Lincoln and Johnson vs. the Radicals Essay Example for Free

capital of Nebraska and Johnson vs. the Radicals EssayThe Civil War, which lasted up until 1865, was the bloodiest battle that this Nation had perpetually faced. Making it sluice sadder was the fact that this Nation was divided, North against South, and brothers were killing brothers, fathers killing sons. It was indeed a tough time for President capital of Nebraska who was sworn into bit in 1861. He needed to discontinue the war and figure out a way to bring peace and rebuild the Nation. In order to end the war he devised a invention to free all slaves in the eyes of the govern handst, and on the first day of the year in 1863 he announced his Emancipation Proclamation, declaring all slaves possess under the Confederacy to be now free men. The Confederacy was beginning to crumble southern cities were destroyed and the Southern economy was in ruins.capital of Nebraska now focused his attention on the idea of Reconstruction, and reuniting those Southern States back into the Union. It would not be easy for capital of Nebraska, however, as he faced far different ideas than his, proposed by the Radical Republi shags, led by Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens and Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner. Despite being the Republican nomination for President, Lincoln was far more conservative than those Republicans taking the majority of seats in Congress. In December of 1863, before the war had officially come to a close, Lincoln began to devise his Reconstruction plan, which at the time was considered to be very lenient by those of the Union. His plan was very compassionate toward white southerners, except for major leading of the Confederacy.He needed those Confederate Army generals and high-ranking officers to take an oath of loyalty to the Union, and verbally accept the Nations abolition of slavery. Lincolns plan was to institute new state governments in the South, under control of those southerners who had not aided to Confederacy. Lincoln al so had the idea of granting voting rights to those freed African Americans who were educated, owned land, or had participated in the fighting for the Union. Under Lincolns plan, three southern states (Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee) acknowledged the abolition of slavery, formed new Union-loyal governments, and were ready to be readmitted tout ensemble into the Union.The Radical Republicans were not pleased to the slightest with Lincolns plan. They demanded much harsher penalties for seceding the Union, and they refused to seat the representatives from those three states, reconstructed under Lincolns plan. Because they were so displeased with Lincolns craziness, they pushed what is known as the Wade-Davis bill through Congress in 1864. This bill instituted a temporary governor, from the North, to each of those 11 Confederate states. When the majority of men residing in those states had pledged their allegiance to the Union, the governor was to hold a constitutional convention, where lone(prenominal) men who had neer fought against the Union could elect delegates to represent them in Congress. once this was accomplished, the new state governments had to acknowledge the total abolition of slavery, disenfranchise Confederate leadership, and pay off all of their war debts, mainly owed to England.After all of this, and only after all of this, could those southern states be readmitted into the Union. Dissatisfied with the Radicals bill, Lincoln overrode their authority with a pocket veto. As you would assume, the Radicals were utterly outraged with Lincolns actions, and demanded that Lincoln accept some of their ideas proposed by the Wade-Davis Bill. Unfortunately, we will never know how the President would read negotiated terms with those Radical Republicans. On the night of April 14th, 1865, Lincoln was shot from freighter while watching a play with his wife, and died early the next morning. Andrew Johnson, Lincolns vice President, became the Nations ne w President shortly after the assassination. Johnson, who was originally a democrat, was now faced with the issue of Reconstruction, and like Lincoln, took a more moderate approach. While Congress was out of session in the summer following his entrap into Presidency, Johnson quickly began to Restore (as he like to call it) those southern states back into the Union.His plan was very much like the Wade-Davis Bill in which he instituted a temporary governor to those southern states and had the governor allow qualified voters to elect delegates to represent them in Congress. When Congress came back into session in December, they began almost straightway to refuse seats to those elected delegates. Even though Johnsons intentions were very similar to their Wade-Davis Bill, those Radicals were angered by the fact that most southerners still wished for slavery even though they took an oath against it. Many Confederate generals being voted in as Representatives in Congress also angered the Radicals. So they shot Johnsons plan down, plain and simple. The Radicals began to gain more and more power in Congress due to several factors. First, Black Codes began to arise in southern states which authorized overindulge officials to apprehend unemployed blacks for vagrancy, and hire them out to mostly plantation owners in order to pay off their vagrancy fines.This angered many northerners as is basically violate southern states oaths of African American freedom. This caused Congress to pass the first Civil Rights Act, which gave the federal government the right to intervene in state affairs if blacks were not stipulation appropriate rights. Johnson vetoed this bill but was easily overridden by the all-powerful Radical Congress. Next, Congress devised the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It stated that all people born or naturalized in United States territory are considered citizens, and penalties would arise for states that denied the right to vote to any male citizens. It also stated that former Confederate officials were prohibited from holding any state or federal position unless they were pardoned for their treasonous Civil War crimes by two-thirds of Congress. Any state that ratified this 14th Amendment would be readmitted into the Union. Tennessee was the only state to ratify and be readmitted right away.Finally, those ten states that were still outstanding from the Union were divided into five different soldiers districts. A military commander was assigned to each district and was responsible for registering citizens to vote (black males, and those whites who had not bore arms against the Union). Voters had to elect government bodies who would write their new state constitution, and have it passed by Congress. And finally, after all that, the state had to ratify the 14th Amendment. All but Virginia, Texas and Mississippi had reunited with the Union by 1868 and finally by 1870 those last 3 states were reunited only after ratifying 15th Ame ndment in addition to the 14th one.Alas, the Union was rejoined, blacks now had their freedom and right to vote, and peace was beginning to take presence. When we look at the similarities proposed by Lincoln and Johnson, we see that both men were in favor of leniency for those southern states. Lincoln only felt it was necessary for Confederate leaders to take an oath of loyalty as opposed to the Congressional decision that Confederate leaders needed to be pardoned by two-thirds of Congress (Which would likely never happen as Radicals held so much power in Congress) in order to take part in state or federal legislature.It is take that Johnson also opposed this idea, and leaned toward Lincolns plan, in the way he vetoed Congress vigorously. This similarity in ideas between Lincoln and Johnson is also a major difference between the presidents and Congresss final decision. Unfortunately for Johnson (and Lincoln), and the rest of the moderate northerners, his veto was no match for Congr ess. A key similarity between the presidents and Congress though, was the issue of African American rights. The final Congressional plan involved a federal Civil Rights Act and two new inbuilt Amendments, in order to protect the rights of African Americans. Lincoln obviously believed in equality when he delivered his Emancipation Proclamation, and stated that educated, land-owning, or allied blacks should be given the right to vote.And based on Congresses final decision, I would say the majority of people from the south who were qualified to vote on the new state governors were plausibly African Americans. In conclusion, when comparing the presidential Reconstruction plans, with those actually put into play by Congress, the main difference falls within the idea of leniency vs. anger. The presidents wanted the whole ordeal over and the states rejoined, whereas the Radicals wanted revenge on the South for seceding. As to which ideas would have worked better? It is very hard to say. All that can be said is that eventually, the Radicals gained too much power in Congress for the presidents to handle, and ultimately an all-powerful republican Congress overruled their ideas.Bibliography(EZbib.com)Brinkley, Alan. Reconstruction and the New South. The Unfinished Nation. sixth ed. Vol. 2. New York u.a. McGraw-Hill, 2000. 369-83. Print.35b. Radical Reconstruction. Radical Reconstruction ushistory.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2013.Time Line of The Civil War, 1865. Time Line of The Civil War. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2013.

Importance of Empathy in Patient Care

Importance of Empathy in Patient C beIntroductionCarl Rogers defines empathy (as cited in Patterson, 1977) as the ability to accurately perceive the internal frame of reference of an new(prenominal) psyche, as if one were with the other person. That is to say that if you could actually feel the emotions of some other, without passing through the physical experience. This exposition however, has been challenged.What another person experiences at a certain moment is not directly given. However, the presence of the other is directly given and so is the awareness that the other is experiencing self. This locoweednot be compared with other modesof experience. The experience of another is unique. This means that the other modes of experiencing only are of partial help in explaining how the subjective becomes intersubjective. It also means that thither is no doubt active who is experiencing primarily, and who is sharing or experiencing the experience of another. (Stein, E. 1989). Thes e two definitions however different, are both used today in managing of patient carry on in the medical profession. This paper go away briefly explore both definitions and will attempt to show sides of this complex subject. The research done for this paper will deal mostly with physician-patient and nurse/care provider-patient interactions. The goal of this paper is to show the importance of the role of empathy in providing quality patient care.CausesThose physicians and medical educators who advocate empathy in the physician-patient encounters, suggest that physicians who engage empathetically with patients increase not only the patients sense of satisfaction but also patientcompliance with therapeutic regimens and increased physiologic well-being. (Kim, Kaplowitz and Johnston, 2004).The persistent objection to empathy in the medical community comes from concern that empathy interferes with scientific and medical objectivity. What practitioners need are the skills to use their em otional responses for therapeutic impact. In the social realm, emotions are crucial of understanding reality. An awareness of ones associations and emotional resonances as cues to understanding the particular meanings that a symptom or diagnosis has for an individual. (New York Oxford Univ. Press, 2001). Both of there outlooks are important to good patient care. You can put yourself in the patients shoes and somewhat imagine what they are going through, while at the same succession being straight forward and real about the diagnosis. The question for many medical educators remains whether empathy, no matter how valuable or care fully reconfigured, can be taught.The problem of empathy begins with the preoccupation with self that obscures the other. Jerome Lowenstein (Can You T from each one Compassion? P16) sees case presentations as the opportunity for clinicians to teach nurses empathy by encouraging them to describe patients more fully as persons with intersecting social, psycho logical and medical histories, rather than reductively and disparagingly in terms of disorders, addictions and disease. Training in continuing care will be of small(a) value without doctors who know something of the life of the people whom they serve who can empathize with immigrants from Asia and Mexico, with southern or ghetto experience and who knew of the Holocaust and of communist oppression. (Spiro, 1992).Empathy depends on the experiences and imagination of the person who isempathizing and this dependency have the potential to exclude the patients suffering and the meaning the patient makes of suffering.ApplicationThe following story is a true-life experience that I encountered while working(a) for Gambro Health Care in Jackson, Michigan as a patient care technician. Gambro Health Care (Now DaVita) is an outpatient dialysis unit. Dialysis is the interposition for patients who suffer from end stage renal failure (kidney failure).While checking a patients vital signs and ask ing him how he was feeling, the patient told me how much he hated coming to dialysis and how draining the process was. He talked to me about the constant observation of his fluid intake, taking all the medications that were required for his condition and the cramping he experienced while on the dialysis machine. I could only empathize with this teen man, who was my age, putting myself mentally in his shoes. Because of the experience I had with dialysis patients, I learned how to listen to each patient story. Many of these patients had no one else to listen to them. I saw these patients for four hours, three days a week. I spent a lot of time with them over the years that they received their treatments.While I was talking with the patient, the nephrologist (kidney doctor) came by on his rounds of the patients. The patient proceeded to tell the doctor, his eyes full of tears, that he was thinking of terminating his dialysis treatments. The doctor proceeded to tell the patient, rather loudly, they if he terminated treatment he would be dead in a few days. Without even taking the time to sit down with the patient, the doctor left and went on to another patient. Needless to say, I was outraged. After a few moments, I asked our unit director why the doctor was so tactless and arrogant.So many patients each day that he is only giving proper diagnosis and alternatives if treatment is not followed. At that particular time, I figured out that I mustiness take time to listen to those patients, every one of them because I could be the difference between a decision for life or death.ImpressionsEven those4 health care practitioners who consciously privilege their patients experiences find themselves caught in a knot of power relations. The physician is always in power in the medical context, and such(prenominal) power subsumes even deliberate attempts to displace authority by acknowledging the patients subjectivity (The Doctor, 1991). To be ethical, clinical empathy mus t involve action, beginning with recognizing the broader social context of the patients health and well-being. With appropriate cautions, theories of clinical empathy should extend beyond the individual relation to socially determined inequities in health care.ConclusionEmpathy is a necessary ingredient for both doctor and nurse in the application of good patient care. Good communication between a doctor and patient whether good news or bad, should always be given in an empathetic manner. The ability to not only give good scientific reasoning or diagnosis to a patient. However, to give it in a manner that just does not give the facts, but also a feeling of I care about what youre going through and I will do all I can to help. As for nurses, our hands-on approach to the patient in need, gives us a retrieve to some what feel what they are going through and to be empathetic about their situation.

Technology usage and the knowledge of tools

Technology usage and the knowledge of toolsTechnologyis the usage and knowledge oftools, techniques,crafts, schemasor methods of organisation(Merriam-Webster). It has brought the revolution in the business organization world. It has brought the business around the world under a common and concrete platform. It has eliminated the business practices to be restricted to a single place. Now the clients and the companies down open interface of interaction, they can effectively communicate with each other for example even sitting at home, aeroplanes or from any corner of the world. With the betterment of the engineering science and innovation of new methods of communication like Wireless Technology has further given birth to the information systems management operation which has removed the barriers to both the information flow and its management. It has aligned the pace of technology to business complexity while creating the bridge between the growth of commerce and trade around the world.It has change the barter trade era to very agile billion dollars e-business industry, from research and development, projection of any business, production to the resigny of any sort of business work is controlled and channelled by the conjunction of various form of technology aligned together. With the origin of information system it has made the business needs and expansion of various gnomish and bigger enterprises very transparent and at a very low cost, enhancing their capabilities to handle, record and retain the information like employee and clients profiles more accurately while removing the possibilities of humanity error and dependency. For example companys like Amazon and Dell has elevated the idea of globalization into a reality with the use of technology.According to Jagdish et al (2004), Globalisationdescribes the process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures learn become integrated through a global network of communication, transportation, a nd trade. They were are able to reach out to customers globally and deliver their products at the doorsteps while making informed decisions, tracking the customers pattern while using internet to broaden their markets research more appropriately. As the result of expert innovation, the real cost of information processing and communication have fallen dramatically. It helped to manage and create globally dispersed production system while orchestrating globalisation of their products.Considering technology in transportation, with the development of commercial jets and the introduction of containerisation has revolutionised the transportation business while lowering the cost of shipping goods over long distance. For example the clean fruits and flowers can be sold in various parts of the world despite its origin of growth at any place. Furthermore the introduction of trailer truck Automatic Business Research Environment (SABRE) system, airlines, hotels, railways, tour companies and millions of customers worldwide where connected for the quick seats bookings, travel information, fasters and accurate payments options (Computerworld, September 2002).According to Catel et al (1990), technology and its effective management of global supply chain, withintroduction of electronic information interchange (edi), it has connected suppliers, manufacturers, shippers, and customers, eliminated the time delays and paperwork, while increasing the flexibility and responsiveness along with decentralising the effective management decisions in the hands of particular unit. Emails have further made every communication very instantaneous and with outsourcing, many companies have reduced its operational cost.Companies like Wal- Mart used the technology to solve logistics problems, created new channels to market to unwrap and track sales on man-to-man items. Super markets like Tescos have equipped their staff with a wireless device which provides them with the data of the products available to be sold on the shop shelves and what is stored in the stockrooms. It has eliminated the manual checks required to be carried out, hence providing the employees free-enterprise(a) advantage to provide effective customer services (The Times, 26th march, 2002).Considering the role of technology in banking heavens (Ilyas-Ur Rahman, 2007) it has transformed the phase of the retail banking while incorporating anytime and anywhere baking facilities. It has increased the reliability and revolutionised the financial activities like global funds transfers across the world in few seconds. Technology has further introduced net and mobile banking facilities for its customers. Banks consider technology to be its lead factor to sustain itself in the market to retain the competitive position across various geographical locations. Technology has improved customers services in bank, helped private sector banks to achieve economies of Scale while communicating data at low cost and effi cient way. Technology has created the strong impact on profitability, competitive pressure and customer needs.Therefore, technology is the key to evaluate performance, identify areas of problems, plan and restructure future strategies in each and every component of a business activity. Thus the application of advanced technology and information system tools is to get desired in depth data which is vital to interpret, evaluate for decision making process, prior to overhaul, restructure and to rejuvenate organisations for becoming efficient business models. The focus will be to capitalise on voids for developing and exploiting new market opportunities in every kind of economic environment even sooner the competition emerges.

Intergenerational Observation Scale Analysis

Intergenerational excogitateivity graduated table AnalysisAbstractInnovative intergenerational programmes carry on to grow in number and scope. The nurture of standardized evaluation instruments, however, lags behind, leaving many searchers and practitivirtuosors without tools to effectively pass judgment their programs. Evaluation information often focus on conclusions without attention to the nature of the interactions surrounded by generations. Understanding the process of intergenerational contact is central to understanding its outcomes. We developed the Intergenerational thoughtfulness Scale to assess the neighborly interactions and continue of preadolescent and r atomic number 18 participants during intergenerational activities. Our 3- footprint namer training process demonstrated good case depend fittedness. We present the process of maturation the master, achieving observer dependability, and next notes to continue exploring the plates expediency c rossways intergenerational populations and stage settings. developing of a standardized tool for intergenerational programmingThe Intergenerational annotation ScaleProviding opportunities for meaningful eng seasonment to persons with dementia challenges family and professional c argivers alike. While some practiti iodinrs and researchers research innovative means to offer client come up-being (e.g., Allen-Burge, Burgio, Bourgeois, Sims, Nunnikhoven, 2001 Orsulic-Jeras, Judge, Camp, 2000), many dementia care programs are characterized by extreme takes of inactivity (Ice, 2002), which may result from infantilization (Salari Rich, 2001) and shtup lead to agitation and notion and detract from well-being (Teri et al., 2003 Voelkl, 1986). Kitwood and Bredin (1992) emphasized caregivers responsibility for supporting the personhood of individuals with diminished mental ability to do so for themselves. Personhood, or the dignity and appreciate owed to each individual, encompasses an individuals experiences, preferences and values. For many people, their favorable history involves significant time spent interacting with and caring for children. Recently, care professionals rush turned to intergenerational programming (IGP) as one healing(p) method to support personhood and well-being of persons with dementia (e.g., Camp et al., 1997 Jarrott Bruno, 2001).Though contact amongst newfangled and grey-headed generations remains an integral part of or so families (Eggebeen Davey, 1998), non-familial IGP remains a relatively new treatment milieu in experient care. IGP as a square varies widely, depending on the populations pertain, program objectives, and available resources. Interventions organiseing children at take a chance for drug accustom (Taylor, LoSciuto, Fox, Hilbert, Sonkowsky, 1999), matureer adults needing employment (Larkin Newman, 2001), and foster care families needing fellowship support (Eheart Hopping, 2001) make up practise intergenerational strategies to progress to program goals. Programs shake off employed IGP to bring forward affirmative affect and intricacy of older adults (Xaverius Matthews, 2003), im turn out attitudes about aging among children (Middlecamp Gross, 2002), and greater sense of community among staff (Jarrott, Morris, Kemp, Stremmel, 2004). Despite the significant cognitive balk of many older care clients, practitioners have order elders experiences interacting with and caring for children so ingrained that they remain able to interact appropriately and positively with children until late in the progress of a dementing illness (Camp et al., 1997).The means of assessing IGP vary as much as the programs themselves. Researchers have utilise inter rulings (Jarrott Bruno, 2007), observational scales (Marx, Pannell, Papura-Gill, Cohen-Mansfield, 2004 Xaverius Matthews, 2003), attitudinal surveys (Jantz, Seefeldt, Galper, Serlock, 1977 Kocarnik Ponzetti, 1986), drawings (Lichtenstein, et al., 2001), and cognitive assessments (Newman, Karip, Faux, 1995) to evaluate the impact of IGP on one or more(prenominal) stems of participants. While the range of scales utilized is not inherently problematic, the current present of intergenerational research tools requires significant improvement for some(prenominal) reasons. First, scales are often fashiond for a single make without any taradiddle of psyc signtric properties (Kuehne, 2004). Consequently, researchers reinvent the wheel quite than use valid, reliable scales. Second, most scales assess the experiences of a single generation (e.g., Camp et al., 1997 Underwood Dorfman, 2006) although IGP should, by definition (Newman Smith, 1999), provide correlative bene garb for boylike and old participants. Third, the maturational and disease characteristics of a vast portion of IGP participants, pre-school age children and finespun elders (e.g., Epstein Boisvert, 2006 Middlecamp Gross, 2002 Sal ari, 2002), limit the opportunity for valid self-report measures. Consequently, researchers often rely on procurator report and direct observation to tap participants experiences with IGP.A critical limitation of much IGP research lies in the black box that c at a timeals the process of bringing young and old in concert. That is, assessments targeting the impact of IGP often neglect what in truth transpired during the IGP. Useful process data go out vary from project to project it might detail the direct of activity, the type of interpersonal interactions, the physical environment, facilitators miens, or the activitys age appropriateness. For example, Xaverius and Matthews (2003) assessed the impact of IGP involving four-spotth graders and superior center participants who met for six intergenerational activities. The authors described the theme and setting of activities where elderly participants interlocking was coded. Data were not self-possessed regarding the nature of t he activities or what happened when participants were engaged in the intergenerational activity (i.e., if they engaged with the activity materials, with an age peer, or with an intergenerational partner).In contrast, Taylor and colleagues (1999) reported on a senior mentoring program targeting attitudes towards aging, drug use, and civic engagement of participating at-risk offspring. The treatment group as a whole demonstrated improved attitudes towards school, civic engagement, aging, and resisting drug use compared to a control group. The authors overly tapped into important process data by rating seniors intensity of involvement as a mentor. The researchers found a greater degree of attitudinal improvement among children whose senior mentors were more intensely involved with their student partners. Such studies exemplify the importance of capturing process as well as outcome data.The variety of populations and settings that avail themselves of IGP supports the study of multip le paths leading to positive outcomes. Most would agree that a one-size-fits-all model of IGP is impossible and inappropriate however, naming of practices and processes that optimize outcomes improves the overall quality of IGP and enhances understanding of how IGP unambiguously meets individuals needs crosswise the lifecourse. In turn, greater understanding of the processes by which positive IGP outcomes are achieved informs outgrowth of theory pertaining to intergenerational relationships. For example, season the contact theory (Allport, 1954) provides indispensable conditions for achieving positive intergroup contact, Allport did not describe the processes by which these outcomes would be achieved (Pettigrew, 1998).The limitations of IGP and link research stem from the relative infancy of IGP research. Researchers have been analyze IGP for only the last 30 geezerhood (e.g., Jantz, et al., 1977), yet they are trying to raise the field to match those of child and adult dev elopment. Practitioners are anxious to know how IGP affects the physical, cognitive, and mental health of participants, yet the more basic question about whether and how children and elders interact with each some other during proscribed IGP remains largely unanswered. in the first place we can reliably draw conclusions about the set up of IGP on children and elderly participants, we must keep an eye on the nature of their time spent together. Kuehnes (2003) state of our art report on intergenerational research implored researchers to tap the experiences of young and old participants and to develop and disseminate standardized measures relevant to IGP. By addressing these points, researchers can better inform practitioners efforts and build a cohesive body of research. The scale described in the current motif addresses each of these testimonials.We sought to address the challenge of measuring the experiences of young and old IGP participants, charge on soft elders and pre-s chool age children because they constitute a large portion of participants involved in IGP (Goyer Zuses, 1998). We conducted a three-phase study to develop an observational scale tapping the fond behavior and affect of two young and old IGP participants. We turned to the child development literature, with its long history of observational research, for inspiration.Partens (1933) categories of childrens play behaviors appealed to us they encompassed categories reflecting a continuum of social behaviors ranging from non-engagement to cooperative engagement. Rubin (2001) developed the run away Observation Scale, drawing on Partens work and childrens cognitive development research. The broad social behaviors of unoccupied, watching, solitary, parallel, and cooperative captured by the Play Observation Scale reflect behaviors of interest to practitioners works to support meaningful engagement among elders and children. For example, a code for unoccupied behavior is salient given the luxuriously rates of inactivity found at elder care programs (Ice, 2002) and the goal of utilizing intergenerational strategies to promote positive social engagement. Furthermore, our experiences with IGP (e.g., Gigliotti, Morris, Smock, Jarrott, Graham, 2005 Jarrott Bruno, 2003 Jarrott Bruno, 2007 Jarrott, Gigliotti, Smock, 2006 Jarrott, Gladwell, Gigliotti, Papero 2004 Jarrott et al., 2004 Weintraub Killian, 2007) highlighted interaction as the central mechanism for achieving mutual benefit during IGP. Thus, a code for solitary behavior is relevant as it reflects engagement in a presented activity without social interaction. The first author employ the original Play Observation Scale to observe elders during structured IGP (Gladwell Jarrott, 2003), determining that older adults engagement was greater during IGP than non-IGP. However, Gladwell and Jarrott found the scale cumbersome as they gathered salient data as well as information of little contemporary significance to IGP. Furthermore, they violated some of the scales specifications by utilizing the Play Observation Scale in a structured activity setting.We do several adaptations to Rubins Play Observation Scale for use with structured IGP (see Table 1 for descriptions of the scale categories). First, Rubins social behavior categories included sub-categories indicative of cognitive development however, given our emphasis on interactions irrespective of developmental abilities, we eliminated cognitive behaviors from our scale. Second, the Play Observation Scale was knowing to be utilise during free play school terms where children self-initiate behaviors. However, intergenerational researchers have repeatedly emphasized the need for structure to optimize IGP (e.g., Camp et al., 1997 Jarrott, 2006 Xaverius Matthews, 2003), and so we developed the scale with aforethought(ip) IGP in mind. Finally, we expanded the IOS to distinguish among social behaviors with age peers and intergenerational pa rtners (i.e., interactive peer versus interactive intergenerational).The first phase of the study involved qualitative observations of IGP conducted at a shared out out site intergenerational program parcel frail elders and pre-school age children. The observations were then used to transfigure Rubins Play Observation Scale for use in a structured intergenerational setting. Phase two involved piloting the scale with two observers label ikon of IGP and working with the entropy author to reach consensus and create a master tag scheme for the scene sessions. In phase three, the scale was further modified and tested with a larger group of four observers cryptograph video and live IGP. The current paper describes the three phases of the development and initial validation of the Intergenerational Observation Scale (IOS). While the IOS captures some(prenominal) behavior and affect of targeted child and elderly participants, the current paper focuses on social behaviors, which co mprise the more complex sub-scale of the instrument.MethodParticipantsVirginia Techs Neighbors Growing Together, is a shared site intergenerational program designed to improve the lives of people across the living by dint of intergenerational collaboration involving teaching, research, and outreach. Neighbors Growing Together includes two co-located programs bounteous Day go and the Child information substance for Learning and Research. Adult Day Services provides activities, care, and supervision daily to approximately 15 adults (50+ years old) with cognitive and/or physical impairments. The Child Development Center provides year-round, full-day care for 41 children ages 15 months to 5 years. Through daily programming designed to nurture development, enhance competencies, and facilitate positive social interactions between the generations, Neighbors Growing Together provides high quality work to children, older adults, and their families. Children from each of three classroo ms have one to two weekly opportunities to join their elderly neighbors for IGP, which typically involves three children and three older adults in a variety of activities, much(prenominal) as gardening, art, or sensory projects. Children and adults work together in a group facilitated by staff and students from the Child Development Center and Adult Day Services. Staff partners plan and implement activities that support an overarching goal of positive interactions. Activities further target developmental goals for both generations, such as book motor skills or cooperation. Children and adults meet in a shared space adjoining the two programs. Child- and adult-sized chairs designed to put all participants at eye level and developmentally appropriate books and art materials are provided.ProceduresPhase 1 Scale developmentIn blood 2005, four research students gathered qualitative observations of IGP involving Adult Day Services participants and Child Development Center children. Obs ervers attend different intergenerational sessions. Each week, observers had a obvious focus, starting with holistic observation to orient the observers to the setting and snuff iting to target the environment, the participants, and the facilitators. Following their weekly observations, the observers and the first and second authors discussed the observational data, focusing on the interactions between participating children and elders and factors that influenced those interactions. After observing 3-5 intergenerational sessions apiece, observers read and recaped the IOS scale and codebook developed by Gladwell and Jarrott (2003) and closely mirroring the Play Observation Scale developed by Rubin (2001). They discussed how well the categories employ to the intergenerational context they sight and how to modify the scale to reflect the social behaviors critical to intergenerational interactions in planned activities. Through an iterative process, the first two authors used obse rvers notes and conversations to modify the Play Observation Scale to capture data reflecting the interactive process of IGP. get on the observations from Phase 1, we further developed and sharp the IOS (see Table 1). The scale builds on earlier observational research (Rubin, 2001) by label participants behavior and affect and the affect of intergenerational partners with whom a target participant interacts. The IOS was developed for live steganography. It captures observations for the distance of an intergenerational activity, which tends to last 15-30 proceeding. Each observer identifies 4-5 participants for observation and watches them for 1-2 minutes to become familiar with the participants behaviors before beginning to record data. He or she codes a participant for one 15-second interval, then codes the next participant for 15 seconds, followed by the tertiary participant, etc. After the last participant is coded, the observer cycles back to begin observing participant one again. All observers in a session start coding when the facilitators begin the activity and end when the activity completes.When coding, if a behavior occurs for the majority of the coding interval, it is coded as the predominate behavior. When multiple behaviors are observed for equal intervals during a 15-second coding episode, we use the following hierarchy to code the paramount behavior most indicative of intergenerational interactions Interactive Intergenerational, gibe Intergenerational, Interactive Peer, Parallel Peer, Staff, Watching, Solitary, and Unoccupied.Phase 2 Establishment of reliabilityVideo coding of the observations was introduced during Phase 2 of scale development because learning the IOS finished the use of video has several advantages. When first learning the scale, observers watched a 15-second interval repeatedly to better understand the IOS behavioral scoring. The video coding modus operandi pass oned observers to review their coding with the second author, who is go through in observational coding. Weekly meetings were held during which observers coding was reviewed and discussed until observers reached a consensus on what behaviors constituted the IOS categories. Weekly review helped observers achieve acceptable reliability in assigning predominant codes to participants social behaviors. The video procedure enabled us to refine the IOS manual(a).The video coding process began with two observers who both had experience with live coding during IGP. After studying the manual, observers filmed three weekly sessions of planned IGP between the elders and each of the three classrooms of children (one session per classroom per week). The procedure for using video to bring in acceptable reliability was completed in three steps. First, observers independently coded sessions in 15-second intervals and re-watched these as many times as requirement to determine the predominant social behavior. In the second step, observers more closel y approximated live coding by watching the 15-second intervals on video only erst to code the predominant social behavior. In the ternary step, observers coded live sessions (scoring participant behaviors individually but observing the same participants at the same intervals) and filmed the activities, which allowed observers to review their coding at the weekly meetings and resolve discrepancies. Based on the consensus between the two coders and the expert coder, master coding sheets were developed indicating agreement on the predominant behavior for each 15-second interval of the coded sessions.Before observers could proceed to the next step in the training process, they had to achieve acceptable inter-rater reliability measured by Cohens kappa. A kappa score of .60 or higher was considered acceptable (Cohen, 1960). The kappa lashings for the two observers in Phase 2 were .67 for the first step, .85 for the second step, and .81 for the live coding in the third step.Replication of reliabilityIn Phase 3, we used the IOS video coding procedure to train four new observers. In addition to establishing that the video coding procedure would work with observers new to the IOS, we wanted to determine the amount of training necessary to achieve acceptable reliability with our 3-step process. The observers started with an introductory period where they read the manual and watched live IGP to observe the range of behaviors common to IGP. Observers attended weekly meetings where they watched IGP videos and received instruction on using the IOS. The introductory period lasted approximately 3 weeks or until observers felt comfortable with the coding, which was an additional 2 weeks for one of the observers.After the introductory period, the observers started on step 1 in the video coding procedure. Each step lasted approximately 4 weeks. At the weekly coding meetings, observers reviewed any discrepancies between their coding and the master codes determined in Phase 2. O nce the observers achieved acceptable reliability in step 1, they moved on to step 2. Coding pairs were formed, and they coded live IGP during step 3, achieving acceptable kappas of .92, .69, and .75.DiscussionIn the current paper, we discuss the development of the IOS, a scale designed to measure young and old participants social interaction and affect during IGP. In developing the IOS, we began with qualitative observations of IGP to refine a well-established child development observational scale (Rubin, 2001). We modified the scale for observations of elder and child participants in a typical range of intergenerational programs. Based on two groups of observers, we present a system for training individuals to use the scale and establish inter-rater reliability. Currently, the use of standardized measure within the field of IGP research is extremely limited, and our goal is to develop a scale to address this need.The IOS addresses several of Kuehnes (2003) recommendations for adv ancing intergenerational research and evaluation. First, the IOS is grounded in theory that shaped our view of positive IGP outcomes. Personhood theory (Kitwood Bredin, 1992) leads us to intergenerational relationships as a once common source of positive social interaction for many elders that can continue to support their well-being in late life. Contact theory (Allport, 1954 Pettigrew Tropp, 2000) elucidates necessary conditions for positive intergroup exchange, such as that between youth and elders. The conditions of cooperation and shared goals inform our expectation that the central mechanism of effective IGP is positive intergenerational interactions. The IOS captures the level of interactive behaviors between generations, thus reflecting the presence or absence of cooperation and shared goals of participants.Second, we draw from standardized measures of social interaction, namely the work of Parten (1933) and Rubin (2001). Working from their concepts, we qualitatively looke d at the behaviors seen during IGP. We then refined the social behaviors described within Rubins scale to fit an intergenerational population and to capture levels of social engagement or interaction during IGP. Third, we steer away from the over-reliance on attitudinal measures, go instead to behavioral and affective outcomes of IGP. Fourth, by winning steps to develop a standardized scale, we contribute to the research tools available to IGP researchers, which increases the capacity to compare outcomes across studies, thus advancing the collective understanding of IGP.Our results establish the IOS as a replicable measure of social interactions during IGP. The three-step process we used to achieve acceptable inter-rater reliability proved effective with two groups of observers. The process allows observers to develop a thorough understanding of the social behaviors in the IOS. Observers coding is checked against the master coding scheme to reckon observers accuracy coding observ ed behaviors. The master coding scheme allows for faster, more accurate training on the use of the IOS. Now that we have developed a successful process for training observers to use the IOS and achieve acceptable inter-rater, observers could be trained relatively quickly, most liable(predicate) within four to eight weeks. A reliable, quick training method will allow data collection to begin at an earlier date and will allow more researchers to use the scale with confidence.An important strength of the IOS is its utility with both generations of IGP participants. Most research on individual outcomes of IGP participation focuses on one generation or the other (e.g., Middlecamp Gross 2002), neglecting the experiences of the other generation. When researchers do evaluate both age groups, they typically use non-parallel measures because parallel scales for disparate age groups rarely exist. Not only will the IOS allow for standardized data collection across sites it enables standardize d data collection across generations.We expect the IOS to yield valuable process and outcome data for practitioners and researchers. Considering first the IOS as a source of outcome data, a program introducing or modifying an IGP could, for example, use IOS data to determine the affect and social behavior of participants during IGP with a goal of achieving high levels of positive affect, increasing intergenerational interaction, and reducing inactivity. In regards to process data, the IOS can be used in conjunction with salient outcome measures (e.g., depression or attitudes towards aging) to help interpret the effects of IGP (another recommendation by Kuehne, 2003). In asserting that IGP positively affects (or does not affect) targeted outcomes, researchers analyses would be strengthened by including data on the level of intergenerational interaction and affect that transpired among participants. For example, Seefeldt (1987) reported that children who participated in regular inter generational visits to a nursing home office had worse attitudes about aging than children who did not. These findings would have been more considerably interpreted if they incorporated process data such as the affect and level of interaction between children and elders. Because these data were not included in the analyses, readers are left to speculate whether all IGP involving nursing home residents would negatively affect childrens attitudes or if the nature of the IGP in that study contributed to the negative outcomes. Seefeldt described IGP that yielded little support for intergenerational interaction (i.e., children performing in the center of the room, skirt by the elders). She also indicated that elders were largely non-responsive to the children, suggesting that the negative outcomes may have been due to the nature of the IGP. While IGP professionals proponent standards of IGP practice (Epstein Boisvert, 2006 Rosebrook Larkin, 2003), significant variability on dimensi ons of IGP likely affects targeted outcomes and should be assessed. By capturing data that reflect the process of connecting generations, the IOS promotes understanding of why IGP succeeds or fails.As sketch above, the IOS provides many benefits for IGP research and evaluation. Our next step in establishing the scales value and utility to the intergenerational field entails establishing the reliability for coding occurrence of behaviors and predominance and occurrence of affect. Second, we plan to use a variety of means to establish validity, including video training to address substantive validity, expert panels to assess content validity, and statistical modeling of IOS data and related measures to determine convergent or divergent validity. Third, the scale was developed within the Neighbors Growing Together shared site intergenerational program, which involves structured programming between preschoolers and frail older adults. Generalizability is a critical indicator of validi ty and depends on the scales utility across intergenerational sites, populations, and programmatic approaches. Fourth, the behavior category codes are developmentally salient for pre-school age children and frail elders we need to determine if the categories will be every bit informative when applied to older children and well elders. Finally, the scale should be tested across cultures to support Kuehnes (2003) recommendation to take a more global view of IGP innovation.Initial indicators reveal that the IOS could become a useful tool to researchers and practitioners alike. As they seek to develop, improve, and sustain IGP while linking programming data to instrumental outcomes of interest to practitioners and funders, the availability of a standardized scale appropriate for use with young and old will prove invaluable. At a time characterized by tremendous notional energy and innovation in the intergenerational field, the IOS can capture the essence of IGP as practitioners suppor t meaningful outcomes through intergenerational relationships.ReferencesAllen-Burge, R., Burgio, L. D., Bourgeois, M. S., Sims, R., Nunnikhoven, J. (2001). Increasing communication among nursing home residents. diary of Clinical Geropsychology, 7, 213-230.Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA Addison-WesleyCamp, C. J., Judge, K. S., Bye, C. A., Fox, K. M., Bowden, J., Bell, M., et al.. (1997). An intergenerational program for persons with dementia using Montessori methods. The Gerontologist, 37, 688-692.Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.Eggebeen, D. J., Davey, A. (1998). Do safety nets work? The function of anticipated help in times of need. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 939-950.Eheart, B. K., Hopping, D. (2001). Generations of hope. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 675-682Epstein, A. S., Boisvert, C. (2006). Lets do something together Identifying effectiv e components of intergenerational programs. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(3), 87-109.Gigliotti, C. M., Morris, M., Smock, S., Jarrott, S. E., Graham, B. (2005). Supporting community through an intergenerational summer program involving persons with dementia and pre-school children. Educational Gerontology, 31, 425-441.Gladwell, M. S., Jarrott, S. E. (2003, November). An observational assessment of elders with dementia during intergenerational activities. Poster presented at the meetings of the gerontological Society of America, San Diego, CA.Goyer, A., Zuses, R. (1998). Intergenerational Shared Site Project, A field of honor of Co-located Programs and Services for Children, Youth, and Older Adults Final Report. Washington, DC AARP.Ice, G. H. (2002). Daily life in a nursing home Has it changed in 25 years? Journal of ageing Studies, 16, 345-359.Jantz, R. K., Seefeldt, C., Galper, A., Serlock, K. (1977). Childrens attitudes toward the elderly. Social Education, 41 , 518-523.Jarrott, S. E. (2006). Tried and true A guide to successful intergenerational activities at shared site programs. Washington, DC Generations United. Electronic version available at www.gu.orgJarrott, S. E., Bruno, K. A. (2003). Intergenerational Activities Involving Persons with Dementia An empirical Assessment. American Journal of Alzheimers and Related Diseases, 18, 31-38.Jarrott, S. E., Bruno, K. (2007). Shared site intergenerational programs A case study. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 26, 239-257.Jarrott, S. E. Gigliotti, C. M., Smock, S. A., (2006). Where do we stand? Testing the foundation of a shared site intergenerational program. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4.Jarrott, S. E., Gladwell, M. S., Gigliotti, C. M., Papero, A. L. (2004). Fostering intergenerational community between child adult care programs A Results anxiety approach. Canadian Children, 29(2), 4-13.Intergenerational Observation Scale AnalysisIntergenerational Observation Scale A nalysisAbstractInnovative intergenerational programs continue to grow in number and scope. The development of standardized evaluation instruments, however, lags behind, leaving many researchers and practitioners without tools to effectively assess their programs. Evaluation data often focus on outcomes without attention to the nature of the interactions between generations. Understanding the process of intergenerational contact is central to understanding its outcomes. We developed the Intergenerational Observation Scale to assess the social interactions and affect of young and old participants during intergenerational activities. Our 3-step observer training process demonstrated good scale reliability. We present the process of developing the scale, achieving observer reliability, and next steps to continue exploring the scales utility across intergenerational populations and settings.Development of a standardized tool for intergenerational programmingThe Intergenerational Observat ion ScaleProviding opportunities for meaningful engagement to persons with dementia challenges family and professional caregivers alike. While some practitioners and researchers seek innovative means to support client well-being (e.g., Allen-Burge, Burgio, Bourgeois, Sims, Nunnikhoven, 2001 Orsulic-Jeras, Judge, Camp, 2000), many dementia care programs are characterized by extreme levels of inactivity (Ice, 2002), which may result from infantilization (Salari Rich, 2001) and can lead to agitation and depression and detract from well-being (Teri et al., 2003 Voelkl, 1986). Kitwood and Bredin (1992) emphasized caregivers responsibility for supporting the personhood of individuals with diminished capacity to do so for themselves. Personhood, or the dignity and respect owed to each individual, encompasses an individuals experiences, preferences and values. For many people, their social history involves significant time spent interacting with and caring for children. Recently, care pr ofessionals have turned to intergenerational programming (IGP) as one therapeutic method to support personhood and well-being of persons with dementia (e.g., Camp et al., 1997 Jarrott Bruno, 2001).Though contact between young and old generations remains an integral part of most families (Eggebeen Davey, 1998), non-familial IGP remains a relatively new treatment milieu in elder care. IGP as a whole varies widely, depending on the populations involved, program objectives, and available resources. Interventions targeting children at risk for drug use (Taylor, LoSciuto, Fox, Hilbert, Sonkowsky, 1999), older adults needing employment (Larkin Newman, 2001), and foster care families needing community support (Eheart Hopping, 2001) have utilized intergenerational strategies to achieve program goals. Programs have employed IGP to promote positive affect and engagement of older adults (Xaverius Matthews, 2003), improved attitudes about aging among children (Middlecamp Gross, 2002), and greater sense of community among staff (Jarrott, Morris, Kemp, Stremmel, 2004). Despite the significant cognitive impairment of many elder care clients, practitioners have found elders experiences interacting with and caring for children so ingrained that they remain able to interact appropriately and positively with children until late in the progress of a dementing illness (Camp et al., 1997).The means of assessing IGP vary as much as the programs themselves. Researchers have utilized interviews (Jarrott Bruno, 2007), observational scales (Marx, Pannell, Papura-Gill, Cohen-Mansfield, 2004 Xaverius Matthews, 2003), attitudinal surveys (Jantz, Seefeldt, Galper, Serlock, 1977 Kocarnik Ponzetti, 1986), drawings (Lichtenstein, et al., 2001), and cognitive assessments (Newman, Karip, Faux, 1995) to evaluate the impact of IGP on one or more groups of participants. While the range of scales utilized is not inherently problematic, the current state of intergenerational research too ls requires significant improvement for several reasons. First, scales are often created for a single study without any report of psychometric properties (Kuehne, 2004). Consequently, researchers reinvent the wheel rather than use valid, reliable scales. Second, most scales assess the experiences of a single generation (e.g., Camp et al., 1997 Underwood Dorfman, 2006) although IGP should, by definition (Newman Smith, 1999), provide mutual benefit for young and old participants. Third, the developmental and disease characteristics of a large portion of IGP participants, pre-school age children and frail elders (e.g., Epstein Boisvert, 2006 Middlecamp Gross, 2002 Salari, 2002), limit the opportunity for valid self-report measures. Consequently, researchers often rely on proxy report and direct observation to tap participants experiences with IGP.A critical limitation of much IGP research lies in the black box that conceals the process of bringing young and old together. That is, a ssessments targeting the impact of IGP often neglect what actually transpired during the IGP. Useful process data will vary from project to project it might detail the level of activity, the type of interpersonal interactions, the physical environment, facilitators behaviors, or the activitys age appropriateness. For example, Xaverius and Matthews (2003) assessed the impact of IGP involving fourth graders and senior center participants who met for six intergenerational activities. The authors described the theme and setting of activities where elderly participants engagement was coded. Data were not gathered regarding the nature of the activities or what happened when participants were engaged in the intergenerational activity (i.e., if they engaged with the activity materials, with an age peer, or with an intergenerational partner).In contrast, Taylor and colleagues (1999) reported on a senior mentoring program targeting attitudes towards aging, drug use, and civic engagement of pa rticipating at-risk youth. The treatment group as a whole demonstrated improved attitudes towards school, civic engagement, aging, and resisting drug use compared to a control group. The authors also tapped into important process data by rating seniors intensity of involvement as a mentor. The researchers found a greater degree of attitudinal improvement among children whose senior mentors were more intensely involved with their student partners. Such studies exemplify the importance of capturing process as well as outcome data.The variety of populations and settings that avail themselves of IGP supports the study of multiple paths leading to positive outcomes. Most would agree that a one-size-fits-all model of IGP is impossible and inappropriate however, identification of practices and processes that optimize outcomes improves the overall quality of IGP and enhances understanding of how IGP uniquely meets individuals needs across the lifecourse. In turn, greater understanding of th e processes by which positive IGP outcomes are achieved informs development of theory pertaining to intergenerational relationships. For example, while the contact theory (Allport, 1954) provides necessary conditions for achieving positive intergroup contact, Allport did not describe the processes by which these outcomes would be achieved (Pettigrew, 1998).The limitations of IGP and related research stem from the relative infancy of IGP research. Researchers have been studying IGP for only the last 30 years (e.g., Jantz, et al., 1977), yet they are trying to raise the field to match those of child and adult development. Practitioners are anxious to know how IGP affects the physical, cognitive, and mental health of participants, yet the more basic question about whether and how children and elders interact with each other during proscribed IGP remains largely unanswered. Before we can reliably draw conclusions about the effects of IGP on children and elderly participants, we must det ermine the nature of their time spent together. Kuehnes (2003) state of our art report on intergenerational research implored researchers to tap the experiences of young and old participants and to develop and disseminate standardized measures relevant to IGP. By addressing these points, researchers can better inform practitioners efforts and build a cohesive body of research. The scale described in the current paper addresses each of these recommendations.We sought to address the challenge of measuring the experiences of young and old IGP participants, focusing on frail elders and pre-school age children because they constitute a large portion of participants involved in IGP (Goyer Zuses, 1998). We conducted a three-phase study to develop an observational scale tapping the social behavior and affect of both young and old IGP participants. We turned to the child development literature, with its long history of observational research, for inspiration.Partens (1933) categories of chi ldrens play behaviors appealed to us they encompassed categories reflecting a continuum of social behaviors ranging from non-engagement to cooperative engagement. Rubin (2001) developed the Play Observation Scale, drawing on Partens work and childrens cognitive development research. The broad social behaviors of unoccupied, watching, solitary, parallel, and cooperative captured by the Play Observation Scale reflect behaviors of interest to practitioners working to support meaningful engagement among elders and children. For example, a code for unoccupied behavior is salient given the high rates of inactivity found at elder care programs (Ice, 2002) and the goal of utilizing intergenerational strategies to promote positive social engagement. Furthermore, our experiences with IGP (e.g., Gigliotti, Morris, Smock, Jarrott, Graham, 2005 Jarrott Bruno, 2003 Jarrott Bruno, 2007 Jarrott, Gigliotti, Smock, 2006 Jarrott, Gladwell, Gigliotti, Papero 2004 Jarrott et al., 2004 Weintraub Ki llian, 2007) highlighted interaction as the central mechanism for achieving mutual benefit during IGP. Thus, a code for solitary behavior is relevant as it reflects engagement in a presented activity without social interaction. The first author used the original Play Observation Scale to observe elders during structured IGP (Gladwell Jarrott, 2003), determining that older adults engagement was greater during IGP than non-IGP. However, Gladwell and Jarrott found the scale cumbersome as they gathered salient data as well as information of little contemporary significance to IGP. Furthermore, they violated some of the scales specifications by utilizing the Play Observation Scale in a structured activity setting.We made several adaptations to Rubins Play Observation Scale for use with structured IGP (see Table 1 for descriptions of the scale categories). First, Rubins social behavior categories included sub-categories indicative of cognitive development however, given our emphasis on i nteractions irrespective of developmental abilities, we eliminated cognitive behaviors from our scale. Second, the Play Observation Scale was designed to be used during free play sessions where children self-initiate behaviors. However, intergenerational researchers have repeatedly emphasized the need for structure to optimize IGP (e.g., Camp et al., 1997 Jarrott, 2006 Xaverius Matthews, 2003), and so we developed the scale with planned IGP in mind. Finally, we expanded the IOS to distinguish between social behaviors with age peers and intergenerational partners (i.e., interactive peer versus interactive intergenerational).The first phase of the study involved qualitative observations of IGP conducted at a shared site intergenerational program serving frail elders and pre-school age children. The observations were then used to modify Rubins Play Observation Scale for use in a structured intergenerational setting. Phase two involved piloting the scale with two observers coding video of IGP and working with the second author to reach consensus and create a master coding scheme for the video sessions. In phase three, the scale was further modified and tested with a larger group of four observers coding video and live IGP. The current paper describes the three phases of the development and initial validation of the Intergenerational Observation Scale (IOS). While the IOS captures both behavior and affect of targeted child and elderly participants, the current paper focuses on social behaviors, which comprise the more complex sub-scale of the instrument.MethodParticipantsVirginia Techs Neighbors Growing Together, is a shared site intergenerational program designed to improve the lives of people across the lifespan through intergenerational collaboration involving teaching, research, and outreach. Neighbors Growing Together includes two co-located programs Adult Day Services and the Child Development Center for Learning and Research. Adult Day Services provides act ivities, care, and supervision daily to approximately 15 adults (50+ years old) with cognitive and/or physical impairments. The Child Development Center provides year-round, full-day care for 41 children ages 15 months to 5 years. Through daily programming designed to nurture development, enhance competencies, and facilitate positive social interactions between the generations, Neighbors Growing Together provides high quality services to children, older adults, and their families. Children from each of three classrooms have one to two weekly opportunities to join their elderly neighbors for IGP, which typically involves three children and three older adults in a variety of activities, such as gardening, art, or sensory projects. Children and adults work together in a group facilitated by staff and students from the Child Development Center and Adult Day Services. Staff partners plan and implement activities that support an overarching goal of positive interactions. Activities furthe r target developmental goals for both generations, such as fine motor skills or cooperation. Children and adults meet in a shared space adjoining the two programs. Child- and adult-sized chairs designed to put all participants at eye level and developmentally appropriate books and art materials are provided.ProceduresPhase 1 Scale developmentIn fall 2005, four research students gathered qualitative observations of IGP involving Adult Day Services participants and Child Development Center children. Observers attended different intergenerational sessions. Each week, observers had a distinct focus, starting with holistic observation to orient the observers to the setting and proceeding to target the environment, the participants, and the facilitators. Following their weekly observations, the observers and the first and second authors discussed the observational data, focusing on the interactions between participating children and elders and factors that influenced those interactions. A fter observing 3-5 intergenerational sessions apiece, observers read and reviewed the IOS scale and codebook developed by Gladwell and Jarrott (2003) and closely mirroring the Play Observation Scale developed by Rubin (2001). They discussed how well the categories applied to the intergenerational context they observed and how to modify the scale to reflect the social behaviors critical to intergenerational interactions in planned activities. Through an iterative process, the first two authors used observers notes and conversations to modify the Play Observation Scale to capture data reflecting the interactive process of IGP.Based on the observations from Phase 1, we further developed and refined the IOS (see Table 1). The scale builds on earlier observational research (Rubin, 2001) by coding participants behavior and affect and the affect of intergenerational partners with whom a target participant interacts. The IOS was developed for live coding. It captures observations for the du ration of an intergenerational activity, which tends to last 15-30 minutes. Each observer identifies 4-5 participants for observation and watches them for 1-2 minutes to become familiar with the participants behaviors before beginning to record data. He or she codes a participant for one 15-second interval, then codes the next participant for 15 seconds, followed by the third participant, etc. After the last participant is coded, the observer cycles back to begin observing participant one again. All observers in a session start coding when the facilitators begin the activity and end when the activity completes.When coding, if a behavior occurs for the majority of the coding interval, it is coded as the predominant behavior. When multiple behaviors are observed for equal intervals during a 15-second coding episode, we use the following hierarchy to code the predominant behavior most indicative of intergenerational interactions Interactive Intergenerational, Parallel Intergenerational , Interactive Peer, Parallel Peer, Staff, Watching, Solitary, and Unoccupied.Phase 2 Establishment of reliabilityVideo coding of the observations was introduced during Phase 2 of scale development because learning the IOS through the use of video has several advantages. When first learning the scale, observers watched a 15-second interval repeatedly to better understand the IOS behavioral scoring. The video coding procedure allowed observers to review their coding with the second author, who is experienced in observational coding. Weekly meetings were held during which observers coding was reviewed and discussed until observers reached a consensus on what behaviors constituted the IOS categories. Weekly review helped observers achieve acceptable reliability in assigning predominant codes to participants social behaviors. The video procedure enabled us to refine the IOS manual.The video coding process began with two observers who both had experience with live coding during IGP. After studying the manual, observers filmed three weekly sessions of planned IGP between the elders and each of the three classrooms of children (one session per classroom per week). The procedure for using video to establish acceptable reliability was completed in three steps. First, observers independently coded sessions in 15-second intervals and re-watched these as many times as necessary to determine the predominant social behavior. In the second step, observers more closely approximated live coding by watching the 15-second intervals on video only once to code the predominant social behavior. In the third step, observers coded live sessions (scoring participant behaviors individually but observing the same participants at the same intervals) and filmed the activities, which allowed observers to review their coding at the weekly meetings and resolve discrepancies. Based on the consensus between the two coders and the expert coder, master coding sheets were developed indicating agree ment on the predominant behavior for each 15-second interval of the coded sessions.Before observers could proceed to the next step in the training process, they had to achieve acceptable inter-rater reliability measured by Cohens kappa. A kappa score of .60 or higher was considered acceptable (Cohen, 1960). The kappa scores for the two observers in Phase 2 were .67 for the first step, .85 for the second step, and .81 for the live coding in the third step.Replication of reliabilityIn Phase 3, we used the IOS video coding procedure to train four new observers. In addition to establishing that the video coding procedure would work with observers new to the IOS, we wanted to determine the amount of training necessary to achieve acceptable reliability with our 3-step process. The observers started with an introductory period where they read the manual and watched live IGP to observe the range of behaviors common to IGP. Observers attended weekly meetings where they watched IGP videos and received instruction on using the IOS. The introductory period lasted approximately 3 weeks or until observers felt comfortable with the coding, which was an additional 2 weeks for one of the observers.After the introductory period, the observers started on step 1 in the video coding procedure. Each step lasted approximately 4 weeks. At the weekly coding meetings, observers reviewed any discrepancies between their coding and the master codes determined in Phase 2. Once the observers achieved acceptable reliability in step 1, they moved on to step 2. Coding pairs were formed, and they coded live IGP during step 3, achieving acceptable kappas of .92, .69, and .75.DiscussionIn the current paper, we discuss the development of the IOS, a scale designed to measure young and old participants social interaction and affect during IGP. In developing the IOS, we began with qualitative observations of IGP to refine a well-established child development observational scale (Rubin, 2001). We modi fied the scale for observations of elder and child participants in a typical range of intergenerational programs. Based on two groups of observers, we present a system for training individuals to use the scale and establish inter-rater reliability. Currently, the use of standardized measure within the field of IGP research is extremely limited, and our goal is to develop a scale to address this need.The IOS addresses several of Kuehnes (2003) recommendations for advancing intergenerational research and evaluation. First, the IOS is grounded in theory that shaped our view of positive IGP outcomes. Personhood theory (Kitwood Bredin, 1992) leads us to intergenerational relationships as a once common source of positive social interaction for many elders that can continue to support their well-being in late life. Contact theory (Allport, 1954 Pettigrew Tropp, 2000) elucidates necessary conditions for positive intergroup exchange, such as that between youth and elders. The conditions of cooperation and shared goals inform our expectation that the central mechanism of effective IGP is positive intergenerational interactions. The IOS captures the level of interactive behaviors between generations, thus reflecting the presence or absence of cooperation and shared goals of participants.Second, we draw from standardized measures of social interaction, namely the work of Parten (1933) and Rubin (2001). Working from their concepts, we qualitatively looked at the behaviors seen during IGP. We then refined the social behaviors described within Rubins scale to fit an intergenerational population and to capture levels of social engagement or interaction during IGP. Third, we steer away from the over-reliance on attitudinal measures, moving instead to behavioral and affective outcomes of IGP. Fourth, by taking steps to develop a standardized scale, we contribute to the research tools available to IGP researchers, which increases the capacity to compare outcomes across studies , thus advancing the collective understanding of IGP.Our results establish the IOS as a replicable measure of social interactions during IGP. The three-step process we used to achieve acceptable inter-rater reliability proved effective with two groups of observers. The process allows observers to develop a thorough understanding of the social behaviors in the IOS. Observers coding is checked against the master coding scheme to insure observers accuracy coding observed behaviors. The master coding scheme allows for faster, more accurate training on the use of the IOS. Now that we have developed a successful process for training observers to use the IOS and achieve acceptable inter-rater, observers could be trained relatively quickly, most likely within four to eight weeks. A reliable, quick training method will allow data collection to begin at an earlier date and will allow more researchers to use the scale with confidence.An important strength of the IOS is its utility with both ge nerations of IGP participants. Most research on individual outcomes of IGP participation focuses on one generation or the other (e.g., Middlecamp Gross 2002), neglecting the experiences of the other generation. When researchers do evaluate both age groups, they typically use non-parallel measures because parallel scales for disparate age groups rarely exist. Not only will the IOS allow for standardized data collection across sites it enables standardized data collection across generations.We expect the IOS to yield valuable process and outcome data for practitioners and researchers. Considering first the IOS as a source of outcome data, a program introducing or modifying an IGP could, for example, use IOS data to determine the affect and social behavior of participants during IGP with a goal of achieving high levels of positive affect, increasing intergenerational interaction, and reducing inactivity. In regards to process data, the IOS can be used in conjunction with salient outco me measures (e.g., depression or attitudes towards aging) to help interpret the effects of IGP (another recommendation by Kuehne, 2003). In asserting that IGP positively affects (or does not affect) targeted outcomes, researchers analyses would be strengthened by including data on the level of intergenerational interaction and affect that transpired among participants. For example, Seefeldt (1987) reported that children who participated in regular intergenerational visits to a nursing home had worse attitudes about aging than children who did not. These findings would have been more easily interpreted if they incorporated process data such as the affect and level of interaction between children and elders. Because these data were not included in the analyses, readers are left to speculate whether all IGP involving nursing home residents would negatively affect childrens attitudes or if the nature of the IGP in that study contributed to the negative outcomes. Seefeldt described IGP t hat yielded little support for intergenerational interaction (i.e., children performing in the center of the room, surrounded by the elders). She also indicated that elders were largely non-responsive to the children, suggesting that the negative outcomes may have been due to the nature of the IGP. While IGP professionals advocate standards of IGP practice (Epstein Boisvert, 2006 Rosebrook Larkin, 2003), significant variability on dimensions of IGP likely affects targeted outcomes and should be assessed. By capturing data that reflect the process of connecting generations, the IOS promotes understanding of why IGP succeeds or fails.As outlined above, the IOS provides many benefits for IGP research and evaluation. Our next step in establishing the scales value and utility to the intergenerational field entails establishing the reliability for coding occurrence of behaviors and predominance and occurrence of affect. Second, we plan to use a variety of means to establish validity, in cluding video training to address substantive validity, expert panels to assess content validity, and statistical modeling of IOS data and related measures to determine convergent or divergent validity. Third, the scale was developed within the Neighbors Growing Together shared site intergenerational program, which involves structured programming between preschoolers and frail older adults. Generalizability is a critical indicator of validity and depends on the scales utility across intergenerational sites, populations, and programmatic approaches. Fourth, the behavior category codes are developmentally salient for pre-school age children and frail elders we need to determine if the categories will be equally informative when applied to older children and well elders. Finally, the scale should be tested across cultures to support Kuehnes (2003) recommendation to take a more global view of IGP innovation.Initial indicators reveal that the IOS could become a useful tool to researchers and practitioners alike. As they seek to develop, improve, and sustain IGP while linking programming data to instrumental outcomes of interest to practitioners and funders, the availability of a standardized scale appropriate for use with young and old will prove invaluable. At a time characterized by tremendous creative energy and innovation in the intergenerational field, the IOS can capture the essence of IGP as practitioners support meaningful outcomes through intergenerational relationships.ReferencesAllen-Burge, R., Burgio, L. D., Bourgeois, M. S., Sims, R., Nunnikhoven, J. (2001). Increasing communication among nursing home residents. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 7, 213-230.Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA Addison-WesleyCamp, C. J., Judge, K. S., Bye, C. A., Fox, K. M., Bowden, J., Bell, M., et al.. (1997). An intergenerational program for persons with dementia using Montessori methods. The Gerontologist, 37, 688-692.Cohen, J. (1960). A coe fficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.Eggebeen, D. J., Davey, A. (1998). Do safety nets work? The role of anticipated help in times of need. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 939-950.Eheart, B. K., Hopping, D. (2001). Generations of hope. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 675-682Epstein, A. S., Boisvert, C. (2006). Lets do something together Identifying effective components of intergenerational programs. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(3), 87-109.Gigliotti, C. M., Morris, M., Smock, S., Jarrott, S. E., Graham, B. (2005). Supporting community through an intergenerational summer program involving persons with dementia and pre-school children. Educational Gerontology, 31, 425-441.Gladwell, M. S., Jarrott, S. E. (2003, November). An observational assessment of elders with dementia during intergenerational activities. Poster presented at the meetings of the Gerontological Society of America, San Diego , CA.Goyer, A., Zuses, R. (1998). Intergenerational Shared Site Project, A Study of Co-located Programs and Services for Children, Youth, and Older Adults Final Report. Washington, DC AARP.Ice, G. H. (2002). Daily life in a nursing home Has it changed in 25 years? Journal of Aging Studies, 16, 345-359.Jantz, R. K., Seefeldt, C., Galper, A., Serlock, K. (1977). Childrens attitudes toward the elderly. Social Education, 41, 518-523.Jarrott, S. E. (2006). Tried and true A guide to successful intergenerational activities at shared site programs. Washington, DC Generations United. Electronic version available at www.gu.orgJarrott, S. E., Bruno, K. A. (2003). Intergenerational Activities Involving Persons with Dementia An Observational Assessment. American Journal of Alzheimers and Related Diseases, 18, 31-38.Jarrott, S. E., Bruno, K. (2007). Shared site intergenerational programs A case study. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 26, 239-257.Jarrott, S. E. Gigliotti, C. M., Smock, S. A., (2006). Where do we stand? Testing the foundation of a shared site intergenerational program. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4.Jarrott, S. E., Gladwell, M. S., Gigliotti, C. M., Papero, A. L. (2004). Fostering intergenerational community between child adult care programs A Results Management approach. Canadian Children, 29(2), 4-13.

Spanish & English Superpowers of America :: essays research papers fc

Spanish & English Super Powers in America Ultimately, their stronger unified ethnic need to establish their dominance in another land is the most important reasons for the foothold established by the English and the Spanish in the radical World. It is true that a plethora of different races, ethnic groups, nationalities, and cultures arrived on the North American soil prior to 1776, the year that America began its process of embarking upon its independence, of officially become the independent country of United States of America. This begs the question of why did the Spanish (and Spanish Americans) and later primarily the English (and English Americans) become the dominant ethnic groups in the New World, and not the other nations that established settlements, for instance, perchance, the Dutch? This paper will argue that the predominant historical evidence, as discussed in The Ethnic Dimension in American History and Major Problems in American Immigration and Ethnic History as w ell as American Mosaic and the text out(p) of Many suggests that the reason for this dominance was twofold. First of all, Spanish and the English dominated the seas and the land, militarily, in the way that other European nations such as the French did not. English settlers in point had religious as well as economic reasons for developing a cultural and sociological grip as well as an economic support in the new nation. The fact that the British and Spanish nations were both more unified, had more mercantile capitol support, and were technically more advanced than their rivals, especially on the seas, coupled with their greater need to establish settlements in the new land to ensure their dominance. It is tempting to view the English dominance purely as a product of military might, of course. But while this undoubtedly played a factor in the domination of the English and the Spanish, ultimately the reasons for British and Spanish were more cultural than purely military or technolo gical, this essay will argue.On a level of military technology the English in particular exercised military dominion, winning what came to be known as Prince Phillips War, defeating Native American alliance against the New England colonists. The British also later dominated France and the still living strong Native American tribes in what came to be known as King Williams War in 1689. In May of 1702, England declared state of war on France after the death of the King of Spain, Charles II, to stop the union of France and Spain.

Renaisssance versus Baroque Periods Essay -- Comparison Contrast essay

The churrigueresconess and renaissance flows are two different conclusions. The renaissance period rolled into the baroque eon. There were changes made over the years from the baroque to the renaissance period. Differences in style accumulated along with views of finesse and music.Baroque season covers the period between 1600 and 1750 beginning with Monte Verdi (birth of opera) and ended with deaths of Bach and Handel. The term baroque music is borrowed from the trick history. It follows the renascence era (1400-1600). It was initially considered to be a corrupt way of metempsychosis by conservatives. The dominant trends in Baroque music correspond to those in Baroque art and literature. Some features of Baroque art included a sense of movement, energy, and tension (whether real or implied). Strong contrasts of light and shadow enhance the effects of paintings and sculptures. Opera is one of the types of music in the Baroque era. It represented melodic freedom. Baroque era was usually referred to as the thorough-bass period. In early Baroque era no tonal direction existed, nevertheless experiments in pre-tonal harmony led to the creation of tonality. 1 Baroque genre included instrumental suite, ritornello, Concerto grosso and chant. There were important composers of the Baroque period such as Johann Sebastian Bach, George Frideric Handel, Antonio Vivaldi William Byrd heat content Purcell and George Phillip Telemann. Starting in northern Italy, the hierarchical state -- led by either the urban bourgeoisie or despotic nobles -- replaced the fluid and chaotic feudalistic system of the middle Ages. 2 For this reason, some historians refer to the Renaissance as the Early Modern Era. Sculptors, building on the techniques of artists such as Giovanni Bernini (1598-1680), found ways to farm the illusion of energetic and even violent movement in their works. Painters stoold larger and more crowded throw outvases. Virtuosity was used in all the arts. The a rts became an important criterion of learning and culture. Music moved from the science of number to an expressive art viewed as an equal to rhetoric. The Renaissance means the rebirth of ancient learning. The renaissance nominate be divided into two parts Early Renaissance (1420-1500) and High Renaissance (1500-1520). The Renaissance era was one of the most productive time periods in history as far as the advancement of music goes. At first it was rigid, structu... ...ike today. The period between the baroque and renaissance paved a sensitive way for not only music, scarce for art. The change that took place was gorgeous causing art to become so vivid and images are portrayed to be so real. I never was a fan of art nor music, but if one actually pays attention to the evolvement of it throughout time one would have coarse appreciation. References1) Carter, Tim. Music in late Renaissance & early baroque Italy. Amadeus Press. 1992.2) Bailey, Gauvin A. Between Renaissance and Bar oque Jesuit art in Rome 1565-1610. University of Toronto Press. 2003.3) Huyghe, Rene. Larousse encyclopedia of Renaissance and Baroque Art. London, Hamlyen. 1967.4) Mundy, James. Renaissance into Baroque. University Press. 1989.5) Jaffe, Michael. Renaissance & Baroque drawings. Abrams Press.1995.BibliographiesAtlas, A.W. Renaissance Music Music in Western Europe, 1400-1600. 1st ed. New York Norton, 1998.Corrick, J.A. The Renaissance. San Diego Lucent Brooks, 1998.Getzinger, Donna. Johnann Sebastian Bach and the art of baroque music. 1st ed. Greensboro Morgan Reynolds, 2004Lorenz, Hellmut. Baroque Art. New York Plague, 1994. Renaisssance versus Baroque Periods Essay -- Comparison Contrast essay The baroque and renaissance periods are two different periods. The renaissance period rolled into the baroque era. There were changes made over the years from the baroque to the renaissance period. Differences in style accumulated along with views of art and music.Baroque era c overs the period between 1600 and 1750 beginning with Monte Verdi (birth of opera) and ended with deaths of Bach and Handel. The term baroque music is borrowed from the art history. It follows the Renaissance era (1400-1600). It was initially considered to be a corrupt way of Renaissance by conservatives. The dominant trends in Baroque music correspond to those in Baroque art and literature. Some features of Baroque art included a sense of movement, energy, and tension (whether real or implied). Strong contrasts of light and shadow enhance the effects of paintings and sculptures. Opera is one of the types of music in the Baroque era. It represented melodic freedom. Baroque era was usually referred to as the thorough-bass period. In early Baroque era no tonal direction existed, but experiments in pre-tonal harmony led to the creation of tonality. 1 Baroque genre included instrumental suite, ritornello, Concerto grosso and chant. There were important composers of the Baroque period su ch as Johann Sebastian Bach, George Frideric Handel, Antonio Vivaldi William Byrd hydrogen Purcell and George Phillip Telemann. Starting in northern Italy, the hierarchical state -- led by either the urban bourgeoisie or despotic nobles -- replaced the fluid and chaotic feudal system of the middle Ages. 2 For this reason, some historians refer to the Renaissance as the Early Modern Era. Sculptors, building on the techniques of artists such as Giovanni Bernini (1598-1680), found ways to create the illusion of energetic and even violent movement in their works. Painters created larger and more crowded canvases. Virtuosity was used in all the arts. The arts became an important legal community of learning and culture. Music moved from the science of number to an expressive art viewed as an equal to rhetoric. The Renaissance means the rebirth of ancient learning. The renaissance can be divided into two parts Early Renaissance (1420-1500) and High Renaissance (1500-1520). The Renaissanc e era was one of the most productive time periods in history as far as the advancement of music goes. At first it was rigid, structu... ...ike today. The period between the baroque and renaissance paved a naked way for not only music, but for art. The change that took place was gorgeous causing art to become so vivid and images are portrayed to be so real. I never was a fan of art nor music, but if one actually pays attention to the evolvement of it throughout time one would have vast appreciation. References1) Carter, Tim. Music in late Renaissance & early baroque Italy. Amadeus Press. 1992.2) Bailey, Gauvin A. Between Renaissance and Baroque Jesuit art in Rome 1565-1610. University of Toronto Press. 2003.3) Huyghe, Rene. Larousse encyclopedia of Renaissance and Baroque Art. London, Hamlyen. 1967.4) Mundy, James. Renaissance into Baroque. University Press. 1989.5) Jaffe, Michael. Renaissance & Baroque drawings. Abrams Press.1995.BibliographiesAtlas, A.W. Renaissance Music Music in Western Europe, 1400-1600. 1st ed. New York Norton, 1998.Corrick, J.A. The Renaissance. San Diego Lucent Brooks, 1998.Getzinger, Donna. Johnann Sebastian Bach and the art of baroque music. 1st ed. Greensboro Morgan Reynolds, 2004Lorenz, Hellmut. Baroque Art. New York Plague, 1994.

Eve of the civil war Essay -- essays research papers

On the eve of the Civil War, the fall in States was a nation divided into quadruplet quite distinct regions the conjugationeast, with a growing industrial and commercial economy and an increasing density of population the Northwest, promptly known as the Midwest, a cursorily expanding region of chuck up the sponge farmers where slavery had been forever prohibited under the Northwest Ordinance the Upper South, with a settled plantation system and (in some areas) declining economic fortunes and the Southwest, a booming frontier-like region with an expanding cotton economy. With two fundamentally different labor systems at their base, the economic and kind changes across the nations geographical regions based on wage labor in the North and on slavery in the South underlay distinct visions of ordination that had emerged by the mid-nineteenth century in the North and in the South.Before the Civil War, the Constitution provided a basis for peaceful debate over the future of gov ernment, and had been competent to regulate conflicts of interest and conflicting visions for the new, cursorily expanding nation. For many years, compromises had been made to ease the number of "free takes" and "slave states" so that there would be a balance in the Senate. The last slave state admitted was Texas in 1845, with five free states admitted between 1846 and 1859. The admission of Kansas as a slave state had recently been blocked, and it was receivable to enter as a free state instead in 1861. The rise of mass d... Eve of the civil war Essay -- essays research papers On the eve of the Civil War, the United States was a nation divided into four quite distinct regions the Northeast, with a growing industrial and commercial economy and an increasing density of population the Northwest, now known as the Midwest, a rapidly expanding region of free farmers where slavery had been forever prohibited under the Northwest Ordinance the Upper South , with a settled plantation system and (in some areas) declining economic fortunes and the Southwest, a booming frontier-like region with an expanding cotton economy. With two fundamentally different labor systems at their base, the economic and social changes across the nations geographical regions based on wage labor in the North and on slavery in the South underlay distinct visions of society that had emerged by the mid-nineteenth century in the North and in the South.Before the Civil War, the Constitution provided a basis for peaceful debate over the future of government, and had been able to regulate conflicts of interest and conflicting visions for the new, rapidly expanding nation. For many years, compromises had been made to balance the number of "free states" and "slave states" so that there would be a balance in the Senate. The last slave state admitted was Texas in 1845, with five free states admitted between 1846 and 1859. The admission of Kansas as a s lave state had recently been blocked, and it was due to enter as a free state instead in 1861. The rise of mass d...