The Multidimensional Structure of Interest

There is increasing attention for interest as a powerful, complex, and integrative construct, ranging in appearance from entirely momentary states of interest to longer-term interest pursuits. Developmental models have shown how these situational interests can develop into individual interests over time. As such, these models have helped to integrate more or less separate research traditions and focus the attention of the field more on the developmental dynamics. This, however, also raises subsequent questions, one being how development can be understood in terms of interest structure. The developmental models seem to suggest that development occurs roughly along the line of six dimensions, which we summarize as the dimensions of historicity, value, agency, frequency, intensity, and mastery. Using an experience sampling method that was implemented in a smartphone application, we prompted 94 adolescents aged 13 to 16 (60% female) to rate each interest they experienced during two weeks on these six dimensions. A latent profile analysis on 1247 interests showed six distinct multidimensional patterns, indicating both a homogeneous and heterogeneous structure of interest. Four homogeneous patterns were indicated by more or less equal levels on all six dimensions in varying degrees, and contained 86% of the interests. Two heterogeneous patterns were found, describing variations of interest that are interpreted and discussed. These results endorse the complexity of the construct of interest and provide suggestions for identifying different manifestations of interest

Unraveling the contextuality of adolescents’ interest pursuits in daily life: four latent configurations

While interest pursuits are widely recognized as being inherently contextual, what this contextuality entails for different interests has not been explored systematically. In this study, 410 adolescents reported on the temporal, epistemic, material, geographical, social, institutional, and cultural dimensions of 820 interest pursuits. Latent class analyses identified four interest pursuit configurations, revealing quantitative (overall high/low structure) and qualitative (expertise- and social-oriented) differences. We observed similar interests being pursued in the same configuration, but also identified individual differences, reflecting the social–historical meaning and object characteristics of interests, as well as adolescents’ preferences and structural opportunities. The findings show that interest entails more than a preference for an object, but also a preference for a wider configuration, which should be considered when designing (educational) contexts to stimulate adolescents’ interest

Hybridising in and out-of-school learning

Where learning takes place, who is learning, and what is to be learned is increasingly diverse, and to some extent, unpredictable in contemporary societies. Research designs that implicitly predefine the who, what, and where of learning easily overlook essential hybridizations in open-ended learning processes in and across contexts, resulting in but a partial understanding of learning. This chapter proposes adopting a person-centred perspective and conceptualizing learning as potentially multicontextual and multidirectional as a way forward. Such a perspective requires an alternative methodological approach: relational research designs that are responsive to individual learners and unpack learning, wherever and whenever it manifests, while acknowledging that researchers themselves are part of that design. To provide an example, we report a mixed-method study that explores children’s dis/continuities in positioning towards, understanding of, and engagement with science in a science summer program. The discussion highlights the nuanced understandings of learning that can be revealed in responsive relational research and urges the field to be accountable for the inherently partial understandings of learning being generated

How others are involved in interest development

Involvement of other people is beneficial, if not crucial, for adolescents' interest development. Our current understanding of how others can be involved in interest is mostly based on research into a particular kind of interest (e.g., STEM-interests) or particular contexts, most prominently school and hobby/affinity practices. This study explores the ways involvement of others unfolds when adolescents pursue different interests in and across different contexts. We studied all reported interests of nine purposefully selected adolescents over the course of almost three years using experience sampling reports of interest engagement (N = 3029 events) and interviews reflecting on interest pursuits (N = 174). We observed twelve manifestations of involvement during interest engagement, that differ in: (1) whether others were involved in a structural way; (2) who and (3) how involved others are; (4) if their involvement is necessary; and, lastly, (5) whether the interest engagement or involvement of others is foregrounded in adolescents' experience. We identified shifts in the presence of others, how they are involved, and their necessity for interest over time. Involved others appear to be consequential for if and how adolescents pursue their interests. These findings serve as a reminder to anyone concerned with adolescents' interest to be mindful of their own and others' role in adolescents' interest pursuits.</p

Unravelling why students do or do not stay committed to a programme when making a higher education choice

Over the past forty years, scholars have been studying students’ choice of higher education programmes to unravel the complexity of the choice process. Recent studies have shown that students may commit to a programme, i.e. they make a choice to enrol in that programme, when they find a programme that attunes well with their interests. Students may nonetheless decide to switch from one programme to another before final enrolment and research has not yet sufficiently explained why they do that. The present study therefore focused on the mechanisms underlying students changing their minds after they had previously committed to a higher education programme. Eighteen semi-structured interviews with Dutch pre-university students in their final year at school were held just before final enrolment: students retraced their higher education programme choice process over time with the help of a timeline and a storyline. Interviews were thematically analysed. We identified two mechanisms whereby students, sometimes quite suddenly, switched in their commitment from one programme to another and two mechanisms that could hold them back from committing to another programme despite having doubts. This paper provides detailed theoretical insight into how students make higher education programme choices over time and concludes with practical recommendations on how to support students

