Lesson Plan Template

Lesson Plan Template

Candidate’s NameProgramCourseSemester / Year
 

 

 

 

-GAPSC Standard

– I Can Statement: CCGPS or GPS standard restated in I Can form. Question(s) should also align with central focus and lesson objectives.

-Central Focus/ Lesson Objective: The central focus should support students in developing the knowledge and skills related to identified standard. More inclusive than I can statement. Should include the type measurement/ to be used.

-Academic Language:

– Language Function – Specific verb. (Ex: compare, contrast, identify, list, complete, etc)

– Language Vocabulary – Any specific vocabulary necessary to teach related standards. Include

new vocabulary for students as well as vocabulary used by the teacher.

– Language syntax – Teacher. Language Discourse: Student.

Explain what the teacher will do and say. Explain what the student will do and say.

Include examples, explanations and methods of checking for understanding. Use language

vocabulary.

-Media and Technology:

Media: Identify resources needed by the teacher and students

Technology: Identify technology used by the teacher.

Identify technology used by the student.

-Introduction: Describe the strategies you will use to diagnose student prior knowledge. Describe how the student abilities, socio economic levels, and culture related to your planned activities.

-Management Plan: Description of how you will manage specific classroom tasks in this lesson.

-Body of Lesson / Teaching Strategies: Step-by-step explanation of what students will do. What questions will you ask, how will the students participate, how will they use the identified vocabulary.

-Modifications / Accommodations: How will you accommodate for students with specific needs (IEP). How will you accommodate students other than identified IEP’s and 504’s?

-Closure / Summarizing Strategies: How will students share what they have learned? What documentation and artifacts will they produce? How does lesson relate to prior learning and future opportunities for application of skills?

-Assessment / Evaluation: Describe assessments, identify related documents, artifacts, and other evidence you will collect to determine student understanding. Explain feedback processes.

*ALL OF THE AREAS ABOVE SHOULD ALIGN WITH STANDARD(S), OBJECTIVES, and STRATEGIES. ACADEMIC LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS AND LANGUAGE VOCABULARY SHOULD BE USED THROUGHOUT THE LESSON.

Name: Grade:
Lesson Title: 

Date:
CCGPS or GPS Standard(s). Use standard elements aligned with this lesson plan:

 

Classroom/Lesson Context (please check the following that apply): ___ Whole Group ____ Small ____Centers

 

Individual Education Plan: Identify students with IEP plans as well as any students who may need additional help. Use first names only and list the area of need.

 

I Can Statement – Elements of the standard in I can form.
 
Central Focus/Lesson Objective(s): More inclusive than I can statement. State how objectives are measurable and aligned with the standard.
 
Academic Language What is the key language function? What academic language will you teach or develop? What are the key vocabulary words and/or symbols?

Language Function: (Identify ONE language function essential for students to develop and practice the strategy within your central focus.

Language Vocabulary: (Identify key, content specific words for this lesson and examples of vocabulary words. Additionally, include words within a text necessary for students’ comprehension.)

Media and Technology: Be sure to answer all three questions below about the use of technology in your lesson.
Materials: What resources can be used to engage students?

Technology: What forms of technology will you use?

What forms of technology will students use?

 

Modification(s)/Accommodation(s) specific to this lesson (Consider students with IEPs and/or 504s in addition to students below and/or above grade level): This area should not be left blank. There will always be students in your class that need special consideration. This is modifications to the regular lesson plan to accommodate the needs you have described.
 

Management Plan: What management techniques related to physical structure, students, routines, etc. will you need.
 

Strategies/Activities

 

Assessment/Evaluation
Introduction to Lesson/Activating Thinking What is the ‘hook’ or introductory strategy to tap into prior knowledge? This should tie directly into the lesson’s objective and standard. How will you introduce the content specific vocabulary words? List teaching procedures in numerical form.

 

What assessments / evaluations will you use for each activity/strategy. Indicate whether it is formative or summative. There should be formative and summative in each lesson. Include any specific assessment plans for IEP or other students with specific needs. Assessments numbers should correspond with the strategies/activities numbers.
Teacher Syntax and Student Discourse:

 

Assessment:
Body of Lesson/Teaching Strategies: What will the students do after you introduce the lesson to learn the standards? What questions will you ask to promote higher-level thinking? What opportunities will you provide for students to practice content language/vocabulary? What language supports will you offer?

List teaching procedures in numerical form.

What assessments / evaluations will you use for each activity/strategy. Indicate whether it is formative or summative. There should be formative and summative in each lesson. Include any specific assessment plans for IEP or other students with specific needs. Assessments numbers should correspond with the strategies/activities numbers.
Teacher Syntax and Student Discourse:

 

Assessment:
Closure/ Summarizing Strategies: How will the students summarize and/or share what they have learned to prove they know and understand the standard(s) and its vocabulary? Will you provide opportunities for students to apply new knowledge while making connections to prior learning? List teaching procedures in numerical form.

What assessments / evaluations will you use for each activity/strategy. Indicate whether it is formative or summative. There should be formative and summative in each lesson. Include any specific assessment plans for IEP or other students with specific needs. Assessments numbers should correspond with the strategies/activities numbers.
Teacher Syntax and Student Discourse:

 

Assessment:

BKR – 22-23

Clinical Therapeutics

Clinical Therapeutics/Volume 42, Number 8, 2020

Original Research

A Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Once-daily SPN-812 (Viloxazine Extended-release) in the Treatment of Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in School-age Children

Azmi Nasser 1; Tesfaye Liranso 1; Toyin Adewole 1; Nicholas Fry 1; Joseph T. Hull 1; Fatima Chowdhry 1; Gregory D. Busse 1; Andrew J. Cutler 2; Nandita Joshi Jones 3; Robert L. Findling 4; and Stefan Schwabe 1

1Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Rockville, MD, USA; 2SUNY Upstate Medical University, and Neuroscience Education Institute, Lakewood Ranch, FL, USA; 3CNS Healthcare, Jack- sonville, FL, USA; and 4Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA

Accepted for publication May 29, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.05.021 0149-2918/$ – see front matter

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The limitations of current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)eapproved medications for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) set the need for the development of novel, effective, and tolerable medications to treat this disorder. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether treatment with SPN-812 (viloxazine extended-release) significantly reduces symptoms of ADHD in children.

Methods: This study was a randomized, double- blind, placebo-controlled 6-week trial to assess the efficacy and safety of once-daily 100- and 200-mg SPN-812 in the treatment of ADHD in male and female children 6e11 years of age. Inclusion criteria required subjects to have a confirmed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, ADHD diagnosis, an ADHD-Rating Scale-5 (ADHD- RS-5) score �28, a Clinical Global Impression- Severity score �4, and for subjects to be free of ADHD medication �1 week before randomization. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (CFB) at end of study (EOS) in ADHD-RS-5 Total score. Key secondary endpoints included Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scores at EOS and CFB at EOS in the Conners 3eParent Short Form (Conners 3ePS) Composite T-

1452

score and the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating ScaleeParent (WFIRSeP) Total average score. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, vital signs, physical examinations, ECGs, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by using a mixed model for repeated measures; all secondary measures were analyzed by using an ANCOVA model.

Results: A total of 477 subjects were randomized to treatment (intent-to-treat population, n ¼ 460). The majority of subjects were male (63%) and either White (51.3%) or African American (43.7%). The demographic and baseline characteristics between the groups were similar. Statistically significant improvements in ADHD-RS-5 Total score were observed in both the 100- and 200-mg/day SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo at week 1 of treatment (P ¼ 0.0004 and P ¼ 0.0244, respectively), which was maintained through EOS (P ¼ 0.0004 and P < 0.0001). Significant improvements were also observed at EOS in the CGI-I scale (P ¼ 0.0020 and P < 0.0001), Conners 3ePS Composite T-score

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Volume 42 Number 8

 

 

A. Nasser et al.

(P ¼ 0.0003 and P ¼ 0.0002), and WFIRSeP Total average score (P ¼ 0.0019 and P ¼ 0.0002) versus placebo. Treatment-related AEs reported in �5% of subjects included somnolence, decreased appetite, and headache. Thediscontinuation rate due toAEswas<5%.

Implications: SPN-812 significantly reduced ADHD symptoms in children and was well tolerated. SPN-812 may prove to be an effective treatment for children with ADHD. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03247530. (Clin Ther. 2020;42:1452e1466) © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Key words: ADHD, ADHD-RS-5, Conners 3, SPN- 812, viloxazine, WFIRS.

INTRODUCTION It is estimated that ~5.4 million children and adolescents are currently living with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States (~10% of all children and adolescents in the United States), making this disorder a substantial public health concern.1 ADHD is characterized by a pattern of age-inappropriate inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and/or impulsivity that usually persists into adulthood.2,3 If left untreated, symptoms of ADHD can be detrimental to an individual’s academic, social, familial, and occupational trajectories.4e6

Current guidelines for the treatment of ADHD in school-age children and adolescents recommend that clinicians prescribe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)eapproved pharmacotherapy and/or implement behavioral intervention/therapy.7,8 Prescription stimulant medications, including various formulations of methylphenidate and amphetamine, have been the primary medicinal treatment of ADHD for several decades.9,10 Despite their effectiveness in reducing ADHD symptoms for most children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD, prescription stimulants may have certain limitations, risks, and/or drawbacks associated with them that preclude their use for a significant proportion of these patients. For instance, although methylphenidate is one of the most widely prescribed medications for ADHD,11 ~20% of children and adolescents have an inadequate response to treatment.12,13 Daily use of methylphenidate can also be associated with an increased incidence or risk

August 2020

of upper abdominal pain, increased blood pressure or heart rate, decreased appetite, or trouble sleeping.14 In addition to these potential adverse events (AEs), stimulants carry a Warning and Precaution section in their label for serious cardiovascular events, including sudden death in children and adolescents with cardiac issues or structural abnormalities.14,15 Furthermore, overuse and misuse of methylphenidate and amphetamines can result in addiction/dependence and, in rare cases, even acute psychosis.16,17 Considering these risks and concerns, many parents prefer to avoid stimulant use in their children.18 Given these limitations, the use of prescription stimulants to treat ADHD is not ubiquitous.

The availability of prescription nonstimulant medications (eg, atomoxetine, guanfacine extended release, clonidine extended release) provides an alternative treatment for many children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD for whom prescription stimulant treatment is undesirable, precluded, or not effective or tolerated. However, for some patients, current FDAeapproved nonstimulant medications are neither more efficacious than stimulants,19 nor are they devoid of their own limitations, risks, and/or drawbacks. For instance, despite being generally efficacious, in a recent meta- analysis comparing the efficacy of ADHD medications, both atomoxetine and guanfacine extended release were found to provide less improvement in ADHD symptoms than stimulant treatment.20 The use of atomoxetine may also be accompanied by nausea, vomiting, fatigue, decreased appetite, abdominal pain, and somnolence,21 and it is contraindicated in patients with severe cardiovascular or hepatic disorders. There is also a potential for drugedrug interactions with atomoxetine due to cytochrome P450 2D6emediated metabolism. Similarly, side effects such as somnolence, fatigue, nausea, lethargy, abdominal pain, insomnia, or hypotension can occur with monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with the nonstimulants guanfacine extended release and clonidine extended release.22,23

As such, effective and tolerable alternative medications are needed for those patients for whom current prescription stimulant and/or nonstimulant use is not an option.

SPN-812 (viloxazine extended-release) is a multimodal serotonergic and noradrenergic modulating agent (SNMA) with reported activity at

1453

 

 

Clinical Therapeutics

serotonin receptors and the norepinephrine transporter.24 In vivo, viloxazine has been shown to increase serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine,25

although the mechanism of action of SPN-812 remains to be fully elucidated.

A previous Phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily SPN-812 100-, 200-, 300-, and 400-mg for the treatment of ADHD in children 6e12 years of age (N ¼ 222; 1:2:2:2:2 ratio).26 ADHD symptoms and global illness improvement as measured by the ADHD-Rating Scale-IV and Clinical Global ImpressioneSeverity scale (CGI-S), respectively, were markedly reduced (improved) after 8 weeks of SPN-812 treatment in the 200-, 300- and 400-mg SPN-812 treatment groups (but not in the 100-mg group) compared to placebo. In addition, the most commonly reported SPN-812 treatment-related

Figure 1. Disposition of subjects. ITT ¼ intent-to-treat. aNumber of subjects in the safety population i

1454

AEs included somnolence, decreased appetite, headache, fatigue, nausea, and irritability. A low discontinuation rate due to AEs was also observed (n ¼ 13 [6.7%]). Most AEs reported were considered mild to moderate in severity, and each resolved following discontinuation of the study medication. The present study reports the efficacy and safety results of once-daily 100-mg and 200-mg SPN-812 for the treatment of children (6e11 years of age) diagnosed with ADHD from the recent Phase III trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS Study Design

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3- arm, parallel-group (100-mg/day and 200-mg/day) trial was conducted at 34 sites in the United States between October 19, 2017 and September 19, 2018 (Figure 1) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:

s used as denominator for this section.

Volume 42 Number 8

 

 

A. Nasser et al.

NCT03247530). After a screening phase (up to 28 days), eligible subjects were randomized on day 1 (baseline) in a 1:1:1 ratio to placebo or either 100 or 200 mg/day of SPN-812. All subjects, regardless of treatment group assignment, were instructed to take 2 capsules daily by mouth in the morning, with or without food, throughout the 6-week treatment phase. Group assignments were as follows: (1) the placebo group took 2 placebo capsules daily for 6 weeks; (2) the 100-mg SPN-812 treatment group took one placebo and one 100-mg SPN-812 capsule daily for 6 weeks; and (3) the 200-mg SPN-812 treatment group took one placebo and one 100-mg SPN-812 capsule daily during week 1, followed by two 100-mg capsules daily for the remaining 5 weeks. If necessary, the subject’s parent(s) or legal guardian(s) was allowed to open the capsules and sprinkle the contents over a spoon of soft food (eg, apple sauce) for consumption.

The placebo capsule product was formulated to visually match the SPN-812 capsules by using the exact same hard gelatin capsule shells as the active drug product. The placebo capsules contained the same inactive ingredients in the same physical form as contained in the SPN-812 capsules. Taste, smell, and feel of the placebo capsule and its contents matched those of the SPN-812. Thus, the placebo drug product was formulated to make it highly unlikely for subjects/patients or evaluating/rating clinicians to predict treatment assigned to subjects.

The parent(s) or legal guardian(s) was asked to incorporate study medication dosing into the family’s daily morning routine and make every attempt to keep the daily dosing time consistent throughout the 6 weeks of treatment; however, some day-to-day variability in the timing of the daily dose was acceptable, especially if an AE precluded or delayed dosing. Investigator-rated efficacy assessments (ADHD Rating Scale-5 [ADHD-RS-5] and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement [CGI-I]) were completed and safety assessments were performed at weekly outpatient study visits. Self-rated efficacy assessments completed by the subject’s parent or legal guardian (Conners 3eParent Short Form [Conners 3ePS], Weiss Functional Impairment Rating ScaleeParent Form [WFIRSeP], and the Parenting Stress Index Fourth Edition, Short Form [PSI-4-SF]) or by the subject (Conners 3eSelf-Report Short Form [Conners 3eSRS; only subjects who were 8e11 years of age])

August 2020

were administered at baseline (randomization; visit 2) and again at the end of study (EOS; visit 8/week 6).

The study protocol was approved by the Advarra Institutional Review Board (IRB) and conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Note for Guidance on Good Clinical Practice. The parent(s) or legal guardian(s) of each subject provided written informed consent to allow their child’s participation before performing any initial or new study-related procedures at screening or following any protocol amendments, respectively. All versions of the informed consent form were reviewed and approved by the IRB. Subjects who completed the 6-week treatment phase and continued to meet all inclusion/exclusion criteria were eligible to participate in a long-term, open-label extension safety clinical trial (NCT02736656).

Subjects Male and female children (6e11 years of age at

screening) were eligible to participate in the study if he or she had a primary diagnosis of ADHD as defined according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), which was confirmed by the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID), an ADHD-RS-5 Total score �28 at screening (visit 1) and baseline (visit 2), and a CGI-S score �4 (ie, moderate or greater overall illness severity) at screening (visit 1). Subjects were required to refrain from taking ADHD medications (other than the study medication) starting at least 1 week before randomization and throughout the study until EOS.

Subjects were not eligible to participate if they had a current diagnosis of a major psychiatric/neurologic disorder other than ADHD (excluding oppositional defiant disorder, or major depressive disorder if the subject was free of major depressive episodes both currently and for the 6 months before screening), significant systemic disease, a history of allergic reaction to viloxazine or its excipients, any food allergy or intolerance that contraindicated trial participation, and/or evidence of suicidality within 6 months of screening.

Assessments The primary efficacy endpoint of this trial was the

change from baseline (CFB) in the ADHD-RS-5 Total

1455

 

 

Clinical Therapeutics

score at EOS (week 6). The ADHD-RS-5 consists of 18 items designed to reflect current symptomatology of ADHD based on DSM-5 criteria.3,27 The ADHD-RS-5 was administered by a trained rater at each study visit from baseline through EOS.

There were 3 key secondary endpoints: CGI-I score28 at EOS, CFB in the Conners 3ePS Composite T-score29 at EOS, and CFB in the WFIRSeP Total average score30,31 at EOS. The CGI-I was completed at each postbaseline visit through EOS. The Conners 3ePS also contains 6 content scales, 2 related to core ADHD symptoms (inattention and hyperactivity), and 4 related to ADHD-associated impairments (learning problems, executive functioning, defiance/ aggression, and peer relations). The WFIRSeP evaluates functional impairment related to ADHD across 6 domains, including family, school, life skills, child’s self-concept, social activity, and risky activity. The Conners 3ePS and WFIRSeP were administered at baseline and EOS visits.

Additional secondary endpoints included the CFB at EOS in each ADHD-RS-5 subscale (Inattention and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity); the 50% responder rate per the ADHD-RS-5 (defined as the proportion of subjects who exhibit a �50% reduction [improvement] in CFB ADHD-RS-5 Total score); responder rate per the CGI-I (or categorical CGI-I; proportion of subjects categorized as “improved,” which is defined as a subject who had a CGI-I score of 1 [“very much improved”] or 2 [“much improved”]) by visit; the CFB in the PSI-4-SF Total score32 at EOS; and the CFB in the Conners 3eSRS Composite T-score29 at EOS. Other endpoints included individual CFB at EOS in the content scale T-score for both the Conners 3ePS and Conners 3eSRS and CFB at EOS in the domain average score for WFIRSeP.

Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring AEs, results of clinical laboratory tests (including hepatic enzymes), vital signs, physical examinations, ECGs, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). AEs were defined as any unfavorable or unintended sign/symptom or laboratory finding, including: new disease or injury, clinically significant deviation of blood and urinary laboratory test results, vital signs, or clinical tests; or recurrence of a medical condition that was not present at screening or baseline (ie, the AEs described were recorded after the first drug administration). Any AE beginning after or upon first treatment administration, or that worsened following the first administration, was

1456

considered treatment-emergent (TEAE); all AEs were recorded following the first administration and are thus all considered to be TEAEs (henceforth referred to as AEs). The relationship to treatment, seriousness, and severity of all AEs were evaluated by the site investigator. AEs were determined to be mild if the subject’s symptoms were easily tolerated, moderate if discomfort was enough to interfere with usual daily activities and may have warranted intervention, and severe if the event was incapacitating to the subject’s daily activity or significantly affected their clinical status and warranted intervention.

Statistical Analysis Sample size calculations indicated that 104 subjects

per treatment group in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population would yield 90% power at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided) using a 2-sample t test with equal allocation across treatment groups; they were based on an effect size of 0.453 obtained in a previous Phase IIb trial.26 Based on these calculations, a total of 432 subjects (144 per treatment arm) were projected to be randomized to treatment, to account for anticipated dropout rates of 27.9% in the randomized population.

The ITT population included all randomized subjects administered at least 1 dose of study medication, who also had a baseline and at least 1 post-baseline ADHD-RS-5 assessment. The safety population included all randomized subjects administered at least 1 dose of study medication.

The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM); the model included fixed-effect terms for baseline ADHD-RS-5 Total score, age group, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as independent variables. All secondary measures were analyzed by using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as fixed-effect terms and baseline as a covariate, except for the CGI-I, which was analyzed by using baseline CGI-S as a covariate. The family- wise error rate was controlled under 5% by using the sequential testing procedure.33 For all analyses, P values, least squares (LS) of treatment means, and differences between the LS treatment means and placebo were computed. LS mean CFB values are reported henceforth unless otherwise noted. Statistical analyses were performed by using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, North Carolina).

Volume 42 Number 8

 

 

A. Nasser et al.

RESULTS Demographic and Baseline Characteristics

A total of 477 subjects were randomized into the trial, with the ITT population consisting of 460 subjects (placebo, n ¼ 155; 100-mg/day SPN-812, n ¼ 147; 200-mg/day SPN-812, n ¼ 158). The safety population consisted of 474 subjects (placebo, n ¼ 159; 100-mg/day SPN-812, n ¼ 154; 200-mg/day SPN-812, n ¼ 161); all reasons for discontinuation are noted in Figure 1. Approximately 19% of subjects who were screened discontinued from the trial before randomization. The majority of subjects were male (63%), and either White (51.3%) or African American (43.7%) (Table I). The demographic (eg, distribution of male subjects vs female subjects and ethnicity/race) and baseline characteristics (eg, age, weight, body mass index, ADHD-RS-5 Total score, and CGI-S score) between the placebo group and either SPN-812

Table I. Demographic and baseline characteristics in the

Characteristic Placebo

N (ITT) 155 Age, mean (SD), y 8.5 (1.7) Sex, n (%)

Male 97 (62.6) Female 58 (37.4)

Ethnicity, n (%) Hispanic or Latino 32 (20.6) Not Hispanic or Latino 123 (79.4)

Race, n (%) American-Indian or Alaska Native 1 (0.6) Asian 1 (0.6) Black or African American 69 (44.5) Multiple 7 (4.5) White 77 (49.7)

Weight, mean (SD), kg 31.1 (8.0) Body mass index, mean (SD), kg/m2 16.9 (2.2) ADHD-RS-5, mean (SD)

Total score 43.6 (7.1) Inattention 22.5 (3.8) Hyperactivity/Impulsivity 21.1 (4.9)

CGI-S score, mean (SD) 4.8 (0.7)

ADHD-RS-5 ¼ ADHD Rating Scale-5; CGI-S ¼ Clinical Global Im standard deviation.

August 2020

treatment group were similar. Previous ADHD medication use reported at screening (safety population) was as follows: 89.9% of patients in the placebo group, 89.6% in the 100-mg/day SPN-812 group, and 84.5% in the 200-mg/day SPN-812 group were not taking any ADHD medication; 6.9%, 6.5%, and 10.6% were taking stimulants; and 3.1%, 3.9%, and 5.0% were taking nonstimulants, respectively.

ADHD-RS-5 The mean ADHD-RS-5 Total score and subscale

scores at baseline were similar among treatment groups (Table I). The CFB in ADHD-RS-5 Total score at EOS was significantly reduced (improved) with both the 100-mg/day SPN-812 (P ¼ 0.0004) and 200mg/day SPN-812 (P < 0.0001) compared to placebo (Table II). Moreover, the CFB in ADHD-RS-5 Total score was significantly reduced in the first week of treatment with

intent-to-treat (ITT) population.

SPN-812 Overall

100 mg/day 200 mg/day

147 158 460 8.5 (1.7) 8.5 (1.7) 8.5 (1.7)

94 (63.9) 99 (62.7) 290 (63.0) 53 (36.1) 59 (37.3) 170 (37.0)

38 (25.9) 51 (32.3) 121 (26.3) 108 (73.5) 107 (67.7) 338 (73.5)

1 (0.7) 0 2 (0.4) 0 0 1 (0.2) 63 (42.9) 69 (43.7) 201 (43.7) 7 (4.8) 6 (3.8) 20 (4.3)

76 (51.7) 83 (52.5) 236 (51.3) 31.7 (8.9) 31.8 (8.4) 31.5 (8.4) 17.3 (2.2) 17.2 (2.4) 17.1 (2.3)

45.0 (6.5) 44.0 (6.8) 44.2 (6.8) 22.8 (3.2) 22.9 (3.5) 22.7 (3.5) 22.2 (4.7) 21.1 (5.2) 21.5 (4.9) 4.8 (0.8) 4.8 (0.7) ND

pressioneSeverity of Illness; ND ¼ not determined; SD ¼

1457

 

 

Clinical Therapeutics

daily SPN-812 in both SPN-812 treatment groups, exhibiting a fast onset of action. This significant effect was observed at each subsequent week through EOS at target dose in both the 100-mg/day SPN-812 and 200-mg/day SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo (Figure 2). The CFB in both the ADHD-RS-5 Inattention and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale scores at EOS was significantly reduced in the 100-mg/day SPN-812(P ¼ 0.0006 and P ¼ 0.0026, respectively) and 200-mg/day (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001) SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo. Furthermore, there was a significantly higher 50% responder rate in ADHD-RS-5 Total score at EOS in the 100-mg/day (P ¼ 0.0063) and 200-mg/day (P < 0.0001) SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo (Figure 3).

CGI-I The mean CGI-S score at baseline was similar among

treatment groups (Table I). The CGI-I score at EOS was significantly lower in the 100-mg/day (P ¼ 0.0020) and 200-mg/day (P < 0.0001) SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo (Figure 4). Furthermore, the responder rate per the CGI-I score (ie, percentage of subjects with a CGI-I score of 1 [very much improved] or 2 [much improved]) was also significantly higher at EOS in the 100-mg/day and 200-mg/day SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo (45% and 51% vs 30%, respectively; P ¼ 0.0065 and P ¼ 0.0002). The significant differences in percentage of subjects with clinical

Table II. ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) results in treatment group.

ADHD-RS-5 Measure Placebo (n ¼ 155)

CFB, LS mean (SE) Total score −10.9 (1.14) Inattention subscalez −5.7 (0.60) Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscalez −5.5 (0.59)

50% responder ratex 31 (19.8%)

* P < 0.05 versus placebo. y P < 0.0001 versus placebo. z P values derived from ANCOVA model. x P values derived from logistic regression.

1458

improvement began at week 1 in the 100-mg/day SPN-812 treatment group (24% vs 9%; P ¼ 0.0005) and at week 2 in the 200-mg/day SPN-812 treatment group (32% vs 19%; P ¼ 0.0099).

Conners 3−PS The mean Conners 3−PS Composite T-score and

content scales T-scores at baseline were similar among treatment groups. The CFB in the Conners 3−PS Composite T-score at EOS was significantly reduced (improved) in the 100-mg/day (P ¼ 0.0003) and 200- mg/day (P ¼ 0.0002) SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo (Table III). The CFB in the T- score for 5 of 6 Conners 3−PS content scales at EOS was significantly reduced (improved) in the 100-mg/day and 200-mg/day SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo, including inattention (P ¼ 0.0028 and P ¼ 0.0025, respectively), hyperactivity (P ¼ 0.0076 and P ¼ 0.0013), learning problems (P ¼ 0.0154 and P ¼ 0.0158), executive functioning (P ¼ 0.0002 and P ¼ 0.0024), and peer relations (P ¼ 0.0003 and P ¼ 0.0023). The CFB in the T-score for the Conners 3−PS defiance/aggression content scale at EOS was significantly reduced only in the 200-mg/day SPN-812 (P ¼ 0.0245) treatment group compared to placebo.

WFIRSeP TheCFB inWFIRSePTotal average score at EOSwas

significantly reduced (improved) in the 100-mg/day (P ¼ 0.0019) and 200-mg/day (P ¼ 0.0002) SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo (Table III). The

the intent-to-treat population at end of study by

SPN-812

100 mg/day (n ¼ 147) 200 mg/day (n ¼ 158)

−16.6 (1.16)* −17.7 (1.12)y

−8.6 (0.62)* −9.2 (0.60)y

−8.0 (0.60)* −8.7 (0.58)y

50 (34.2%)* 65 (41.2%)y

Volume 42 Number 8

 

 

Figure 2. Analysis of change from baseline in ADHD-Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) Total score in the intent-to- treat population. LS ¼ least squares; SE ¼ standard error. *P < 0.05. yP < 0.0001.

A. Nasser et al.

CFB in the average score for 4 of 6WFIRSeP domains at EOSwas significantly reduced (improved) in the 100-mg/ day and 200 mg/day SPN-812 treatment groups compared to placebo, including the family (P ¼ 0.0276 and P ¼ 0.0003, respectively), school (P ¼ 0.0022 and P ¼ 0.0009), social activities (P ¼ 0.0222 and P ¼ 0.0052), and risky activities (P ¼ 0.0294 and P ¼ 0.0036) domains. The CFB in the average score for

Figure 3. Analysis of ADHD-Rating Scale-5 50% respond tion. *P < 0.05. yP < 0.0001.

August 2020

WFIRSeP self-concept and life skills domains at EOS was not significantly reduced for either SPN-812 treatment group compared with placebo.

Conners 3−SRS and PSI-4-SF The CFB in Conners 3−SRS Composite T-score or

the PSI-4-SF Total score at EOS was not significantly reduced for either the 100-mg/day or 200-mg/day

er rate at end of study in the intent-to-treat popula-

The dissertation journey: A practical guide to planning, writing, and defending your dissertation

Book: Roberts, C. M., & Hyatt, L. (2019).  The dissertation journey: A practical guide to planning, writing, and defending your dissertation (3rd ed.). Corwin Publishing Co. ISBN-  9781506373331. Read Chapters 6 & 9.

Discussion Question: Post must be at least 350 words.

Since a critical step in preparing to complete a dissertation topic for research begins by having a good understanding of the most current, supportive literature, the literature review is usually found at the beginning of a dissertation and then is referred to throughout the rest of the writings.

There are many steps in accurately preparing and writing a literature review. The eight steps listed by the required reading reflect upon the two steps you feel are the most important in such review’s success.

Discussion Question: Post must be at least 350 words.

Select two additional steps and explain why these are also key parts of the literature review process. Use information from your readings to support your selection, along with providing some examples of how this would be seen by both the researcher and the reader.

Nursing Leadership: Case Study with Evidence Based Research and Literature Review Guidelines

Nursing Leadership: Case Study with Evidence Based Research and Literature Review Guidelines

 

Purpose: The literature review is assigned to introduce the nursing student to evidence-based

research, using online databases to research scholarly references, and writing scholarly work in

APA format.

Topic: Effective delegation and supervision

 

Course Objectives:

This assignment enables the students to meet the following course objective (CO):

CO 2: The various components of a nursing practice act

CO 5: Differences in beliefs and values of diverse populations as a critical component of

nursing practice

 

Student Learning Outcomes:

This assignment enables the student to meet the following student learning outcome (SLO):

SLO 2: Apply elements of the Illinois Nurse Practice Act in the provision of nursing care.

SLO 12: Integrate respect for differences in beliefs and values of others as a critical

component of nursing practice.

SLO 21: Describe workforce strategies that support efficient and effective quality patient care.

and promote improved work environments for nurses.

SLO 25: Communicate effectively with diverse intergenerational and interdisciplinary team.

members, patient and families.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria for Format

1. Paper (excluding title page and reference page) at least 1-page.

2. The paper should include an introduction, body, and conclusion. Information should be clear and concise.

3. Times New Roman 12 point. Double space.

4. Minimum of 2 scholarly references must be used. References must be current within the

past 5 years or less. Use scholarly work outside your course books.

5. Title, body, and reference page must follow APA guidelines.

6. Citations and references must be used.

7. As per the current APA manual rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation

apply.

 

Case Study for Literature Review

Read the case study and guided questions to help trigger ideas with your research for your paper. Research evidence -based literature that best supports the theme of this case. Include a written review of three (2) scholarly references.

Effective Delegation and Supervision

The hospital facility where Shawn Jones, RN, works has recently begun supplementing unit staffing with unlicensed assistive personnel (UAP). Shawn will be working with three UAPs on his unit and is very concerned about his supervisory role. Shawn discusses the situation with his nurse manager, Carlene Brown, MSN, RN. Carlene explains that Shawn will continue to be accountable for the patient’s initial and intermittent assessments, diagnosis, planning, evaluation, and patient teaching and that the UAP will be used to lessen the amount of direct care Shawn has been providing. Shawn explains that he is concerned that the attempt to decrease the time he spends providing direct care will simultaneously result an increase in supervisory work. Additionally, Shawn is concerned about the diversity among. UAP training programs and is apprehensive about the UAP’s level of knowledge, skills, and understanding of role responsibilities. To put Shawn’s mind at ease, Carlene offers to work with Shawn to create a plan to evaluate the UAP’s readiness for a delegated task. Carlene suggests that Shawn use the delegation process as the framework for the plan and to review the state’s nurse practice act, rules, and regulations.

 

 

 

Guided Questions to Effective Delegation Case Study

Use the following questions as a guide to help trigger ideas in writing your paper. The

following questions are not required to be answered, however, use these questions to

help outline your paper.

1. Illustrate how the delegation process could be used to evaluate the UAP’s readiness to

be delegated a task.

2. How can the five rights be applied to this scenario?

3. Review your state nurse practice act and discuss what guidance your state provides

regarding delegation to the UAP.

Hills like White Elephants

Hills like White Elephants

 

Directions: This story’s message is never directly mentioned. Hemmingway conveys his point through the setting description and symbolism. For the following, describe what you think could be the symbolic meaning:

LicoriceAlcohol (Anais del Toro)
operationWhite elephants

choose one of the following activities and write 400–500 words providing the required analysis

For Part 1, write 400–500 words analyzing characterization and point of view in “A&P,” “The

Yellow Wallpaper,” and “Lust.” The main characters in each of these stories are young people

coming of age. Compare and contrast the author’s techniques in developing each character. How

does the perspective of each story enhance our understanding of each character’s personality? Be

sure to refer to specific points in each story to support your analysis. You must use at least two

quotes in your response.

For Part 2, choose one of the following activities and write 400–500 words providing the

required analysis. Include sufficient support from the story for your analysis and conclusions.

You must use at least two quotes in your response. You’ll use standard essay format.

1. Analyze the style and tone in “Killings” and “Famine.” What techniques does the

author use to establish the mood of the story? How does language contribute to tone?

Compare and contrast how diction, voice, and irony affect the way each story is told.

2. Analyze the themes of “Popular Mechanics” and “Janus.” What do you believe are the

themes for these stories? Compare how theme is developed through the plots and

characters of each story.

For Part 3, choose one of the following activities and write 400–500 words providing the

required analysis. Include sufficient support from the poem for your analysis and conclusions.

You must use at least two quotes in your response. You’ll use standard essay format. Be sure to

work through the writing process outlined in your textbook, use MLA for textual and workscited

documentation, and apply standard written conventions.

1. Analyze the word choice, tone, and images found in “The Supremes” and “The

Schoolroom on the Second Floor of the Knitting Mill.” How do the authors capture the

experience of being in school? What words and images in each poem help convey the

tone? Explain how these elements of each poem work together to create a

familiar/recognizable impression on the reader.

2. Analyze the symbol, allegories, irony, and figures of speech found in “Schizophrenia”

and “The Joy of Cooking.” How do figures of speech enhance each poem’s meaning?

Remember to not just identify the kind of language being used but to also analyze the

significance behind this language.

Assignment: Essay

Assignment: Essay #3 Due electronically by Monday, 12/6

Write two papers as described in ONE of the following prompts. To jog your memory, the poetry exercises are posted below. If you’d like to write on a prompt that’s attached to a poetry exercise your section didn’t get a chance to do, please email me and I’ll make arrangements for you to complete the exercise in question.

A. Part 1: Write 300-500 words reflecting on your experiences during poetry exercise 1. Part 2: Choose a character other than Odysseus. Write an essay (between 1200 and 1500 words in length) in which you explain how Homer identifies that character’s speeches in the Odyssey as belonging to that character (other than just saying “X said Y,” of course.) What words, subjects, themes, literary devices and/or forms of self-reference are characteristic of your chosen character’s way of speaking?

B. Part 1: Write 300-500 words reflecting on your experiences during poetry exercise 2. Part 2: Choose a character other than Odysseus or Telemachus. Write an essay (between 1200 and 1500 words in length) in which you a.) identify one or more passages of narrative (NOT speech) that are narrated from that character’s point of view (i.e., focalized on that character); b.) say which textual details allowed you to identify the passage(s) you’ve chosen; and c.) having done all that, say what this investigation adds to your understanding of the character you’ve chosen.

C. Part 1: Write 300-500 words reflecting on your experiences during poetry exercise 3. Part 2: Choose a character with whom Odysseus interacts in the Odyssey. Write an essay (between 1200 and 1500 words in length) that addresses the following questions: What information does your chosen character provide Odysseus? Identify one or more things that Odysseus learns from your chosen character without his asking about them directly. How does Odysseus elicit this information without asking about it directly? Offer a hypothesis as to why Odysseus might prefer to elicit this information by indirect means.

Answer one of the following sets of questions:

Answer one of the following sets of questions:

1) In H.G. Wells’ novella The Time Machine, the Time Traveller is shocked by the future he discovers. Should he be? Does late 19th-century England resemble the future he discovers, where the Eloi and Morlocks live in conflict? Does the Time Traveller himself possess personality traits that imply humanity is destined for continual conflict? Does the novel offer any hope that humanity might be able to avoid such a future?

2) Kazuo Ishiguro’s short story “A Village After Dark” ends with the narrator, Fletcher, envisioning his future. Based on what you learn of his past, and his account of his experiences in the present, is his vision of the future realistic? Might he come to lead the village again? Or is he delusional?

Expectations:

Your answer must be at least 2 full pages in length (it should not be longer than 3 full pages) and include:

1) organized paragraphs comprised of complete sentences

2) at least six quotes from The Time Machine and analyses of those quotes, or at least six quotes from “A Village After Dark” and analyses of those quotes

Notes:

1) Assume that your audience has read The Time Machine and “A Village After Dark.” Do not summarize their plots.

2) Do not cite any secondary sources in your analyses of The Time Machine or “A Village After Dark.”

3) You are not required to cite The Time Machine or “A Village After Dark” according to MLA format or produce a Works Cited page; however, whenever you quote from The Time Machine or “A Village After Dark,” include the number of the page on which the quote appears in parentheses at the end of the sentence, before the period.

4) Double-space your answer in 12-point Times New Roman or a similar font.

Grading:

1) Your grade will be based on the completeness of your answer and the attentiveness of your textual analysis.

2) Late or incomplete answers will receive a grade of F.

The Time Machine

The Time Machine

Por

H. G. Wells

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

Introduction

The Time Traveller (for so it will be convenient to speak of him) was expounding a recondite matter to us. His pale grey eyes shone and twinkled, and his usually pale face was flushed and animated. The fire burnt brightly, and the soft radiance of the incandescent lights in the lilies of silver caught the bubbles that flashed and passed in our glasses. Our chairs, being his patents, embraced and caressed us rather than submitted to be sat upon, and there was that luxurious after-dinner atmosphere, when thought runs gracefully free of the trammels of precision. And he put it to us in this way—marking the points with a lean forefinger—as we sat and lazily admired his earnestness over this new paradox (as we thought it) and his fecundity.

“You must follow me carefully. I shall have to controvert one or two ideas that are almost universally accepted. The geometry, for instance, they taught you at school is founded on a misconception.”

“Is not that rather a large thing to expect us to begin upon?” said Filby, an argumentative person with red hair.

“I do not mean to ask you to accept anything without reasonable ground for it. You will soon admit as much as I need from you. You know of course that a mathematical line, a line of thickness nil, has no real existence. They taught you that? Neither has a mathematical plane. These things are mere abstractions.”

“That is all right,” said the Psychologist.

“Nor, having only length, breadth, and thickness, can a cube have a real existence.”

“There I object,” said Filby. “Of course a solid body may exist. All real things—”

“So most people think. But wait a moment. Can an instantaneous cube exist?”

“Don’t follow you,” said Filby.

“Can a cube that does not last for any time at all, have a real existence?”

Filby became pensive. “Clearly,” the Time Traveller proceeded, “any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and—Duration. But through a natural infirmity of the flesh, which I will explain to you in a moment, we incline to overlook this fact. There are

 

 

really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes of Space, and a fourth, Time. There is, however, a tendency to draw an unreal distinction between the former three dimensions and the latter, because it happens that our consciousness moves intermittently in one direction along the latter from the beginning to the end of our lives.”

“That,” said a very young man, making spasmodic efforts to relight his cigar over the lamp; “that . . . very clear indeed.”

“Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,” continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness. “Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along it. But some foolish people have got hold of the wrong side of that idea. You have all heard what they have to say about this Fourth Dimension?”

“I have not,” said the Provincial Mayor.

“It is simply this. That Space, as our mathematicians have it, is spoken of as having three dimensions, which one may call Length, Breadth, and Thickness, and is always definable by reference to three planes, each at right angles to the others. But some philosophical people have been asking why three dimensions particularly—why not another direction at right angles to the other three?—and have even tried to construct a Four-Dimensional geometry. Professor Simon Newcomb was expounding this to the New York Mathematical Society only a month or so ago. You know how on a flat surface, which has only two dimensions, we can represent a figure of a three- dimensional solid, and similarly they think that by models of three dimensions they could represent one of four—if they could master the perspective of the thing. See?”

“I think so,” murmured the Provincial Mayor; and, knitting his brows, he lapsed into an introspective state, his lips moving as one who repeats mystic words. “Yes, I think I see it now,” he said after some time, brightening in a quite transitory manner.

“Well, I do not mind telling you I have been at work upon this geometry of Four Dimensions for some time. Some of my results are curious. For instance, here is a portrait of a man at eight years old, another at fifteen, another at seventeen, another at twenty-three, and so on. All these are evidently sections, as it were, Three-Dimensional representations of his Four-Dimensioned being, which is a fixed and unalterable thing.

“Scientific people,” proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause required

 

 

for the proper assimilation of this, “know very well that Time is only a kind of Space. Here is a popular scientific diagram, a weather record. This line I trace with my finger shows the movement of the barometer. Yesterday it was so high, yesterday night it fell, then this morning it rose again, and so gently upward to here. Surely the mercury did not trace this line in any of the dimensions of Space generally recognised? But certainly it traced such a line, and that line, therefore, we must conclude, was along the Time-Dimension.”

“But,” said the Medical Man, staring hard at a coal in the fire, “if Time is really only a fourth dimension of Space, why is it, and why has it always been, regarded as something different? And why cannot we move in Time as we move about in the other dimensions of Space?”

The Time Traveller smiled. “Are you so sure we can move freely in Space? Right and left we can go, backward and forward freely enough, and men always have done so. I admit we move freely in two dimensions. But how about up and down? Gravitation limits us there.”

“Not exactly,” said the Medical Man. “There are balloons.”

“But before the balloons, save for spasmodic jumping and the inequalities of the surface, man had no freedom of vertical movement.”

“Still they could move a little up and down,” said the Medical Man.

“Easier, far easier down than up.”

“And you cannot move at all in Time, you cannot get away from the present moment.”

“My dear sir, that is just where you are wrong. That is just where the whole world has gone wrong. We are always getting away from the present moment. Our mental existences, which are immaterial and have no dimensions, are passing along the Time-Dimension with a uniform velocity from the cradle to the grave. Just as we should travel down if we began our existence fifty miles above the earth’s surface.”

“But the great difficulty is this,” interrupted the Psychologist. ’You can move about in all directions of Space, but you cannot move about in Time.”

“That is the germ of my great discovery. But you are wrong to say that we cannot move about in Time. For instance, if I am recalling an incident very vividly I go back to the instant of its occurrence: I become absent-minded, as you say. I jump back for a moment. Of course we have no means of staying back for any length of Time, any more than a savage or an animal has of staying six feet above the ground. But a civilised man is better off than the savage in this respect. He can go up against gravitation in a balloon, and why should he not hope that ultimately he may be able to stop or accelerate his drift

 

 

along the Time-Dimension, or even turn about and travel the other way?”

“Oh, this,” began Filby, “is all—”

“Why not?” said the Time Traveller.

“It’s against reason,” said Filby.

“What reason?” said the Time Traveller.

“You can show black is white by argument,” said Filby, “but you will never convince me.”

“Possibly not,” said the Time Traveller. “But now you begin to see the object of my investigations into the geometry of Four Dimensions. Long ago I had a vague inkling of a machine—”

“To travel through Time!” exclaimed the Very Young Man.

“That shall travel indifferently in any direction of Space and Time, as the driver determines.”

Filby contented himself with laughter.

“But I have experimental verification,” said the Time Traveller.

“It would be remarkably convenient for the historian,” the Psychologist suggested. “One might travel back and verify the accepted account of the Battle of Hastings, for instance!”

“Don’t you think you would attract attention?” said the Medical Man. “Our ancestors had no great tolerance for anachronisms.”

“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato,” the Very Young Man thought.

“In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

“Then there is the future,” said the Very Young Man. “Just think! One might invest all one’s money, leave it to accumulate at interest, and hurry on ahead!”

“To discover a society,” said I, “erected on a strictly communistic basis.”

“Of all the wild extravagant theories!” began the Psychologist.

“Yes, so it seemed to me, and so I never talked of it until—”

“Experimental verification!” cried I. “You are going to verify that?”

“The experiment!” cried Filby, who was getting brain-weary.

“Let’s see your experiment anyhow,” said the Psychologist, “though it’s all

 

 

humbug, you know.”

The Time Traveller smiled round at us. Then, still smiling faintly, and with his hands deep in his trousers pockets, he walked slowly out of the room, and we heard his slippers shuffling down the long passage to his laboratory.

The Psychologist looked at us. “I wonder what he’s got?”

“Some sleight-of-hand trick or other,” said the Medical Man, and Filby tried to tell us about a conjuror he had seen at Burslem, but before he had finished his preface the Time Traveller came back, and Filby’s anecdote collapsed.

 

 

II

The Machine

The thing the Time Traveller held in his hand was a glittering metallic framework, scarcely larger than a small clock, and very delicately made. There was ivory in it, and some transparent crystalline substance. And now I must be explicit, for this that follows—unless his explanation is to be accepted—is an absolutely unaccountable thing. He took one of the small octagonal tables that were scattered about the room, and set it in front of the fire, with two legs on the hearthrug. On this table he placed the mechanism. Then he drew up a chair, and sat down. The only other object on the table was a small shaded lamp, the bright light of which fell upon the model. There were also perhaps a dozen candles about, two in brass candlesticks upon the mantel and several in sconces, so that the room was brilliantly illuminated. I sat in a low arm-chair nearest the fire, and I drew this forward so as to be almost between the Time Traveller and the fireplace. Filby sat behind him, looking over his shoulder. The Medical Man and the Provincial Mayor watched him in profile from the right, the Psychologist from the left. The Very Young Man stood behind the Psychologist. We were all on the alert. It appears incredible to me that any kind of trick, however subtly conceived and however adroitly done, could have been played upon us under these conditions.

The Time Traveller looked at us, and then at the mechanism. “Well?” said the Psychologist.

“This little affair,” said the Time Traveller, resting his elbows upon the table and pressing his hands together above the apparatus, “is only a model. It is my plan for a machine to travel through time. You will notice that it looks singularly askew, and that there is an odd twinkling appearance about this bar, as though it was in some way unreal.” He pointed to the part with his finger.

 

 

“Also, here is one little white lever, and here is another.”

The Medical Man got up out of his chair and peered into the thing. “It’s beautifully made,” he said.

“It took two years to make,” retorted the Time Traveller. Then, when we had all imitated the action of the Medical Man, he said: “Now I want you clearly to understand that this lever, being pressed over, sends the machine gliding into the future, and this other reverses the motion. This saddle represents the seat of a time traveller. Presently I am going to press the lever, and off the machine will go. It will vanish, pass into future Time, and disappear. Have a good look at the thing. Look at the table too, and satisfy yourselves there is no trickery. I don’t want to waste this model, and then be told I’m a quack.”

There was a minute’s pause perhaps. The Psychologist seemed about to speak to me, but changed his mind. Then the Time Traveller put forth his finger towards the lever. “No,” he said suddenly. “Lend me your hand.” And turning to the Psychologist, he took that individual’s hand in his own and told him to put out his forefinger. So that it was the Psychologist himself who sent forth the model Time Machine on its interminable voyage. We all saw the lever turn. I am absolutely certain there was no trickery. There was a breath of wind, and the lamp flame jumped. One of the candles on the mantel was blown out, and the little machine suddenly swung round, became indistinct, was seen as a ghost for a second perhaps, as an eddy of faintly glittering brass and ivory; and it was gone—vanished! Save for the lamp the table was bare.

Everyone was silent for a minute. Then Filby said he was damned.

The Psychologist recovered from his stupor, and suddenly looked under the table. At that the Time Traveller laughed cheerfully. “Well?” he said, with a reminiscence of the Psychologist. Then, getting up, he went to the tobacco jar on the mantel, and with his back to us began to fill his pipe.

We stared at each other. “Look here,” said the Medical Man, “are you in earnest about this? Do you seriously believe that that machine has travelled into time?”

“Certainly,” said the Time Traveller, stooping to light a spill at the fire. Then he turned, lighting his pipe, to look at the Psychologist’s face. (The Psychologist, to show that he was not unhinged, helped himself to a cigar and tried to light it uncut.) “What is more, I have a big machine nearly finished in there”—he indicated the laboratory—“and when that is put together I mean to have a journey on my own account.”

“You mean to say that that machine has travelled into the future?” said Filby.

 

 

“Into the future or the past—I don’t, for certain, know which.”

After an interval the Psychologist had an inspiration. “It must have gone into the past if it has gone anywhere,” he said.

“Why?” said the Time Traveller.

“Because I presume that it has not moved in space, and if it travelled into the future it would still be here all this time, since it must have travelled through this time.”

“But,” said I, “If it travelled into the past it would have been visible when we came first into this room; and last Thursday when we were here; and the Thursday before that; and so forth!”

“Serious objections,” remarked the Provincial Mayor, with an air of impartiality, turning towards the Time Traveller.

“Not a bit,” said the Time Traveller, and, to the Psychologist: “You think. You can explain that. It’s presentation below the threshold, you know, diluted presentation.”

“Of course,” said the Psychologist, and reassured us. “That’s a simple point of psychology. I should have thought of it. It’s plain enough, and helps the paradox delightfully. We cannot see it, nor can we appreciate this machine, any more than we can the spoke of a wheel spinning, or a bullet flying through the air. If it is travelling through time fifty times or a hundred times faster than we are, if it gets through a minute while we get through a second, the impression it creates will of course be only one-fiftieth or one-hundredth of what it would make if it were not travelling in time. That’s plain enough.” He passed his hand through the space in which the machine had been. “You see?” he said, laughing.

We sat and stared at the vacant table for a minute or so. Then the Time Traveller asked us what we thought of it all.

“It sounds plausible enough tonight,” said the Medical Man; “but wait until tomorrow. Wait for the common sense of the morning.”

“Would you like to see the Time Machine itself?” asked the Time Traveller. And therewith, taking the lamp in his hand, he led the way down the long, draughty corridor to his laboratory. I remember vividly the flickering light, his queer, broad head in silhouette, the dance of the shadows, how we all followed him, puzzled but incredulous, and how there in the laboratory we beheld a larger edition of the little mechanism which we had seen vanish from before our eyes. Parts were of nickel, parts of ivory, parts had certainly been filed or sawn out of rock crystal. The thing was generally complete, but the twisted crystalline bars lay unfinished upon the bench beside some sheets of

 

 

drawings, and I took one up for a better look at it. Quartz it seemed to be.

“Look here,” said the Medical Man, “are you perfectly serious? Or is this a trick—like that ghost you showed us last Christmas?”

“Upon that machine,” said the Time Traveller, holding the lamp aloft, “I intend to explore time. Is that plain? I was never more serious in my life.”

None of us quite knew how to take it.

I caught Filby’s eye over the shoulder of the Medical Man, and he winked at me solemnly.

 

 

III

The Time Traveller Returns

I think that at that time none of us quite believed in the Time Machine. The fact is, the Time Traveller was one of those men who are too clever to be believed: you never felt that you saw all round him; you always suspected some subtle reserve, some ingenuity in ambush, behind his lucid frankness. Had Filby shown the model and explained the matter in the Time Traveller’s words, we should have shown him far less scepticism. For we should have perceived his motives: a pork-butcher could understand Filby. But the Time Traveller had more than a touch of whim among his elements, and we distrusted him. Things that would have made the fame of a less clever man seemed tricks in his hands. It is a mistake to do things too easily. The serious people who took him seriously never felt quite sure of his deportment; they were somehow aware that trusting their reputations for judgment with him was like furnishing a nursery with eggshell china. So I don’t think any of us said very much about time travelling in the interval between that Thursday and the next, though its odd potentialities ran, no doubt, in most of our minds: its plausibility, that is, its practical incredibleness, the curious possibilities of anachronism and of utter confusion it suggested. For my own part, I was particularly preoccupied with the trick of the model. That I remember discussing with the Medical Man, whom I met on Friday at the Linnæan. He said he had seen a similar thing at Tübingen, and laid considerable stress on the blowing-out of the candle. But how the trick was done he could not explain.

The next Thursday I went again to Richmond—I suppose I was one of the Time Traveller’s most constant guests—and, arriving late, found four or five men already assembled in his drawing-room. The Medical Man was standing before the fire with a sheet of paper in one hand and his watch in the other. I

 

 

looked round for the Time Traveller, and—“It’s half-past seven now,” said the Medical Man. “I suppose we’d better have dinner?”

“Where’s——?” said I, naming our host.

“You’ve just come? It’s rather odd. He’s unavoidably detained. He asks me in this note to lead off with dinner at seven if he’s not back. Says he’ll explain when he comes.”

“It seems a pity to let the dinner spoil,” said the Editor of a well-known daily paper; and thereupon the Doctor rang the bell.

The Psychologist was the only person besides the Doctor and myself who had attended the previous dinner. The other men were Blank, the Editor aforementioned, a certain journalist, and another—a quiet, shy man with a beard—whom I didn’t know, and who, as far as my observation went, never opened his mouth all the evening. There was some speculation at the dinner- table about the Time Traveller’s absence, and I suggested time travelling, in a half-jocular spirit. The Editor wanted that explained to him, and the Psychologist volunteered a wooden account of the “ingenious paradox and trick” we had witnessed that day week. He was in the midst of his exposition when the door from the corridor opened slowly and without noise. I was facing the door, and saw it first. “Hallo!” I said. “At last!” And the door opened wider, and the Time Traveller stood before us. I gave a cry of surprise. “Good heavens! man, what’s the matter?” cried the Medical Man, who saw him next. And the whole tableful turned towards the door.

He was in an amazing plight. His coat was dusty and dirty, and smeared with green down the sleeves; his hair disordered, and as it seemed to me greyer—either with dust and dirt or because its colour had actually faded. His face was ghastly pale; his chin had a brown cut on it—a cut half-healed; his expression was haggard and drawn, as by intense suffering. For a moment he hesitated in the doorway, as if he had been dazzled by the light. Then he came into the room. He walked with just such a limp as I have seen in footsore tramps. We stared at him in silence, expecting him to speak.

He said not a word, but came painfully to the table, and made a motion towards the wine. The Editor filled a glass of champagne, and pushed it towards him. He drained it, and it seemed to do him good: for he looked round the table, and the ghost of his old smile flickered across his face. “What on earth have you been up to, man?” said the Doctor. The Time Traveller did not seem to hear. “Don’t let me disturb you,” he said, with a certain faltering articulation. “I’m all right.” He stopped, held out his glass for more, and took it off at a draught. “That’s good,” he said. His eyes grew brighter, and a faint colour came into his cheeks. His glance flickered over our faces with a certain dull approval, and then went round the warm and comfortable room. Then he

 

 

spoke again, still as it were feeling his way among his words. “I’m going to wash and dress, and then I’ll come down and explain things…. Save me some of that mutton. I’m starving for a bit of meat.”

He looked across at the Editor, who was a rare visitor, and hoped he was all right. The Editor began a question. “Tell you presently,” said the Time Traveller. “I’m—funny! Be all right in a minute.”

He put down his glass, and walked towards the staircase door. Again I remarked his lameness and the soft padding sound of his footfall, and standing up in my place, I saw his feet as he went out. He had nothing on them but a pair of tattered, blood-stained socks. Then the door closed upon him. I had half a mind to follow, till I remembered how he detested any fuss about himself. For a minute, perhaps, my mind was wool-gathering. Then, “Remarkable Behaviour of an Eminent Scientist,” I heard the Editor say, thinking (after his wont) in headlines. And this brought my attention back to the bright dinner- table.

“What’s the game?” said the Journalist. “Has he been doing the Amateur Cadger? I don’t follow.” I met the eye of the Psychologist, and read my own interpretation in his face. I thought of the Time Traveller limping painfully upstairs. I don’t think anyone else had noticed his lameness.

The first to recover completely from this surprise was the Medical Man, who rang the bell—the Time Traveller hated to have servants waiting at dinner —for a hot plate. At that the Editor turned to his knife and fork with a grunt, and the Silent Man followed suit. The dinner was resumed. Conversation was exclamatory for a little while with gaps of wonderment; and then the Editor got fervent in his curiosity. “Does our friend eke out his modest income with a crossing? or has he his Nebuchadnezzar phases?” he inquired. “I feel assured it’s this business of the Time Machine,” I said, and took up the Psychologist’s account of our previous meeting. The new guests were frankly incredulous. The Editor raised objections. “What was this time travelling? A man couldn’t cover himself with dust by rolling in a paradox, could he?” And then, as the idea came home to him, he resorted to caricature. Hadn’t they any clothes- brushes in the Future? The Journalist too, would not believe at any price, and joined the Editor in the easy work of heaping ridicule on the whole thing. They were both the new kind of journalist—very joyous, irreverent young men. “Our Special Correspondent in the Day after Tomorrow reports,” the Journalist was saying—or rather shouting—when the Time Traveller came back. He was dressed in ordinary evening clothes, and nothing save his haggard look remained of the change that had startled me.

“I say,” said the Editor hilariously, “these chaps here say you have been travelling into the middle of next week! Tell us all about little Rosebery, will

 

 

you? What will you take for the lot?”

The Time Traveller came to the place reserved for him without a word. He smiled quietly, in his old way. “Where’s my mutton?” he said. “What a treat it is to stick a fork into meat again!”

“Story!” cried the Editor.

“Story be damned!” said the Time Traveller. “I want something to eat. I won’t say a word until I get some peptone into my arteries. Thanks. And the salt.”

“One word,” said I. “Have you been time travelling?”

“Yes,” said the Time Traveller, with his mouth full, nodding his head.

“I’d give a shilling a line for a verbatim note,” said the Editor. The Time Traveller pushed his glass towards the Silent Man and rang it with his fingernail; at which the Silent Man, who had been staring at his face, started convulsively, and poured him wine. The rest of the dinner was uncomfortable. For my own part, sudden questions kept on rising to my lips, and I dare say it was the same with the others. The Journalist tried to relieve the tension by telling anecdotes of Hettie Potter. The Time Traveller devoted his attention to his dinner, and displayed the appetite of a tramp. The Medical Man smoked a cigarette, and watched the Time Traveller through his eyelashes. The Silent Man seemed even more clumsy than usual, and drank champagne with regularity and determination out of sheer nervousness. At last the Time Traveller pushed his plate away, and looked round us. “I suppose I must apologise,” he said. “I was simply starving. I’ve had a most amazing time.” He reached out his hand for a cigar, and cut the end. “But come into the smoking- room. It’s too long a story to tell over greasy plates.” And ringing the bell in passing, he led the way into the adjoining room.

“You have told Blank, and Dash, and Chose about the machine?” he said to me, leaning back in his easy-chair and naming the three new guests.

“But the thing’s a mere paradox,” said the Editor.

“I can’t argue tonight. I don’t mind telling you the story, but I can’t argue. I will,” he went on, “tell you the story of what has happened to me, if you like, but you must refrain from interruptions. I want to tell it. Badly. Most of it will sound like lying. So be it! It’s true—every word of it, all the same. I was in my laboratory at four o’clock, and since then … I’ve lived eight days … such days as no human being ever lived before! I’m nearly worn out, but I shan’t sleep till I’ve told this thing over to you. Then I shall go to bed. But no interruptions! Is it agreed?”

“Agreed,” said the Editor, and the rest of us echoed “Agreed.” And with

 

 

that the Time Traveller began his story as I have set it forth. He sat back in his chair at first, and spoke like a weary man. Afterwards he got more animated. In writing it down I feel with only too much keenness the inadequacy of pen and ink—and, above all, my own inadequacy—to express its quality. You read, I will suppose, attentively enough; but you cannot see the speaker’s white, sincere face in the bright circle of the little lamp, nor hear the intonation of his voice. You cannot know how his expression followed the turns of his story! Most of us hearers were in shadow, for the candles in the smoking-room had not been lighted, and only the face of the Journalist and the legs of the Silent Man from the knees downward were illuminated. At first we glanced now and again at each other. After a time we ceased to do that, and looked only at the Time Traveller’s face.

 

 

IV

Time Travelling

“I told some of you last Thursday of the principles of the Time Machine, and showed you the actual thing itself, incomplete in the workshop. There it is now, a little travel-worn, truly; and one of the ivory bars is cracked, and a brass rail bent; but the rest of it’s sound enough. I expected to finish it on Friday; but on Friday, when the putting together was nearly done, I found that one of the nickel bars was exactly one inch too short, and this I had to get remade; so that the thing was not complete until this morning. It was at ten o’clock today that the first of all Time Machines began its career. I gave it a last tap, tried all the screws again, put one more drop of oil on the quartz rod, and sat myself in the saddle. I suppose a suicide who holds a pistol to his skull feels much the same wonder at what will come next as I felt then. I took the starting lever in one hand and the stopping one in the other, pressed the first, and almost immediately the second. I seemed to reel; I felt a nightmare sensation of falling; and, looking round, I saw the laboratory exactly as before. Had anything happened? For a moment I suspected that my intellect had tricked me. Then I noted the clock. A moment before, as it seemed, it had stood at a minute or so past ten; now it was nearly half-past three!

“I drew a breath, set my teeth, gripped the starting lever with both hands, and went off with a thud. The laboratory got hazy and went dark. Mrs. Watchett came in and walked, apparently without seeing me, towards the garden door. I suppose it took her a minute or so to traverse the place, but to me she seemed to shoot across the room like a rocket. I pressed the lever over to its extreme position. The night came like the turning out of a lamp, and in

 

 

another moment came tomorrow. The laboratory grew faint and hazy, then fainter and ever fainter. Tomorrow night came black, then day again, night again, day again, faster and faster still. An eddying murmur filled my ears, and a strange, dumb confusedness descended on my mind.

“I am afraid I cannot convey the peculiar sensations of time travelling. They are excessively unpleasant. There is a feeling exactly like that one has upon a switchback—of a helpless headlong motion! I felt the same horrible anticipation, too, of an imminent smash. As I put on pace, night followed day like the flapping of a black wing. The dim suggestion of the laboratory seemed presently to fall away from me, and I saw the sun hopping swiftly across the sky, leaping it every minute, and every minute marking a day. I supposed the laboratory had been destroyed and I had come into the open air. I had a dim impression of scaffolding, but I was already going too fast to be conscious of any moving things. The slowest snail that ever crawled dashed by too fast for me. The twinkling succession of darkness and light was excessively painful to the eye. Then, in the intermittent darknesses, I saw the moon spinning swiftly through her quarters from new to full, and had a faint glimpse of the circling stars. Presently, as I went on, still gaining velocity, the palpitation of night and day merged into one continuous greyness; the sky took on a wonderful deepness of blue, a splendid luminous colour like that of early twilight; the jerking sun became a streak of fire, a brilliant arch, in space; the moon a fainter fluctuating band; and I could see nothing of the stars, save now and then a brighter circle flickering in the blue.

“The landscape was misty and vague. I was still on the hillside upon which this house now stands, and the shoulder rose above me grey and dim. I saw trees growing and changing like puffs of vapour, now brown, now green; they grew, spread, shivered, and passed away. I saw huge buildings rise up faint and fair, and pass like dreams. The whole surface of the earth seemed changed —melting and flowing under my eyes. The little hands upon the dials that registered my speed raced round faster and faster. Presently I noted that the sun belt swayed up and down, from solstice to solstice, in a minute or less, and that consequently my pace was over a year a minute; and minute by minute the white snow flashed across the world, and vanished, and was followed by the bright, brief green of spring.

“The unpleasant sensations of the start were less poignant now. They merged at last into a kind of hysterical exhilaration. I remarked, indeed, a clumsy swaying of the machine, for which I was unable to account. But my mind was too confused to attend to it, so with a kind of madness growing upon me, I flung myself into futurity. At first I scarce thought of stopping, scarce thought of anything but these new sensations. But presently a fresh series of impressions grew up in my mind—a certain curiosity and therewith a certain

 

 

dread—until at last they took complete possession of me. What strange developments of humanity, what wonderful advances upon our rudimentary civilisation, I thought, might not appear when I came to look nearly into the dim elusive world that raced and fluctuated before my eyes! I saw great and splendid architecture rising about me, more massive than any buildings of our own time, and yet, as it seemed, built of glimmer and mist. I saw a richer green flow up the hillside, and remain there, without any wintry intermission. Even through the veil of my confusion the earth seemed very fair. And so my mind came round to the business of stopping.

“The peculiar risk lay in the possibility of my finding some substance in the space which I, or the machine, occupied. So long as I travelled at a high velocity through time, this scarcely mattered: I was, so to speak, attenuated— was slipping like a vapour through the interstices of intervening substances! But to come to a stop involved the jamming of myself, molecule by molecule, into whatever lay in my way; meant bringing my atoms into such intimate contact with those of the obstacle that a profound chemical reaction—possibly a far-reaching explosion—would result, and blow myself and my apparatus out of all possible dimensions—into the Unknown. This possibility had occurred to me again and again while I was making the machine; but then I had cheerfully accepted it as an unavoidable risk—one of the risks a man has got to take! Now the risk was inevitable, I no longer saw it in the same cheerful light. The fact is that, insensibly, the absolute strangeness of everything, the sickly jarring and swaying of the machine, above all, the feeling of prolonged falling, had absolutely upset my nerves. I told myself that I could never stop, and with a gust of petulance I resolved to stop forthwith. Like an impatient fool, I lugged over the lever, and incontinently the thing went reeling over, and I was flung headlong through the air.

“There was the sound of a clap of thunder in my ears. I may have been stunned for a moment. A pitiless hail was hissing round me, and I was sitting on soft turf in front of the overset machine. Everything still seemed grey, but presently I remarked that the confusion in my ears was gone. I looked round me. I was on what seemed to be a little lawn in a garden, surrounded by rhododendron bushes, and I noticed that their mauve and purple blossoms were dropping in a shower under the beating of the hailstones. The rebounding, dancing hail hung in a little cloud over the machine, and drove along the ground like smoke. In a moment I was wet to the skin. ‘Fine hospitality,’ said I, ‘to a man who has travelled innumerable years to see you.’

“Presently I thought what a fool I was to get wet. I stood up and looked round me. A colossal figure, carved apparently in some white stone, loomed indistinctly beyond the rhododendrons through the hazy downpour. But all else of the world was invisible.

 

 

“My sensations would be hard to describe. As the columns of hail grew thinner, I saw the white figure more distinctly. It was very large, for a silver birch-tree touched its shoulder. It was of white marble, in shape something like a winged sphinx, but the wings, instead of being carried vertically at the sides, were spread so that it seemed to hover. The pedestal, it appeared to me, was of bronze, and was thick with verdigris. It chanced that the face was towards me; the sightless eyes seemed to watch me; there was the faint shadow of a smile on the lips. It was greatly weather-worn, and that imparted an unpleasant suggestion of disease. I stood looking at it for a little space—half a minute, perhaps, or half an hour. It seemed to advance and to recede as the hail drove before it denser or thinner. At last I tore my eyes from it for a moment, and saw that the hail curtain had worn threadbare, and that the sky was lightening with the promise of the sun.

“I looked up again at the crouching white shape, and the full temerity of my voyage came suddenly upon me. What might appear when that hazy curtain was altogether withdrawn? What might not have happened to men? What if cruelty had grown into a common passion? What if in this interval the race had lost its manliness, and had developed into something inhuman, unsympathetic, and overwhelmingly powerful? I might seem some old-world savage animal, only the more dreadful and disgusting for our common likeness —a foul creature to be incontinently slain.

Read the 4 excerpts from the Kojiki provided, then participate in our discussion of the texts.

Instructions

Read the 4 excerpts from the Kojiki provided, then participate in our discussion of the texts.

You have been randomly assigned to small discussion groups, and should plan on posting your initial response to our discussion outlined below by Tuesday before midnight.  Plan to return to the discussion later and respond at least 2 more times (more is better) to your peers at any point before midnight on Thursday.

Discussion Guidelines

Please follow these guidelines when participating in the online discussions:

  • Share your thoughts and experiences as your own. Try not to generalize or speak for others.
  • Listen to the content of what others say. If you don’t understand someone’s view, ask them to explain, don’t judge.
  • Disagreement shows the complexity of these issues and helps us learn. Feel free to disagree, but do so in a respectful manner. This is an open forum for all participants to brainstorm and explore new ideas.
  • Keep personal information confidential (within this course).

Remember that it is easy to misinterpret written communication. Sometimes written comments may inadvertently seem impolite or could otherwise be taken the wrong way – strive to really explain yourself and avoid making assumptions about other people’s intentions.

See Course Syllabus for Online Discussion Rubric.

Discussion Focus:

Discussion Questions

(ADDRESS ALL QUESTIONS, even if you find yourself writing more about some than others)

1) What are the characteristics of the creation myths, fertility, and the early gods?

Feel free to compare other myth histories you might be familiar with, but also cite specific details from our Kojiki texts, and cite page numbers, when you make those comparisons.

2) What are the fetish objects we read about in the Philippe translation?   What does the geneology detail do for the audience? What does it seek to indicate?

3) What is heroic in the Yamato Hero episode? What should a hero do, or not do?

4) What meaning do you understand through the actions of the 2 brothers in “Luck of the Sea and Luck of the Mountain”?  What are recurrent elements, already, for Kojiki? Is this episode entertaining? Didactic? What role does it serve?

5) Question of translation – what are the pros and cons to the translation choices made by Ury & Borgen, Philippe, and Chamberlain/Keene? Do you have a favorite? Why?