JuxtaLearn DELIVERABLE Report D3.5 Service scenario documentation

The purpose of Deliverable 3.5 is to provide guidelines to creating juxtaposed performance, particularly to advise non-drama teachers on what to do and how to manage performance in stage 3 of the JuxtaLearn process. Building on pedagogies of threshold concepts and juxtaposed learning, it explains the performance steps, orchestrating learning through participative video making and story making with peers. It provides guidance for teachers, offering resources that include suggested lesson plans and example timings. Thus, in the absence of a shared touchable with JuxtaLearn software, it suggests a practical additional and alternative to using the software of WP4 touch table

Learning flexibility: the environment and a case study

This paper outlines the flexible student learning environment in the Faculty of Engineering and Surveying, before concentrating on evaluating one online learning option. This Faculty provides a variety of high quality on-campus, distance education and on-line academic programmes and various learning strategies for the heterogeneous student cohort (national and international). By accessing appropriate flexible learning and different learning experiences, students are empowered to determine learning opportunities and methodologies to suit their personal needs. The off-campus mode study may disadvantage students since they don’t have the benefit of face-to-face instructions or to participate in formative assessments delivered informally in lectures. This may lead to feelings of remoteness and isolation leading to poorer learning, lower results in assessments, and may also contribute to drop-out rates, particularly in first year courses. To overcome this inequity, the usual training materials presented for a first year course in 2005 were supplemented with PowerPoint lectures, enhanced with synchronous audio, and a series of quizzes to be used as formative assessments. The lectures and quizzes were presented online via a course web site and were designed to become an integral part of the learning experience. An evaluation of the effectiveness of these strategy demonstrated improved students' learning, a positive contribution to the learning experience, increased enjoyment of the course, and a strong learning motivator. Students reported feeling less disenfranchised with the university and having a greater affinity with the lecturer

Science subject leader development materials: Spring 2010

These are the materials from the spring 2010 science subject leader development meetings (SLDM). They provide support and challenge for science departments within the 'Narrowing the Gaps' agenda by focusing on strengthening science learning and teaching. Comprises tutor notes, slide presentation, slide handouts and activity handouts

Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions. CHERE Working Paper 2010/5

This report covers international and Australian models for reducing the use of ineffective interventions, also described as disinvestment. Disinvestment is a development of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Conventionally HTA has focussed on the introduction of new technologies. Although medical technology is advancing rapidly, there remain very many technologies in use which have not been subject to formal HTA. This has stimulated a growing interest in disinvestment. This review identified a number of case studies and pilot projects. There is limited information available on the mechanisms used, and no rigorous evaluations of their impact. The most developed model is that of NICE which has recently embarked on providing guidance for disinvestment. A number of technologies have been reviewed;but there is limited information available on how these were identified, how disinvestment is implemented, or what the effect has been. There is substantial resistance to any active disinvestment. Across the various case studies, appraisal of candidate technologies seems most likely to be triggered by expert opinion. In Australia, disinvestment is also generally passive. Technologies may be removed from funding or reimbursement if new research demonstrating harms or inefficacy becomes public. More generally, technologies fall into disuse, and are gradually replaced by new or improved technologies. Even when guidelines or funding rules are changed, there is generally continued use of an existing technology. This review has found that active disinvestment has generally been removal of funding for ineffective and/or unsafe technologies, usually initiated by new evidence of inefficacy or harm. Disinvestment is more likely to be passive, ie driven by changes in medical practice, as a procedure or treatment gradually falls out of use over time. There are very few instances of disinvestment, or appraisal for disinvestment, driven by considerations of cost-effectiveness. There are considerable difficulties implementing disinvestment in ineffective health care practices. One area of difficulty is an appropriate mechanism for identifying candidate technologies for appraisal. No explicit processes were identified, although there are a number of published criteria for prioritising candidates. The US is embarking on a major new program of HTA, termed Comparative Effectiveness Research. The list of priority topics for appraisal was developed by the Institute of Medicine, using nominations from health professionals, consumer advocates, policy analysts and others. The development of the candidate topics was a major exercise in itself. Studies of medical practice variations can also be used to identify candidate topics for appraisal. To date, there has been relatively little systematic investigation into practice variations in Australia. The availability of rich data sets which allow analysis on the basis of small areas is essential to research in this field, as is the research capacity to allow rigorous analysis. Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis is a technique which uses HTA methods to drive disinvestment and reinvestment. It is a relatively resource-intensive activity, and requires clinicians to identify activities for disinvestment. Another area of difficulty arises because there are few or no incentives for clinicians in disinvestment. Thus reinforces the problems of identifying technologies for appraisal. As disinvestment will create losses, to clinicians, to consumers and to providers of the technology, there will be strong resistance to any active withdrawal of funding. At the same time, the additional benefits and/or savings from any disinvestments may not be realised for a considerable period of time and there is a risk that, for some products,interventions or services, cost savings, in particular, may not be realised. This increases the cost of pursuing disinvestment. Both HTA and disinvestment can be seen in a much broader context, that is the challenge is to ensure that the additional health spending brings commensurate benefits ? ensuring health system efficiency. Although there is considerable interest in disinvestment, there are problems in identifying which technologies should be considered for disinvestment, and strong incentives to retain existing technologies. Disinvestment does occur, but generally as a result of existing treatments or other interventions falling into disfavour. An alternative approach to proactive disinvestment of specific technologies is to encourage more rapid change in medical practice. There are various strategies for health care reform which can be categorised as changing provider information, such as through the use of clinical guidelines, or the results of practice variations studies; changing incentives, though different payments for clinicians and other providers, or specifically targeted incentives; changing consumer behaviour, by providing more information with or without financial incentives; or changing the structures of health service delivery to provide organisational support and incentives for more efficient purchasing of care.Disinvestment, Health Technology Assessment, Ineffective health care interventions

FOCUS on technology‐supported learning in further education

This paper introduces FOCUS, a ‘one‐stop shop’ for technology‐supported learning resources designed and developed by a consortium of higher and further education partners. It reports on an investigation of the issues surrounding the adaptation of this HE‐orientated resource to an FE context. This involved piloting FOCUS with FE staff to assess its suitability. The issues raised by this process are discussed and general implications for the adaptation of generic HE resources to the FE sector are identified

The Industry Advisory Board Event - A Decade of Best Practices

As the leading global advocate of quality construction education, the mission of the American Council for Construction Education1 (ACCE) is to promote, support, and accredit quality construction education programs. ACCE is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) as the accrediting agency for master’s degree programs, four-year baccalaureate degree programs and two-year associate degree programs in construction, construction science, construction management, and construction technology. ACCE accredits approximately 100 construction programs at the associate, baccalaureate, and master’s degree levels. The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) Event is one of the educational programs offered annually at the ACCE mid-year meeting in February. Launched in 2010, the IAB Event has gained steady support and momentum from both the construction industry and ACCE accredited academic programs. The daylong IAB Event format includes multiple sessions that focus specifically on the needs of IAB members and the academic programs they support. The IAB Event offers workshops, seminars, panel discussions, presentations, and networking opportunities that have demonstrated proven value to industry, academia, and administrative participants, year after year. This event is unique in demonstrating practical and real-world examples, such as: • The roles and responsibilities of IAB membership. • Meaningful industry participation at the local IAB level. • Communication strategies to engage a network of industry professionals for the exchange of ideas in an open forum. • The tools, training, and resources necessary to create and maintain a “high-impact” IAB. The content of this paper examines the origins and evolution of the IAB Event; documents the progress of the event in terms of attendance; revenues and expenditures; programs, panel sessions, and workshops that have been presented; and outlines the value received by attendees in the form of evaluation surveys