How students use the space provided by broad and specialised programmes to develop their interests in higher education

There is an ongoing debate in higher education about the value of broad programmes versus specialised programmes. Educational professionals argue that students use the space provided by broad programmes to develop interests in diverse domains, while the scope of specialised programmes allows students to converge in interests. The present study investigates whether students enrolled in broad and specialised programmes indeed differ in how their interests develop. To do so, we traced the interest development of 124 Dutch students from their final year in secondary education until the end of their first year in higher education. We used an experience sampling method to measure students’ momentary interests over a week and repeated this every three months. For each data collection week, we coded in how many different domains students were interested, and subsequently ran a multigroup, sequential, latent growth curve model. We found that students in broad programmes develop more divergent interests, while students in specialised programmes develop more convergent interests. This shows how students use the space provided by programmes to shape their interests. Our results can help higher education institutes in discussing whether a more diverse or focused curriculum is desirable from a societal and student perspective

“Undisciplining” Higher Education without Losing Disciplines:: Furthering Transformative Potential for Students

In universities worldwide, there has been a movement away from mono-disciplinary towards multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary education, motivated by the notion that complex societal issues call for more than a single disciplinary perspective. To prepare students for a role in addressing these issues, flexibility within educational programs is needed for students to move within, across and beyond disciplines. Contrary to the intended orientation on societal issues, multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary education appear in the current discourse regularly as aims in themselves, as if they were distinctive types of education that one should adopt at the level of a course or a program. We argue that education could more flexibly utilize and create free space: continuously questioning, also together with students, what sorts of perspectives and disciplinarities problems require. Therefore, we propose boundary crossing as an alternative way of thinking about multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary education. At many universities, organizing for flexibility already gains some traction. However, we believe that a shift of focus towards more open ways of transgressing disciplines in the field of higher education is vital for furthering the transformative potential of multi-, inter- and transdisciplinarity for students to being and becoming the professionals that society needs

‘Undisciplining’ higher education without losing disciplines: furthering transformative potential for students

In universities worldwide, there has been a movement away from mono-disciplinary towards multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary education, motivated by the notion that complex societal issues call for more than a single disciplinary perspective. To prepare students for a role in addressing these issues, flexibility within educational programs is needed for students to move within, across and beyond disciplines. Contrary to the intended orientation on societal issues, multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary education appear in the current discourse regularly as aims in themselves, as if they were distinctive types of education that one should adopt at the level of a course or a program. We argue that education could more flexibly utilize and create free space: continuously questioning, also together with students, what sorts of perspectives and disciplinarities problems require. Therefore, we propose boundary crossing as an alternative way of thinking about multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary education. At many universities, organizing for flexibility already gains some traction. However, we believe that a shift of focus towards more open ways of transgressing disciplines in the field of higher education is vital for furthering the transformative potential of multi-, inter- and transdisciplinarity for students to being and becoming the professionals that society needs

Serum Biomarker Profile Including CCL1, CXCL10, VEGF, and Adenosine Deaminase Activity Distinguishes Active From Remotely Acquired Latent Tuberculosis

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent medical need to differentiate active tuberculosis (ATB) from latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and prevent undertreatment and overtreatment. The aim of this study was to identify biomarker profiles that may support the differentiation between ATB and LTBI and to validate these signatures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The discovery cohort included adult individuals classified in four groups: ATB (n = 20), LTBI without prophylaxis (untreated LTBI; n = 20), LTBI after completion of prophylaxis (treated LTBI; n = 20), and healthy controls (HC; n = 20). Their sera were analyzed for 40 cytokines/chemokines and activity of adenosine deaminase (ADA) isozymes. A prediction model was designed to differentiate ATB from untreated LTBI using sparse partial least squares (sPLS) and logistic regression analyses. Serum samples of two independent cohorts (national and international) were used for validation. RESULTS: sPLS regression analyses identified C-C motif chemokine ligand 1 (CCL1), C-reactive protein (CRP), C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 (CXCL10), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as the most discriminating biomarkers. These markers and ADA(2) activity were significantly increased in ATB compared to untreated LTBI (p ≤ 0.007). Combining CCL1, CXCL10, VEGF, and ADA2 activity yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 95% and 90%, respectively, in differentiating ATB from untreated LTBI. These findings were confirmed in the validation cohort including remotely acquired untreated LTBI participants. CONCLUSION: The biomarker signature of CCL1, CXCL10, VEGF, and ADA2 activity provides a promising tool for differentiating patients with ATB from non-treated LTBI individuals