideas in. It’s common to work both chronologically and by importance of the ideas within the context of your particular contribution. You’ll begin with the formation of the conversation and the fundamental concepts and ideas, to innovations and developments of those ideas, and then to the most recent adjustments and tweaks to the arguments. This is because, you are working toward your own argument which needs to be fitted into the most recent and important arguments.

STEP FOUR: What do “They Say” and what are the stakes?

What are the stakes in this conversation? According to the sources gathered in your body of research:

• What are the most important issues?
• Why does the topic matter?
• Who does it matter to?
• What does it impact?

These are the stakes of the conversation.

For each big idea, pull two or three quotes out of the research you’ve done on your topic. The quotes should be about important points that you need to include in the literature review. Underneath each quote, explain it in your own words. Make sure that a couple of the quotes get at the stakes of the conversation.

STEP FIVE: Write the literature review.

Here is a basic structure for a literature review:

• Introduction: +/-2 paragraphs, in which you describe the topic generally, define any key terms, and define and label the clusters/camps that will structure the rest of the literature review.
• Section 1 (You might use a subheading that indicates the general subtopic you will discuss): This section should be about the fundamental concepts and the beginning points of the conversation. This section should include the major authors who are nearly always referenced in other articles on the same topic. Call attention to what is at stake in the conversation. In 1+ page, describe that subtopic, by bringing together the clustered ideas, calling attention to and explaining what kinds of arguments are already being made about that subtopic. You should note the relationships between ideas, authors, clusters/camps as you describe the big idea of that section. Your thesis probably belongs in this section. (See note on thesis below.)
• Section 2 (You might use a subheading that indicates the general subtopic you will discuss): What’s the next logical idea? In about 1 page, describe the next subtopic by bringing together the clustered ideas, calling attention to and explaining what kinds of arguments are already being made about that subtopic. You should note the relationships between ideas, authors, clusters/camps as you describe the big idea of that section.
• Section 3 (You might use a subheading that indicates the general subtopic you will discuss): In about 1 page, describe the next subtopic by bringing together the clustered ideas, calling attention to and explaining what kinds of arguments are already being made about that subtopic. You should note the relationships between ideas, authors, clusters/camps as you describe the big idea of that section.
• Conclusion: In 1-2 paragraphs, draw some general conclusions about the conversation in general, which will allow you to recap the major parts of the argument. The general conclusions should get at why the topic is relevant—the stakes. Point out existing holes in the conversation, gaps where more research needs to be done or where a different argument needs to be made.

Writing a Thesis for a Literature Review

A literature review needs a thesis, but it won’t be in the form of “I will argue…”. Instead, the thesis of a literature review needs to overview the conversation, calling attention to the major points of convergence, divergence, and clusters. It might follow this template: In reviewing the literature on ____________, I will show that ____________________ viewpoint differs from ________________viewpoint, and that ultimately what is at stake in this conversation is _________________________. 

Formatting

The literature review needs to be:

• 3-4 pages long (the works cited page does not count toward the page count)
• word-processed
• double-spaced
• using a standard 12-point font (no courier)
• with standard margins
• and numbered pages
• with name, date, section number, and instructor at the top of the first page (no title page necessary)

Please this link for readings.

http://philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm#mephy

This link for video

Assignment- APA 150 words minimum.

Choose one or two concepts outlined and, in your own words, explain them as you would to someone entirely unfamiliar with philosophy. Be sure to include an example. Here is a sample:

·         

o   Relativism

• What is right/good is determined by particular groups
• Tends to avoid “objectivism” (there is some universal concept of right and wrong)

The philosophical term “relativism” is similar to the term “relative” in our daily lives. For example, saying “It’s hot out today,” in reference to the weather, is a claim about how the weather feels to you. Suppose someone responds, “No, it’s not hot out. It’s just right!” The feeling is relative to the individual. We can also think of “relative” in terms of families. A mother or father, brother, or sister, etc., is a relative, that is, someone related in a specific way.

In philosophy, and more specifically in ethics, “relativism” is a view about right and wrong being relative to a group, culture, or individual. Relativism is contrasted with an objective view of morality. If morality is objective, it is universal, or it holds for everyone. So, if tipping a server is objectively good, it’s good for everyone. If you’re a sort of relativist, you might say that tipping is wrong, for example, in certain cultures, but not in others.

1.       The purpose of the final exercise is to think about your team and your role in the world and how you can make significant progress on an issue about which you care greatly.

