compare the two videos according to the specified descriptions

timer Asked: Dec 11th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

Hello, this assignment is intended to analyze and compare those two videos (each video about 3 minutes long) using 5 course reading sources (you can choose the 5 you want of the six readings I attached below, also, feel free to use quotes from the videos themselves, but it would be great if a couple of quotes are included from the readings themselves). This assignment is worth 30% of my overall grade in the class; therefore, it is VERY IMPORTANT that instructions are followed precisely. The two videos to be compared are posted below, they are short but have a lot of essential content that must be used for the paper, because the paper basically should be deep analysis and comparison of the two videos.

Here are the instructions made by the course professor:

"Compare and contrast two video essays utilizing a minimum of five course readings to support your arguments in a 4-5 page paper and submit via Turnitin by Dec. 11th, 2018. The purpose of this assignment is to deepen your understanding of (1) how concepts of language and culture have been used to explain school outcomes, (2) the ways people "make meaning" of the institution of schooling, and (3) the ways in which the concepts of language and culture complicate and support our understanding of teaching and learning practices. This assignment is not a simple summary of the two videos, rather it requires you to analyze the effectiveness of the videos in meeting their aims and in addressing important course concepts. Using your notes from viewing the videos in class and from repeated viewings of the two videos on our course YouTube channel along with your lecture notes, course articles, and past assignments compare and contrast the videos and include the following: 1. Give a brief overview of each of the videos. Include what you think the video authors intended to contribute to our understanding of how language, culture, and education are portrayed in school and society. 2. How effective were the videos in showing how different school and societal portrayals serve to perpetuate and/or contest stereotypes or deficit views of culture and language? How might you strengthen their work? 3. How did each video “make meaning” of the institution of schooling? (i.e. What might the group say the purpose of schooling should be?) 4. How did each video inform your understanding of issues of equity and access in schools today? 5. How are these videos a reflection of what you learned in this course (or not)? 6. Include a References section. All citations should be in American Psychological Association (APA) format. A tutorial and sample paper utilizing APA style"

