Arctic Cat Bearcat T660 Manual | [Full PDF]

File Name:Arctic Cat Bearcat T660 Manual | [Full PDF].pdf

ENTER SITE »»» DOWNLOAD PDF
CLICK HERE »»» BOOK READER

Size: 3579 KB
Type: PDF, ePub, eBook
Uploaded: 9 May 2019, 14:16
Rating: 4.6/5 from 657 votes.
tatus: AVAILABLE
Last checked: 9 Minutes ago!
eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version
In order to read or download Arctic Cat Bearcat T660 Manual | [Full PDF] ebook, you need to create a FREE account.

✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account.
✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use)
✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.
✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers

It looks like your browser needs updating. For the best experience on Quizlet, please update your browser. Learn More. Dimers a molecule or molecular complex consisting of two identical molecules linked together. Polymer a substance that has a molecular structure consisting chiefly or entirely of a large number of similar units bonded together, Polymer PT. 2 Hydrolysis Reaction is a chemical process in which a molecule of water is added to a substance. The water breaks the process Hydrolysis Reaction PT. 2 Condensation Reaction is a chemical reaction in which two molecules or moieties, often functional groups, combine to form a larger molecule, together with the loss of a small molecule. Condensation Reaction PT. 2 ATP Adenosine triphosphate, Its job is to store and supply the cell with needed energy. ATP PT. 2 Enzyme a substance produced by a living organism that acts as a catalyst to bring about a specific biochemical reaction. Enzyme Pt. 2 Heterotroph an organism deriving its nutritional requirements from complex organic substances. Heterotroph PT. 2 Autotroph an organism that is able to form nutritional organic substances from simple inorganic substances such as carbon dioxide. Autotroph PT. 2 Chemosynthesis the synthesis of organic compounds by bacteria or other living organisms using energy derived from reactions involving inorganic chemicals, typically in the absence of sunlight. Chemosynthesis PT. 2 Photosynthesis the process by which green plants and some other organisms use sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water. Photosynthesis PT. 2 Cellular Respiration includes Aerobic Respiration, Glycolysis. Fermentation, the Krebs's cycle, the Electron Transport Chain. Cellular Respiration the chemical process that generates most of the energy in the cell, Chromosomes a threadlike structure of nucleic acids and protein found in the nucleus of most living cells, carrying genetic information in the form of genes. Chromosomes PT.

arctic cat bearcat t660 manual, arctic cat bearcat t660 manual pdf, arctic cat bearcat t660 manual download, arctic cat bearcat t660 manual free, arctic cat bearcat t660 manual transmission.

2 Karyotypes the number and visual appearance of the chromosomes in the cell nuclei of an organism or species. Karyotype Autosome any chromosome that is not a sex chromosome. Autosome PT. 2 Heterozygous refers to a pair of genes where one is dominant and one is recessive Heterozygous PT. 2 Homozygous When an individual has two of the same allele, whether dominant or recessive Homozygous PT. 2 Genotype the genetic constitution of an individual organism.Phenotype PT. 2 Mendel Johann Mendel, Mendel Example of: botanist, phytologist, plant scientist.Homologous Structures is an example of an organ or bone that appears in different animals, underlining anatomical commonalities demonstrating descent from a common ancestor. Molecular Homology is an important concept in modern evolutionary biology, used to test the relationships between modern taxa, and to examine the evolutionary processes driving evolution at a molecular level. Miller and Urey was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. If you break a test tube and the chemicals spill out what should you do first. He used three heat lamps each set to different temperatures. After a certain time period the scientist measured how many bacteria colonies had grown. A) what is the independent variable. B) what is the dependent variable. Coarse AND fine adjustments When using a microscope and the low objective lens is being used then which adjustment can you use. Fine adjustment When using a microscope and the medium or high objective lenses are being used then which adjustment can you use. If your body did not have any enzymes then what would happen to the chemical reactions. Active sight What part of an enzyme do substrates attach to. Organisms that can make their own food What is a producer. Trees, grass, algae, etc.