2.       For this project, you should choose one of the Sustainable Development Goals and develop a radical plan to make progress on this issue from where you sit in your specific organization, whatever that organization may be. You should research this goal on the UN SDG website (https://sdgs.un.org/goals) and choose one issue in one of the goals to improve.  ( proposing informational campaigns alone is not sufficient as a radical idea, nor are descriptions of existing programs).  (My choices are no poverty, zero hungry, or good health and well-being)

3.       The final paper is a 2000-word report which will present an idea for a project your team at your work can undertake to make progress on one of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Ideally, you should address how this can be implemented in the fastest and most effective way possible. This report should have your organization’s leadership as the audience in mind but requires a very limited introduction to the organization as needed for non-local audiences

• Section 1 – Introduction: Brief introduction to your organization and/or team. (100 words)

• Section 2 – Sustainable Development Goal: A brief description of the SDG that your report will consider and your radical idea for accomplishing that goal. (300 words) • Section 3 – The Problem and the Solutions – A brief discussion of the problem that you’re trying to solve and a brief description of what your proposed solutions will be (350 words)

 • Section 4 – Logic Model: A refined logic model of the existing policy or plan which sketches out the key assumptions related to its inputs, outputs, outcomes and impact. See https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/prep-logic-model-ts_0.pdf for a discussion of logic models. Please consider a graphical representation rather than a narrative approach for this section. And remember to start from the outcomes in mind and work backwards! (100 words)

• Section 5 – Stakeholders: An approach to tactics building the team you need to accomplish this goal and helping to secure buy-in from your team and your chain of command (everyone has a boss!), which also addresses potential opposition to your idea. Your recommendations should include ideas for mobilizing key stakeholders to support the proposed policy or plan and to become agents of change. See this brief video on Stakeholder Analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFbyzrqFiNI for an overview of the process. While a narrative in this section is critical, a graphical representation summarizing this information can be helpful. (350 words) 

• Section 6 – Implementation: A process of implementation with key steps and milestones. (350 words)

• Section 7– Consequences: A brief discussion of potential risks and unintended consequences of the proposed interventions. (250 words)

• Section 8 – Conclusions: Conclusion, including a discussion of why this work is important (200 words)

Please answer the following questions. No Plagiarism. Thank you!

1. If you wanted information about a certain topic, what would you do, an experiment or a survey? why?
2. Which is the most useful representation of data to you? why?
3. What is a situation from your own life where you could use the z-score? explain how you would use it and what it could help you understand.
4. What is surprising to you about the normal distribution?
5. Pick a topic you would like to investigate. (A) What question would you ask (or what data would you collect) so that from your data you would calculate a mean? (B) What question would you ask (or what data would you collect) so that from your data you would calculate a proportion?
6. What is a situation from your own life where you could use a confidence interval? how would you do it?
7. What is a situation from your own life where you could use a hypothesis test? how would you do it?
8. What is a situation from your own life where you could use statistical inference (confidence interval or hypothesis test) on two samples? how would you do it?
9. What is a situation from your own life where you could use correlation and regression? how would you do it?
10. What is a situation from your own life where you could use probability to help make a decision? how would you do it?

Vaccine Wars 2021

With this collaborative assignment I expect a more informed analysis of this topic than the work you submitted for Prisoner of Silence exercise because you have a greater depth of knowledge related to research and research design. Answers should be in excess of 125+ words for each question to provide thorough answers. Please make sure you state the question before the answer. Do not use contractions (-1 for each occurrence). Do not use any form of the word “proof” (-1 for each occurrence). You must submit your answer by pasting it into the response box. One submission per pair of students.  This is a collaborative activity.  If you do not work with your partner, you will not receive credit. 

The answers should be derived from the documentary The Vaccine Wars located: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPOrnU3ImxI

1. (4 pts.) Describe the claims made on the video, The Vaccine Wars, made by opponents against the early use of multiple vaccinations of babies/children.  There were several arguments.  What were the arguments and what was the nature of the arguments made? Include all of the concepts that you have learned this semester to provide a thorough and specific explanation.

2. (3 pts.) In what ways, if any, might these pieces of supportive evidence be interpreted as the results of         placebo effects and vividness effects?

3.(4 pts.) Describe the claims made on the video, The Vaccine Wars, made by advocates for the early use of multiple vaccinations of babies/children.  There were several arguments.  What were the arguments and what was the nature of the arguments made? Include all of the relevant concepts that you have learned this semester to provide thorough and specific explanations. During the Frontline Video: the researchers stated that the people/groups who believe that vaccines are responsible for certain illness in children keep changing the factors or variables of interest related to vaccines that may be responsible for the illnesses. These sort of changes most clearly violates what scientific principle(s)?  Explain in detail.

4. (4 pts) Which research provided the truest empirical EVIDENCE to inform the discussion on vaccines?  What was the nature of this research and what evidence was provided? Describe in great depth and explain the rationale behind it.

5. (4 pts) How does this documentary relate to and inform current issues related to the Covid-19 virus and vaccine debate?

Please only use the video as a source.