text:
Microsoft is launching its new operating system, Windows 8, this week.
Windows 8 is a radical departure for anyone who has used Windows in the past two decades. The new interface is designed primarily for touch-screens. And based on some anecdotal responses from those who have tried it — professional reviewers and normal people alike — it's not exactly love at first sight.
SAI's Matt Rosoff reviewed a preview version of Windows 8 a couple of months ago. He found it "needlessly confusing and hard to use."
The AP said the new OS interface "baffles" consumers.
The New York Times' David Gallagher invited 5 people to try Windows 8 and filmed them while they did so. One of the five people seemed to like the look of the design ("Awesome." "This is so cool."). But figuring out how to actually go about doing things seemed to confuse the hell out of everyone — including the person who liked the design.
The video is embedded below.
Here are some of the quotes:
- "I don't like this design."
- "I think it's really confusing."
- "Some of it feels intuitive once you've already done it, but it doesn't feel automatically intuitive."
- "It should be easier. I shouldn't have to think about it."
- "Beats me." [In response to a question about how to print something]
- "I felt like the biggest computer user amateur ever. It made me feel stupid."
I've never used Windows 8, so all I know about it is what I've seen in this video and read in a couple of reviews. One thing I can tell you I already hate about it, though, is the apparent need to manipulate it by touching your laptop screen.
Yes, I'm quite fond of fondling the screen of my iPhone. And I have no problem touching the screen of an iPad. But I never touch my laptop screen, and I hate it when other people touch my laptop screen. I don't want to have to remove my hands from my keyboard to touch my laptop screen. And I really don't want to have to touch a button on the screen to send a new email, which is what David Gallagher of the New York Times told one of the people in the video they had to do. I like my mouse-pad, and I don't want to have to lift my hand up and touch "buttons" on my screen.
I gather there's a "normal view" or something that gets you back to the friendly old Windows 95 start screen again (at least I hope there is). And I gather Windows 8 is really written for tablets and maybe it will be great on those. But...
I've already made the jump to Mac, which was painful — every minute I have to spend learning how to use a new tool is a minute I could have spent actually working — so I'm presumably not the target customer for Windows 8.
But one thing I would worry about if I were Microsoft is this:
Now that it will apparently require a lot of effort to learn how to use Windows 8, many Windows users who have always been tempted to try Macs but haven't because they don't want to learn a new system now have a perfect excuse to finally make the jump... because even if they stay with Windows, they're going to have to learn a new system.
In short, it seems like Microsoft's taking a big risk here.
If people love Windows 8, and Microsoft can stem its loss of share in the PC market and start winning some share of the tablet market, great.
But if they're confused and befuddled, Microsoft will be in an even tougher position than it already is.
Watch 5 normal people try to figure out Windows 8:


text:
If you're ready for grill season, then we're ready for YOU! These squashed-up skewers, flavorful burgers, and fruity kebabs will have your whole meal covered. Yes!
PER SERVING (1/5th of recipe, 2 skewers): 78 calories, <0.5g total fat (0g sat fat), 125mg sodium, 19g carbs, 3.5g fiber, 5.5g sugars, 2g protein -- PointsPlus® value 0*-- SmartPoints® value 0* Sure, butternut is a winter squash, but that doesn't mean you can't slap it on the grill when it's warm out... True dat!