It is important for the assignment to be done by the due date as it is due date is 30 mins away from the time I provided on this questions. Please let me know If You have any questions. PLEASE stick to the due date, the 5 readings and their references, and the page limit.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Youth & Society Beyond Family and Ethnic Culture: Understanding the Preconditions for the Potential Realization of Social Capital Leticia Oseguera, Gilberto Q. Conchas and Eduardo Mosqueda Youth Society 2011 43: 1136 originally published online 4 October 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0044118X10382030 The online version of this article can be found at: Published by: Additional services and information for Youth & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: Subscriptions: Reprints: Permissions: Citations: >> Version of Record - Aug 8, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 4, 2010 What is This? Downloaded from at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on September 3, 2013 382030 0382030Oseguera et al.Youth & Society © 2011 SAGE Publications YAS43310.1177/0044118X1 Reprints and permission: Beyond Family and Ethnic Culture: Understanding the Preconditions for the Potential Realization of Social Capital Youth & Society 43(3) 1136–1166 © 2011 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: DOI: 10.1177/0044118X10382030 Leticia Oseguera1, Gilberto Q. Conchas2, and Eduardo Mosqueda3 Abstract This article extends our conceptual understanding of social capital and school achievement through a comparative race and ethnic approach. Using the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) 1988-1990 panel, this article develops a more comprehensive understanding of school achievement by exploring circumstances, which the authors call “preconditions,” leading to the potential for the realization of social capital.These “preconditions” are used to explain academic engagement disparities between Southeast Asian, Black, Mexican, and White high school youth. Whereas previous research on social capital leaves the mechanism through which social capital influences school outcomes unspecified, this study focuses on a behavior associated with positive educational outcomes—time per week spent on homework outside of school. Although preconditions for parental capital appear to have some influence on students’ study behavior, so too do preconditions between and within schools, such as peers and teachers. This research shows that 1 Penn State Department of Education Policy Studies UCI Department of Education 3 UCSC Department of Education 2 Corresponding Author: Leticia Oseguera, Pennsylvania State University Department of Education Policy Studies, 400 Rackley Building, University Park, PA16802 E-mail: Downloaded from at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on September 3, 2013 Oseguera et al. 1137 relationships outside the family—that is, within and between school opportunities for social capital—play a significant role in explaining variation between the four ethnic groups. Keywords academic engagement and achievement, school context, social capital Introduction Unequal resources generate disparity in school engagement and achievement. These resources may be evident, such as financial support, school infrastructure, and technology, or less tangible, such as norms, encouragement, and information gained from relationships and social networks. Social capital is described as the less tangible resources gained through social relationships that positively influence educational outcomes (Coleman, 1988a). It is defined by its function and framed around the value of social networks that contribute to beneficial outcomes (Coleman, 1988a; Uslaner, 2001). Nuanced and complex, social capital must be conceptualized as multidimensional to have any useful explanatory significance (Day, 2002). Access to high-quality social capital is invoked to explain the educational engagement and achievement of students. It has been used to explain students’ math achievement scores (Morgan & Sorensen, 1999), grade point averages (Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994), and low school drop-out rates (Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Carbonaro, 1998). Although social capital has a wide-ranging definition and has been characterized in several different ways (Bourdieu, 1977, 1986; Burt, 1992; Portes, 1998), sociologists who study education often base their research on the work of Coleman (1988a), which focuses on the information, support, and supervision provided by closely knit networks of relationships. Coleman notes that both the sum of relationships and the interconnectedness of those relationships affect children’s educational outcomes. In this study, we use the social capital framework employed by Coleman (1988a, 1988b) to select measures that best reflect circumstances in students’ environment offering the potential to realize social capital. We consider these circumstances preconditions for the potential realization of social capital. Thus, we do not employ the term “social capital” in its literal sense, as social capital only becomes true capital when activated or converted. In other words, we expand how we think of this concept by measuring the Downloaded from at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on September 3, 2013 1138 Youth & Society 43(3) various preconditions that allow the application of social capital to the real world. For example, student–teacher interactions in and of themselves do not reflect social capital unless we can also show that these interactions produce some later benefit for the student. It is this presumption of a future benefit or privilege that we use in our conceptualization and design of this study. We argue that, in order to further explain the complexity of academic engagement and achievement among ethnic groups, we must first conceptually unpack the in-school and out-of-school preconditions for the realization of social capital. Preconditions for the Realization of Social Capital Many researchers who study the subject consider the family to be a child’s most important supplier of social capital. Following Coleman, research on this subject focuses on the influence that parents, through their connections with children, schools, and other parents, have on the educational achievement of the general school population (e.g., Coleman, 1988b; Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996). Thus far, research on children’s social capital has been less concerned with sources outside the home, that is, social capital that comes from schools and relationships with peers.1 However, children spend large portions of their days in settings without their parents. Potential sources of “within and between school” social capital activators include friends, teachers and other school officials, as well as communities. Ignoring these potential sources of social capital is problematic, as discrepancies in children’s educational outcomes are attributed solely to the actions of parents, while school and community practices are left unexamined (Conchas, 2001, 2006; Feliciano, 2006a, 2006b; Goyette & Conchas, 2002). Coleman’s (1987) original conception of social capital does not account for power, inequality, or privilege. This limitation may leave researchers with an incomplete understanding of how this resource, particularly as it relates to privilege and opportunity, operates among students. Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch (1995), for example, contend that children from low-SES and minority families make use of information and support from peers and institutions even more than of that provided by families. In fact, research has found that recently immigrated parents may be ill equipped to provide their children with information about the U.S. educational system, and minority parents may feel alienated from it (Feliciano, 2006a; Gandara & Contreras, 2009; Valenzuela, 1999). In other words, children may not always be able to rely on parents for the resources they need to succeed. Downloaded from at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on September 3, 2013 Oseguera et al. 1139 In this article, we have chosen Southeast Asian Americans,2 African Americans/Blacks, Mexican Americans/Mexicans, and Whites, four groups with disparate academic performances traditionally attributed to family relationships, to illustrate the significance of within and between school opportunities for the realization of social capital. Both the Southeast Asian and Mexican groups are composed of many first- and second-generation immigrants and tend to be less English proficient and of lower SES than Whites, but they present disparate educational outcomes. Southeast Asian students maintain better grades, graduate from high school at higher rates, and enroll in college more than the other three student groups (Conchas, 2006). A popular explanation for these differences is that Asian families promote children’s success by emphasizing Confucian values (Caplan, Choy, & Whitmore, 1991; Nash, 1987). Some speculate that a tightly knit family demanding a child’s full loyalty and attention limits the commitment a child of Mexican origin can make to his education (Carter & Segura, 1979; Chavez, 1992). Traditional research examining the educational achievements of the four groups selected for this study asserts that the norms conveyed through family social capital account for students’ school success or failure. Recent research, however, shows that it may be as or more important to consider the resources Asian students gain, in particular, from parents’ premigratory educational and postmigratory socioeconomic status (Feliciano, 2006a), as well as resources gained from relationships in schools (Conchas, 2001, 2006; Stanton-Salazar, 2001), in accounting for disparities between the groups. In this article, we compare circumstances in two settings providing sources of nonfamilial