Specifications Grading, developed by Linda Nilson, is a system of course-long student assessment based on the division of learning objectives into clearly-defined skill tests or assignments. Each skill is evaluated at a mastery level, with opportunities for students to learn from their mistakes and then be re-evaluated for skill tests, or resubmit assignments. In this paper, the author explores the background that led him to adopt Specs Grading in his Organic Chemistry course, and then details both the implementation thereof as well as student results and feedback.
I love asking questions; I think I got that from my Mom. Throughout my education, from kindergarten through graduate school, I have always felt empowered whenever my questions were fielded in good faith by teachers, professors, and teaching assistants; I have also felt empowered whenever teachers, professors, or teaching assistants would ask me (or the class) questions, and allow the time and framework for me (or us) to figure out the answers on my (our) own.
The first part of this is a narrative evolution of my teaching style in Organic Chemistry, arranged around a sequence of questions that I've asked myself over the last decade. These questions and my good-faith attempt to answer them has led to my adaptation of Specifications (Specs) Grading into my flipped Organic Chemistry classroom. Specs grading, a system for student evaluation developed by Dr. Linda Nilson, is quite different than the classic exam-exam-exam-final method of assessing student learning (Nilson, 2014). Therefore, I believe it is important to describe how, when I first discovered the seemingly-radical system of Specs Grading, it instead felt like a natural answer to a culmination of pedagogical frustrations and questions that I had all along.
The second part of this paper is a description of Specs Grading and its implementation into the first semester of my Organic Chemistry sequence, including qualitative and quantitative results from that semester.
I have found Specs Grading to be part of the Organic Chemistry course that is authentic to me. I hope that some of the reflective questions and possible answers that I share herein will inspire the reader to contemplate many facets of her or his own class, and share ideas to help refine our courses as a community. I believe that as chemistry educators, we share the best job on earth, and I seek your feedback that we may hone our craft together.
While the purpose of this paper is present Specs Grading, and not to argue for a flipped classroom, I don't believe that I would or could have implemented Specs Grading without first flipping (both for practical reasons and the growth of my confidence to question the paradigms under which I was educated). Furthermore, I would not have embraced the flipped classroom without first being challenged to question the usage of inquiry-guided learning (IGL) in my "lecture" course. Therefore, I believe that a brief discussion of my discovery and usage of those pedagogical approaches provides an appropriate scaffolding to discourse about Specs Grading.
How on earth can we expect students to correctly figure out Organic Chemistry on their own?
Since I began teaching full-time in 2007, a number of my previously-held notions of "what a (science) course should look like" have been, and continue to be, shaken. This process began with long arguments with Lenoir-Rhyne's (LR's) then-Director of Institutional Research Dr. Ginger Bishop about Inquiry-Guided Learning (IGL) in the classroom. My main argument was that surely we can't expect students to figure out information that took trained chemists centuries to discover!
Even after joining an LR IGL faculty group with the goal of implementing in-class IGL in 2010, I could only see how this method could be applied to laboratory courses, where students had time to explore content that had already been covered in class. The lecture component, in my opinion, had to be carried out in the traditional fashion. How on earth can we expect students to correctly figure out Organic Chemistry on their own?
While I still believe that much of the information contained in an Organic Chemistry course is best delivered in some type of lecture form, I'm humbled to admit that Dr. Bishop was right. I committed one class period in the spring of 2011 to allowing students, in groups, to discern a mechanism that we had not "covered", but one that was reasonably within their grasps as second-semester organic students. Twenty minutes into the class period, to my surprise, they had proposed two different, but reasonable, mechanisms. With time to spare, I shared the two mechanisms with the class, and pushed them into the deep end of the inquiry pool by asking them to construct experiments that could allow them to provide evidence about which of the mechanism occurs. Again, they astounded me with their enthusiasm and ideas. But I shouldn't have been surprised, for I know (and previously expressed in the first paragraph of this paper) that a class period like that would have enthralled me at their age. Clearly, students can inquire their way to advanced knowledge, given enough basic information as a guide.
Many science faculty have published amazing works on inquiry in the science classroom; I especially encourage those interested to read Organic Chemistry: A Guided Inquiry by Andre Straumanis (Straumanis, 2012).
How can a student be expected to tackle difficult example problems when they had just seen concept for the first time?
Inquiry takes time, and I wasn't sure how to create more time/space for more in-class inquiry. Furthermore, while my course delivery has always included time for students to work problems during class, the problems offered to students during the same hour as they first saw the concept/skills were, by necessity, quite simple (a consistent complaint on my course evaluations was "the exam problems are always harder than the problems in class"; but how could a student be expected to tackle difficult example problems when they had just seen concept for the first time?). In the summer of 2013, I attended the cCWCS (Chemistry Collaborations, Workshops, and Communities of Scholars) conference on Active Learning in Organic Chemistry, and was exposed to the Flipped Classroom for the first time.
In a flipped classroom, lectures are recorded and delivered before class, and the class period is spent on problems. I could immediately envision the advantages: I could still give the students that baseline scaffolding of knowledge, and yet allow the time for inquiry, especially with applications to biochemistry and pharmaceutical science. I jumped in face-first, and spent summer 2013 (and the rest of the 2013-2014 academic year) recording on Explain Everything and uploading to YouTube the entire year of lectures. The newfound freedom and flexibility in class time afforded the opportunity to offer challenging problems and allow students time to work through (and productively struggle with) these problems with my support. I was also able to devote time to inquiry-guided lessons, generally allowing students to discover how the concepts and skills from organic chemistry could be applied to biochemical systems. The flipped classroom allowed and encouraged IGL in a way that I never expected.
How could you not see what I'm asking you to be able to do?
Organic Chemistry has always had a relatively high fail rate, and students often enter the course with little more than the expectation of a difficult weed-out course for potential M.D.'s. And like many courses, its true place in science education is easily missed. I know that maturity and perspective can often only come with age. However, I often asked myself how to communicate the importance and excitement that accompanies an understanding of why and how organic molecules act and react, and how Organic Chemistry can tie together physics, chemistry, and biology in a way that few other courses can.
I had a student three years ago memorably tell me "I love the way that police officer training courses are set up: we're given a learning objective, and then taught how to do it, practice it, and then are tested on it." I pointed out that I had listed the course learning objectives on the syllabus! But to be fair, I hadn't spent much time being explicit with students about transitions from one objective or skill to another; and the course was mostly structured around the textbook's chapters.
Me (grumpily): Do I really have to spell this all out for them?
Me (sheepishly): If it would help the students learn and improve perspective, is it that big of a deal?
Starting the week after that conversation, I began every class with a list of learning objectives for that class period, usually only one or two. The students were thrilled.
Me: Seriously? How could you not see what I'm asking you to be able to do?
Yet for most students, the "learning objectives" were reduced to "the stuff on exam 2". And I hadn't helped them change that viewpoint: exams in my course were still given every month or so, roughly three chapters at a time, instead of being structured around the learning objectives that I had just started explicitly sharing.
What if students know exactly what benchmarks they need to hit in order to pass (or to earn an A)?
When students would come to my office hours and review before exams, I could help them lump the seemingly disparate pile of skills and content into a concise list of skills that I thought was obvious, but usually left them saying "really, that's it?" It struck me that if students weren't seeing the context naturally, then why wasn't I arranging the course around objectives to help them do so? Certainly the feeling of being overwhelmed affects performance on exams (furthermore, I can remember entering exams being sure that I understood the information presented in class, but a several-page examination on it appeared to be so foreign that it may as well have been from a different class). What if students know exactly what benchmarks they need to hit in order to pass (or to earn an A)? At the same time, I was asking myself in laboratory, why are students allowed to pass from general chemistry into organic lab without being absolutely, positively sure how to calculate percent yield?
I resolved to attempt to restructure the course around learning objectives, instead of chapters; I was introduced to the concept of Backwards Design (McTighe, 2005), in which courses are designed around the end goals (e.g. students need to be able to quickly and correctly interconvert Lewis Dot Structures and Line-Angle Formulas). I was also determined to assess students on fewer learning objectives at time; intentional clarity could only help student performance, I assumed.
Yet the question remained, how can I accurately assess student knowledge in a course like that? I researched some ways in which faculty assess students using Standards-Based Grading, but while I know and respect many colleague who use that system, I struggled to combine my assessment goals with it.
Clearer objectives, higher standards, AND simplified grading? Where have you been all my life?
In January 2015, Robert Talbert came to LR to speak about the flipped mathematics classroom (I invite you to check out his Casting Out Nines blog at http://rtalbert.org/blog/). While it was great to hear his experiences and opinions about flipping, what truly caught my attention was an off-the-cuff remark he made to me after a session about how his math courses were organized around pass-fail learning outcome tests. To me, this sounded like an amazing system: giving students a list of outcomes (mostly skills, some factual knowledge, some application), and letting their grades be dictated by how many of those skills were mastered. Furthermore, there was no more partial credit; mastery means doing things right. My mind immediately drifted to the nightmare of assigning fair partial credit to students, considering the myriad of so-close-but-so-so-wrong answers that students can muster for even the most simple nomenclature problem. Clearer objectives, higher standards, AND simplified grading? Where have you been all my life?
Several months later, LR's Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, Devon Fisher, turned me onto a book published in 2014 by Dr. Linda Nilson about a system of grading called "Specifications Grading", and over the course of a week in jury duty, I devoured the book, and began adapting it to my own course (I later found out that Dr. Talbert had adapted his grading system from the same book). In brief, Dr. Nilson's system is arranged objectives that are clearly established, and graded pass/fail (but with a passing grade set at a mastery level, instead of the commonly-assumed level of basic proficiency); overall course grades are dictated by how many objectives are mastered. Furthermore, Specs Grading includes the opportunity to retake (for tests) or redo (for assignments) failed objectives.
Outcome quiz/tests, which the students began calling "quests", were given one-at-a-time, and were graded pass-fail with no partial credit. Students were generally given 5 questions and needed to answer 4 of them perfectly in order to provide evidence of mastery (i.e. pass).
Three class periods (essentially the traditional exam periods) were devoted to quest retakes. Students who had failed any outcome evaluation would have another chances to learn the skill and pass a new test on that outcome; these exam periods essentially represented exams of various lengths and content, but tailor-made to fit their previously-exposed weaknesses. Furthermore, students who had passed every test the first time it was offered during class had the day off.
At the beginning of the two-hour final exam period, students were given a one-hour cumulative final exam. Final exam grades could impact their course grade slightly, with a maximum of approximately one grade either up or down. Depending on the student's grade entering the final exam, they were given a sliding scale with range of exam grades and their effects on the final course grade (e.g. a student entering with a C needed to score a B or A on the final exam to increase their course grade, an F to decrease their course grade, while scoring a C or D on the final wouldn't affect their final grade. Just like the quests during the semester, no partial credit was given on the final exam.
The second hour of the exam period was another allotment of time for quest retakes, exactly the same as the in-semester retake periods. There was no limit on the number of quest attempts beyond the end of the semester; nor was there any penalty for completing them later in the semester.
At the beginning of the semester, student feedback was mixed, as I would expect for a grading system so different from their expectations. Some students felt like they were being tested too often, but several remarked that they had never "learned so much so quickly" in a class before. Personally, I think the two comments go hand-in-hand… while students (or perhaps humans in general) are trained to only study when an exam is in the near future, this course always had an exam in the near future, and therefore staying on top of the material was necessary. Later in the semester, students began complaining that other courses weren't testing often enough and that those tests involved too much material (which I suppose is positive feedback for this system), and many of the students expressed how comforting it was to know that they had a second chance (or third, etc.) to master an objective.
The single piece of feedback from my colleagues, which I had also considered, was the question of whether many small tests will result in a decrease in long-term retention of information. I continue to share the concern. However, I do not distribute graded final exams, therefore I was able to compare my cumulative final exam grades from the fall of 2014 (traditional model of 3 exams and 1 final exam) to the final exam grades from fall 2015 (Specs Grading). The first column shows the results on the final exam, as well as question types that were most comparable across both final exams. For data in the second column, I regraded the fall 2014 exams without allowing any partial credit, which provides a more accurate comparison to the way that the fall 2015 class (and final exam) were graded.
Overall as well as in most of the categories of comparable question types, the students in fall 2015 performed markedly better on their cumulative final exam. It is possible that these results are not due to the dramatically different Specs Grading style, but simply due to the increased rigor that accompanied a no-partial-credit rule over the course of the entire semester. However, I would not have implemented this increase in rigor, if I wasn't giving the students multiple chances to demonstrate mastery.
I am also aware of a relatively small sample size, but I intend to continue to collect data and hope to one day assimilate the data into a larger set from other classrooms in order to more accurately evaluate Specs Grading in Organic Chemistry.
I believe that the system can work well for both excellent students and those that struggle. I hadn't considered this before implementing the system, but with the ability to learn from their mistakes after a failed first attempt at a test, many of the students who might otherwise flounder and give up instead found themselves seeking help from both me and from other students. The majority of those students ended up with C's instead of F's, and I believe that every student in the class earned their grades. In addition, by only allowing students to pass with completely correct responses, I eliminated the tedium of partial credit for my grading, and held these students to a higher standard than ever before.