Ingredients: 1/2 tsp. ground cumin 1/2 tsp. garlic powder 1/4 tsp. salt 1/8 tsp. cayenne pepper 4 cups 1-inch butternut squash cubes (about 20 oz. or half a large squash) 1 large onion 2 1/2 cups firm cherry tomatoes (about a 1-pint container's worth or 25 tomatoes) Directions: If using wooden skewers, soak them in water for about 20 minutes to prevent burning. (You'll need 10 skewers.) Combine seasonings in a small bowl or sealable bag and mix well. Set aside. Place squash in a large microwave-safe bowl with 2 tbsp. water. Cover and microwave for 1 1/2 minutes, or until squash is slightly tender. Once cool enough to handle, uncover, drain any excess water, and set aside. Cut onion into pieces roughly the size of the squash cubes. Evenly distribute veggies among the 10 skewers in this order: squash, onion, squash, tomato. (Don't worry if it isn't perfect!) Lightly spray the loaded skewers with nonstick spray, and evenly sprinkle with half of the seasonings. Flip skewers and repeat on other side. Bring a grill (or grill pan) sprayed with nonstick spray to medium heat. Add skewers, cover, and cook until squash is tender and veggies are slightly blackened, 8 - 10 minutes per side. If using a grill pan, work in batches, removing pan from heat between batches to re-spray. (And don't worry if the lid used for covering isn't a perfect fit!) Serve and enjoy! MAKES 5 SERVINGS
PER SERVING (1/4th of recipe, 1 patty): 203 calories, 8g total fat (3g sat fat),420mg sodium, 3g carbs, 1g fiber, 1g sugars, 29g protein -- PointsPlus® value 5* -- SmartPoints® value 4* Heads up: If you make these for your next cookout, your patties will be the talk of the neighborhood by sundown. SO GOOD! Ingredients: 1/4 cup finely chopped onion 1 tsp. chopped garlic 4 cups chopped spinach leaves 1 lb. raw lean ground turkey 2 large egg whites or 1/4 cup liquid egg whites 1/2 tsp. dried basil 1/2 tsp. dried oregano 1/4 tsp. salt 1/4 tsp. black pepper 1/2 cup crumbled fat-free feta cheese Optional: large lettuce leaves, sliced onion, sliced tomato Directions: Bring a large skillet sprayed with nonstick spray to medium-high heat on the stove. Add onion and garlic and, stirring often, cook until softened, about 4 minutes. Add spinach to the skillet with onion and garlic. Stirring often, cook until spinach has wilted and excess moisture has evaporated, 3 - 5 minutes. Remove skillet from heat. Once cool enough to handle, carefully blot away any excess moisture from the onion-spinach mixture with paper towels. Set aside. In a large bowl, combine turkey, egg whites, basil, oregano, salt, and pepper. Using your hands, mix well. Add cooked veggies and feta cheese to the bowl. Using your hands, mix until uniform. Evenly divide turkey mixture and firmly form into four patties. (Cover and refrigerate if not cooking immediately.) Bring a grill (or skillet or grill pan) sprayed with nonstick spray to medium heat. Add patties, cover, and cook for 5 - 8 minutes per side, until cooked through. If using a skillet or grill pan, work in batches, removing skillet or pan from heat between batches to re-spray. (And don't worry if your lid isn't a perfect fit when covering!) Eat your patties with a knife and fork or, if you like, wrap them up in some lettuce leaves with onion and tomato. Enjoy! MAKES 4 SERVINGS
PER SERVING (1/4th of recipe, 1 kebab with about 3 tbsp. dip): 135 calories, 0.5g total fat (0g sat fat), 17mg sodium, 30.5g carbs, 3g fiber, 23g sugars, 4.5g protein -- PointsPlus® value 1* -- SmartPoints® value 1* Never grilled fruit before? This is a great way to try it out. And if you're an old pro in the field of fruit grilling, you'll still love this recipe. (It has DIP. Yay!) Ingredients: Dip 6 oz. fat-free plain Greek yogurt (like Fage Total 0%) 1 tbsp. granulated white sugar 1/8 tsp. cinnamon 1/8 tsp. vanilla extract Kebabs 1 cup 1-inch pineapple chunks (about 1/4th of a pineapple) 1 cup 1-inch mango chunks (about 1 mango) 1 cup 1-inch peach or nectarine chunks (about 2 peaches or nectarines) 1 cup 1-inch banana chunks (about 1 large banana) 1/4 tsp. cinnamon Directions: If using wooden skewers, soak them in water for about 20 minutes to prevent burning. (You'll need 4 skewers.) Combine all ingredients for dip in a bowl. Mix until thoroughly blended and smooth. Refrigerate until ready to serve. Skewer the fruit chunks alternately onto 4 skewers, packing the pieces together tightly. Sprinkle with cinnamon. Bring a grill (or grill pan) sprayed with nonstick spray to medium heat. Add skewers, cover, and cook until fruit chunks are slightly blackened and caramelized, about 3 minutes per side. If using a grill pan, work in batches, removing pan from heat between batches to re-spray. (Don't worry if the lid used for covering isn't a perfect fit!) Serve dip with grilled fruit and chew! MAKES 4 SERVINGS HG FYI: Since this recipe consists mostly of fruit with a PointsPlus® value of 0*, we didn't use the recipe method (which counts the carbs from fruit) to calculate its value per serving. If you prefer to use the recipe method, each serving has a PointsPlus® value of 4*.
