Similarities and differences between secondary and university teachers' perspectives Sample Clauses

Similarities and differences between secondary and university teachers' perspectives. In this section we will describe the similarities and differences between secondary and university teachers’ perspectives. We will focus mainly on the differences between teachers. The similarities can be seen in the Tables in this section in which each theme and the associated categories of description can be found. In the concluding section we will expand more on the similarities between teachers.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Similarities and differences between secondary and university teachers' perspectives. To consider more specifically the similarities and differences between teachers in secondary and higher education, an independent samples T-test was performed on the scales which resulted from the Principal Components Analysis described above (section 4.2). The results of this analysis show that secondary and university teachers did not score significantly differently on the following scales: acquire knowledge, expectations of students, strong regulation, and loose regulation. Teachers share the same views on the importance of knowledge building: they find it important that students increase their knowledge and learn to structure it, for example, by making summaries. Furthermore they have similar expectations of students regarding active participation during lessons and, for example, about their contribution of material to the lessons. Secondary and university teachers attach similar importance to strong and loose regulation during lessons. It is remarkable that both groups of teachers scored higher on strong than on loose or shared regulation. Especially considering the accent in secondary education on active and self-regulated learning, in which the transfer of regulation to the learner is considered highly important, one would expect a lower score on strong regulation and a higher score on loose and shared regulation. The outcomes of this analysis indicate that there are significant differences between secondary and university teachers in the knowledge building, opinion, education, and personal development scales, in the change scale, in the differences and capacities scale, and in the shared regulation scale. These differences are represented in Table 4.10: Table 4.10 T-test with scale scores for SEd and HEd teachers Scales M (SEd) SD M (HEd) SD Sig. 2-tailed Goals Knowledge building 6.1 .70 6.0 .74 .026* Opinion 5.4 .89 5.9 .76 .000*** Education 5.4 .91 3.8 1.2 .000*** Development 5.8 .67 5.6 .90 .000*** Learning Process Acquiring knowledge 4.8 .61 4.7 .59 .130 Change 4.9 .58 4.7 .72 .000*** Tabel 4.10 continued Students Differences 5.3 .73 4.8 .84 .000*** Expectations 3.7 .44 3.8 .48 .055 Capacities 4.9 .94 4.1 .96 .000*** Regulation Teacher regulation 3.9 .58 3.9 .62 .266 Shared regulation 3.0 .70 2.7 .74 .000*** Learner regulation 3.2 .57 3.2 .58 .093 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. Significant differences were found between the two groups of teachers regarding goals. For teachers in higher education, the goal opinion is important, which is about acqui...

Related to Similarities and differences between secondary and university teachers' perspectives

  • Professional Development; Adverse Consequences of School Exclusion; Student Behavior The Board President or Superintendent, or their designees, will make reasonable efforts to provide ongoing professional development to Board members about the adverse consequences of school exclusion and justice-system involvement, effective classroom management strategies, culturally responsive discipline, appropriate and available supportive services for the promotion of student attendance and engagement, and developmentally appropriate disciplinary methods that promote positive and healthy school climates, i.e., Senate Bill 100 training topics. Board Self-Evaluation The Board will conduct periodic self-evaluations with the goal of continuous improvement. New Board Member Orientation The orientation process for newly elected or appointed Board members includes:

  • Requirements Pertaining Only to Federal Grants and Subrecipient Agreements If this Agreement is a grant that is funded in whole or in part by Federal funds:

  • Special Rules Regarding Related Entities and Branches That Are Nonparticipating Financial Institutions If a Finnish Financial Institution, that otherwise meets the requirements described in paragraph 1 of this Article or is described in paragraph 3 or 4 of this Article, has a Related Entity or branch that operates in a jurisdiction that prevents such Related Entity or branch from fulfilling the requirements of a participating FFI or deemed-compliant FFI for purposes of section 1471 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or has a Related Entity or branch that is treated as a Nonparticipating Financial Institution solely due to the expiration of the transitional rule for limited FFIs and limited branches under relevant U.S. Treasury Regulations, such Finnish Financial Institution shall continue to be in compliance with the terms of this Agreement and shall continue to be treated as a deemed- compliant FFI or exempt beneficial owner, as appropriate, for purposes of section 1471 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, provided that:

  • Requester and Approved User Responsibilities The Requester agrees through the submission of the DAR that the PI named has reviewed and understands the principles for responsible research use and data management of the genomic datasets as defined in the NIH Security Best Practices for Controlled-Access Data Subject to the GDS Policy. The Requester and Approved Users further acknowledge that they are responsible for ensuring that all uses of the data are consistent with national, tribal, and state laws and regulations, as appropriate, as well as relevant institutional policies and procedures for managing sensitive genomic and phenotypic data. The Requester certifies that the PI is in good standing (i.e., no known sanctions) with the institution, relevant funding agencies, and regulatory agencies and is eligible to conduct independent research (i.e., is not a postdoctoral fellow, student, or trainee). The Requester and any Approved Users may use the dataset(s) only in accordance with the parameters described on the study page and in the 1 If contractor services are to be utilized, PI requesting the data must provide a brief description of the services that the contractor will perform for the PI (e.g., data cleaning services) in the research use statement of the DAR. Additionally, the Key Personnel section of the DAR must include the name of the contractor’s employee(s) who will conduct the work. These requirements apply whether the contractor carries out the work at the PI’s facility or at the contractor’s facility. In addition, the PI is expected to include in any contract agreement requirements to ensure that any of the contractor’s employees who have access to the data adhere to the NIH GDS Policy, this Data Use Certification Agreement, and the NIH Security Best Practices for Controlled-Access Data Subject to the GDS Policy. Note that any scientific collaborators, including contractors, who are not at the Requester must submit their own DAR. Addendum to this Agreement for the appropriate research use, as well as any limitations on such use, of the dataset(s), as described in the DAR, and as required by law. Through the submission of this DAR, the Requester and Approved Users acknowledge receiving and reviewing a copy of the Addendum which includes Data Use Limitation(s) for each dataset requested. The Requester and Approved Users agree to comply with the terms listed in the Addendum. Through submission of the DAR, the PI and Requester agree to submit a Project Renewal or Project Close-out prior to the expiration date of the one (1) year data access period. The PI also agrees to submit an annual Progress Update prior to the one (1) year anniversary2 of the project, as described under Research Use Reporting (Term 10) below. By approving and submitting the attached DAR, the Institutional Signing Official provides assurance that relevant institutional policies and applicable local, state, tribal, and federal laws and regulations, as applicable, have been followed, including IRB approval, if required. Approved Users may be required to have IRB approval if they have access to personal identifying information for research participants in the original study at their institution, or through their collaborators. The Institutional Signing Official also assures, through the approval of the DAR, that other institutional departments with relevant authorities (e.g., those overseeing human subjects research, information technology, technology transfer) have reviewed the relevant sections of the NIH GDS Policy and the associated procedures and are in agreement with the principles defined. The Requester acknowledges that controlled-access datasets subject to the NIH GDS Policy may be updated to exclude or include additional information. Unless otherwise indicated, all statements herein are presumed to be true and applicable to the access and use of all versions of these datasets.

  • Appropriate Technical and Organizational Measures SAP has implemented and will apply the technical and organizational measures set forth in Appendix 2. Customer has reviewed such measures and agrees that as to the Cloud Service selected by Customer in the Order Form the measures are appropriate taking into account the state of the art, the costs of implementation, nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing of Personal Data.

  • Special Aggregation Rule Applicable to Relationship Managers For purposes of determining the aggregate balance or value of accounts held by a person to determine whether an account is a High Value Account, a Reporting Financial Institution shall also be required, in the case of any accounts that a relationship manager knows or has reason to know are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or established (other than in a fiduciary capacity) by the same person, to aggregate all such accounts.

  • CONTACTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES 15.1 Each Party shall update its own contact information and escalation list and shall provide such information to the other Party for purposes of inquiries regarding the implementation of this Agreement. Each Party shall accept all inquiries from the other Party and provide a timely response. CenturyLink will provide and maintain its contact and escalation list on the CenturyLink Website, and any updates also will be provided on the Website. Information contained on the Website will include a single contact telephone number for CenturyLink’s CLEC Service Center (via an 800#) that CLEC may call for all ordering and status inquiries and other day-to-day inquiries at any time during the Business Day. In addition, the Website will provide CLEC with contact information for the personnel and/or organizations within CenturyLink capable of assisting CLEC with inquiries regarding the ordering, provisioning and billing of Interconnection, UNE and resale services. Included in this information will be the contact information for a person or persons to whom CLEC can escalate issues dealing with the implementation of the Agreement and/or for assistance in resolving disputes arising under the Agreement.

  • Mobile Banking Transactions At the present time, you may use Mobile Banking to: • Transfer funds between your savings, checking, and Club accounts. • Make loan payments from your savings, checking, and Club accounts. • Obtain account balance and transaction history on your savings, checking, and Club accounts. • Obtain information on your loan account balance, transaction history, payment due dates, loan payoff amounts and finance charges. • Make xxxx payments from your savings or checking account using the Mobile Xxxx Xxxxx service . When you register for Mobile Banking, designated accounts and payees (or billers) linked to your account through Online Banking will be accessible through the Mobile Banking service.

  • Your Rights and Our Responsibilities After We Receive Your Written Notice We must acknowledge your letter within 30 days, unless we have corrected the error by then. Within 90 days, we must either correct the error or explain why we believe the statement was correct. After we receive your letter, we cannot try to collect any amount you question or report you as delinquent. We can continue to bill you for the amount you question, including FINANCE CHARGES, and we can apply any unpaid amount against your credit limit. You do not have to pay any questioned amount while we are investigating, but you are still obligated to pay the parts of your statement that are not in question. If we find that we made a mistake on your statement, you will not have to pay any FINANCE CHARGES related to any questioned amount. If we didn’t make a mistake, you may have to pay FINANCE CHARGES and you will have to make up any missed payments on the questioned amount. In either case, we will send you a statement of the amount you owe and the date that it is due. If you fail to pay the amount that we think you owe, we may report you as delinquent. However, if our explanation does not satisfy you and you write to us within 10 days telling us that you still refuse to pay, we must tell anyone we report you to that you have a question about your statement. And, we must tell you the name of anyone we reported you to. We must tell anyone we report you to that the matter has been settled between us when it finally is. If we don’t follow these rules, we can’t collect the first $50.00 of the questioned amount, even if your statement was correct.

  • What Will Happen After We Receive Your Letter When we receive your letter, we must do two things:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.