For students, failing grades represent the fact that they haven't mastered the information yet. The course dedicates a lot of time to the in-class quests, but I believe the time is well spent. I always spend a few minutes providing the correct answers, and will field question from students about them. Students who pass the quest receive immediate feedback that they are ready to move on. More importantly, I encourage those who haven't passed to consider the attempt as a learning opportunity, and remind them that they have another chance to learn and master the outcome at hand.
The most striking benefit of this system for students, I believe, is that every student is provided with both the impetus and opportunity to learn from their mistakes.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering any questions that I can.
McTighe, G. W. (2005). Understanding by Design, Expanded 2nd Edition. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD).
Nilson, L. (2014). Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time. Stylus Publishing.
Straumanis, A. (2012). Organic Chemstry: A Guided Inquiry for Recitation, Volumes 1 and 2. Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
What a great big undertaking! I've heard specifications grading mentioned a couple of times, but was uncertain how it might be applied in ochem (or orgo for the East Coast folks).
how did you decide what topics were E's and G's?
I didn't see resonance or MO theory mentioned in your objectives; are these part of other measurables? Or did these get eliminated with "less is more"?
Certainly specifications grading could potentially be used with any text, but I am curious which one you use?
Is laboratory a part of your course? Are you grading it in a specifications manner?
Finally, what do you do in your flipped classroom other than quizzing/testing? Do you do POGIL activities?
Thanks in advance for your answers, and thanks for an intriguing paper.
Thank you very much for your interest and questions; I'll do my best to go through them one at a time. If you have any follow-up question or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to ask.
EO3. basic nomenclature (which included alkanes, cycloalkanes, and alcohols).
EO5. drawing intermolecular mechanistic arrows for elementary reaction steps (for this test, there's questions where I give them reactants and draw arrows, and ask them to give me the products, and also questions where I give them reactants and products and ask them the one-step mechanisms by which they occur).
EO6. predicting reactive sites (this is, to me, the most important thing for a student to master when starting to tackle reactions: looking at a structure and being able to identify the parts of it that can be nucleophiles, bases, leaving groups, electrophiles, or acids).
I don't pretend to have decided upon the perfect set of essential outcomes, and certainly other professors will teach skills at different times (or add/remove some), but I'd love to hear opinions. I also believe that different outcomes are probably better with different sets of students; I think that EO5 is very simple, but some students need to me to hold their feet to the fire on it, or else they never quite get the arrows right and OChem 2 is a bigger struggle than it needs to be.
2) Resonance is certainly important and I cannot imagine skipping it! As I mentioned above, that's half of the "stability of ions" essential outcome. I decided that I'd teach resonance as if it's intramolecular electron-motion mechanisms, and therefore I don't introduce it until we're about to start on reactions and their intermolecular electron-motion mechanisms. I don't introduce MO theory until the second semester, but I'd like to move aromaticity in the first semester, so I'm all ears for suggestions on that one.
3) I have used Joel Karty's "Organic Chemistry: Principles and Mechanisms" for the last two years.
5) Quizzing/testing and talking through the answers together is 12-15 minutes every 2-3 days... the rest of the class time is dedicated to answering questions from videos, working problems, IGL-style activities, and biochemical/pharmaceutical application examples. I don't do official "POGIL"-style activities, but we do a good amount of inquiry group work, especially related to new outcomes that are very strongly tied into the previous skill (often I'll do those on test days, so that I can eaily point out how closely related this "new stuff" is to the answers they gave on the previous outcome's quiz). I have biochemical-application problems ready to go almost every day, but we don't end up getting to them more than once a week or so in the first semester.
After the students take their first attempt at quiz/test and fail - is there a remediation protocol in place (do you go over what they missed, are they sent to tutorial services), or are the students expected to correct their misconceptions on their own? Are there students who then "game" the system and take the first exam just to see what the quiz/test is like and then study for it the next round?
Hi Greg! I am fortunate to have relatively few students, so I simply invite them to come to my office hours and go through their failed outcome tests with me (but often they simply realize they didn't study hard enough, and go back and watch videos or work problems instead). I'd imagine that with many students, having a scheduled review session about an individual outcome with a tutor would be a great way to do it.
As for retakes, I always make new tests for every make-up. We use last year's quizzes as our practice problems, and it's very clear what they need to be able to do... so a failed first test is just a missed opportunity, I don't believe that there's not any real advantage.
As you did, after reading Linda Nilson's book, I decided to implement specifications grading this year into our General Chemistry laboratory hoping to improve the outcome of the student's laboratory reports. We have been doing guided inquiry labs for the last several years and specs grading seemed to be a natural progression. My question is, what thoughts have you given to using specification grading in the organic lab and how you might incorporate spec grading in that setting?
I plan to integrate Specs Grading into lab, but I have done so yet, so let me think about this a bit and I'll try to get you some ideas in the next day or so.
Thanks for sharing your work with us, Josh. Specifications grading is so radically different from anything I experienced as a student. In 25+ years of teaching at the college level, you are the only faculty member I know who has adopted this approach. Are other faculty members at Lenoir-Rhyne using specs grading? Maybe in other disciplines? I haven't yet read Linda Nilson's book; perhaps reading the book in its entirety would make adoption of this method seem closer to my comfort zone. What inspired you to make this change in your teaching? What gave you the courage to take this adventurous step?
Hi Jennifer! One of the chemists with whom I work is planning to use Specs Grading in his one-semester non-majors Chemistry course soon, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody else on our campus has adopted it yet.
I also had a lot of internal University support to experiment with classroom techniques, and many colleagues who were willing to share ideas. The die was cast for paradigm-questioning... Dr. Nilson's book landed in my lap at a time when I was trying to figure out how I could rearrange my class around smaller outcomes, it just seemed like the right fit (or at least, I believe, an approach worth trying/considering).
What kind of scale-up problems would you anticipate in using your system with two or three times as many students?
Do you hand back the quests to each student, and if so, was it difficult to keep up with writing new quests that were of similar difficulty but different enough so that students couldn't just memorize problems from a previous quest?
Would you be willing to share a syllabus so that I could see how you presented a new and fairly complicated grading scheme to students?
Do you have any ideas of how one could blend your system into the lab, so courses with lecture/lab grades rolled into one course grade could be computed?
Thanks for reading, and for your questions!
The grading has become much simpler for me (without giving any partial credit), but I do more grading with make-up quests. I probably spend a bit less time grading than I did when I was giving the traditional 4xBigTests, but it comes in smaller chunks. For me, the trade-off is that I create new quests every time, so I end up spending more time preparing them. Overall, I wouldn't see any trouble with scale-up when it comes to the Specs Grading part. However, I do end up devoting more classtime to testing, and while I think it's worthwhile in my flipped classroom, I'd be reluctant to suggest doing it without the extra time afforded by flipping.
I always hand back every quest; I think this is the most impactful part of this grading system (that they can see what they did wrong and try it again soon). I'm pretty clear with their learning outcomes, so new versions of the quests always contain different structures but similar-styled questions, and therefore aren't too difficult to create*.
I'm happy to share a syllabus (attached below), but I actually present this grading system to the students on day one with an interactive discussion-style reflecting on their study habits before I distribute the syllabus to them. I tell them that Organic is a lot like a math class without a lot of numbers, then I use clickers to poll them about what they consider is the best way to learn in a math class (the answer they choose by a large majority is "by working problems"). Then I ask them when it's most helpful to have the professor's help (and they choose a combination of "while I'm working problems" and "after working problems", as opposed to "during the lecture")... so I'll tell them about what a flipped classroom means, and that their answers to those questions are a simplistic justifaction as to why we're doing it this way. Then I ask them when they study the hardest (and "right before a test" wins by a large margin), how they self-assess, and learn... in doing so, I'm able to have them paint a picture of their own education that I can steer towards the Specs Grading benefits of having clear skills to learn (with fewer at a time) and the ability to learn from their mistakes and try again. With a big smile, I share with them that if we only study in the days leading up to the test, and every day is a day leading up to a test, then logically, we don't have to change our procrastinting ways to succeed!
Finally, I'm not quite sure how to work Specs Grading with lab (a previous commenter asked about this as well), but I think it's a great question, and while I have some ideas, I'll think about it some more and share what I've got in the next day or two. It took quite a bit of time and reflection to integrate this style into class, so please reply to this if you have any thoughts about how to do it in lab (or class)!
*My last outcome is "biological applications of organic chemistry", and newer versions of that are completely different and require a lot of creativity/time to generate.
I have started using specs grading in our general chemistry labs this fall semester primarily to help the students produce a well thought out and written lab report. The way I am trying that this semester is to provide them with a fairly detailed rubric on what I want to see in a report for each lab that they conduct. So within the major headings of Title, Abstract, Introduction, Procedure, Data and Conclusions, I provide suggestions on what should be included in each of those headings and sometimes questions to help guide them as they write the report. Their reports are either "in spec" or "out of spec" based on the rubric. This allows me to quickly assess the report and determine if the student met the specs. If the report doesn't meet specs, I send the student an email noting the deficiencies and then give them the option of editing and resubmitting their report via email. My grading scheme is similar to one Nilson talks about in her book, for example, 6 of 6 reports within specs earns an "A", 5 of 6 reports within specs earns a "B," etc. I also have clicker quizzes and require the students to hand in a copy of their lab book of their days work using one of the carbonless lab books of which I get the carbon copy. Again, I use the scheme of 6 of 6 clicker quizzes, 6 of 6 lab copies, etc. Essentially, 6 of 6 of each of the reports, clicker quizzes and lab book copies earns them an "A" and variations for B, C, etc. I am also assigning points for each deliverable, so in case the student ends up with some combination that doesn't match well with my A, B, C scheme, I can still assign a grade. A total cumulative range of points earns an A, B, etc. I am at the early stages of implementing specs grading but it seems like the students like it so far, although I have had a few comments that it puts them under quite a bit of pressure. I am not sure where that is coming from as they have an opportunity to edit the "out of spec" report.
Thanks for sharing, these ideas sound great. Most of my students' grades for CHE201 are about keeping a good lab notebook, including discussions that demonstrate that they understand the hows and whys of the techniques.
I think I'd grade technique in the second semester. I don't know about you all, but the second semester is a lot of repetition in terms of purification, and I think I'd have specs that amount to "Do you know how to recrystallize a solid product or not (without input from anyone but your lab notebook)?", and "Can you create a logical plan for purification of an organic product, knowing the identity of the starting material, products, and likely side-products?" There should be several opportunities to observe these in the second semester, and I have lab assistants to help watch multiple students at a time. I usually have a lab final, but perhaps the lab final could just be a retake opportunity... that would give students powerful incentive to learn and pass technique-based specs the first time.
I can imagine that if I created the specs and discussed them on day 1 of organic 1 lab, my students would have a clearer big-picture understanding of what they're doing in lab (as a whole).
You mentioned that three class periods were dedicated to quest retakes and I am wondering how exactly did you work out the logistics for this? Are students essentially allowed to retake the quizzes three times? When do they take the quests for the first time? How much time do you allocate for each quest?
You hint at an evolution of the way students thought about this new approach, and I hope you don't mind me asking this, but how did that translate to student evaluations of your teaching?
Thank you for such an interesting contribution to ConfChem.
The average outcome is two days of classtime, and then a 10-minute quiz at the beginning of class on the third day. For example, at the beginning of the semester, I talked to them about the grading system on day 1 (August 24th). On day 2 (August 26th), we worked problems on how to draw Lewis Structures for neutral molecules (they were assigned a video to watch before class). On day 3 (Augst 29th), we worked problems on how to draw Lewis Structures for molecules with formal charges. On day 4 (August 31st), they were given a 10-minute quest at the beginning of class, and then I spent about 2-3 minutes working through the problems on the board for them, and answering questions... and since that was their first test, reminding them about how the grading system works, and their opportunities for retakes.
The primary retake times are just like exam periods... they're just during a normal class period, and students show up and grab their "test" and have 50 minutes to complete it. The main difference is that instead of one test in a stack, I have many stacks of retakes (re-quests?), and the students grab whichever ones they haven't passed yet to try them again. As you can imagine, the early retake periods had few options... I'm giving a retest tomorrow and I'll be bringing 11 little stacks of retakes. In the Specs Grading book, Dr. Nilson suggested a "token" system where the students could earn opportunities to retake outcomes, but my students have one initial chance and then additional chances during any of the later retake periods, for most outcomes.
I also give the students a few extra out-of-class opporunities to retake the Essential Outcomes (EOs; I don't know if this is necessary, but I'm still tinkering with best practices in Specs Grading). Primarily, I want them to master those skills right away, and the best way I know how to encourage that is to give them quicker opportunities to be retested (which, I think, gives them a reason to study them sooner). Also, they know that they cannot pass the class without passing every EO, and I want them to know that they'll have ample chances to pass the EOs.