Got some pals who LOVE to grill? Then why wouldn't you give them these recipes?! Click "Send to a Friend" now...
Happy May 26th, also known as National Cherry Dessert Day! Click here for a recipe for a cheesy cherry Danish that you can eat for breakfast or dessert!
SmartPoints® value not what you expected? Click here for more info on how the values are calculated, plus more FAQs about PointsPlus® and SmartPoints® values on our website.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
July 2008
Meeting the Needs of Multiple Stakeholders
Every good evaluation begins with a clearly stated purpose and a specific set of questions to be answered. These questions drive the evaluation approach and help determine the specific data collection techniques that evaluators will use. Sometimes, however, program evaluators find themselves in the difficult position of needing to fulfill several purposes at once, or needing to answer a wide variety of research questions. Most stakeholders have the same basic question—Is it working? But not everyone defines working in the same way. While policymakers may be interested in gains in standardized test scores, program leaders may be equally interested in other indicators of success, such as whether the program is addressing the needs of traditionally underrepresented subgroups, or producing outcomes that are only indirectly related to test scores, like student engagement.
Naturally, these questions will not be answered in the same way. For example, if stakeholders want concrete evidence about the impact on student achievement, evaluators might conduct a randomized controlled trial—the gold standard for assessing program effects—or a quasi-experimental design that compares test scores of program participants with students in matched comparison groups. But if stakeholders want to know, for example, how a program has been implemented across many sites, or why it is leading to particular outcomes, then they might opt for a descriptive study, incorporating such techniques as surveys, focus groups, or observations of program participants to gather qualitative process data.
When multiple stakeholders have differing interests and questions, how can evaluators meet these various expectations?
To satisfy the demands of multiple stakeholders, evaluators often combine formative and summative components (see Glossary of Common Evaluation Terms, p. 65). In the case of Alabama Connecting Classrooms, Educators, & Students Statewide Distance Learning (ACCESS), described below, the evaluators have been very proactive in designing a series of evaluations that, collectively, yield information that has utility both for program improvement and for understanding program performance. In the case of Arizona Virtual Academy (AZVA), the school's leadership team has made the most of the many evaluation activities they are required to complete by using findings from those activities for their own improvement purposes and piggybacking on them with data collection efforts of their own. In each instance, program leaders would likely say that their evaluations are first and foremost intended to improve their programs. Yet, when called upon to show achievement results, they can do that as well.
Combine Formative and Summative Evaluation Approaches to Meet Multiple Demands
From the beginning of their involvement with ACCESS, evaluators from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) have taken a combined summative and formative approach to studying this state-run program that offers both Web-based and interactive videoconferencing courses. The original development proposal for ACCESS included an accountability plan that called for ongoing monitoring of the program to identify areas for improvement and to generate useful information that could be shared with other schools throughout the state. In addition, from the beginning, program leaders and state policymakers expressed interest in gathering data about the program's impact on student learning. To accomplish these multiple goals, ISTE completed two successive evaluations for Alabama, each of which had both formative and summative components. A third evaluation is under way.
The first evaluation, during the program's pilot implementation, focused on providing feedback that could be used to modify the program, if need be, and on generating information to share with Alabama schools. Evaluation activities at this stage included a literature review and observation visits to six randomly selected pilot sites, where evaluators conducted interviews and surveys. They also ran focus groups, for which researchers interviewed respondents in a group setting. Evaluators chose these methods to generate qualitative information about how the pilot program was being implemented and what changes might be needed to strengthen it.
The second evaluation took more of a summative approach, looking to see whether or not ACCESS was meeting its overall objectives. First, evaluators conducted surveys and interviews of students and teachers, as well as interviews with school administrators and personnel at the program's three Regional Support Centers. In addition, they gathered student enrollment and achievement data, statewide course enrollment and completion rates, and other program outcome data, such as the number of new distance courses developed and the number of participating schools.
