Course Evaluation: Mapping Course Outcomes To Course: Fill & Download for Free

Coursera is launching a "Design and Interpretation of Clinical Trials" MOOC in March 2015. Everything you learn about designing and interpreting clinical trials can be easily transferred to A/B testing (here's an industry secret - it's the exact same thing, just rebranded!).Access the course here: Design and Interpretation of Clinical TrialsAbout the CourseClinical trials are experiments designed to evaluate new interventions to prevent or treat disease in humans. The interventions evaluated can be drugs, devices (e.g., hearing aid), surgeries, behavioral interventions (e.g., smoking cessation program), community health programs (e.g. cancer screening programs) or health delivery systems (e.g., special care units for hospital admissions). We consider clinical trials experiments because the investigators rather the patients or their doctors select the treatment the patients receive. Results from randomized clinical trials are usually considered the highest level of evidence for determining whether a treatment is effective because trials incorporates features to ensure that evaluation of the benefits and risks of treatments are objective and unbiased. The FDA requires that drugs or biologics (e.g., vaccines) are shown to be effective in clinical trials before they can be sold in the US.The course will explain the basic principles for design of randomized clinical trials and how they should be reported. In the first part of the course, students will be introduced to terminology used in clinical trials and the several common designs used for clinical trials, such as parallel and cross-over designs. We will also explain some of the mechanics of clinical trials, like randomization and blinding of treatment. In the second half of the course, we will explain how clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. Finally, we will review the essential ethical consideration involved in conducting experiments on people.What the Course CoversThe course will mainly focus on the nuts and bolt of clinical trials design. Lecture topics are:Terminology and Common Trial DesignsRandomization – what is it and how do we do itBlinding treatment – why and how we keep everyone in the dark about the treatmentSelecting outcome – good and bad onesAnalyzing the data – principle of intention-to-treat, why it’s not crazyReporting the results – CONSORT guidelines, a good road map for readers and writersEthical issues – why they are important and what they areSource: Design and Interpretation of Clinical Trials

The distinction is a slightly odd one, as you typically opt for the IGCSE for Grades 9–10 and the IB for Grades 11–12. One major difference between the two is the level of difficulty of the courses, obviously, as they are catered towards different age groups.The IGCSE, like the IB, clubs its subjects into “groups” as well. However, you can take a large amount of subjects under the IG, going up to 10/11. For the IB Diploma, most people typically take only 6 subjects as instructed, with the rare cases of 7.In IG, you are permitted to opt for the Extended or Core paper for a class, which essentially means that an Extended paper is the standard paper wherein you can score up to an A*, however a Core paper is easier, and the maximum grade achieved is a C. For the IB, you must take 3 Higher Level subjects, and 3 Standard Level subjects. The SLs are not “easy”, but the HLs are tougher because they have a larger syllabus, tougher exams, and sometimes even an extra paper depending on your subject.Along those lines, the grading system is also very different. The IG has a letter-based grading system - A*, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and U (in descending order). The IB has a grading scale from 7 to 1. You can receive a maximum of 42 points for 6 subjects, with the passing grade being a 21/42 and a requirement of minimum 12 points for your HLs and 9 for your SLs.The IB also has a lot more factors outside of written exams at the end of 2 years. There are IAs (Internal Assessments) for every subject you take, wherein you essentially write an essay regarding a chosen topic. For example, for Physics, the IA is an experiment report where you plan and execute your own experiment, evaluate the results, and report your findings. For Math, the IA can range from proofs to using calculus for 3D mapping to statistics and probability of card games. Subjects like English A Literature have multiple IAs. The IAs are usually internally assessed and then externally moderated.On top of the IAs, you have the Extended Essay, which is a 4000 word essay on a topic of your choosing for a subject of your choosing. There’s also Theory of Knowledge, which is a mixture of Philosophy and Critical Thinking. For TOK, you have a presentation and a 1600 word essay. Then there’s CAS (Creativity, Activity, Service) wherein you must complete at least 5 out of the 8 learning outcomes to fulfil this requirement. It essentially encourages extra-curricular participation and social service. If you fail CAS, you fail the IB. The IG is not holistic in this way.As for which is the best, that cannot be determined as they cannot be directly compared because they are not in direct competition. What would compete with IB would be the A-Levels programme, which is administered by the same organisation that does the IGCSE. In A-levels, you can pick a minimum of 3 subjects only, and you can choose to give some at the end of your first year (A-level) and some at the end of the second year (A2). This directly compares to IB in a way, as A-levels can be compared to SL and A2 to HL, however in the IB you study all subjects for 2 years. There are no IAs or other assessments apart from the written exams in A-levels.The difference between the two is the concentration on holistic development. If you’re the kind of person who likes essays and balancing studies with extracurriculars, and have excellent time management skills, IB is for you. If you prefer a more straightforward approach, then IG/A-levels is for you. I personally prefer the IB, but the decision on which one is better varies from person to person.

It depends on the context of what 'tough' means. Here's the takeaway, though:ENTJs (TeNi) have Extraverted Thinking (Te) as their dominant function. This means that they are confident enough in their decision-making processes, believing that they've come up with the perfect solution at the moment. ENTJs value efficiency and, when complemented with Introverted Intuition (Ni) as their secondary function, are exceptional problem solvers who don't take too kindly to time wasted contemplating and evaluating things. Due to this Te, ENTJs are more able to see when Plan A doesn't map out, after which they promptly proceed to Plan B.INTJs (NiTe), on the other hand, use Introverted Intuition (Ni) as their primary function, with Extraverted Thinking (Te) as the secondary. Unlike the ENTJ, an INTJ has a very deep and fully realized internal world. They tend to immerse themselves in their internal world and make sure they've achieved the most logical courses of action before taking charge. Although somewhat similar to the ENTJ in terms of valuing efficiency, INTJs are a more complicated all-or-nothing personality type. This means that they'd follow a pattern that they deem the most reasonable, and fully invest in that plan—regardless of the outcome. Due to Ni as their primary function, it might take them a longer time to accept that Plan A didn't work, and that strategizing for Plan B might be the better course all along.When healthy, both ENTJs and INTJs make exceptional decision makers and—despite the stereotypes—leaders of people. Things only take turn for the worse when dealing with immature types. Both types have the tendency to not admit their flaws and to be stubborn.Now, for the 'tough' aspect.Although INTJs have gained notoriety for being arguably the most withdrawn of all 16 types, they aren't as tough as ENTJs. Due to Te as ENTJs’ primary function (something they share with ESTJs), ENTJs have Introverted Feeling (Fi) as their last function. Thus, ENTJs have the tendency to bemoan others' focus on emotions and view such people as too shallow. Nevertheless, mature ENTJs use that same 'toughness' to guide others see an ENTJ's point of view, while knowing that some compromises are necessary to accomplish what's at hand.