From the Outside Looking In: Employers’ Views of the Basic Course

This essay is designed to connect specific communication skills desired by employers in industry to basic course concepts. While communication is often identified as one of the most important skills for graduates seeking employment, this broad view makes it nearly impossible for basic course directors and instructors to design their pedagogy to satisfy students’ future needs. This manuscript examines a part of the 2014 Basic Course Conference where industry leaders were invited to present what they felt to be the most important communication skills and knowledge in employees and then engaged in a discussion with the attending basic course directors to clarify which specific communication skills they desired most. This study ties those communication skills and knowledge to concepts common to the basic course identified in the 2014 document produced by the National Communication Association Core Competencies for Introductory Communication Courses Task Force on the role of communication in general education, as well as the most recent Basic Communication Course Survey from 2010

The Invaluable Nature of Speech Evaluation Training for New Basic Course Instructors

Recent reforms in higher education recognize the centrality of communication in general education programs (e.g., Association of American Colleges and Universities, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, LEAP, Common Core State Standards). As oral communication knowledge and skills are becoming recognized as integral to general education programs across the country, many basic course directors are finding themselves in the position of offering multiple sections of the course taught by multiple instructors. Additionally, basic course directors find themselves with the responsibility of providing clear measures of what they do and how well they do it. Because oral communication assessment is key to remaining integral to general education (Allen, 2002), basic course directors must provide instructor training on how to fairly and consistently evaluate student performances. But before this training can take place, basic course directors need to have an evaluation system in place that is fair, consistent, and reflective of actual student performance. There are several challenges to speech evaluation that warrant such a process. This essay will address those challenges and propose a systematic evaluation process that can serve as an impetus to instructor training in this area

Instructional Discussion: The Most Important Area of Training for New Basic Course Instructors

In order to determine the most important concept to teach new basic course instructors, it is important to know what we want students to be able to do as a result of the basic course and what teaching method will best reach that outcome. One main goal of the basic course is to teach students to communicate orally and give them practice doing so. This can be accomplished through what Muller (2014) defines as instructional discussion, or “an instructional interaction where teachers and students engage together in an exploration of problems, ideas, and questions in ways that incorporate the knowledge of all participants to generate a collective wisdom or understanding that would not have emerged without the interaction” (p. 326). This definition illustrates the importance of engagement and interaction, both important goals within the basic communication course. Additionally, instructional discussion highlights the central role of communication in the teaching and learning process. Thus, it is imperative that training programs for basic course instructors address how to plan, facilitate, and assess an instructional discussion as well as teach students how to engage in the process

Advances in Above- and In-Water Radiometry, Volume 3: Hybridspectral Next-Generation Optical Instruments

This publication documents the scientific advances associated with new instrument systems and accessories built to improve above- and in-water observations of the apparent optical properties (AOPs) for a diversity of water masses, including optically complex waters. The principal objective is to be prepared for the launch of next-generation ocean color satellites with the most capable commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) instrumentation in the shortest time possible. The technologies described herein are entirely new hybrid sampling capabilities, so as to satisfy the requirements established for next-generation missions. Both above- and in-water instruments are documented with software options for autonomous control of data collection activities as applicable. The instruments were developed for the Hybridspectral Alternative for Remote Profiling of Optical Observations for NASA Satellites (HARPOONS) vicarious calibration project. The state-of-the-art accuracy required for vicarious calibration also led to the development of laboratory instruments to ensure the field observations were within uncertainty requirements. Separate detailed presentations of the individual instruments provide the hardware designs, accompanying software for data acquisition and processing, and examples of the results achieved

Advances in Above- and In-Water Radiometry, Volume 2: Autonomous Atmospheric and Oceanic Observing Systems

This publication documents the scientific advances associated with new instrument systems and accessories built to improve above- and in-water observations of the apparent optical properties (AOPs) of optically complex waters. The principal objective is to be prepared for the launch of next-generation ocean color satellites with the most capable commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) instrumentation in the shortest time possible. The Hybridspectral Alternative for Remote Profiling of Optical Observations for NASA Satellites (HARPOONS) is presented as a case example of technologies conceived, developed, and deployed operationally in support of next-generation mission requirements. The field trials, field commissioning, and operational demonstration resulted in a technology readiness level (TRL) value of 9 for a diversity of laboratory and field instrument systems. Separate detailed presentations of the individual instruments provide the hardware designs, accompanying software for data acquisition and processing, and examples of the results achieved. For the laboratory components, calibration and characterization procedures are described along with an estimation of the sources of uncertainty, which culminates in a full uncertainty budget for the radiometers deployed to the field

Prospectus, January 27, 1992

https://spark.parkland.edu/prospectus_1992/1001/thumbnail.jp

Advances in Above- and In-Water Radiometry, Volume 1: Enhanced Legacy and State-of-the-Art Instrument Suites

This publication documents the scientific advances associated with new instrument systems and accessories built to improve above- and in-water observations of the apparent optical properties (AOPs) of aquatic ecosystems. The perspective is to obtain high quality data in offshore, nearshore, and inland waters with equal efficacy. The principal objective is to be prepared for the launch of the next-generation ocean color satellites with the most capable commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) instrumentation in the shortest time possible. The technologies described herein are designed to either improve legacy radiometric systems or to provide entirely new hybrid sampling capabilities, so as to satisfy the requirements established for diverse remote sensing requirements. Both above- and in-water instrument suites are documented with software options for autonomous control of data collection activities. The latter includes an airborne instrument system plus unmanned surface vessel (USV) and buoy concepts

Design, Synthesis, and Evaluation of Hydroxamic Acid-Based Molecular Probes for In Vivo Imaging of Histone Deacetylase (HDAC) in Brain

Hydroxamic acid-based histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) are a class of molecules with therapeutic potential currently reflected in the use of suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (SAHA; Vorinostat) to treat cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCL). HDACis may have utility beyond cancer therapy, as preclinical studies have ascribed HDAC inhibition as beneficial in areas such as heart disease, diabetes, depression, neurodegeneration, and other disorders of the central nervous system (CNS). However, little is known about the pharmacokinetics (PK) of hydroxamates, particularly with respect to CNS-penetration, distribution, and retention. To explore the rodent and non-human primate (NHP) brain permeability of hydroxamic acid-based HDAC inhibitors using positron emission tomography (PET), we modified the structures of belinostat (PXD101) and panobinostat (LBH-589) to incorporate carbon-11. We also labeled PCI 34051 through carbon isotope substitution. After characterizing the in vitro affinity and efficacy of these compounds across nine recombinant HDAC isoforms spanning Class I and Class II family members, we determined the brain uptake of each inhibitor. Each labeled compound has low uptake in brain tissue when administered intravenously to rodents and NHPs. In rodent studies, we observed that brain accumulation of the radiotracers were unaffected by the pre-administration of unlabeled inhibitors. Knowing that CNS-penetration may be desirable for both imaging applications and therapy, we explored whether a liquid chromatography, tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) method to predict brain penetrance would be an appropriate method to pre-screen compounds (hydroxamic acid-based HDACi) prior to PET radiolabeling. LC-MS-MS data were indeed useful in identifying additional lead molecules to explore as PET imaging agents to visualize HDAC enzymes in vivo. However, HDACi brain penetrance predicted by LC-MS-MS did not strongly correlate with PET imaging results. This underscores the importance of in vivo PET imaging tools in characterizing putative CNS drug lead compounds and the continued need to discover effect PET tracers for neuroepigenetic imaging.Chemistry and Chemical Biolog

Evaluation of a candidate breast cancer associated SNP in ERCC4 as a risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA)

Background: In this study we aimed to evaluate the role of a SNP in intron 1 of the ERCC4 gene (rs744154), previously reported to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in the general population, as a breast cancer risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods: We have genotyped rs744154 in 9408 BRCA1 and 5632 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and assessed its association with breast cancer risk using a retrospective weighted cohort approach. Results: We found no evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (per-allele HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93–1.04, P=0.5) or BRCA2 (per-allele HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89–1.06, P=0.5) mutation carriers. Conclusion: This SNP is not a significant modifier of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers, though weak associations cannot be ruled out. A Osorio1, R L Milne2, G Pita3, P Peterlongo4,5, T Heikkinen6, J Simard7, G Chenevix-Trench8, A B Spurdle8, J Beesley8, X Chen8, S Healey8, KConFab9, S L Neuhausen10, Y C Ding10, F J Couch11,12, X Wang11, N Lindor13, S Manoukian4, M Barile14, A Viel15, L Tizzoni5,16, C I Szabo17, L Foretova18, M Zikan19, K Claes20, M H Greene21, P Mai21, G Rennert22, F Lejbkowicz22, O Barnett-Griness22, I L Andrulis23,24, H Ozcelik24, N Weerasooriya23, OCGN23, A-M Gerdes25, M Thomassen25, D G Cruger26, M A Caligo27, E Friedman28,29, B Kaufman28,29, Y Laitman28, S Cohen28, T Kontorovich28, R Gershoni-Baruch30, E Dagan31,32, H Jernström33, M S Askmalm34, B Arver35, B Malmer36, SWE-BRCA37, S M Domchek38, K L Nathanson38, J Brunet39, T Ramón y Cajal40, D Yannoukakos41, U Hamann42, HEBON37, F B L Hogervorst43, S Verhoef43, EB Gómez García44,45, J T Wijnen46,47, A van den Ouweland48, EMBRACE37, D F Easton49, S Peock49, M Cook49, C T Oliver49, D Frost49, C Luccarini50, D G Evans51, F Lalloo51, R Eeles52, G Pichert53, J Cook54, S Hodgson55, P J Morrison56, F Douglas57, A K Godwin58, GEMO59,60,61, O M Sinilnikova59,60, L Barjhoux59,60, D Stoppa-Lyonnet61, V Moncoutier61, S Giraud59, C Cassini62,63, L Olivier-Faivre62,63, F Révillion64, J-P Peyrat64, D Muller65, J-P Fricker65, H T Lynch66, E M John67, S Buys68, M Daly69, J L Hopper70, M B Terry71, A Miron72, Y Yassin72, D Goldgar73, Breast Cancer Family Registry37, C F Singer74, D Gschwantler-Kaulich74, G Pfeiler74, A-C Spiess74, Thomas v O Hansen75, O T Johannsson76, T Kirchhoff77, K Offit77, K Kosarin77, M Piedmonte78, G C Rodriguez79, K Wakeley80, J F Boggess81, J Basil82, P E Schwartz83, S V Blank84, A E Toland85, M Montagna86, C Casella87, E N Imyanitov88, A Allavena89, R K Schmutzler90, B Versmold90, C Engel91, A Meindl92, N Ditsch93, N Arnold94, D Niederacher95, H Deißler96, B Fiebig97, R Varon-Mateeva98, D Schaefer99, U G Froster100, T Caldes101, M de la Hoya101, L McGuffog49, A C Antoniou49, H Nevanlinna6, P Radice4,5 and J Benítez1,3 on behalf of CIMB