This second evaluation also used a quasi-experimental design (see Glossary of Common Evaluation Terms, p. 65) to provide information on program effects. Evaluators compared achievement outcomes between ACCESS participants and students statewide, between students in interactive videoconferencing courses and students in traditional settings, and between students who participated in online courses and those who took courses offered in the interactive videoconferencing format.
As of early 2008, the evaluators were conducting a third evaluation, integrating the data from the first two studies and focusing on student achievement. Looking ahead, ACCESS leaders plan to continue gathering data annually in anticipation of conducting longitudinal studies that will identify ACCESS's full impact on student progress and achievement.
Together, the carefully planned evaluation activities conducted by ACCESS's evaluators have generated several findings and recommendations that already have been used to strengthen the program. For example, their findings suggest that students participating in the distance learning courses are completing courses at high rates and, in the case of the College Board Advanced Placement (AP) courses,* are achieving scores comparable to students taught in traditional settings. These kinds of data could be critical to maintaining funding and political support for the program in the future. ACCESS also is building a longitudinal database to provide a core of data for use in future evaluations and, program leaders hope, to help determine ACCESS's long-term impact on student progress and achievement. With these data collection tools and processes in place, ACCESS has armed itself to address the needs and expectations of various stakeholders inside and outside the program.
|Reasons and Contexts for Formative Versus Summative Evaluations
Formative and summative evaluations can each serve important functions for programs. Formative evaluations, sometimes called "process evaluations," are conducted primarily to find out how a program is being implemented and how it might be strengthened. Summative evaluations, also called "outcome evaluations," are appropriate for better-established programs, when program leaders have settled on their best policies and practices and want to know, for example, what results the program is yielding.
Ideally, formative evaluations are developed as partnerships that give all stakeholders a hand in planning and helping conduct the evaluation. Explicitly framing a formative evaluation as a collaboration among stakeholders can help in more ways than one. Practitioners are more likely to cooperate with and welcome evaluators rather than feel wary or threatened a common reaction. In addition, practitioners who are invited to be partners in an evaluation are more likely to feel invested in its results and to implement the findings and recommendations.
Even more than formative evaluations, summative evaluations can be perceived by practitioners as threatening and, in many cases, program staff are not eager to welcome evaluators into their midst. Even in these situations, however, their reaction can be mitigated if evaluators work diligently to communicate the evaluation's goals. Evaluators should make clear their intention to provide the program with information that can be used to strengthen it, or to give the program credible data to show funders or other stakeholders. In many cases, summative evaluations do not uncover findings that are unexpected; they merely provide hard data to back up the anecdotes and hunches of program leaders and staff.
Program leaders who are contemplating an evaluation also will want to consider the costs of whatever type of study they choose. Some formative evaluations are relatively informal. For example, a formative evaluation might consist primarily of short-term activities conducted by internal staff, like brief surveys of participants, to gather feedback about different aspects of the program. This type of evaluation is inexpensive and can be ideal for leaders seeking ongoing information to strengthen their program. In other instances, formative evaluation is more structured and formal. For instance, an external evaluator may be hired to observe or interview program participants, or to conduct field surveys and analyze the data. Having an external evaluator can bring increased objectivity, but it also adds cost.
In many cases, summative evaluations are more formal and expensive operations, particularly if they are using experimental or quasi-experimental designs that require increased coordination and management and sophisticated data analysis techniques. Typically, external evaluators conduct summative evaluations, which generally extends the timeline and ups the costs. Still, experimental and quasi-experimental designs may provide the most reliable information about program effects.
Finally, program leaders should consider that an evaluation need not be exclusively formative or summative. As the ACCESS case illustrates (see pp. 7-10), sometimes it is best for programs to combine elements of both, either concurrently or in different years.
Make the Most of Mandatory Program Evaluations
While all leaders and staff of online education programs are likely to want to understand their influence on student learning, some have no choice in the matter. Many online programs must deliver summative student outcome data because a funder or regulatory body demands it. In the case of Arizona Virtual Academy (AZVA), a K-12 statewide public charter school, the program must comply with several mandatory evaluation requirements: First, school leaders are required by the state of Arizona to submit an annual effectiveness review, which is used to determine whether or not the school's charter will be renewed. For this yearly report, AZVA staff must provide data on student enrollment, retention, mobility, and state test performance. The report also must include pupil and parent satisfaction data, which AZVA collects online at the end of each course, and a detailed self-evaluation of operational and administrative efficiency.
AZVA also must answer to K12 Inc., the education company that supplies the program's curriculum for all grade levels. K12 Inc. has its own interest in evaluating how well its curriculum products are working and in ensuring that it is partnered with a high-quality school. AZVA's director, Mary Gifford, says that "from the second you open your school," there is an expectation [on the part of K12 Inc.] that you will collect data, analyze them, and use them to make decisions. "K12 Inc. has established best practices for academic achievement. They take great pride in being a data-driven company," she adds. It conducts quality assurance audits at AZVA approximately every two years, which consist of a site visit conducted by K12 Inc. personnel and an extensive questionnaire, completed by AZVA, that documents various aspects of the program, such as instruction, organizational structure, and parent-school relations. K12 Inc. also requires AZVA to produce a detailed annual School Improvement Plan (SIP), which covers program operations as well as student achievement. The plan must include an analysis of student performance on standardized state tests, including a comparison of the performance of AZVA students to the performance of all students across the state.
Each of these mandates—those of the state and those of AZVA's curriculum provider—has an important purpose. But the multiple requirements add up to what could be seen as a substantial burden for any small organization. AZVA's small central staff chooses to look at it differently. Although the requirements generate year-round work for AZVA employees, they have made the most of these activities by using them for their own purposes, too. Each of the many mandated evaluation activities serves an internal purpose: Staff members pore over test scores, course completion data, and user satisfaction data to determine how they can improve their program. The SIP is used as a guiding document to organize information about what aspects of the program need fixing and to monitor the school's progress toward its stated goals. Although the process is time-consuming, everyone benefits: K12 Inc. is assured that the school is doing what it should, AZVA has a structured approach to improving its program, and it can demonstrate to the state and others that student performance is meeting expectations.
AZVA is able to make the most of its mandatory evaluations because the school's culture supports it: Staff members incorporate data collection and analysis into their everyday responsibilities, rather than viewing them as extra burdens on their workload. Furthermore, AZVA's leaders initiate data collection and analysis efforts of their own. They frequently conduct online surveys of parents to gauge the effectiveness of particular services. More recently, they also have begun to survey teachers about their professional development needs and their satisfaction with the trainings provided to them. "We're trying to do surveys after every single professional development [session], to find out what was most effective," says Gifford. "Do they want more of this, less of this? Was this too much time? Was this enough time? That feedback has been very good." AZVA's K-8 principal, Bridget Schleifer, confirms that teachers' responses to the surveys are taken very seriously. "Whenever a survey comes up and we see a need," she says, "we will definitely put that on the agenda for the next month of professional development."
Together, these many efforts provide AZVA with comprehensive information that helps the school address external accountability demands, while also serving internal program improvement objectives. Just as important, AZVA's various evaluation activities are integrated and support each other. For instance, the SIP is based on the findings from the evaluation activities mandated by the state and K12 Inc., and the latter's audit process includes an update on progress made toward SIP goals. More broadly, the formative evaluation activities help the school leaders to set specific academic goals and develop a plan for reaching them, which ultimately helps them improve the achievement outcomes assessed by the state. One lesson AZVA illustrates is how to make the most of evaluations that are initiated externally by treating every data collection activity as an opportunity to learn something valuable that can serve the program.
As the above program evaluations demonstrate, sometimes the best approach to meeting the needs of multiple stakeholders is being proactive. The steps are straightforward but critical: When considering an evaluation, program leaders should first identify the various stakeholders who will be interested in the evaluation and what they will want to know. They might consider conducting interviews or focus groups to collect this information. Leaders then need to sift through this information and prioritize their assessment goals. They should develop a clear vision for what they want their evaluation to do and work with evaluators to choose an evaluation type that will meet their needs. If it is meant to serve several different stakeholder groups, evaluators and program leaders might decide to conduct a multi-method study that combines formative and summative evaluation activities. They might also consider developing a multiyear evaluation plan that addresses separate goals in different years. In the reporting phase, program leaders and evaluators can consider communicating findings to different stakeholder audiences in ways that are tailored to their needs and interests.
