7. Evaluate ∫∫ᴅ(2y - x)dA, where D is the region bounded by the parabolas y = 2x² and y = 1 + x².

8. Evaluate ∫c(1 + xy²)ds, where C is the upper half of the unit circle x² + y² = 1.

1. What additional strategies will you employ, apart from games, to motivate low-achieving junior high school students and foster a positive learning environment? (15%)

2. How will you implement differentiated instruction in a junior high school, taking into account the diverse learning needs, abilities, and interests of the students? (15%)

1. Paraphrase this news to be a reading article suitable for eighth graders. (15%)

2. With the reading article paraphrased by you, make up a test. It can be a reading comprehension with 3 questions and four multiple choices with each question, or a cloze with 3 blanks and four multiple choices with each blank. (10%)

3. According to Bloom's taxonomy, come up with 1 critical high-order thinking question to guide students to discuss. Also, explain what you want students to learn from your questions. (10%)

4. Based on the revised reading article, design a 15-minute reading activity. (15%) - Explain your teaching steps, including your instructional language (how you instruct students), target language (what you want students to learn), and assessment (how you examine learning effectiveness). - Clarify what pedagogies you apply for your teaching plan, and the reason you choose it/them.

III. Essay Questions: Read the news from Washington, D.C., in the U.S. (50%)        The Supreme Court recently heard a significant case regarding student speech, involving 14-year- old Brandi Levy, whose profanity-laced Snapchat post led to her suspension from the cheerleading team at her Pennsylvania high school. The case raises the question of whether public schools can discipline students for off-campus speech. The landmark Tinker v. Des Moines ruling in 1969 established that students do not lose their constitutional rights to freedom of speech at school. However, the contours of this decision have been the subject of ongoing debate.       Levy's case differs from Tinker in that it lacks the lofty motives of a protest against war. Rather, it represents teenage frustration. Levy expressed her anger at being kept on the junior varsity cheerleading squad for another year by posting profane words and gestures on Snapchat. Her coaches saw the post and suspended her from the team for a year. Levy's parents filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that her suspension violated her constitutional speech rights.       Lower courts agreed with Levy and restored her to the cheerleading team, stating that Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that it was yet to address the First Amendment implications of off-campus speech involving threats of violence or harassment. However, the school district, education groups, the Biden administration, and anti-bullying organizations argued that the appeals court's decision went too far. They emphasized that public schools should be able to discipline students for off-campus speech, depending on the circumstances.           While the school district claimed that its approach allows for addressing disruptive speech and protecting students' rights, critics argue that such an approach would grant schools excessive power to monitor and regulate students' speech beyond school grounds. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing Levy, contended that this would stifle students' ability to express frustration and could lead to the regulation of political and religious speech.        Levy's case has garnered support from an unlikely alliance of conservative and liberal interest groups, who highlight the dangers of expanding school regulation of off-campus speech. The Alliance Defending Freedom and Christian Legal Society caution against the regulation of religious speech, which they believe provokes debate and inflames passions. Even Mary Beth and John Tinker, central figures in the 1969 case, expressed support for Levy, suggesting that their protest would have included a digital social media component.       Though Levy's speech may not be considered politically or religiously important, her case has the potential to shape the legal understanding of student speech rights. She aims to highlight that students should not face punishment for expressing their feelings and thoughts. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case will likely have far-reaching implications for student speech and the regulation of online behavior in the internet age. Adapted from https:/newsela.com/read/student-free-speech-supreme-court/id/2001020589/

(a)

(b)

115年 - 115 中央警察大學_碩士班入學考試試題_海洋科技組：微積分#139855

115年 - 115 中央警察大學_碩士班入學考試試題_消防科學研究所、交通管理研究所：微積分#139760

114年 - 114 臺灣綜合大學系統_學士班轉學生考試試題:微積分A#137897

114年 - 114 臺灣綜合大學系統_學士班轉學生考試試題：微積分B#137819

114年 - 114 台灣聯合大學系統_學士班轉學生考試試題:微積分#137762

114年 - 114 台灣聯合大學系統_學士班轉學生考試試題:微積分#137761

114年 - 114 國立臺灣大學_轉學生招生考試_物理學系/土木工程學系/生物環境系統工程學系/生物機電工程學系:微積分(B)#137745

114年 - 114 國立臺灣大學_轉學生招生考試_數學系:微積分(A)#137744

113年 - 113 國立嘉義大學_轉學生招生考試試題_(全校)：微積分#122986

112年 - 112 國立臺灣大學_碩士班招生考試題：微積分(D)#130254