Power and caring embodied through bilingual preservice teachers' choice of participant structures

Power and Caring Embodied through Bilingual Preservice Teachers’ Choice of Participant Structures is a qualitative multicase study about the ways in which three Mexican-origin preservice teachers drew from their pedagogical philosophies of authentic cariño to make sense of their choice of participant structures in bilingual student teaching contexts. This dissertation project drew from a larger study investigating seven Latin@ preservice teachers’ choice of participant structures in one-way and two-way dual language pre-kinder and kindergarten classrooms from the same bilingual education cohort at a large public Texas university in a medium-sized city. Guided by a critical framework that weaves together sociocultural literature on multilingual learning environments, LatCrit theory, and pedagogy as authentic cariño viewed through a lens of power as caring relations, the goals of this project were two-fold: 1) to explore the types of participant structures that bilingual preservice teachers were implementing during their student teaching semester and 2) to investigate their sensemaking process around those decisions of which participant structures to implement. Findings revealed that the three maestr@s implemented a variety of participant structures in their one-way dual language student teaching placements, and that they made sense of these choices guided by their pedagogical philosophies of authentic cariño that they had constructed through their life experiences. Additionally, their mentor teachers’ choice of participant structures and degree of alignment with the maestr@s’ philosophies, the supportive space of the post-observation conference, and the maestr@s’ perceived competencies with classroom management intersected with the participant structures that they chose. These findings provide a more nuanced understanding of the complexity of factors that bilingual preservice teachers consider when selecting the ways that their students may actively participate during a lesson, but also that their identities, past experiences, and pedagogical philosophies really do matter. This work has important implications for teacher preparation in bilingual and ESL contexts, teaching, and policy in supporting the use of empowering participant structures for emergent bilingual students.Curriculum and Instructio

Measuring Trust in Medical Researchers: Comparing Agree-Disagree and Construct-Specific Survey Questions

While scales measuring subjective constructs historically rely on agree-disagree (AD) questions, recent research demonstrates that construct-specific (CS) questions clarify underlying response dimensions that AD questions leave implicit and CS questions often yield higher measures of data quality. Given acknowledged issues with AD questions and certain established advantages of CS items, the evidence for the superiority of CS questions is more mixed than one might expect. We build on previous investigations by using cognitive interviewing to deepen understanding of AD and CS response processing and potential sources of measurement error. We randomized 64 participants to receive an AD or CS version of a scale measuring trust in medical researchers. We examine several indicators of data quality and cognitive response processing including: reliability, concurrent validity, recency, response latencies, and indicators of response processing difficulties (e.g., uncodable answers). Overall, results indicate reliability is higher for the AD scale, neither scale is more valid, and the CS scale is more susceptible to recency effects for certain questions. Results for response latencies and behavioral indicators provide evidence that the CS questions promote deeper processing. Qualitative analysis reveals five sources of difficulties with response processing that shed light on under-examined reasons why AD and CS questions can produce different results, with CS not always yielding higher measures of data quality than AD

From Aaron to Ivanhoe

A collection of Bulloch County history materials compiled by Charles Bonds, Dorothy Brannen, Maggie Collins, Dan Good, Nkenge Jackson, Evelyn Mabry, Carolyn Postell, Robert M. Seel, and Rita Turner Wall. Included are a brief history of Bulloch County, an article on local 19th century architecture, two accounts on county history by Rita Turner Wall, a short history of Willow Hill School, a report on the research on Willow Hill School, “Extinct Towns in Bulloch County,” “Pretoria Station,” the biographies of Beatrice Riggs and Laura Bell Hendley Martin, three articles from the Bulloch Times on the memories of a Confederate veteran and the 1865 Census of Bulloch County. The index to this collection was compiled by Julius Ariail.https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/bchs-pubs/1014/thumbnail.jp

Sherman, Shakers, and Shenanigans

The first 122 pages of this book relate to Bulloch County and form Book 10: Readings in Bulloch County History. The remainder comprise the Southern Folkways Journal Review No. 3, and relate to Southeast Georgia and to the Southeastern region of the United States. The first collection begins with a poem by Dr. John Ransom Lewis, followed by three articles on Dan Bland and the biographies of prominent African American citizens. Also included are two articles on the Hardy Moore family, student papers on vanishing Bulloch County communities, information on Joseph Jackson, articles on three local churches, and the Muster Roll of Toombs Guards. The second section of this book begins with an article on Western Shakers by Dr. Dale Covington, followed by “Hostau Reminisces,” and several articles on the Cherokee and the Lumbee Indians.https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/bchs-pubs/1033/thumbnail.jp

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Review of \u3cem\u3e Five Feet Apart\u3c/em\u3e by R. Lippincott

Review of the book by Prof. Amanda Wall with Dorothy Mortimore, Five Feet Apart by R. Lippincott

Blinky Bill, the quaint little Australian /

Muir, 7824; For children.; Also available in an electronic version via the Internet at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.aus-an3281107; Library's SR2 copy is the publisher's presentation copy to the author Mrs Badgery and is the first copy to be printed in the 1st ed. Provenance from the dedicatee, Peter Badgery

Measuring Trust in Medical Researchers: Adding Insights from Cognitive Interviews to Examine Agree-Disagree and Construct-Specific Survey Questions

While scales measuring subjective constructs historically rely on agree-disagree (AD) questions, recent research demonstrates that construct-specific (CS) questions clarify underlying response dimensions that AD questions leave implicit and CS questions often yield higher measures of data quality. Given acknowledged issues with AD questions and certain established advantages of CS items, the evidence for the superiority of CS questions is more mixed than one might expect. We build on previous investigations by using cognitive interviewing to deepen understanding of AD and CS response processing and potential sources of measurement error. We randomized 64 participants to receive an AD or CS version of a scale measuring trust in medical researchers. We examine several indicators of data quality and cognitive response processing including: reliability, concurrent validity, recency, response latencies, and indicators of response processing difficulties (e.g., uncodable answers). Overall, results indicate reliability is higher for the AD scale, neither scale is more valid, and the CS scale is more susceptible to recency effects for certain questions. Results for response latencies and behavioral indicators provide evidence that the CS questions promote deeper processing. Qualitative analysis reveals five sources of difficulties with response processing that shed light on under-examined reasons why AD and CS questions can produce different results, with CS not always yielding higher measures of data quality than AD