In instances where online programs participate in mandatory evaluations, program leaders should seek to build on these efforts and use them for internal purposes as well. They can leverage the information learned in a summative evaluation to improve the program, acquire funding, or establish the program's credibility. Evaluators can help program leaders piggyback on any mandatory assessment activities by selecting complementary evaluation methods that will provide not just the required data but also information that program staff can use for their own improvement purposes.
*Run by the nonprofit College Board, the Advanced Placement program offers college-level course work to high school students. Many institutions of higher education offer college credits to students who take AP courses.


text:
About Us
Online Art Shop specializing in all Art & Graphic Supplies including canvases, acrylics, oils, watercolours, brushes,drawing equipment and all accessories. We offer expert advise, and great after sales care. Our customers know we go the extra mile for them!!!
We stock all the leading Brands in Art Supplies, local and imported, Daler-Rowney, Dala, Derwent, Winsor & Newton, Maimeri, Reeves, Faber-Castell, Rotring, Aristo and many more.


text:
A Chicago-area man who traveled to Jacksonville over the weekend to watch the Bears' game against the Jaguars was killed in a bar stabbing, according to police.
The Florida Times-Union reported that William C. "Chris" Pettry, 42, died after having his throat slit inside Fionn MacCools, an Irish-themed restaurant in a downtown mall early Sunday morning. The police arrested a Jacksonville resident and placed him in jail on a murder charge.
According to The Times-Union, Pettry, who was from Lake Villa, Ill., had been talking with the suspect's wife when the attack occurred.
Lt. Rob Schoonover of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office released a statement regarding the investigation, stating that 27-year-old Matthew Hinson was seen stabbing Pettry: "Independent eyewitnesses gave detailed accounts of the incident. Each described how the suspect cut the victim and calmly walked out of the establishment. The suspect placed the bloody knife in his pocket and walked out of the restaurant."
Police say Hinson admitted to the stabbing and was booked.
The stabbing came after Pettry was "involved in a disturbance with two other subjects." The bar was located near a hotel that Bears fans took over when they traveled to Jacksonville.
UPDATE: Bears coach Lovie Smith gave his condolences during Monday's news conference.
Follow Gregg Rosenthal on Twitter @greggrosenthal.
LM: Coach Lovie Smith offered condolences to family of #Bears fan Chris Pettry, who was killed in Jacksonville bar night before game.— Chicago Bears (@Chicago Bears) October 8, 2012


text:
As mentioned in my previous post I am doing a food challenge for 37 Cooks and Lock-N-Load Java. Please head on over to that post to learn more about Lock-N-Load Java, what they stand for, who they support, and why and also to learn more about the challenge.
For my second entry I made rich mini chocolate cupcakes with a mocha cream cheese frosting. I made them mini so I wouldn't feel so guilty on my journey to getting in shape. I'll also be bringing these into school so I will not be tempted at home! But they are so dang tasty, it is kind of dangerous to have them hanging out for another day.
Chocolate Coffee Cupcakes
Chocolate Coffee Cupcakes:
Organic granulated sugar 1/4 cup
Sucanat 1/2 cup
High Quality Gluten-Free Flour Blend 3/4 cup + 2 tablespoons
(if your blend does not have xanthan gum already incorporated in it add a scant 1/2 teaspoon)
Unsweetened Cocoa Powder 1/4 cup + 3 tablespoons
Baking Powder (gluten-free) 3/4 teaspoons
Baking Soda (gluten-free) 3/4 teaspoon
Salt, Kosher 1/2 teaspoon
Sniper Choice, ground 1/4 teaspoon
Double Barrel Black, ground 1/4 teaspoon
Egg, Large 1 each
Soy Milk (unsweetened) 1/2 cup
Canola Oil 1/4 cup
Vanilla Extract, Pure 1/2 teaspoon
Hot Brewed Coffee* 1/2 cup
(*hot brewed coffee – brewed with half snipers choice and half double barrel black)
Method of Preparation
- Preheat oven to 350°F
- In a large mixing bowl add all dry ingredients (organic granulated sugar, sucanat, gluten-free flour blend, xanthan gum (if required), cocoa powder, baking soda, baking powder, salt, and coffee grounds). Mix well.