The course evaluation responses I have gotten from the students have been good! In general, as you can imagine, they liked having smaller tests, but some complained about having too many tests. Some students lauded the make-up periods, but some complained that there weren't enough chances to make up their tests. Overall, there were far more positive comments than negative ones... I'm not sure if that answers your question, but I hope it gives you a general idea.
Following up on Greg's earlier question about remediation: Have you found that sometimes when students struggle with one or two topics early in the semester, they become overwhelmed by trying to learn the earlier topics on top of the new material? In other words, is there sometimes a snowball effect in which early failures lead to later failures because students were working on old material at the expense of new material?
Thanks for including your second paragraph... I had found in previous semesters that there were a few students who seemed shocked when they received scores in the 20s on the first exam, and at that point, they were VERY seldom able to recover, grade-wise or content-wise. Getting behind in Organic has always been a disaster.
One benefit that I've noticed with Specs Grading is that the students now receive summative feedback on the fourth day of class, and know very early in the semester if their study habits are sufficient or not (and whether or not they need to get a tutor or start showing up for office hours).
Another thing that's different is that by classifying the Outcomes as General or Essential is that they know which material is most important, and if they're behind, which they should prioritize in their studying. If I were teaching this course online, I wouldn't even let them move onto any of the General Outcomes until they'd passed the first three Essential Outcomes (I'm not sure how to do that in a synchronous classroom).
For instance, when we start on reactions around midterm, their ability to identify stereochemical relationships (GO4) isn't nearly as important as the ability to perfectly draw the lone pairs and hydrogen atoms on a line-angle structure (EO2). For a student who's behind, I think that's a really key distinction that they may not have been able to make on their own.
Spec grading for Organic II?
I do teach Organic II, and I did implement Specs Grading into it in Spring 2016 (and I will in Spring 2017).
The second semester was nice in that they understood the grading/testing plan; however, content-wise, the class itself seemed almost too easy for the students (despite me covering the same amount of material as in previous years)... so I'm in the process of tinkering with it significantly.
Ask me about it next year, if you will!
Glad to hear you use specs grading in the organic II course. You bet I'll stay in touch!
Does it not create a lot of workload to have a lot of students taking tests repeatedly? It does cover the problem of students missing tests. Do you have to create and grade a large number of versions to combat cheating? How do you manage the workload?
Thanks for an interesting way of looking at grading procedures.
Hi Richard, I definitely create many more evaluations than in years past, but with each evaluation being 1 page and giving no partial credit, grading is simpler. I have experimented with grading homework, grading clicker responses, and mini-quizzes in the past, and I've elminated all of those things... so the grading has been streamlined, but there is admittedly a lot of it to do.
When I give a quiz for the first time, I have about 40 of them to grade, which takes 15-30 minutes... so I get those done pretty easily. During retest days, it definitely takes me a while to deal with the sheer volume; but I would estimate that grading all of the make-up quizzes on a retest day is still less time than it took me to grade a big test on a normal exam day (again, because of no partial credit being given).
Overall, I'd estimate that the total assessment workload (between creating and grading) is slightly larger than in the past, but it mostly comes in smaller chunks, and it's quite nice not having to stress so much over assigning fair partial credit to most questions for every student.
I may have missed it, but are the evaluations multiple choice or do they require a longer answer?
Thanks for an interesting article. Typically when I grade quizzes/exams, I try to be as generous with partial credit as possible. I wanted to ask how difficult it is to grade more complex questions, such as a mechanism or synthetic scheme, as simply right or wrong?
I don't grade mechanisms themselves very much; I teach them (there's one outcome that's 5 questions about drawing the arrows or interpreting answers, and 4 answers have to be completely right), and use them, then mostly grade off of results/products. I spend a whole section on giving the students structures and teaching them to predict their reactive sites (that's EO6), so the rationale/mechanisms are definitely a huge part of the understanding, but I've been treating them largely as the work that gets you to the answer, as opposed to the answer themselves.
That being said, last fall, I had an outcome where they'd have to draw the mechanisms for an E1/SN1 mechanism (with rearrangement), and 80% of their arrows needed to be perfect, which was a bit of a pain, but worked out.
As for synthetic schemes, I evaluate students on the one-step fill-in-the-reagent synthetic schemes twice in the first semester, once on substitution/elmination reactions and once on addition reactions (so the "A + B --> ?" and "A + ? --> C" skillsets have their own separate evaluations. But I assume you're talking about multistep synthesis, and I have several retrosynthesis outcomes in the second semester of the course. Last year those outcomes were evaluated with three questions each, in which I gave them a starting material and a product, and for each question I asked them to devise a method (which usually ends up being 2-4 steps) to get from point A to point Z. They'd need to get 2 of the 3 right to pass. As I mentioned in an earlier post to Cathy, I'm not convinced that this is the best way to evaluate them, and I'd consider the second semester to be much more of a work in progress.
First, I love what you are doing. I know that I've told you that personally, but it has challenged how many of us look at this endeavor of trying to get students to learn organic chemistry.
I have a couple questions and some comments.
First, in your Charge Stability EO, do you include acid/base reactions, pKa's and analysis of leaving groups as conjugate bases of strong/weak acids?
Second, do you have any sort of TA's or SI leaders? My thought was that if you had some class helper, that they could offer make up quests one day each week. That would allow students to try to quickly return to mastering the particular EO or GO before having to go through the next several leading up to the make up day.
As far as aromaticity goes, perhaps you could shift out the last GO on biochemical applications to the 2nd semester. I'm not sure what all you cover there, but typically that seems easier to do once they have seen some carbonyl chemistry. That would leave room to introduce aromaticity. (I moved that to the first semester of my course a couple years ago, but I left Electrophilic Aromatic Substitution reactions for the 2nd semester).
I'm sure if each one of us made these EOs and GOs for our courses, there would be some differences. The only one I suggest you to consider is if EO1 and 2 really could be combined into one EO of organic structure drawing. The students should have learned Lewis dot structures as part of general chemistry and theoretically, that should just be a review at the start of organic. That could allow you to potentially add another EO, like acidity and basicity or aromaticity.
Hi Layne! Thanks for your feedback and questions.
I treat charge stability (which is EO4) as step 1, then acid-base (which is GO6 and comes immediately afterwards) as step 2... I introduce pKas, but don't ask them to memorize them yet, instead we talk about how to use charge stability to compare and predict relative strengths of acids and bases. Because (in simple terms that students can understand) the relative strengths of acids is determined by the relative staiblity of the conjugate bases, I frame the Acid-Base outcome as an application of charge stability. Then we transition right into elementary mechanisms (EO5) so that they can see how the acid-base mechanism is so similar to the SN2 mechanism. The next outcome (EO6) is predicting reactive sites, and together we use thermodynamics (pKas) to tie in the idea that leaving groups attached to hydrogens indicate strong acids, and the same leaving groups attached to carbons indicate our electrophiles. I'm sure there's many ways to teach these concepts, but I've found that moving resonance and acid-base reactions out of chapter 1 and into the middle of the semester really helps to build towards reactions, and makes for a nice logical flow.
I don't have any student assistants of any type, but it would be lovely! I do have tutors that the University hires when enough students request them, and I could probably work with those students in quest design (which would help make sure that my tutors are keeping up, as well).
My biochemical applications GO doesn't actually consume class time, I give it to them in the form of a series of group take-home problem sets. But introducing aromaticity without its reactions might not require much shuffling. I'll definitely give it some thought! I'm planning to move addition to the second semester and bring carbonyl reactions to the first next year, and I'll try to fit aromaticity at the same time.
Finally, I completely agree about GOs and EOs... designing them was liberating but challenging. I've made changes from last year to this year, and will do so again next year. I also think we all have different sets of students, who have different experiences in general chemistry before we even see them... and so we're having to design something that feels comfortable to each of us as well as our student sets. I've found that spending 2 days on Lewis Structures/Formal Charges and 2 days on condensed formulas/line-angle formulas/functional-group-names is almost too fast for some of my students. But perhaps communicating that with our gen chem teachers would help? This might sound crazy, but Specs Grading might work far better programatically than in just one course.
Anyway, I really hope that some other faculty will think about adopting Specs Grading, and I'd love to be able to continue to discuss/refine ideas about arranging courses to help our students learn to the best of their ability!
I don't know how much longer these comments will be going out via email, but while they are, I want to thank all you so much for all of the questions and ideas about Specs Grading. If you're interested in adopting Specs Grading (or thinking about how you might set up the outcomes in your class one day), please stay in touch. I'd love to hear the outcomes that you would choose for organic I (and II), and certainly hearing different types of backwards-design ideas can only benefit us all!
Amazing approach, Josh. I would like to see it published in JCE or CERP at some point.
To put things into big perspective - this is an example of mastery learning. According to Hattie's meta analysis, it is one of the most effective learning interventions - http://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/. I am delighted to see a study of mastery learning effectiveness for organic chemistry.
I'd like to see the relationship of EO and GO - can one GO be a part of several EO? Also, if you use ACS exams - what % of items there are covered by EO and GO?
Yes, you're absolutely right, a number of faculty have pointed out to me that Specs grading most definitely involves a larger structure based around mastery learning.
As for the relationships between EOs and GOs, I've tried to set them up in a way that the outcomes have their own separate discrete skills, but that the EOs are largely those that are necessary for the students to master right away in order to proceed into the following sets of GOs. I built a skill-tree when I was doing the whole backwards-design of the class, and those EOs seemed to be prerequisites for nearly everything in the course (including the second semester).
I've only used the ACS exam once (the whole-year one), and hadn't seen a copy of it until halfway through the second semester. The vast majority of the ACS questions were covered by GOs (I think my EOs seem to be a bit too simple for their questions), but I don't have an exact percentage to share.
Sorry for the relative lateness of this comment. But distractions have kept me elsewhere. I do hope that this comment does get read by participants in the conference.
I found your paper quite interesting and very relevant While "specifications grading" appears to be a good approach to assessment, I believe that for it to work, emphasis must be place on the proper specification of learning outcomes for the course, so that they clearly identify to the student those skills and knowledge that the student is expected to have acquired by the end of the course.
As a member of the faculty in chemical engineering (now retired) at my institution, I served for several years on the assessment committee for the department, and we were responsible for the preparation of the department for site visits by our accrediting agency, which in 2000 developed new criteria based upon outcomes achieved by our students. Other accrediting agerncies are also now requiring outcomes as part of meeting the criteria of the accrediting agency. Generally, the agency is looking for program outcomes (studuents' skills and knoledge at the completion of their undergraduate program). Program outcomes are determined by course outcomes for each course in the program. And learning outcomes within the course are linked to the course outcomes.
The additional advantage to using learning outcomes and relevant assessment tools is that one can assess the course and instruction, as well as assessing students' accomplishments. This would be a requirement for continued accreditation of our programs. The "Continuous Program Improvement" process lets one look at how well the class as a whole (or close to all of the students) is achieving given learning outcomes. And if a problem is identified, it can then be fixed, whehter it is instructional strategies, lack of appropriate prior knowledge, textbook or intructional materials, curriculum, etc. This is also a valuable tool for aligning content of courses within a program.
Along these lines, I might make a couple of suggestions for you (and others who adopt this approach).
For EO6, use "Predicting Electron Motion". Understanding is not necessary here.
For the other two, "Describing" could be used in the statement of the outcome instead of "Understanding".
"Predicting" and "Describing" are valid behavioral verbs for outcomes that can be assessed.
Also, the last outcome, GO16 does not have any behavioral verb which would make assessment quite difficult.
2. My colleague and I have done online professional development program using videos much as you use videos for a flipped classroom. And he has also taught an engineering course using a flipped classroom approach. And in each case, we had the students assess and give us feebback on the video the first couple of times we used this approach to learn from the students if the content is appropriate for their needs and if the instruction is clear and relevant to the specified outcome. You do not mention doing any assessment of the videos. We have found that the students gave us valuable feedback that allowed us to improve the videos and results in improved student learning.
I hope this information proves useful to everyone.
Thank you for your response, I really appreciate your suggestions. And yes, distractions... no need to apologize (as long as you don't hold it against me that it took me a week to respond to your post).
You make great points about the titles; some of them definitely could use some work. A few have been modified for this year, but all of them have a more defined set of skills that are presented on the LMS to the students in the form of an Outcome Introduction (for each outcome).
"In the previous module, we examined the ways that electrons CAN move in the various elementary reaction steps (given reactants and either the arrows or products), while defining the different types of reactive sites (nucleophile, electrophile, acid, base, or leaving group).
"In this module, we will look more deeply at how to predict the ways that electrons WILL move in the various elementary reaction steps (without being given either arrows or products). To do so, we will consider the many factors affecting acid-base, substitution, addition, and elimination reactions, and focus on how ions can become more stable (and the various ways that ions can become neutral).
Essentially, I tried to create descriptive titles for each outcome, but within each outcome, gave students 1-3 clear "I can..."/"I am able to..." skills that they need to master to pass each outcome.
I would definitely report that I learned a lot the first time through about what exact skills I needed them to master, and was more able to define them to the students... but some the titles can certainly use some clarification, and I'll implement your suggestions. Another bonus for the second time through the course is that I had so many quests/re-quests from last semester, that I was able to provide the students with concrete examples of the types of questions I am requiring them to answer for each outcome.


(1) Etymologically the word means "broad" and might be applied either to a road or a plain. Rehob is given (Nu 13:21) as the northern limit of Israel as reached by the spies. This agrees with the position assigned to Beth-rehob in the narrative of the settlement of the Danites (Jdg 18:28). It is mentioned again along with the kingdom of Zobah in connection with the wars of Saul (1 Sam 14:47 Septuagint Lag.), and as having been associated with, Zobah and Maacah against David in the Ammonite war and as having been defeated by him (2 Sam 10:6). Robinson sought to identify it with Hunin, but it hardly suits the references. Buhl (GAP, 240) following Thomson (LB, II, 547) seeks it at Paneas (modern Banias). This would suit all the requirements of the capital, Beth-rehob, which might then be the second Rehob, assigned as part of the territory of Sidon to the tribe Asher (Josh 19:28,30; Jdg 18:28). We must, however, assign to the kingdom of Rehob a territory extending from the settlements of the Danites to the "entering in of Hamath" or to Libo (modern Leboue), i.e. the Great Plain of Coele-Syria bounded by Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon and within the limits indicated.
(2) Two separate towns belonging to Asher (Josh 19:28; 19:30). One of them was given to the Gershonite Levites (Josh 21:31), and one is mentioned as remaining in the hands of the Canaanites (Jdg 1:31).
(3) Father of Hadadezer, king of Aram Zobah, who was overwhelmed by David at the Euphrates (2 Sam 8:3,12).
(4) One of the Levites who sealed Nehemiah's covenant on the 24th Tishri, 444 BC (Neh 10:11).
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Definition for 'REHOB'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". bible-history.com - ISBE; 1915.


text:
Production and characterization of mouse monoclonal antibodies against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1
T. Yoshimura, M. Takeya, K. Takahashi, J. I. Kuratsu, E. J. Leonard
We developed five different hybridoma cell lines that produced mAb against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1). The subclass of all five antibodies was IgG1. All five mAb formed complexes with metabolically labeled MCP-1 that could be demonstrated by immunoprecipitation. The antibodies were specific for MCP-1. They did not cross-react by immunoprecipitation with structurally related host defense cytokines present in metabolically labeled PHA- or LPS-stimulated mononuclear cell culture fluids, nor did they cross-react in a direct ELISA with neutrophil attractant/activation protein-1, with crude platelet lysate proteins, or with pure platelet proteins that have amino acids sequences similar to that of MCP-1. The mAb also reacted with rMCP-1 expressed in Escherichia coli, suggesting that they recognize protein structure rather than the glycosylated portion of human MCP-1. When the mAb were mixed with MCP-1, the monocyte chemotactic response to MCP-1 was inhibited. A sandwich ELISA was developed to detect MCP-1 in biologic fluids containing relatively high concentrations of other proteins. The sensitivity was 300 pg/ml, or 30 pg/ELISA well. An anti-MCP-1 mAb column was used in an improved method of MCP-1 purification. Approximately 240 μg of MCP-1 were purified from 5 liters of FCS-containing U-105MG cell culture supernatant. The yield was at least 60%. In addition to two forms of MCP-1 reported previously by us, two more forms of MCP-1 were found in a mixture of culture supernatants of PHA- and LPS-stimulated human PBMC.
Journal of Immunology
Dive into the research topics of 'Production and characterization of mouse monoclonal antibodies against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
human CCL2 protein Medicine & Life Sciences 100%
Chemokine CCL2 Medicine & Life Sciences 63%
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Medicine & Life Sciences 11%
Immunoprecipitation Medicine & Life Sciences 10%
Proteins Medicine & Life Sciences 9%
Blood Platelets Medicine & Life Sciences 8%
Cell Culture Techniques Medicine & Life Sciences 7%
Yoshimura, T., Takeya, M., Takahashi, K., Kuratsu, J. I., & Leonard, E. J. (1991). Production and characterization of mouse monoclonal antibodies against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. Journal of Immunology, 147(7), 2229-2233.
Production and characterization of mouse monoclonal antibodies against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. / Yoshimura, T.; Takeya, M.; Takahashi, K.; Kuratsu, J. I.; Leonard, E. J.
In: Journal of Immunology, Vol. 147, No. 7, 01.01.1991, p. 2229-2233.
Yoshimura, T, Takeya, M, Takahashi, K, Kuratsu, JI & Leonard, EJ 1991, 'Production and characterization of mouse monoclonal antibodies against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1', Journal of Immunology, vol. 147, no. 7, pp. 2229-2233.
Yoshimura T, Takeya M, Takahashi K, Kuratsu JI, Leonard EJ. Production and characterization of mouse monoclonal antibodies against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. Journal of Immunology. 1991 Jan 1;147(7):2229-2233.
Yoshimura, T. ; Takeya, M. ; Takahashi, K. ; Kuratsu, J. I. ; Leonard, E. J. / Production and characterization of mouse monoclonal antibodies against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. In: Journal of Immunology. 1991 ; Vol. 147, No. 7. pp. 2229-2233.
@article{ee84ca805e07486ba3ac3801d6c4c3e5,
title = "Production and characterization of mouse monoclonal antibodies against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1",
abstract = "We developed five different hybridoma cell lines that produced mAb against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1). The subclass of all five antibodies was IgG1. All five mAb formed complexes with metabolically labeled MCP-1 that could be demonstrated by immunoprecipitation. The antibodies were specific for MCP-1. They did not cross-react by immunoprecipitation with structurally related host defense cytokines present in metabolically labeled PHA- or LPS-stimulated mononuclear cell culture fluids, nor did they cross-react in a direct ELISA with neutrophil attractant/activation protein-1, with crude platelet lysate proteins, or with pure platelet proteins that have amino acids sequences similar to that of MCP-1. The mAb also reacted with rMCP-1 expressed in Escherichia coli, suggesting that they recognize protein structure rather than the glycosylated portion of human MCP-1. When the mAb were mixed with MCP-1, the monocyte chemotactic response to MCP-1 was inhibited. A sandwich ELISA was developed to detect MCP-1 in biologic fluids containing relatively high concentrations of other proteins. The sensitivity was 300 pg/ml, or 30 pg/ELISA well. An anti-MCP-1 mAb column was used in an improved method of MCP-1 purification. Approximately 240 μg of MCP-1 were purified from 5 liters of FCS-containing U-105MG cell culture supernatant. The yield was at least 60%. In addition to two forms of MCP-1 reported previously by us, two more forms of MCP-1 were found in a mixture of culture supernatants of PHA- and LPS-stimulated human PBMC.",
author = "T. Yoshimura and M. Takeya and K. Takahashi and Kuratsu, {J. I.} and Leonard, {E. J.}",
journal = "Journal of Immunology",
publisher = "American Association of Immunologists",
T1 - Production and characterization of mouse monoclonal antibodies against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1
AU - Yoshimura, T.
AU - Takeya, M.
AU - Takahashi, K.
AU - Kuratsu, J. I.
AU - Leonard, E. J.
N2 - We developed five different hybridoma cell lines that produced mAb against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1). The subclass of all five antibodies was IgG1. All five mAb formed complexes with metabolically labeled MCP-1 that could be demonstrated by immunoprecipitation. The antibodies were specific for MCP-1. They did not cross-react by immunoprecipitation with structurally related host defense cytokines present in metabolically labeled PHA- or LPS-stimulated mononuclear cell culture fluids, nor did they cross-react in a direct ELISA with neutrophil attractant/activation protein-1, with crude platelet lysate proteins, or with pure platelet proteins that have amino acids sequences similar to that of MCP-1. The mAb also reacted with rMCP-1 expressed in Escherichia coli, suggesting that they recognize protein structure rather than the glycosylated portion of human MCP-1. When the mAb were mixed with MCP-1, the monocyte chemotactic response to MCP-1 was inhibited. A sandwich ELISA was developed to detect MCP-1 in biologic fluids containing relatively high concentrations of other proteins. The sensitivity was 300 pg/ml, or 30 pg/ELISA well. An anti-MCP-1 mAb column was used in an improved method of MCP-1 purification. Approximately 240 μg of MCP-1 were purified from 5 liters of FCS-containing U-105MG cell culture supernatant. The yield was at least 60%. In addition to two forms of MCP-1 reported previously by us, two more forms of MCP-1 were found in a mixture of culture supernatants of PHA- and LPS-stimulated human PBMC.
AB - We developed five different hybridoma cell lines that produced mAb against human monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1). The subclass of all five antibodies was IgG1. All five mAb formed complexes with metabolically labeled MCP-1 that could be demonstrated by immunoprecipitation. The antibodies were specific for MCP-1. They did not cross-react by immunoprecipitation with structurally related host defense cytokines present in metabolically labeled PHA- or LPS-stimulated mononuclear cell culture fluids, nor did they cross-react in a direct ELISA with neutrophil attractant/activation protein-1, with crude platelet lysate proteins, or with pure platelet proteins that have amino acids sequences similar to that of MCP-1. The mAb also reacted with rMCP-1 expressed in Escherichia coli, suggesting that they recognize protein structure rather than the glycosylated portion of human MCP-1. When the mAb were mixed with MCP-1, the monocyte chemotactic response to MCP-1 was inhibited. A sandwich ELISA was developed to detect MCP-1 in biologic fluids containing relatively high concentrations of other proteins. The sensitivity was 300 pg/ml, or 30 pg/ELISA well. An anti-MCP-1 mAb column was used in an improved method of MCP-1 purification. Approximately 240 μg of MCP-1 were purified from 5 liters of FCS-containing U-105MG cell culture supernatant. The yield was at least 60%. In addition to two forms of MCP-1 reported previously by us, two more forms of MCP-1 were found in a mixture of culture supernatants of PHA- and LPS-stimulated human PBMC.
JO - Journal of Immunology
JF - Journal of Immunology

