Creativity in mathematics assessment

It is often said that to be a good mathematician you need to be creative. However this is not always shown in the assessment of first year Mathematics. So what does happen when encourage students to be creative in an assessment task? In many undergraduate mathematics courses most types of assessment is designed to see if the students understand what has been covered in lectures. Timed examinations and difficult assignments are the mainstay of assessment. This makes Mathematics assessment seem to be a hard slog. Indeed attempts to change this are met with resistance from students who do not believe that you can learn mathematics in other ways. This paper describes an innovative assessment task where students get to show their creative side. This is done by asking students to design objects in three dimensions with the aid of Mathematica. They have the options of using Cartesian, cylindrical and spherical coordinate systems as well as defining curves and surfaces parametrically. The object in the assignment changes each year but the task remains the same

Distinct metabolic programmes established in the thymus control effector functions of gd T cell subsets in tumour microenvironments

International audienceMetabolic programming controls immune cell lineages and functions, but little is known about γδ T cell metabolism. Here, we found that γδ T cell subsets making either interferon-γ (IFN-γ) or interleukin (IL)-17 have intrinsically distinct metabolic requirements. Whereas IFN-γ+ γδ T cells were almost exclusively dependent on glycolysis, IL-17+ γδ T cells strongly engaged oxidative metabolism, with increased mitochondrial mass and activity. These distinct metabolic signatures were surprisingly imprinted early during thymic development and were stably maintained in the periphery and within tumors. Moreover, pro-tumoral IL-17+ γδ T cells selectively showed high lipid uptake and intracellular lipid storage and were expanded in obesity and in tumors of obese mice. Conversely, glucose supplementation enhanced the antitumor functions of IFN-γ+ γδ T cells and reduced tumor growth upon adoptive transfer. These findings have important implications for the differentiation of effector γδ T cells and their manipulation in cancer immunotherapy

Development and psychometric testing of the gender misconceptions of men in nursing (GEMINI) scale among nursing students

Background: Misconceptions about men in nursing may influence recruitment and retention, further perpetuating the gender diversity imbalance in the nursing workforce. Identifying misconceptions and implementing early intervention strategies to address these deep-rooted stereotypes remain challenging but is considered critical to support students who are commencing a nursing career. Objective: To develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of the ‘Gender Misconceptions of meN in nursIng (GEMINI) Scale. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: Pre-registration nursing students enrolled in undergraduate nursing programmes across 16 nursing institutions in Australia were surveyed from July to September 2021. The 17-item self-report GEMINI Scale measured the gender misconceptions of men in nursing. Results: Of the 1410 completed surveys, data from 683 (45%) women were used for exploratory factor analysis showing a one factor structure, while data from 727 men (47%) were used for confirmatory factor analysis of the 17-item GEMINI Scale, which showed a good model fit. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.892). Men were found to have higher gender misconceptions (p \u3c 0.001) while respondents who: (a) identified nursing as their first career choice (p = 0.002); (b) were in their final year of programme enrolment (p = 0.016); and (c) engaged in health-related paid work (p = 0.002) had lower gender misconceptions. Conclusion: The GEMINI Scale is a robust, valid, reliable, and easy to administer tool to assess misconceptions about men in nursing, which may potentially influence academic performance and retention. Identifying and addressing specific elements of misconceptions could inform targeted strategies to support retention and decrease attrition among these students. Impact statement: Genderism harms nursing, as well as the men and women working in the profession. Recruitment and retention of men into nursing is needed to cultivate male role models and diversify the workforce, however this is impeded by negative portrayals in popular culture and misconceptions entrenched in society

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health