- Add in egg, soy milk, canola oil, vanilla, and hot coffee.
- Whisk until well combined, but do not over mix.
- Line a 24 cup mini cupcake tin or a 12 cup regular cupcake tin with paper liners.
- Fill each tin 3/4 the way.
- Bake for 18-20 minutes (for mini cupcakes, and 28-30 minutes for regular cupcakes) or until a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean.
- Let cook in pan for five minutes and then remove and finish cooling on a wire rack until completely cooled. Frost with a mocha cream cheese frosting (recipe below).
Mocha Cream Cheese Frosting
Hot Brewed Coffee* 1/2 cup
(*hot brewed coffee – brewed with half snipers choice and half double barrel black)
Sucanat 2 teaspoons
Cream Cheese, 1/3 fat 8 ounces (room temperature)
Organic Powdered Sugar 1/2 cup
Vanilla Extract, Pure 1/2 teaspoon
Method of Preparation
- In a small sauce pan add coffee and sucanat and bring to a boil. Reduce to a simmer until reduced by half. (You are looking for a thick syrup to coat the back of a spoon).
- Set aside and let cool.
- In the bowl of a stand mixer add softened cream cheese and turn mixer on to low. Add in powdered sugar and mix until incorporated.
- Add in vanilla extract and mocha syrup, mix on medium-low until incorporated.
- Spread on cupcakes and enjoy.
If you have someone that isn't a huge coffee person (this has a very rich coffee flavor) then reserve a small amount of the cream cheese frosting and then add in the mocha syrup and use that for their cupcakes (pictured above).
Be sure to check out both 37 Cooks (find us on Facebook and Twitter) to see what everyone else created and Lock-N-Load Java (you can also find them on Facebook)


text:
Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD is Associate Dean of Clinical and Translational Research and Professor of Medicine and of Health Research & Policy, directing Stanford's CTSA/Spectrum training programs in medical research methods and serving as chief of the Division of Epidemiology in HRP. He is co-founder and co-director of the Meta-research innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), a group dedicated to examining and improving the reproducibility and efficiency of biomedical research.
Dr. Goodman's own research concerns the proper measurement, conceptualization and synthesis of research evidence, with particular emphasis on Bayesian approaches to quantitation, and qualitative approaches arising from the philosophy of science. He is also interested in developing methods to use shared data to confirm and extend published science, as well as to explore new hypotheses. He also has worked on the connections between ethics and scientific methods, particularly in the domain of interventional research, and policy making. Finally, he has a strong interest in developing curricula and new models for teaching the foundations of good scientific practice, from question development to proper study design, conduct, analysis and inference.
He has been a senior statistical editor of Annals of Internal Medicine since 1987 and was Editor of Clinical Trials: Journal of the Society for Clinical Trials from 2004-2013. He is Vice-chair of the Methodology Committee of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), where he leads their open science and data sharing efforts, and is scientific advisor for the national Blue Cross–Blue Shield Technology Assessment Program. He has served on numerous Institute of Medicine committees since the mid 1990's, including chairing a 2012 committee on drug safety, and as a committee member on sharing data from clinical trials, whose report was released in January, 2015. Most recently, he served on an advisory group to the NIH director on the future of the National Library of Medicine, and was awarded the 2016 Spinoza Chair in Medicine from the University of Amsterdam.
From 1989-2011, Steve served on the faculties of the Johns Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Public Health, where he was co-director of the doctoral program in Epidemiology and member (1989-2011) and then director (2007-2011) of the Johns Hopkins cancer center's Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics. At Hopkins, he taught courses on Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis, Diagnostic and prognostic testing, and several courses on epidemiologic, clinical research and inferential methods. He received an AB from Harvard, majoring in Biochemistry and Applied Math, an MD from NYU, trained in pediatrics at Washington University in St. Louis, and received a master's degree in Biostatistics and PhD in Epidemiology from Johns Hopkins.