social capital. First, we examine macroinstitutional conditions reflecting inequality among schools (i.e., between school preconditions for social capital). Evidence concerning the impact of the school environment on a student’s motivation and achievement is mixed. After controlling for parental SES levels, many researchers find minimal effects of school context on students’ achievement (Catterall, 1998; Rumberger, 1987; Thornton & Eckland, 1980), whereas others find that students who attend schools with a predominantly low-SES population and high concentrations of minorities have less accurate information about educational and occupational opportunities (Conchas, 2006; Kemple & Snipes, 2000; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). Schools with higher concentrations of students of color generally offer fewer advanced curriculum courses and have lower test scores, higher drop-out rates, less financial resources, and a host of other negative factors that contribute to lower student success (Orfield & Lee, 2005, 2006). Downloaded from at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on September 3, 2013 1140 Youth & Society 43(3) Our research shows significant differences in this setting between the groups selected. Our second research setting is found within the schools themselves (i.e., within school preconditions for social capital). Students in the same schools may maintain different relationships with peers, teachers, and other school officials. Conchas, for instance, found these relationships can be conceived as sources of social capital because peers and teachers provide encouragement, support, supervision, and information to the student. Also, teachers tend to encourage students whom they believe are talented or hard working (Farkas, Grobe, Sheehan, & Shuan, 1990; Stanton-Salazar, 2001). Principals and guidance counselors may provide data about college preparation courses, applications, and financing for students without access to these data at home. Guidance counselors may take students on trips to colleges to help them make informed choices. Education personnel may choose students whom they believe worthy to “sponsor” and thus enable their educational achievement (Conchas, 2006; Mehan et al., 1996). Another important source of within school preconditions for social capital is academic tracking. Research on low- or high-track placements has illuminated unequal opportunities for learning as a result of differences in access to challenging curriculum, student expectations, and well-prepared teachers (Lucas, 1999; Oakes, Gamoran, & Page, 1992). Such inequities were found to disadvantage students in low tracks and advantage students in high tracks. Our findings also confirm past research, which documents greater access to and enrollment in advanced placement or honors courses by Asian and White students than by Black and Mexican students (Oakes, 1985, 2005). The effects of peers on students’ academic behaviors are well known. Educational research has long stressed how students’ interactions with one another and the meanings associated with these interactions significantly shape patterns of academic behavior. Scholars posit that the peer group can serve as a mediating factor, either promoting compliance with or resistance to a school’s rules for success (Conchas, 2006; Lee, 1996, 2005; Mehan, Hubbard, & Villanueva, 1994). For example, students with many friends who drop out of school may be negatively influenced to do the same (Conchas, 2006; Fine, 1991; Vigil, 1988). In addition, these students are unlikely to receive support and encouragement from drop-out friends to study, and these friends are unlikely to have academically useful information. In contrast, students whose friends consider studying important are likely to have support, encouragement, and information that motivate and enable them to study hard. Steinberg, Brown, and Dornbusch (1996) further assert Downloaded from at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on September 3, 2013 Oseguera et al. 1141 that, although peer groups are an important influence on all students’ educational outcomes, for some racial groups peers are an even more important influence than parents. As a matter of fact, research shows that Asian Americans, who often associate with other high-achieving Asian American students, get most of their information, norms, and support from peers (Conchas & Perez, 2002; Lee, 1996). In this article we explore how socioeconomic differences, gender, and both the familial and between- and within-school settings affect preconditions for the realization of social capital and help explain the variation in time spent doing homework outside of school. Our results indicate that not only the involvement of families but also preconditions for social capital realization available to students outside the home account for the differences in study habits. Parental expectations and the potential acquisition of social capital within and between schools both shape the educational habits of youth, which are, in turn, heavily influenced by a parent’s SES. Time Spent on Homework Outside of School Unlike other research on social capital, this article measures the effects of preconditions for the realization of social capital on the time 10th-grade students spend on homework outside of school per week, a behavior that many believe is associated with positive educational outcomes (Corno, 1993; Walberg, 1991). We selected hours per week spent on homework because past research has demonstrated that this is a strong indicator of school achievement (Adelman, 2006; Coleman & Hoffer, 1987; Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). Betts (1997) and Walberg (1991) separately found that homework time had a large effect on academic achievement. Using data from the High School and Beyond 1980 cohort, Sander (2000) found that, among Black and Hispanic Catholic school attendees, hours spent on homework had a positive effect on test scores. Other research supports the effect of homework on a variety of academic and behavioral characteristics, including study skills (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989), reducing disruptive behavior, and bringing positive attitudes to task (Corno, 1994). In a review of research on the efficacy of homework and her own experimental designs of adolescents and homework behavior, Corno concluded that “what students take from doing homework includes knowledge and skills stretched across the home-school environment, interpersonal and self-regulation styles, and mannerisms, and an identification with an academic and social community of others who do homework” (Corno, 2000, p. 545). Downloaded from at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on September 3, 2013 1142 Youth & Society 43(3) Data and Methods Quantitative methods are used in this study to address the following research questions: Research Question 1: How do familial preconditions for the realization of social capital explain study behavior differences between Southeast Asian, Black, Mexican, and White high school students? Research Question 2: How do within- and between-school preconditions for the realization of social capital explain study behavior differences between Southeast Asian, Black, Mexican, and White high school students? Sample Data are drawn from the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) 1988-1990 panel, collected for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) by the National Opinion Research Center. In 1988, the NCES surveyed 24,599 U.S. eighth graders whose responses were weighted to represent the population of eighth graders nationally. These same respondents were resurveyed in 1990. Information was collected from the sampled students and their parents, teachers, and school administrators. The final sample for this study included 167 Southeast Asian students, 1,233 Mexican students, 1,532 Black students, and 11,568 White students attending public, religious, and private high schools throughout the United States. Data are weighted using panel weights provided by NELS to reflect the responses of all U.S. students who were 8th graders in 1988 and subsequently 10th graders in 1990. To minimize further reductions in sample size due to secondary school dropouts, analyses were restricted to the 1988/1990 panel (Rumberger, 1987; Rumberger & Lim, 2008). For this reason, results can only be generalized to students who were 8th graders in 1988 and who were enrolled as 10th graders in 1990. Variables in the Analyses Outcome variable. Our main outcome of interest is time spent on homework outside of school during an average week in the 10th-grade year. Using a categorical scale, students were asked to report the amount of time spent during an average week on homework outside of school. The categorical variable was rescaled to represent whole-hour increments to facilitate Downloaded from at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on September 3, 2013 Oseguera et al. 1143 interpretation. Subsequently, an interval level response3 was created where students reported as low as 0 hours and as high as 18 hours of homework outside of school in an average week. Background and demographic variables. Demographic variables, including gender, immigrant generation status, home language background, and SES distribution, are included as controls in all multivariate models (see Table 1 and Appendix A for variable scaling). Familial social capital variables. In order to capture potential familial capital, we included measures of family composition (e.g., two-parent vs. one-parent settings), parent–child and parent–school interactions.4 Parent–child interactions included how often parents spoke to their children about school experiences, high school and post–high school plans. For multivariate analyses, these three measures were combined in a summary index, with each component weighted using the principal c ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: UT Austin



