Speech Communication

Contains table of contents for Part IV, table of contents for Section 1 and reports on five research projects.Apple Computer, Inc.C.J. Lebel FellowshipNational Institutes of Health (Grant T32-NS07040)National Institutes of Health (Grant R01-NS04332)National Institutes of Health (Grant R01-NS21183)National Institutes of Health (Grant P01-NS23734)U.S. Navy / Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0254)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-82-K-0727

Speech Communication

Contains reports on five research projects.C.J. Lebel FellowshipNational Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 NSO7040)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS04332)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS21183)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 PO1-NS23734)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS 8418733)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0254)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0341)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0290)National Institutes of Health (Grant RO1-NS21183), subcontract with Boston UniversityNational Institutes of Health (Grant 1 PO1-NS23734), subcontract with the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmar

Child abuse errors : when good intentions go wrong

xii, 226 p.; 24 cm

'Power to empower': conceptions of teaching and learning in a pedagogical co-design partnership

This study is an autoethnographic reflection on power and expertise in an evolving student/staff partnership. The partnership was initiated as pedagogical co-design in the development and implementation of a peer-assisted learning programme. Through a process of critical reflection that linked our partnership experience with themes from relevant literature, we (the staff and student authors) became co-researchers of our practice. The evolution of the partnership provided a unique perspective from which to compare our experiences of power and expertise across both contexts. We characterised our pedagogical co-design partnership as a shift from the more traditional ‘power over’ model of delivery towards ‘power to empower’ where both student and staff partners had agency and voice. Key to this important transition was a shared philosophy of student-centred teaching. As the partnership transformed from co-teaching to coresearching we needed to re-negotiate power dynamics; while our different pathways had converged on a common view of studentcentred learning, our research expertise remained disparate. We were able to negotiate this challenge by drawing on our existing relationship based on respect, reciprocity and responsibility, reinforcing views of partnership that value equality of opportunity and a focus on learning and process, rather than equality of contributions and outcomes

The selectivity and structural determinants of peptide antagonists at the CGRP receptor of rat, L6 myocytes

1. Potency orders were determined for a series of agonists and antagonists on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor of rat L6 myocytes. The agents tested were all shown to have been active against CGRP, amylin or adrenomedullin receptors. 2. AC187 had a pIC(50) of 6.8±0.10, making it 14 fold less potent as an antagonist than CGRP(8–37) (pIC(50), 7.95±0.14). Amyline(8–37) was equipotent to AC187 (pIC(50), 6.6±0.16) and CGRP(19–37) was 3 fold less potent than either (pIC(50), 6.1±0.24). 3. [Ala(11)]-CGRP(8–37) was 6 fold less potent than CGRP(8–37), (pIC(50), 7.13±0.14), whereas [Ala(18)]-CGRP(8–37) was approximately equipotent to CGRP(8–37) (pIC(50), 7.52±0.15). However, [Ala(11),Ala(18)]-CGRP(8–37) was over 300 fold less potent than CGRP(8–37) (pIC(50), 5.30±0.04). 4. [Tyr(0)]-CGRP(28–37), amylin(19–37) and adrenomedullin(22–52) were inactive as antagonists at concentrations of up to 1 μM. 5. Biotinyl-human α-CGRP was 150 fold less potent than human α-CGRP itself (EC(50) values of 48±17 nM and 0.31±0.13 nM, respectively). At 1 μM, [Cys(acetomethoxy)(2,7)]-CGRP was inactive as an agonist. 6. These results confirm a role for Arg(11) in maintaining the high affinity binding of CGRP(8–37). Arg(18) is of less direct significance for high affinity binding, but it may be important in maintaining the amphipathic nature of CGRP and its analogues