Academic Appointments
Professor, Health Research & Policy
Member, Stanford Cancer Institute
Administrative Appointments
Professor of Oncology, Pediatrics, Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Public Health (1989 - 2011)
Acting Director, Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (2007 - 2010)
Director, MedScholars Clinical Research Concentration, Stanford (2011 - Present)
Director, Spectrum Research Education and Training, Stanford (2011 - Present)
Chief, DIvision of Epidemiology, Dept. of Health Research and Policy (2014 - Present)
Co-Director, Meta-research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) (2013 - Present)
Associate Dean of Clinical and Translational Research, Stanford (2011 - Present)
Honors & Awards
Member, National Public Health Honor Society (1989)
Myrto Lefkopoulou Distinguished Lecturer, Harvard Dept of Biostatistics (2000)
Fellow, Society for Clinical Trials (2010)
Spinoza Chair in Medicine, University of Amsterdam (2016)
Abraham Lilienfeld Award, American College of Epidemiology (9/2019)
Lifetime Fellow, American College of Epidemiology (2019)
Boards, Advisory Committees, Professional Organizations
Vice-chair, Methodology Committee, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) (2011 - 2019)
Chair, Methodology Commitee, PCORI (2019 - Present)
Member, Advisory committee to the NIH director on the National Library of Medicine (2015 - 2015)
Senior statistical editor, Annals of Internal Medicine (1987 - Present)
Scientific Advisor and member, Medical Advisory Panel, National Blue Cross-Blue Shield Technology Assessment Program (2001 - Present)
Member, Committee on Responsible Sharing of Clinical Trial Data, Institute of Medicine (2013 - 2015)
Co-chair, Committee on Drug Safety, Institute of Medicine (2010 - 2012)
Editor in Chief, Clinical Trials: Journal of the Society for Clinical Trials (2004 - 2013)
Professional Education
PhD, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Epidemiology (1989)
MHS, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Biostatistics (1987)
Board Certification, General Pediatrics, American Board of Pediatrics, Pediatrics (1985)
Residency, St. Louis Children's Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, Pediatrics (1984)
MD, New York University, Medicine (1981)
AB, Harvard College, Biochemistry, Applied Math (1976)


text:
Advanced Search |
Search Tips
Welcome to MyKidsGolfClubs.com. We are the premier web site for kids golf clubs, accessories and equipment. Part of the reason is that we're not a big box corporate web site. We specialize in kids golf, and our staff brings a level of knowledge and understanding that is second to none. Some of our staff have been teaching golf to kids for over twenty years. Their insight and expertise will ensure that your child will get equipment that is appropriate for their age and level of ability, maximizing their enjoyment of the game and increased excitement about it. No other web site or online store is as focused on kids as we are. No doubt that is one reason why we are the #1 most popular online kids golf store in the United States.
We offer a wide selection of junior golf clubs, childrens golf clubs and toddler golf clubs. Whether your child is just being introduced to golf or is already an accomplished junior player, we have a wide selection of clubs for all levels, and for every budget. Our web site is loaded with pictures and information so you always know exactly what you're buying.
We have established an excellent reputation and very high rating in bizrate -- because we make sure customer satisfaction is our primary goal. Getting your child a kids golf set should always be a happy, enjoyable experience. Our easy shipping and return policies are designed to help make it so.
At MyKidsGolfClubs.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one resource for kids golf equipment and accessories. Visit our site and you will find:
We feel a kids golf set needs to be high quality -- even toddlers golf clubs should be high quality enough to deliver excellent performance. If you look at cheap golf sets for kids that are sold online, you will find they are made from cheap components and materials. That means they tend to break easily and do not deliver the type of performance and durability a child needs in a set of clubs. Many of the child clubs are little more than toy sets that will only frustrate the kids and diminish their love of golf. That is why we do not sell cheap clubs for kids. We sell high quality clubs at the lowest possible prices.
We want your online shopping experience with MyKidsGolfClubs.com to be an excellent one. To that end, we offer free shipping on orders over $99, a 30-day guarantee and a most generous return policy. We are available by phone to answer any questions you might have about kids golf clubs and accessories. You can even order by phone, if that is more convenient for you.
We got into this business because we love golf and we love to see the delight of youngsters as they take up this incredible game. At MyKidsGolfClubs.com, delivering a great product to your child is our number one goal!
Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us | Shipping & Returns
All prices are in USD
© 2019 My Kids Golf Clubs .com.1260 North Lance Lane Anaheim, CA 92806 | 1-877-495-9020 | Office Hours: Monday-Friday 9-5PM PST