Language, Culture, and Schooling




Language, Culture, and Schooling
Primarily, students enroll in schools with the expectations of realizing the bestpossible learning outcomes. Whereas it is mainly thought that these results are achieved
solely as a result of useful teaching instructions, multiple factors are involved, and each plays
a significant role in determining academic success. Language is one of them. With the
number of international students increasing in universities, the probability of having students
that do not know how to speak, read, and write English is quite high. As a result, these
students will have a difficult time adapting to the teaching instruction no matter how
comprehensive and detailed it may be. Culture is also another factor. Cultural blindness or
misinterpretation could result in student discrimination thus adverse academic outcomes.
Discussed hereunto are two videos with each containing different yet relative sets of
information that are compared and contrasted to identify how the concepts of language and
culture influence schooling outcomes.
In the first video, “SOC: EDS Video Essay Group 25” the issue of how inequity is
further reproduced or fuelled in schools is discussed. The STEM curriculum of teaching
which emphasizes on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics is pointed out as a
major risk factor for the development of inequity (SOC/EDS 117, 2018). Majorly, the
creators of the video intended to communicate on the impact of culture on learning. The way
to go about it is identified as the establishment of an even playing ground. In the second
video, “EDS 117-Group 1” The issue of language is highlighted. Ailyn, a student who
recently migrated to the U.S., is seen to have difficulties in her Mathematics cla...

flag Report DMCA

Thank you! Reasonably priced given the quality not just of the tutors but the moderators too. They were helpful and accommodating given my needs.

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors