Implementing academagogy: the first case study

As proposed in McAuliffe, Winter, Chadwick and Hargreaves (2008), academagogy could be used as an “umbrella” term allowing the teacher to select from a range of teaching approaches – pedagogy (teacher as source of all information to student without power or knowledge), andragogy (teacher as source of information for adult student), or heutagogy (student with knowledge seeking information from teacher to fill the gaps in their own knowledge). During Semester 1, 2009, one of the authors of this paper decided to treat his third-year students in a more heutagogical manner by allowing them to experience ownership of their own learning. This article is a case study of that experience which reveals that, although initially more time-consuming, academagogy can result in better student outcomes

Predictors of hospital surface contamination with Extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae: patient and organism factors

BACKGROUND: The role of the hospital environment in transmission of ESBL-Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-KP) and ESBL-Escherichia coli (ESBL-EC) is poorly defined. Recent data however suggest that in the hospital setting, ESBL-KP is more transmissible than ESBL-EC. We sought therefore to measure the difference in hospital contamination rates between the two species and to identify key risk factors for contamination of the hospital environment with these organisms. METHODS: We systematically sampled 8 surfaces in the rooms and bathrooms of adult patients colonized or infected with ESBL-EC or ESBL-KP throughout their hospital stay. Data were collected on factors potentially affecting contamination rates. Environmental contamination was defined as recovery of an ESBL-producing organism matching the source patient’s isolate. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed at the level of the patient visit using generalized estimating equations to identify independent predictors of environmental contamination. RESULTS: 24 patients (11 with ESBL-KP, 11 ESBL-EC and 2 with both organisms) had 1104 swabs collected during 138 visits. The overall contamination rate was 3.4% (38/1104) and was significantly higher for ESBL-KP than ESBL-EC (5.4% versus 0.4%; p < 0.0001). After multivariate analysis, environmental contamination was found to be negatively associated with carbapenem exposure (OR 0.06 [95% CI 0.01-0.61]; p = 0.017) and positively associated with the presence of an indwelling urinary catheter (OR 6.12 [95% CI 1.23-30.37]; p = 0.027) and ESBL-KP in the source patient (OR 26.23 [95% CI 2.70-254.67]; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Contamination of the hospital environment with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) is inversely associated with carbapenem exposure. Predictors of hospital contamination with ESBL-E include: indwelling urinary catheters and ESBL-KP. Rooms of patients with ESBL-KP have substantially higher contamination rates than those with ESBL-EC. This finding may help explain the apparently higher transmissibility of ESBL-KP in the hospital setting

Report from the Participation in the Current System Workgroup

OSI2016 Workgroup Question: Do researchers and scientists participate in the current system of scholarly publishing because they like it, they need it, they don’t have a choice in the matter, or they don’t really care one way or another? What perceptions, considerations and incentives do academicians have for staying the course (like impact factors and tenure points), and what are their pressures and incentives for changing direction (like lowering publishing charges)? The authors of scholarly works play a critical role in the scholarly communications system: authors are the original content creators, and in many or most cases are the original rightsholders and the ultimate decisionmakers when it comes to how, when, and where to publish their work. Although there are other significant participants in the current system (including publishers, librarians, information consumers, etc.), understanding and respecting the range of influences that shape author publication decisions are crucial to effecting change in the system. While recognizing the highly individual and diverse nature of author interests, we identified several priorities that stand out as driving decisions in the publication process. Career advancement concerns are primary, and the perceived currency of a publication mode or venue with promotion and tenure committees is a significant factor in decision making. A related, but distinct, factor is a publication venue’s perceived prestige among the authors’ peers. Both of these considerations have significant interplay with, and often serve as proxies for, scholarly authors’ overarching motivation to advance knowledge and make an impact in their fields. External factors may also direct author choice. Funder requirements and, in the case of works made for hire, employer requirements, can narrow the range of options available to authors. Survey evidence suggests that authors increasingly see open publication models as being consistent with, or in furtherance of, their goals as scholars.1 For instance, authors increasingly see open access (OA) publication as leading to wider circulation, greater visibility, and possibly more citations. Our task was to consider how we might accelerate these trends to facilitate openness in scholarship

Report from the Participation in the Current System Workgroup

OSI2016 Workgroup Question: Do researchers and scientists participate in the current system of scholarly publishing because they like it, they need it, they don’t have a choice in the matter, or they don’t really care one way or another? What perceptions, considerations and incentives do academicians have for staying the course (like impact factors and tenure points), and what are their pressures and incentives for changing direction (like lowering publishing charges)? The authors of scholarly works play a critical role in the scholarly communications system: authors are the original content creators, and in many or most cases are the original rightsholders and the ultimate decisionmakers when it comes to how, when, and where to publish their work. Although there are other significant participants in the current system (including publishers, librarians, information consumers, etc.), understanding and respecting the range of influences that shape author publication decisions are crucial to effecting change in the system. While recognizing the highly individual and diverse nature of author interests, we identified several priorities that stand out as driving decisions in the publication process. Career advancement concerns are primary, and the perceived currency of a publication mode or venue with promotion and tenure committees is a significant factor in decision making. A related, but distinct, factor is a publication venue’s perceived prestige among the authors’ peers. Both of these considerations have significant interplay with, and often serve as proxies for, scholarly authors’ overarching motivation to advance knowledge and make an impact in their fields. External factors may also direct author choice. Funder requirements and, in the case of works made for hire, employer requirements, can narrow the range of options available to authors. Survey evidence suggests that authors increasingly see open publication models as being consistent with, or in furtherance of, their goals as scholars.1 For instance, authors increasingly see open access (OA) publication as leading to wider circulation, greater visibility, and possibly more citations. Our task was to consider how we might accelerate these trends to facilitate openness in scholarship

Schistosomiasis among Recreational Users of Upper Nile River, Uganda, 2007

After recreational exposure to river water in Uganda, 12 (17%) of 69 persons had evidence of schistosome infection. Eighteen percent self-medicated with praziquantel prophylaxis immediately after exposure, which was not appropriate. Travelers to schistosomiasis-endemic areas should consult a travel medicine physician

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance

INTRODUCTION Investment in Africa over the past year with regard to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing has led to a massive increase in the number of sequences, which, to date, exceeds 100,000 sequences generated to track the pandemic on the continent. These sequences have profoundly affected how public health officials in Africa have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE We demonstrate how the first 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Africa have helped monitor the epidemic on the continent, how genomic surveillance expanded over the course of the pandemic, and how we adapted our sequencing methods to deal with an evolving virus. Finally, we also examine how viral lineages have spread across the continent in a phylogeographic framework to gain insights into the underlying temporal and spatial transmission dynamics for several variants of concern (VOCs). RESULTS Our results indicate that the number of countries in Africa that can sequence the virus within their own borders is growing and that this is coupled with a shorter turnaround time from the time of sampling to sequence submission. Ongoing evolution necessitated the continual updating of primer sets, and, as a result, eight primer sets were designed in tandem with viral evolution and used to ensure effective sequencing of the virus. The pandemic unfolded through multiple waves of infection that were each driven by distinct genetic lineages, with B.1-like ancestral strains associated with the first pandemic wave of infections in 2020. Successive waves on the continent were fueled by different VOCs, with Alpha and Beta cocirculating in distinct spatial patterns during the second wave and Delta and Omicron affecting the whole continent during the third and fourth waves, respectively. Phylogeographic reconstruction points toward distinct differences in viral importation and exportation patterns associated with the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants and subvariants, when considering both Africa versus the rest of the world and viral dissemination within the continent. Our epidemiological and phylogenetic inferences therefore underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic on the continent and highlight key insights and challenges, for instance, recognizing the limitations of low testing proportions. We also highlight the early warning capacity that genomic surveillance in Africa has had for the rest of the world with the detection of new lineages and variants, the most recent being the characterization of various Omicron subvariants. CONCLUSION Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve. This is important not only to help combat SARS-CoV-2 on the continent but also because it can be used as a platform to help address the many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats in Africa. In particular, capacity building for local sequencing within countries or within the continent should be prioritized because this is generally associated with shorter turnaround times, providing the most benefit to local public health authorities tasked with pandemic response and mitigation and allowing for the fastest reaction to localized outbreaks. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century

The transition to academagogy

Academic staff within the QUT Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering are exploring ways to incorporate andragogical (student-centred) and heutagogical (self-determined) approaches to education into undergraduate programs, rather than relying on a purely pedagogical (teacher-centred) approach – an academagogic approach, where the most appropriate parts of various theories of learning are utilised. Moving to academagogy is more than a change; it will be a transition. Consideration will be required to assist teaching staff to navigate through new ways of knowing about what they are doing. The identities of these staff members will need to be moved from "experts expounding information to students" and will have to be rebuilt as facilitators/guides of knowledge dissemination for diverse groups of students. Within this, issues of change fatigue may need to be considered and addressed, along with those of leadership and trust. It will also be critical to review experiences of evaluation, as this is the area of most challenge in moving towards student-centred and self-determined education

Relative frequency, characteristics, and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Vibrio spp., Aeromonas spp., Chromobacterium violaceum, and Shewanella spp. in the northern territory of Australia, 2000-2013.

Vibrio, Aeromonas, Chromobacterium violaceum, and Shewanella (VACS) are water-associated Gram-negative organisms that can cause a variety of infections. The frequency, patient characteristics, and antimicrobial susceptibilities for 468 isolates from 442 patients from the Northern Territory were reviewed. Aeromonas spp. (312 of 468; 67%) were most commonly isolated followed by Vibrio spp. (71 of 468; 15%), Shewanella spp. (61 of 468; 13%), and C. violaceum (24 of 468; 5%). A strong male predominance was found (male to female ratio of 2.3:1). Skin and soft tissue isolations (373 of 468; 80%) from lower limb infections (222 of 371; 60%) were the most common clinical manifestation. The episodes were usually polymicrobial (281 of 468; 60%). Coisolates included Staphylococcus aureus (137 of 468; 29%), ?-hemolytic streptococci (74 of 468; 16%), enterobacteriaceae (111 of 468; 24%), non-fermentative Gram-negative bacilli (35 of 468; 7%), and other VACS organisms (37 of 468; 8%). Antimicrobial resistance of VACS organisms to ciprofloxacin (0-4%), cefepime (0-3%), and gentamicin (0-0.8%) and Vibrio spp., Aeromonas spp., and Shewanella to cotrimoxazole (0-3%) was rarely shown. For water-associated lower limb skin and soft tissue infections in the tropics, clinicians should consider empirical antimicrobial therapy with agents active against S. aureus and VACS organisms

Does pedagogy still rule?

Theories on teaching and learning for adult learners are constantly being reviewed and discussed in the higher educational environment. Theories are not static and appear to be in a constant developmental process. This paper discusses three of these theories; pedagogy, andragogy and heutagogy. It is argued that although educators engage in many of the principles of either student-centered (andragogy) and self-determined (heutagogy) learning, it is not possible to fully implement either theory. The two main limitations are the requirements of both internal and external stakeholders such as accrediting bodies and requirements to assess all student learning. A reversion to teacher-centered learning (pedagogy) ensues. In summary, we engage in many action-oriented learning activities but revert to teacher-centered approaches in terms of content and assessment