List some examples of a producer Plants take in CO2, H2O and sunlight to make food (glucose) and oxygen (photosynthesis). Animals and plants breakdown the food (glucose) with the oxygen from photosynthesis to undergo cellular respiration in order to make ATP energy, CO2, and H2O. Why is it important for people that there are plants in our environment. We would eventually die because there wouldn't be any oxygen produced needed for cell respiration to take place What would happen if there weren't any plants on earth. Carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins and nucleic acids. What are the four macromolecules. Carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins Which three marcomolecules are important parts when considering a healthy diet. The process which plants make their own food. What is photosynthesis. Leaves (Chloroplast) Where does photosynthesis take place. CO2, H2O and sunlight What do plants need for photosynthesis to take place. By providing carbon dioxide for the plants to make food when they breathe out. How do animals and people help in the photosynthesis process. Plants provide oxygen for animals and people to breathe and animals and people provide carbon dioxide for the plants to make food. How do plants, animals and people help each other. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below. To begin, we will review the scores that other students received in the past years. We then will talk about the content of the course and the exam. Three hours of wracking your brain, recalling facts from an entire year of information. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine. Please try again.Please try again.Please try again.

Each Cirrus Test Prep study guide includes a detailed summary of the test’s format, content, and scoring; an overview of the content knowledge required to pass the exam; worked-through sample questions with answers and explanations; full-length practice tests including answer explanations; and unique test-taking strategies with highlighted key concepts. Cirrus Test Prep’s study materials ensure that new educators feel prepared on test day and beyond. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Full content visible, double tap to read brief content. Videos Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video. Upload video To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness. Please try again later. Bobby J 1.0 out of 5 stars They engage active recall as they facilitate repetition. They also utilize metacognitive faculties as flipping from side to side assesses correctness. Finally, because they exist LOOSELY, rather than tied to a book, one is able to separate them into piles based on whether or not there is a need to study them again. This confidence-based repetition is one of the most optimized ways to improve memory performance. Instead, I received a paperback book with depictions of flashcards on each page. If the intent of the publisher of this book was for me to cut the book up into flashcards, then perhaps it would have been a novel idea to state such in the description. Had there been more transparency in the product description, I would have elected to NOT purchase the item. Thanks for reading my two cents worth.They engage active recall as they facilitate repetition. Thanks for reading my two cents worth.It is a book.

Sure it is set up as cards with a question on the front and an answer on the back but they are not cards. There is no way to categorize it like cards or break it down into small sections. I would not have purchased if I'd known.They were missing a lot of information. They are great to use to do your own research. NOT for last minute studying.This is a great way to practice for your certification as a Biology teacher. The test itself takes two hours and thirty minutes to answer 150 questions. That makes these flash cards about two full tests. The content spreads across six areas: 1. History and Nature of Science 2. Molecular and Cellular Biology 3. Genetics and Evolution 4. Diversity of Life and Organismal Biology 5. Ecology: Organisms and Environments 6. Science, Technology and Social Perspectives I received this booklet from the publisher in order to rate the contents. I chose to review on Amazon of my own free will. I highly recommend this book for a study guide to the Praxis II Biology test.Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1 Previous page Next page. Learn More. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Associated Data Supplementary Materials This multiple-choice Introductory Molecular and Cell Biology Assessment (IMCA) instrument is designed for use as a pre- and posttest to measure student learning gains. To develop the assessment, we first worked with faculty to create a set of learning goals that targeted important concepts in the field and seemed likely to be emphasized by most instructors teaching these subjects. We interviewed students using open-ended questions to identify commonly held misconceptions, formulated multiple-choice questions that included these ideas as distracters, and reinterviewed students to establish validity of the instrument. The assessment was then evaluated by 25 biology experts and modified based on their suggestions. The complete revised assessment was administered to more than 1300 students at three institutions.

Analysis of statistical parameters including item difficulty, item discrimination, and reliability provides evidence that the IMCA is a valid and reliable instrument with several potential uses in gauging student learning of key concepts in molecular and cell biology. INTRODUCTION The use of multiple-choice tests designed to evaluate conceptual understanding and diagnose areas of difficulty in specific science disciplines (concept assessments or concept inventories) has expanded significantly in recent years. The Physics Force Concept Inventory (FCI; Hestenes, 1992 ) is generally acknowledged as the first of these assessments used to provide instructors with a measure of student conceptual understanding in introductory mechanics courses. Additional assessment instruments have since been developed for courses in other disciplines, including astronomy, chemistry, geological sciences, and life sciences (reviewed in Libarkin, 2008 ). Many educators have explored concepts for which students have either an incomplete understanding or more strongly held misconceptions (sometimes referred to as alternative conceptions; Tanner and Allen, 2005 ). Some of these ideas change as students take additional biology courses, but many, such as the role of carbon dioxide as a raw material for plant growth, and the movement of carbon through a cycle, remain poorly understood ( Wandersee, 1985; Ebert-May et al., 2003 ). On the topic of diffusion and osmosis, students often believe that molecules cease to move at equilibrium ( Odom, 1995 ) and that molecules experience directed movement toward lower concentrations, rather than random movement ( Meir et al., 2005; Garvin-Doxas and Klymkowsky, 2008 ). Although implementing active-learning techniques such as computer simulations ( Meir et al., 2005 ) or the 5E learning cycle ( Balci et al.

, 2006; Tanner, 2010 ) help some students overcome these beliefs, their persistence indicates a continuing need to identify and create materials that help students change their ideas. The misconceptions described above, and many others not mentioned, helped us to frame conversations with faculty as we developed the learning goals upon which the IMCA is based. In contrast to introductory physics, the topics emphasized in introductory biology courses can vary substantially depending on the differing needs and interests of departments, instructors, and student audiences. Therefore, targeted, area-specific assessments may be more useful than a single comprehensive test suitable for any introductory course. We chose to develop an assessment limited to concepts that are likely to be addressed in any introductory course in molecular and cell biology and that represent areas of common student misconceptions. By following the guidelines outlined by Treagust (1988) for developing diagnostic tests to evaluate student misunderstanding, we created an instrument consisting of 24 multiple-choice questions that are as free of scientific jargon as possible and that include distracters reflecting common student misconceptions. The IMCA does not address noncontent learning goals and science process skills such as formulating hypotheses and interpreting data. Other assessments for assessing these skills have been developed (e.g., Brickman et al., 2009 ). When used as a pretest at the start of a course before any instruction and as a posttest at the end of the course, the IMCA can measure overall student learning gains, performance in specific content areas by learning goal, and areas in which misconceptions are held. We report here on the development process of the IMCA and describe validation of the assessment through student interviews, pilot testing, expert review, and statistical analysis.
{-Variable.fc_1_url-

We also discuss the ways in which data from such an assessment can be used to understand student ideas and inform improvements in instruction. METHODS Development and Validation of the IMCA There is still considerable variability in how science concept assessments are designed and validated ( Lindell et al., 2007; Adams and Wieman, 2010 ), as well as in their format and intended use, even within biology (reviewed in D'Avanzo, 2008; Knight, 2010, among others). The IMCA was developed to be used as a pre- and posttest to measure change in student understanding of principles most likely to be taught in an introductory biology course that focuses on molecular and cell biology. It is also intended to be diagnostic of common student difficulties, as many questions are built around known student misconceptions. Development of the IMCA followed a multistep process ( Table 1 ) similar to that used for the Genetics Concept Assessment ( Smith et al., 2008 ) and based on the guidelines of diagnostic assessment design ( Treagust, 1988 ). Table 1. Overview of the IMCA development process Interview faculty who teach the introductory course and courses that follow, and develop a set of learning goals that most instructors consider essential to the understanding of basic cell and molecular biology. Interview students to probe their understanding of these topics. Review the literature concerning misconceptions in molecular and cell biology. Develop and administer a pilot assessment based on learning goals and observed student difficulties and misconceptions. Validate and finalize the revised assessment through student interviews and input from introductory biology faculty at several institutions. Administer the assessment to a large number of students. Evaluate the assessment for item difficulty, item discrimination, and reliability.

Open in a separate window Development of the IMCA was begun by defining the content of the assessment through an iterative process involving discussion with faculty who teach introductory cell and molecular biology (including authors N.A.G., J.M.M., and Q.V.), as well as faculty who teach courses for which the introductory courses are prerequisites. The concepts addressed were chosen as those that students would be most likely to need for understanding more advanced topics in biology, and those about which students commonly have persistent incorrect ideas, based on our experience as well as a literature review of common misconceptions in cell and molecular biology (e.g., Odom, 1995; Marbach-Ad and Stavy, 2000; Anderson et al., 2002; Gonzalez-Cruz et al., 2003; Garvin-Doxas and Klymkowsky, 2008 ). Faculty also felt that students should be able to demonstrate knowledge of a few basic principles in addition to deeper conceptual understanding. Accordingly, a few questions on the assessment were written at a level below “application” in Bloom's taxonomy ( Bloom et al., 1956 ). We believe this range of questions is valuable for allowing instructors to identify students who have difficulty with application problems because they have not learned the basic content. After agreement was reached on the fundamental knowledge and concepts that the assessment should address, they were reformulated as a set of specific learning objectives (referred to throughout this paper as learning goals), specifying what students should be able to do to demonstrate understanding of these concepts. A pilot set of learning goals was then used as the basis for open-ended student interviews and question construction, described below. Subsequently, the goals were further revised based on conversations with faculty at other institutions and on the results of further student interviews.

Open in a separate window a The learning goals associated with each question are those intended by the authors and supported by biology faculty expert responses (see Table 3 ). Student Interviews A diverse group of 41 students (15 males and 26 females) at the University of Colorado (CU) were interviewed. The remaining five students had completed an introductory biology course in the CU Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department; this course overlaps with the MCDB course in several but not all areas of content. The initial goal of the student interviews was to probe student thinking, including the presence of misconceptions on these topics, and to then use student ideas to generate incorrect answer choices (distracters). Emphasis was placed on letting the students explain the reasoning for their answers, so that the interviewer could explore student ideas. Subsequent interviews were carried out not only to obtain evidence regarding the validity of the instrument (construct validity) but also to help modify the items of the assessment. In these interviews students were given multiple-choice questions that had been built using the main question stems initially asked as open-ended questions, with distracters derived primarily from student responses. Students were asked to select an answer to each question, and then, after answering all questions, to explain why they thought their choices were correct and the other choices incorrect. Student interview transcripts were again used to revise both correct and incorrect answer choices on the assessment. Initially, multiple questions were designed to address each of the nine learning goals; however, some questions were eliminated during the validation process, so that some learning goals are addressed by only one question in the current version of the assessment ( Table 2 ). For every question on the pilot version of the IMCA, at least five students chose the right answer using correct reasoning.

However, for six questions, some students chose the right answer for incorrect or incomplete reasons. To decrease the likelihood of students guessing the right answer, we reworded these questions and then interviewed additional students, obtaining an average total of 25 interviews for each question in the final version of the IMCA. For these questions, 90 (on average) of the interviewed students who chose the right answers explained their reasoning correctly. For the final version of the IMCA, each distracter was chosen by two or more students during interviews. Common incorrect student ideas are listed in Table 2. Faculty Reviews In addition to the internal review of the IMCA by faculty at CU, evidence for content validity was obtained by asking Ph.D. faculty experts who teach introductory biology at other institutions to take the IMCA online, respond to three queries about each question, and offer suggestions for improvement. Ten experts reviewed the pilot version of the IMCA; their feedback was used to modify some of the questions.Subsequently, 1337 students took the current version of the IMCA, as both pre- and posttests. The actual number of students in each course was higher than reported here, but only students who took both pre- and posttests were included in our analysis. Students took the IMCA on paper during the first day of class before any instruction, for participation points. The pretest was not returned to the students, ensuring that these questions were not available for study during the course. At the end of each course, the identical questions were given to students as part of the graded final exam. Students were given 30 min to complete both the pre- and posttests. Because the pretest, posttest, and normalized learning gain results from both sections and from both years (e.g., 2008 and 2009) were statistically equivalent, the data were combined for analysis.

However, due to time constraints and instructor preference, the questions were answered online in a timed format for participation points at the start of the course and then again before the final exam. Because of differences in how the posttest was administered and the potential impact on level of student effort (discussed in Results and Discussion ), these data were used for comparison but were not included in the statistical analyses. Statistical Characterization At least three statistical tests are commonly used to evaluate assessment instruments: item difficulty and item discrimination (referred to as “item statistics”) as well as reliability ( Adams et al., 2006; Lindell et al., 2007 ). Item difficulty (P) for a question measures the percentage of students who answer the question correctly and is calculated as the total number of correct responses (N1) divided by the total number of responses (N). Thus, a low P value indicates a difficult question. A high D value, therefore, indicates that on average, only strong students answered a question correctly. Together, these two parameters provide an informative comparison of performance on individual items from pre- to post-test, as discussed further below. Institutional Review Board Protocols Permissions to use pre- and posttest data and student grades (exempt status: Protocol No. 0108.9) and to conduct student interviews (expedited status: Protocol No. 0603.08) were obtained from the University of Colorado Institutional Review Board. RESULTS Lessons Learned from the Development Process One of the greatest challenges in developing a broad assessment tool such as the IMCA is deciding upon the content to be assessed. Although discussions with faculty were framed around known student misconceptions, there was still debate among faculty about the relative importance of certain topics and what concepts were most important for students to learn (and be assessed on) from an introductory biology course.

The first version of the IMCA consisted of 43 questions addressing 15 learning goals. After discussions with the instructors for the introductory biology course as well as those teaching subsequent courses, several learning goals along with the corresponding questions were dropped. For example, faculty agreed that the learning goal stating “Distinguish the roles of the soma and the germ line in the life cycle of a typical multicellular organism” was better addressed in a genetics course. After selection of topics on which to interview students and write questions, the wording of the question stems for the assessment underwent several rounds of revisions. The interview process with students was vital to the rewording of question stems, and several questions and their answers were improved through direct student feedback. For example, some question stems contained “buzz” words (e.g., never, always) that gave away the answer or jargon that was confusing. In another example, Question 9, which addresses Learning Goal 4 (Compare how the properties of water affect different three-dimensional structures and stabilities of macromolecules, macromolecular assemblies, and lipid membranes) was originally asked without diagrams. Students had trouble interpreting the question stem, and the distracters used jargon like “hydrophobic” and “hydrophilic,” which could be memorized but potentially not understood. When students identified these problems, we asked them to suggest alternative wording, as well as asked them for their answers and explanations. Incorporating experts' feedback was also important for further refining questions. For Question 9, one expert commented “The answer to the question depends on how the phospholipid is introduced into the water. Which of these structures is most likely to form when a phospholipid is vigorously dispersed in water?” Both experts and students agreed that the revised question was clear and unambiguous.

Pretest and Posttest Scores and Learning Gains The IMCA was administrated to several groups of students in 2008 and 2009 (see Methods ). The mean pretest scores, posttest scores, and normalized learning gains for all groups are shown in Table 4. Students in all the groups had comparable pretest scores. Students who took the pre- and posttests in class with the posttest as a graded part of the final exam were given 30 min to take the pre-test, and a comparable time was allotted for these questions as part of the final exam. These students showed a significantly higher mean learning gain (one-way ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc test, p Table 5 ).At CU, the pre- and posttests were also taken by graduate TAs and undergraduate learning assistants (LAs; Otero et al., 2006 ), who facilitate small group work in weekly problem- solving sessions. Descriptive Statistics of Individual Questions Can Be Used to Uncover Student Misconceptions As described under Methods, item difficulty (P) is defined as the fraction of correct answers on a question while item discrimination (D) measures the ability of a question to distinguish between overall high- and low-performing students. As shown in Figure 1, the pre- and posttest P values of individual questions varied, but all questions showed higher values on the posttest than on the pretest. Open in a separate window Figure 1. Item difficulty (P) values for each question on the IMCA for Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 pre- and posttests. P values represent percentages of correct answers. Results are based on the 671 students who took the pre- and posttests in class. Yellow bars show the correct answer percentages for each question on the pretest; green bars show the increases in correct answer percentages between pre- and posttest for each question. Questions are grouped according to learning goal (see Table 2 ). The posttest P values can be used to identify topics that students continue to struggle with despite instruction.

For example, for three of the four questions that address Learning Goal 5 (Given the thermodynamic and kinetic characteristics of a biochemical reaction, predict whether it will proceed spontaneously, and the rate at which it will proceed), student average posttest scores were all below 65. These questions ask students to analyze the effects of an enzyme on the progress of a reaction (Question 12), the behavior of the reactants at equilibrium (Question 13), and the role of energy released by ATP hydrolysis in an enzyme-catalyzed reaction (Question 14). Students who answered these questions incorrectly generally showed a persistent misconception (e.g., enzymes are required to make chemical reactions happen, rather than simply affecting their rates; Table 2 ). For Learning Goal 8 (Using diagrams, demonstrate how the information in a gene is stored, replicated, and transmitted to daughter cells), average posttest scores on the corresponding three questions ranged from 61 down to 13. These three questions address the DNA contents of a replicated chromosome in mitosis (Questions 19 and 20) and the mechanism of DNA synthesis (Question 21). The item discrimination value, D, is useful for understanding how performance on an individual item relates to overall performance on the entire assessment. Figure 2 shows the D values for each question on both the pre- and posttests. For some questions, the D values are lower on the posttest than on the pretest, indicating that the question no longer discriminates as strongly between generally high- and low-performing students. For others, the D value stays the same or increases, indicating that the question continues to discriminate between students at different levels. In looking at both the P and D values for individual questions, several stand out as both having a relatively low P value and a high D value on the posttest (Questions 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, and 24).