Imagining technology-enhanced learning with heritage artefacts: teacher-perceived potential of 2D and 3D heritage site visualisations

Background: There is much to be realised in the educational potential of national and world heritage sites. Such sites need to be supported in sharing their resources with a wide and international public, especially within formal education. Two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) heritage site visualisations could serve this need. Our study focuses on the teacher-perceived possibilities and benefits for education around such visualisations. Purpose: We describe how a group of UK teachers perceive the potential of cross-curricular learning that could arise from an Italian world heritage site. The teachers commented on 2D visualisations of artefacts from this site, as well as the design of a 3D immersive environment to serve educational purposes. We consider as follows: (1) how the cross-curricular teaching potential of such resources is perceived, and (2) what design features of a 3D immersive environment teachers suggest are needed for educational explorations. Sample: We recruited 10 teachers from the Midlands region of the UK and carried out semi-structured interviews. Methods: Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis applied to the conversations. Questioning was grounded in the examination of 2D and 3D visual resources. This provoked cross-curricular and educational design thinking. Results: Teacher responses highlighted a wide range of cross-curricular possibilities. However, they expressed a more ‘assimilative’ than ‘accommodative’ approach when relating resources to the curriculum. Such ‘assimilation’ involved seeing the site artefacts as raw material for more instrumental ‘curriculum activities’ (e.g. within art and design, geography, maths or literacy) rather than a more accommodative approach whereby curricular disciplines were exercised to make new meaning from the artefacts. In relation to 3D technology design, most teachers highlighted three technology features that would render it well matched to educational practice and three educational benefits over non-3D immersive environments. Conclusions: Teachers can easily imagine a rich range of opportunities to utilise 2D and 3D heritage site artefacts within the curriculum. However, the largely assimilative nature of this cross-curricular appropriation suggests the value of providing more guidance and support to teachers in the interpretation and application of artefacts. Their design suggestions can usefully inform construction of educational features within 3D immersive technologies that support heritage site experiences

‘Fourth places’: the Contemporary Public Settings for Informal Social Interaction among Strangers.

This paper introduces ‘fourth places’ as an additional category of informal social settings alongside ‘third places’ (Oldenburg 1989). Through extensive empirical fieldwork on where and how social interaction among strangers occurs in the public and semi-public spaces of a contemporary masterplanned neighbourhood, this paper reveals that ‘fourth places’ are closely related to ‘third places’ in terms of social and behavioural characteristics, involving a radical departure from the routines of home and work, inclusivity, and social comfort. However, the activities, users, locations and spatial conditions that support them are very different. They are characterized by ‘in-betweenness’ in terms of spaces, activities, time and management, as well as a great sense of publicness. This paper will demonstrate that the latter conditions are effective in breaking the ‘placelessness’ and ‘fortress’ designs of newly designed urban public spaces and that, by doing so, they make ‘fourth places’ sociologically more open in order to bring strangers together. The recognition of these findings problematizes well-established urban design theories and redefines several spatial concepts for designing public space. Ultimately, the findings also bring optimism to urban design practice, offering new insights into how to design more lively and inclusive public spaces. Keywords: ‘Fourth places’, Informal Public Social Settings, Social Interaction, Strangers, Public Space Design

Has management accounting research been critical?

This paper examines the contributions Management Accounting Research (MAR) has (and has not) made to social and critical analyses of management accounting in the twenty-five years since its launch. It commences with a personalised account of the first named author’s experiences of behavioural, social and critical accounting in the twenty-five years before MAR appeared. This covers events in the UK, especially the Management Control Workshop, Management Accounting Research conferences at Aston, the Inter-disciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conferences; key departments and professors; and elsewhere the formation of pan-European networks, and reflections on a years’ visit to the USA. Papers published by MAR are analysed according to year of publication, country of author and research site, research method, research subject (type of organization or subject studied), data analysis method, topic, and theory. This revealed, after initial domination by UK academics, increasing Continental European influence; increasing use of qualitative methods over a wide range of topics, especially new costing methods, control system design, change and implementation, public sector transformation, and more recently risk management and creativity. Theoretical approaches have been diverse, often multi-disciplinary, and have employed surprisingly few economic theories relative to behavioural and social theories. The research spans mainly large public and private sector organisations especially in Europe. Seven themes perceived as of interest to a social and critical theory analysis are evaluated, namely: the search for ‘Relevance Lost’ and new costing; management control, the environment and the search for ‘fits’; reconstituting the public sector; change and institutional theory; post-structural, constructivist and critical contributions; social and environmental accounting; and the changing geography of time and space between European and American research. The paper concludes by assessing the contributions of MAR against the aspirations of groups identified in the opening personal historiography, which have been largely met. MAR has made substantial contributions to social and critical accounting (broadly defined) but not in critical areas endeavouring to give greater voice and influence to marginalised sectors of society worldwide. Third Sector organisations, politics, civil society involvement, development and developing countries, labour, the public interest, political economy, and until recently social and environmental accounting have been neglected

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations