Field-study science classrooms as positive and enjoyable learning environments

We investigated differences between field-study classrooms and traditional science classrooms in terms of the learning environment and students’ attitudes to science, as well as the differential effectiveness of field-study classrooms for students differing in sex and English proficiency. A modified version of selected scales from the What Is Happening In this Class? questionnaire was used to assess the learning environment, whereas students’ attitudes were assessed with a shortened version of a scale from the Test of Science Related Attitudes. A sample of 765 grade 5 students from 17 schools responded to the learning environment and attitude scales in terms of both their traditional science classrooms and classrooms at a field-study centre in Florida. Large effect sizes supported the effectiveness of the field-studies classroom in terms of both the learning environment and student attitudes. Relative to the home school science class, the field-study class was considerably more effective for students with limited English proficiency than for native English speakers

The Science Performance of JWST as Characterized in Commissioning

This paper characterizes the actual science performance of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), as determined from the six month commissioning period. We summarize the performance of the spacecraft, telescope, science instruments, and ground system, with an emphasis on differences from pre-launch expectations. Commissioning has made clear that JWST is fully capable of achieving the discoveries for which it was built. Moreover, almost across the board, the science performance of JWST is better than expected; in most cases, JWST will go deeper faster than expected. The telescope and instrument suite have demonstrated the sensitivity, stability, image quality, and spectral range that are necessary to transform our understanding of the cosmos through observations spanning from near-earth asteroids to the most distant galaxies.Comment: 5th version as accepted to PASP; 31 pages, 18 figures; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/acb29

The James Webb Space Telescope Mission

Twenty-six years ago a small committee report, building on earlier studies, expounded a compelling and poetic vision for the future of astronomy, calling for an infrared-optimized space telescope with an aperture of at least $4m$. With the support of their governments in the US, Europe, and Canada, 20,000 people realized that vision as the $6.5m$ James Webb Space Telescope. A generation of astronomers will celebrate their accomplishments for the life of the mission, potentially as long as 20 years, and beyond. This report and the scientific discoveries that follow are extended thank-you notes to the 20,000 team members. The telescope is working perfectly, with much better image quality than expected. In this and accompanying papers, we give a brief history, describe the observatory, outline its objectives and current observing program, and discuss the inventions and people who made it possible. We cite detailed reports on the design and the measured performance on orbit.Comment: Accepted by PASP for the special issue on The James Webb Space Telescope Overview, 29 pages, 4 figure

Critical Invasion Science: Weeds, Pests, and Aliens

The study of invasive plants and animals calls strongly for a critical approach due to the deeply social nature of invasion landscapes, the power relations affecting the science of invasions, and the differential impacts of weed or pest control on lives and landscapes. I first explore what a “critical” invasion science means. Then I investigate several aspects of invasion science ripe for critical analysis: the history of the science (to understand what the science is doing and why), the terminology and categories of analysis, and the highly contested social, political, and ethical context within which invasion management takes place. I conclude with four proposals for further work in critical invasion science and examples of the types of questions it might ask

\u27One-stop shop\u27: Lung cancer patients\u27 and caregivers\u27 perceptions of multidisciplinary care in a community healthcare setting

Background: Multidisciplinary care is rarely practiced in community healthcare settings where the majority of patients receive lung cancer care in the US. We sought direct input from patients and their informal caregivers on their experience of lung cancer care delivery. Methods: We conducted focus groups of patient and caregiver dyads. Patients had received care for lung cancer in or out of a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology clinic coordinated by a nurse navigator. Focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using Creswell\u27s 7-step process. Recurring overlapping themes were developed using constant comparative methods within the Grounded Theory framework. Results: A total of 46 participants were interviewed in focus groups of 5 patient-caregiver dyads. Overlapping themes were a perception that multidisciplinary care improved physician collaboration, patientphysician communication, and patient convenience, while reducing redundancy in testing. Improved coordination decreased confusion, stress, and anxiety. Negative experience of serial care included poor communication among physicians, insensitive communication about illness, delays in diagnosis and treatment, misdiagnosis, and mistreatment. Physician-to-physician communication and patient education were suggested areas for improvement in the multidisciplinary model. Conclusions: Multidisciplinary care was perceived as more patient-centered, effective, safe, and efficient than standard serial care. It was also believed to improve the timeliness of care and equitable access to high quality care. Additional studies to compare these perspectives to those of other key stakeholders, including clinicians, hospital administrators and representatives of third party payers, will facilitate better understanding of the role of multidisciplinary care programs in lung cancer care delivery

Pragmatic trial of a multidisciplinary lung cancer care model in a community healthcare setting: Study design, implementation evaluation, and baseline clinical results

Background: Responsible for 25% of all US cancer deaths, lung cancer presents complex care-delivery challenges. Adoption of the highly recommended multidisciplinary care model suffers from a dearth of good quality evidence. Leading up to a prospective comparative-effectiveness study of multidisciplinary vs. serial care, we studied the implementation of a rigorously benchmarked multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic. Methods: We used a mixed-methods approach to conduct a patient-centered, combined implementation and effectiveness study of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care. We established a co-located multidisciplinary clinic to study the implementation of this care-delivery model. We identified and engaged key stakeholders from the onset, used their input to develop the program structure, processes, performance benchmarks, and study endpoints (outcome-related process measures, patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes, survival). In this report, we describe the study design, process of implementation, comparative populations, and how they contrast with patients within the local and regional healthcare system. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02123797. Results: Implementation: The multidisciplinary clinic obtained an overall treatment concordance rate of 90% (target \u3e 85%). Satisfaction scores were high, with \u3e 95% of patients and caregivers rating themselves as being very satisfied with all aspects of care from the multidisciplinary team (patient/caregiver response rate \u3e 90%). The Reach of the multidisciplinary clinic included a higher proportion of minority patients, more women, and younger patients than the regional population. Comparative effectiveness: The comparative effectiveness trial conducted in the last phase of the study met the planned enrollment per statistical design, with 178 patients in the multidisciplinary arm and 348 in the serial care arm. The multidisciplinary cohort had older age and a higher percentage of racial minorities, with a higher proportion of stage IV patients in the serial care arm. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a comprehensive implementation of a multidisciplinary model of lung cancer care, which will advance the science behind implementing this much-advocated clinical care model