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
namespace extensions {

namespace errors = manifest_errors;

namespace {

bool CreateAPIPermission(
    const std::string& permission_str,
    const base::Value* permission_value,
    APIPermissionSet::ParseSource source,
    APIPermissionSet* api_permissions,
    base::string16* error,
    std::vector<std::string>* unhandled_permissions) {

  const APIPermissionInfo* permission_info =
      PermissionsInfo::GetInstance()->GetByName(permission_str);
  if (permission_info) {
    scoped_ptr<APIPermission> permission(
        permission_info->CreateAPIPermission());
    if (source != APIPermissionSet::kAllowInternalPermissions &&
        permission_info->is_internal()) {
      // An internal permission specified in permissions list is an error.
      if (error) {
        *error = ErrorUtils::FormatErrorMessageUTF16(
            errors::kPermissionNotAllowedInManifest, permission_str);
      }
      return false;
    }

    std::string error_details;
    if (!permission->FromValue(permission_value, &error_details,
                               unhandled_permissions)) {
      if (error) {
        if (error_details.empty()) {
          *error = ErrorUtils::FormatErrorMessageUTF16(
              errors::kInvalidPermission,
              permission_info->name());
        } else {
          *error = ErrorUtils::FormatErrorMessageUTF16(
              errors::kInvalidPermissionWithDetail,
              permission_info->name(),
              error_details);
        }
        return false;
      }
      LOG(WARNING) << "Parse permission failed.";
    } else {
      api_permissions->insert(permission.release());
    }
    return true;
  }

  if (unhandled_permissions)
    unhandled_permissions->push_back(permission_str);
  else
    LOG(WARNING) << "Unknown permission[" << permission_str << "].";

  return true;
}

bool ParseChildPermissions(const std::string& base_name,
                           const base::Value* permission_value,
                           APIPermissionSet::ParseSource source,
                           APIPermissionSet* api_permissions,
                           base::string16* error,
                           std::vector<std::string>* unhandled_permissions) {
  if (permission_value) {
    const base::ListValue* permissions;
    if (!permission_value->GetAsList(&permissions)) {
      if (error) {
        *error = ErrorUtils::FormatErrorMessageUTF16(
            errors::kInvalidPermission, base_name);
        return false;
      }
      LOG(WARNING) << "Permission value is not a list.";
      // Failed to parse, but since error is NULL, failures are not fatal so
      // return true here anyway.
      return true;
    }

    for (size_t i = 0; i < permissions->GetSize(); ++i) {
      std::string permission_str;
      if (!permissions->GetString(i, &permission_str)) {
        // permission should be a string
        if (error) {
          *error = ErrorUtils::FormatErrorMessageUTF16(
              errors::kInvalidPermission,
              base_name + '.' + base::IntToString(i));
          return false;
        }
        LOG(WARNING) << "Permission is not a string.";
        continue;
      }

      if (!CreateAPIPermission(
              base_name + '.' + permission_str, NULL, source,
              api_permissions, error, unhandled_permissions))
        return false;
    }
  }

  return CreateAPIPermission(base_name, NULL, source,
                             api_permissions, error, NULL);
}

}  // namespace

void APIPermissionSet::insert(APIPermission::ID id) {
  const APIPermissionInfo* permission_info =
      PermissionsInfo::GetInstance()->GetByID(id);
  DCHECK(permission_info);
  insert(permission_info->CreateAPIPermission());
}

void APIPermissionSet::insert(APIPermission* permission) {
  BaseSetOperators<APIPermissionSet>::insert(permission);
}

// static
bool APIPermissionSet::ParseFromJSON(
    const base::ListValue* permissions,
    APIPermissionSet::ParseSource source,
    APIPermissionSet* api_permissions,
    base::string16* error,
    std::vector<std::string>* unhandled_permissions) {
  for (size_t i = 0; i < permissions->GetSize(); ++i) {
    std::string permission_str;
    const base::Value* permission_value = NULL;
    if (!permissions->GetString(i, &permission_str)) {
      const base::DictionaryValue* dict = NULL;
      // permission should be a string or a single key dict.
      if (!permissions->GetDictionary(i, &dict) || dict->size() != 1) {
        if (error) {
          *error = ErrorUtils::FormatErrorMessageUTF16(
              errors::kInvalidPermission, base::IntToString(i));
          return false;
        }
        LOG(WARNING) << "Permission is not a string or single key dict.";
        continue;
      }
      base::DictionaryValue::Iterator it(*dict);
      permission_str = it.key();
      permission_value = &it.value();
    }

    // Check if this permission is a special case where its value should
    // be treated as a list of child permissions.
    if (PermissionsInfo::GetInstance()->HasChildPermissions(permission_str)) {
      if (!ParseChildPermissions(permission_str, permission_value, source,
                                 api_permissions, error, unhandled_permissions))
        return false;
      continue;
    }

    if (!CreateAPIPermission(permission_str, permission_value, source,
                             api_permissions, error, unhandled_permissions))
      return false;
  }
  return true;
}

void APIPermissionSet::AddImpliedPermissions() {
  // The fileSystem.write and fileSystem.directory permissions imply
  // fileSystem.writeDirectory.
  // TODO(sammc): Remove this. See http://crbug.com/284849.
  if (ContainsKey(map(), APIPermission::kFileSystemWrite) &&
      ContainsKey(map(), APIPermission::kFileSystemDirectory)) {
    insert(APIPermission::kFileSystemWriteDirectory);
  }
}

PermissionID::PermissionID(APIPermission::ID id)
    : std::pair<APIPermission::ID, base::string16>(id, base::string16()) {
}

PermissionID::PermissionID(APIPermission::ID id,
                           const base::string16& parameter)
    : std::pair<APIPermission::ID, base::string16>(id, parameter) {
}

PermissionID::~PermissionID() {
}

PermissionIDSet::PermissionIDSet() : permissions_() {
}

PermissionIDSet::~PermissionIDSet() {
}

PermissionIDSet::PermissionIDSet(APIPermission::ID permission_one)
    : permissions_() {
  insert(permission_one);
}

PermissionIDSet::PermissionIDSet(APIPermission::ID permission_one,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_two)
    : permissions_() {
  insert(permission_one);
  insert(permission_two);
}

PermissionIDSet::PermissionIDSet(APIPermission::ID permission_one,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_two,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_three)
    : permissions_() {
  insert(permission_one);
  insert(permission_two);
  insert(permission_three);
}

PermissionIDSet::PermissionIDSet(APIPermission::ID permission_one,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_two,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_three,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_four)
    : permissions_() {
  insert(permission_one);
  insert(permission_two);
  insert(permission_three);
  insert(permission_four);
}

PermissionIDSet::PermissionIDSet(APIPermission::ID permission_one,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_two,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_three,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_four,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_five)
    : permissions_() {
  insert(permission_one);
  insert(permission_two);
  insert(permission_three);
  insert(permission_four);
  insert(permission_five);
}

PermissionIDSet::PermissionIDSet(APIPermission::ID permission_one,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_two,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_three,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_four,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_five,
                                 APIPermission::ID permission_six)
    : permissions_() {
  insert(permission_one);
  insert(permission_two);
  insert(permission_three);
  insert(permission_four);
  insert(permission_five);
  insert(permission_six);
}

void PermissionIDSet::insert(APIPermission::ID permission_id) {
  permissions_.insert(PermissionID(permission_id, base::string16()));
}

void PermissionIDSet::insert(APIPermission::ID permission_id,
                             base::string16 permission_parameter) {
  permissions_.insert(PermissionID(permission_id, permission_parameter));
}

}  // namespace extensions

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
A Robot Called WANDA
Feature Story Aditi Risbud (510)486-4861 • April 26, 2010
Delia Milliron and Emory Chan of Berkeley Lab's Molecular Foundry discuss the Workstation for Automated Nanomaterials Discovery and Analysis (WANDA), a one-of-a-kind robot that makes colloidal nanocrystals with custom-made properties for electronics, biological labeling and luminescent devices. (Video by Roy Kaltschmidt, Berkeley Lab Public Affairs)
No longer attributable to human error—Berkeley Lab scientists have established a revolutionary nanocrystal-making robot, capable of producing nanocrystals with staggering precision. This one-of-a-kind robot provides colloidal nanocrystals with custom-made properties for electronics, biological labeling and luminescent devices.
This robotic engineer is named WANDA (Workstation for Automated Nanomaterial Discovery and Analysis) and was developed in collaboration with Symyx Technologies at the Molecular Foundry, a U.S. Department of Energy User Facility located at Berkeley Lab. By automating the synthesis of these nanocrystals, WANDA circumvents the issues facing traditional techniques, which can be laborious and are difficult to reproduce from one laboratory to the next. What's more, WANDA's synthetic prowess can help researchers sift through a large, diverse pool of materials for specific applications. Such a combinatorial approach has been used for decades in the pharmaceutical industry and now is being applied to nanomaterials at the Foundry.
"WANDA makes nanocrystals of exceptional quality – every time – optimized for different applications," said Delia Milliron, Director of the Inorganic Nanostructures Facility at the Molecular Foundry. "We're providing these to users and now just starting to use WANDA to discover new nanocrystal compositions with advantageous properties."
WANDA's liquid-handling robotics prepare and initiate reactions by injecting nanocrystal precursor chemicals into an array of reactors. After a series of reactions is complete, the structural and optical properties of these nanocrystals can be screened rapidly, also using automated methods. WANDA is housed inside a nitrogen-filled chamber, designed to keep oxygen and water from interacting with reactive precursor chemicals and freshly formed nanocrystals. Since this robot is controlled by software protocols, novice users can direct WANDA to perform complex workflows that traditionally require extensive chemistry experience.
Milliron and her coauthors at the Foundry and University of California, Berkeley, have directed WANDA to produce and optimize a diverse set of nanomaterials under conditions analogous to those employed in traditional flask-based chemistry. Starting with widely studied and practically useful nanomaterials—such as cadmium selenide quantum dots, whose size can be adjusted to emit different colors of visible light—the team showed how WANDA can optimize the size, crystal structure and luminescence properties of different nanocrystals.
Emory Chan, with Berkeley Lab's Molecular Foundry, directs WANDA, a revolutionary nanocrystal-making robot, to perform complex workflows that traditionally require extensive chemistry experience. (Photo by Roy Kaltschmidt, Berkeley Lab Public Affairs)
"This technology will change the way nanoscience research is performed," said Emory Chan, a senior scientific engineering associate at the Molecular Foundry. "Not only does WANDA enable the optimization and mass production of nanoparticles our users need, but this robot also facilitates experiments that give us a deeper understanding into the chemistry and physics of nanoscale materials."
A paper reporting this research titled, "Reproducible, high-throughput synthesis of colloidal nanocrystals for optimization in multidimensional parameter space," appears in the journal Nano Letters and is available in Nano Letters online. Co-authoring the paper with Chan and Milliron are Chenxu Xu, Alvin Mao, Gang Han, Jonathan Owen and Bruce Cohen.
This work was supported by DOE's Office of Science.
The Molecular Foundry is one of the five DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs), premier national user facilities for interdisciplinary research at the nanoscale. Together the NSRCs comprise a suite of complementary facilities that provide researchers with state-of-the-art capabilities to fabricate, process, characterize and model nanoscale materials, and constitute the largest infrastructure investment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. The NSRCs are located at DOE's Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge and Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. For more information about the DOE NSRCs, please visit http://nano.energy.gov.
Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is managed by the University of California. Visit our website at http://www.lbl.gov.
For more about Berkeley Lab's Molecular Foundry visit http://foundry.lbl.gov/
For more about the DOE NSRCs visit http://nano.energy.gov
TAGS: energy, nanoscience


text:
Canadian Opinion Research Archive
http://www.queensu.ca/cora/
Empirical Social Research
The Canadian Opinion Research Archive at Queen's University makes available commercial and independent surveys to the academic, research and journalistic communities. Founded in 1992, CORA contains hundreds of surveys including thousands of discrete items collected by major commercial Canadian firms dating back to the 1970s. CORA is continually adding new surveys and is always soliciting new data from commercial research firms, independent think tanks, research institutes, NGOs, and academic researchers. This website also includes readily accessible results from these surveys, tracking Canadian opinion over time on frequently asked survey questions, as well as tabular results from recent Canadian surveys, and more general information on polling. This material is made available as a public service by CORA and its partners.
cora@queensu.ca
Canadian election study
Mission statement for designated community
http://130.15.161.246:82/webview/
McGill University, Department of Political Science
QUL
http://www.mcgill.ca/politicalscience
http://www.mcgill.ca/politicalscience/contact
Queens University, School of Policy Studies
http://www.queensu.ca/sps/
http://www.queensu.ca/sps/contact-us
Queens University, University Libary
http://library.queensu.ca/
http://library.queensu.ca/help-services/ask-us
public service by CORA
http://www.queensu.ca/cora/5data.html
Data access restriction type(s)
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/reference/licence
Name of the repository software
Data citation guideline
Metadata standards (1)
Metadata standard name
DDI - Data Documentation Initiative
Metadata standard scheme
Metadata standard URL
http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/metadata-standards/ddi-data-documentation-initiative
Canadian Opinion Research Archive is covered by Thomson Reuters Data Citation Index. In addition CORA holdings can be accessed at <odesi> scholarsportal. CORA uses Data Documentation Inititative DDI metadata standards. Analysis of CORA holdings is available at the website, individual-level data cannot be downloaded, but all data can be accessed and analysed here.
re3data.org: Canadian Opinion Research Archive; editing status 2018-01-10; re3data.org - Registry of Research Data Repositories. http://doi.org/10.17616/R3PG8V last accessed: 2019-07-20


text:
Bloodbrothers is the third album by The Dictators and their second after switching to the Asylum label. "Faster and Louder" features an uncredited guest appearance from Bruce Springsteen.

Critical reception
AllMusic, which was critical of the band's previous album, released a favorable review of Bloodbrothers, stating that it "stands as a good example of what the band sounded like on a good night," as well as calling it "The Dictators' most rockingest and most musical album."

Track listing

Personnel
The Dictators
Handsome Dick Manitoba – lead vocals
Ross "The Boss" Friedman – lead guitar, 12-string guitar
Scott "Top Ten" Kempner – rhythm guitar
Andy Shernoff – bass guitar, keyboards, lead and backing vocals
Richie Teeter – drums, backing vocals

Production
Murray Krugman, Sandy Pearlman – producers
Shelly Yakus, Jay Krugman – engineers
Johnny Lee, The Dictators - art direction
Chris Callis - front cover photography

References

The Dictators albums
1978 albums
Asylum Records albums
Albums produced by Murray Krugman
Albums produced by Sandy Pearlman

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
// <copyright file="FunctionalFullLoggerTests.cs" company="DHGMS Solutions">
// Copyright (c) DHGMS Solutions. All rights reserved.
// </copyright>

namespace Dhgms.LogIntegrations.UnitTests
{
    using System;
    using System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis;

    using JetBrains.Annotations;

    using Splat;

    using Xunit;

    /// <summary>
    /// Unit tests for the Functional Full Logger class
    /// </summary>
    [ExcludeFromCodeCoverage]
    public static class FunctionalFullLoggerTests
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the constructor
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class ConstructorMethods
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Unit test to check the class is created properly
            /// </summary>
            [Fact]
            public void ReturnsInstance()
            {
                var instance = new FunctionalFullLogger(LogHost.Default);
                Assert.NotNull(instance);
            }

            /// <summary>
            /// Unit test to ensure an argument null exception is thrown if no logger is passed.
            /// </summary>
            [Fact]
            public void ThrowsArgumentNullException()
            {
                // ReSharper disable once AssignNullToNotNullAttribute
                Assert.Throws<ArgumentNullException>(() => new FunctionalFullLogger(null));
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the debug method
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class DebugMethod : BaseLogMessageMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            protected override Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>> MessageAction
            {
                get
                {
                    return (logger, stringFunc) => logger.Debug(stringFunc);
                }
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the debug exception method
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class DebugExceptionMethod : BaseLogExceptionMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            protected override Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>, Exception> MessageAction
            {
                get
                {
                    return (logger, stringFunc, exception) => logger.DebugException(stringFunc, exception);
                }
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the error method
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class ErrorMethod : BaseLogMessageMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            protected override Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>> MessageAction
            {
                get
                {
                    return (logger, stringFunc) => logger.Error(stringFunc);
                }
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the error exception method
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class ErrorExceptionMethod : BaseLogExceptionMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            protected override Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>, Exception> MessageAction
            {
                get
                {
                    return (logger, stringFunc, exception) => logger.ErrorException(stringFunc, exception);
                }
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the fatal method
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class FatalMethod : BaseLogMessageMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            protected override Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>> MessageAction
            {
                get
                {
                    return (logger, stringFunc) => logger.Fatal(stringFunc);
                }
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the fatal exception method
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class FatalExceptionMethod : BaseLogExceptionMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            protected override Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>, Exception> MessageAction
            {
                get
                {
                    return (logger, stringFunc, exception) => logger.FatalException(stringFunc, exception);
                }
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the info method
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class InfoMethod : BaseLogMessageMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            protected override Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>> MessageAction
            {
                get
                {
                    return (logger, stringFunc) => logger.Info(stringFunc);
                }
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the info exception method
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class InfoExceptionMethod : BaseLogExceptionMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            protected override Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>, Exception> MessageAction
            {
                get
                {
                    return (logger, stringFunc, exception) => logger.InfoException(stringFunc, exception);
                }
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the warn method
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class WarnMethod : BaseLogMessageMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            protected override Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>> MessageAction
            {
                get
                {
                    return (logger, stringFunc) => logger.Warn(stringFunc);
                }
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Unit tests for the warn exception method
        /// </summary>
        public sealed class WarnExceptionMethod : BaseLogExceptionMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            protected override Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>, Exception> MessageAction
            {
                get
                {
                    return (logger, stringFunc, exception) => logger.WarnException(stringFunc, exception);
                }
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Base class for Log message method unit tests
        /// </summary>
        public abstract class BaseLogMessageMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message against.
            /// </summary>
            [NotNull]
            protected abstract Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>> MessageAction { get; }

            /// <summary>
            /// Unit test to log a message against the relevant message action.
            /// </summary>
            [Fact]
            public void LogsMessage()
            {
                var logger = new FunctionalFullLogger(LogHost.Default);
                this.MessageAction(logger, () => "message");
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Base class for Log Message with Exception method unit tests
        /// </summary>
        public abstract class BaseLogExceptionMethodTests
        {
            /// <summary>
            /// Gets the message action to log a message and exception against.
            /// </summary>
            [NotNull]
            protected abstract Action<FunctionalFullLogger, Func<String>, Exception> MessageAction { get; }

            /// <summary>
            /// Unit test to log a message and exception against the relevant message action.
            /// </summary>
            [Fact]
            public void LogsException()
            {
                var logger = new FunctionalFullLogger(LogHost.Default);
                this.MessageAction(logger, () => "message", new Exception());
            }
        }
    }
}


Hey y'all! So the isopods that @GotButterflies sent me are doing amazing! I have some in my 55 gallon, some in our snake tank, and the rest in their tote. They're breeding!!! In the tote, they love the oak bark and Cholla wood. They're ALWAYS on it! In the 55 gallon, I didn't see them much. I saw a few on the mopani branch, but I knew I had more.... Well I found their spot! The isopods are in the coconut hut! Also, it's been my Es favorite spot too! Since he's the only one up, he's lonely and spends his time in the hut. Or maybe he likes the isopods company here's some pics!
Onto my E shell question... Does he look too big for this shell? And what size would y'all consider him?
Sorry, best pics I could do. I was trying to stress him the least amount possible but also get a shell sizing so I can update the shop!
The Isopods are fun to watch. I just put some moss on top of the substrate and they have been all over that. Mine are always under oak bark and Cholla wood too. I even see them on my cork bark house too.
For your E's shell to me it looks to be between 3/4- 7/8" opening across. Maybe closer to 3/4". I would probably get a few shells with 7/8- 1" openings for him.
I know our Eddie took 3 or 4 molts in about a year and a half to finally switch out of his original shell. He tried a few here and there buy went back to his original quickly. Within the last month he went crazy and tried on several shells in a matter of a few days. Just don't be worried if he doesn't switch.
For measuring shells I always hold an Inch when I measure. Basically start measuring at the 1" mark rather than the end of the tape measure with the hook. I think it's easier pulling a more accurate measurement without the hook moving around.
A bit of trivia for you. The hook on the end of a tape measure moves to compensate for if you push or pull to get your meaurement. The hook should move basically the thickness of the hook. You would pull a measurement if you hook the tape on the side of the tank to see how long or wide it is. You would push down if you were measuring from the floor up to the top of the tank.
I recommend buying a caliper for your shells - best investment EVER - I got mine for $9-$10 - bought a digital one from amazon!
Beats the guess work out of shells!
Love the isopod pics! Glad they are doing well!!
GotButterflies wrote: I recommend buying a caliper for your shells - best investment EVER - I got mine for $9-$10 - bought a digital one from amazon!


text:
When you're in the market for a new car, there are a lot of factors to consider. How much can you afford? What kind of driving do you do? What's your style? But one question that's important to ask yourself is: is it worth buying a Honda in 2023? We crunched the numbers and found out that, in most cases, the answer is yes. Keep reading to find out why.
The Honda Accord is a great car and will likely still be one of the best-selling cars in 2023
The Honda Accord has long been one of America's best-selling cars. Thanks to its reputation for reliability, affordability, and comfort, the Accord has remained a favorite choice for families and commuters alike. And there's no reason to believe that this will change anytime soon.
Even as other automakers have begun to offer more SUVs and crossovers, the Accord has held its ground. In fact, it was one of the only sedans to actually see an increase in sales last year. Thanks to its continued popularity, it's safe to say that the Accord will still be one of America's best-selling cars in 2023. So if you're looking into financing a Honda, the Accord is a classic that's sure to impress.
The Honda Civic is also a great car and will likely continue to be popular in 2023
The Honda Civic is a great car and will likely continue to be popular in 2023. It's reliable, efficient, and affordable, which are all qualities that buyers look for in a car. Additionally, the Civic has a wide range of features that appeal to a variety of buyers. For example, the Civic Si offers impressive performance, while the Civic Hybrid is perfect for buyers who are looking for a fuel-efficient car.
No matter what type of buyer you are, the Civic is sure to have a model that meets your needs. Honda is consistently ranked as one of the most reliable automakers, so you can rest assured that your Civic will be built to last. With all of these factors working in its favor, it's no wonder why the Civic is one of the most popular cars on the market.
The Honda CR-V is a great SUV and is likely to remain popular in 2023
While many SUV models have come and gone over the years, the Honda CR-V has remained a stalwart favorite.
Thanks to its comfortable ride, spacious interior, and well-rounded feature set, the CR-V has won over generations of families and continues to be one of the best-selling SUVs on the market. With an updated look for 2023, the CR-V is primed to stay popular in 2023 and beyond.
One of the main reasons for its enduring appeal is its versatility. The CR-V is just as at home on a weekend camping trip as it is on a daily commute to work. It's also one of the most fuel-efficient SUVs on the market, which helps to keep operating costs low. With a long list of standard features and a competitive starting price, it's no wonder that the Honda CR-V remains a top choice for SUV shoppers.
The Honda Pilot is also a great SUV and should continue to be popular in 2023
In 2023, the Honda Pilot will continue to be a popular SUV. It has a comfortable interior with plenty of space for cargo and passengers. It also has a powerful engine and can tow up to 5,000 pounds. The Pilot is also available with all-wheel drive, making it ideal for off-road driving.
The Honda Pilot has an excellent safety rating and comes equipped with standard features like front and side airbags. All of these factors make the 2023 Honda Pilot a great choice for families and individuals who are looking for a reliable and safe SUV.
While Hondas are good cars, there are other makes and models that may be better choices for buyers in 2023
When it comes to choosing a new car, there are a lot of factors to consider. Make and model are important, but so is fuel efficiency, safety features, and price. In 2023, Honda will still be making good cars, but there may be other makes and models that are better choices for buyers.
For example, Toyota and Subaru have both announced plans to release new hybrid models in 2023 that may offer significantly better fuel economy than Honda's current lineup.
Newer safety features such as automatic braking and lane keeping assist will become increasingly common, and Honda may not be able to match the competition in this area. As a result, while Honda will still be making good cars in 2023, buyers may want to consider other options before making their final decision.
Buyers should always do their research before making a purchase decision
With so many options available, it's hard to know where to start. That's why it's important for buyers to do their research before making a decision. By taking the time to read product reviews and compare prices, buyers can be sure they are getting the best possible value for their money.
Additionally, research can help buyers avoid making impulse purchases that they may later regret. So next time you're feeling overwhelmed by your options, remember to take a deep breath and do your homework first; it could save you a lot of time and money in the long run.
The Honda Accord, Civic, CR-V, and Pilot are all great cars that will likely continue to be popular in 2023. However, there are other makes and models that may be better choices for buyers in 2023. Buyers should always do their research before making a purchase decision.


The Victoria Regal is certainly an amp all to itself!
A combo amp featuring reverb and tremolo, The Regal is a pure, single-ended class A design that utilizes a new 'Adaptive Transformer Technology' that allows for the use of one or two power tubes at the same time. Therefore, operating power is rated from 5 watts to 35 watts; and at 5 watts, it's a REAL 5 watts, not some squashed approximation of 5 watts.
The Regal is designed around a custom bifilar output transformer that is essentially two discrete transformers driving a common speaker load. This allows for the use of any combination of common 8 pin power tubes - from a single 6V6 delivering 5 watts of pure class A power, to two EL-34's for 35 watts. And because each tube is relating to its own independent transformer winding and bias resistor, any combination of different tubes types can be auditioned.
Dimensions: 20.5" x 22" x 10.5"
The Victoria Regal is available for sale here at Humbucker Music!