The Begetting of Information Literacy Tutorials: Third-Wave Tutorials for the iPod Generation

Two southern Indiana instruction librarians will share their collaborative efforts to incorporate some of the latest technologies in the creation of online tutorials for their users. The tools and technologies to be discussed will range from free to expensive, low tech to high tech, and easy-to-use to relatively complex. The first part of the presentation will include a brief discussion of Camtasia and Flash, but focus primarily on Macromedia\u27s Breeze Presenter software, which works in conjunction with Microsoft PowerPoint. The content and design of Pennsylvania State University\u27s tutorial, The Information Cycle, will be used to measure the success of employing the more user-friendly Breeze software in place of Macromedia\u27s more sophisticated and expensive suite, including Flash, Fireworks and Dreamweaver. The second part of the presentation will trace the succeeding generations of online library instruction tutorials (TILT to Searchpath to inflite) and focus on how each tutorial has responded to evolving web standards, research on learning styles, and HTML editing shortcuts. The presenters will discuss issues of design, content, length, and interactivity, while highlighting accessibility, customization, assessment and usability issues. Librarians face a challenge in determining which technologies to learn and which technologies to disregard, because technology is a moving target that is constantly changing. After attending this session, you will be inspired by the tools and tutorials available to help non-techies (or tech-lites) reach students, wherever they are

Application of genomics to develop a monitoring tool for stormwater treatment wetlands

Urban stormwater treatment wetlands benefit communities because they filter pollutants from receiving waters and provide habitat for urban wildlife and birds. The installation of wetlands is often avoided because stormwater quality is highly variable, which makes it both challenging and expensive to ensure that the wetlands are effectively mitigating the impacts of stormwater runoff. For decades, macroscopic species, such as benthic invertebrates, have been used as biological indicators of watershed health. With recent advancements in genomics (the branch of science that studies the function and structure of DNA within a single cell), it may now be feasible to use microscopic biological indicators, such as bacteria, to monitor the health and mitigation effectiveness of engineered stormwater treatment systems, including wetlands. This presentation describes a recent pilot project involving a DNA-based monitoring approach that was applied at an operating stormwater treatment wetland in Vancouver, British Columbia. A laboratory study was also performed as part of the project to cross compare results. The researchers developed insight around the shifts in bacteria species and functions among bacteria communities that occur with changing stormwater conditions. The results suggested a correlation between bacteria and the performance of treatment wetlands. Cost estimates performed for various monitoring scenarios suggested that using analysis of bacterial DNA alongside contaminant analysis may improve the accuracy of wetland performance monitoring at a lower overall cost than traditional wetland monitoring. This presentation will share information gleaned from this research that could enhance and improve the design and management of treatment wetlands. It will also share lessons learned and future opportunities for DNA-based performance monitoring of stormwater treatment systems

Policy Brief #1: Child Care Assets: What are 14 Key Assets of Child Care Providers that Support Quality?

In 2000, university researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Iowa State University, University of Kansas and the University of Missouri and state child care and early education program partners in four states (Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska) initiated the Midwest Child Care Research Consortium (MCCRC). The focus of the Consortium’s work is to conduct a multiyear study on a range of issues associated with child care quality and conditions. Across the four states, a stratified random selection of 2,022 child care providers participated in a telephone survey conducted by the Gallup Organization, representing licensed child care centers, licensed family child care homes, registered child care homes, and subsidized care license exempt family and (in one state) license exempt center care. Providers responded to questions about background and practices often associated with quality. Of the providers responding to the phone survey, 365 were randomly selected for in-depth observations to assess quality, using conventional measures of child care quality (see back of this brief). This report shows the relation between observed quality and many provider characteristics and professional improvement efforts

Nebraska Child Care Workforce and Quality: Summary Policy Brief #7

The study showed the average child care provider in Nebraska is female, married and a parent. This provider had some training or education beyond high school but not an advanced degree, was active in child care training, had a First Aid/CPR certificate, considered child care her profession or calling, had been in the child care field for over 5 years and planned to remain a provider. The average provider was observed to provide minimal quality child care. In Nebraska, using well-established observational measures of quality, center-based preschool care averaged 4.16 on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R); 4.49 on the Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS); and family child care averaged 4.46 on the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS). A “5” is considered “good” quality. There was great variability across all types of care. · Family child care quality was higher in Nebraska and Missouri than in Iowa and Kansas. · In center-based care, there were no differences between providers who cared for children receiving government child care subsidies and those who did not but in family child care there were differences. Quality, training, education and professionally-oriented attitudes were lower among subsidy-receiving family child care providers than for non-subsidy receiving counterparts. · Providers in Early Head Start/Head Start partnerships offered higher quality care and received more training than other child care providers. Nebraska like two other states invested training funds to enable Early Head Start/Head Start programs to partner with programs to follow the Head Start Performance Standards and these partnerships did appear to result in higher quality than average

Validation of a HLA-A2 tetramer flow cytometric method, IFNgamma real time RT-PCR, and IFNgamma ELISPOT for detection of immunologic response to gp100 and MelanA/MART-1 in melanoma patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>HLA-A2 tetramer flow cytometry, IFNγ real time RT-PCR and IFNγ ELISPOT assays are commonly used as surrogate immunological endpoints for cancer immunotherapy. While these are often used as research assays to assess patient's immunologic response, assay validation is necessary to ensure reliable and reproducible results and enable more accurate data interpretation. Here we describe a rigorous validation approach for each of these assays prior to their use for clinical sample analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Standard operating procedures for each assay were established. HLA-A2 (A*0201) tetramer assay specific for gp100_209(210M)and MART-1_26–35(27L), IFNγ real time RT-PCR and ELISPOT methods were validated using tumor infiltrating lymphocyte cell lines (TIL) isolated from HLA-A2 melanoma patients. TIL cells, specific for gp100 (TIL 1520) or MART-1 (TIL 1143 and TIL1235), were used alone or spiked into cryopreserved HLA-A2 PBMC from healthy subjects. TIL/PBMC were stimulated with peptides (gp100₂₀₉, gp100_pool, MART-1_27–35, or influenza-M1 and negative control peptide HIV) to further assess assay performance characteristics for real time RT-PCR and ELISPOT methods. Validation parameters included specificity, accuracy, precision, linearity of dilution, limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ). In addition, distribution was established in normal HLA-A2 PBMC samples. Reference ranges for assay controls were established.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The validation process demonstrated that the HLA-A2 tetramer, IFNγ real time RT-PCR, and IFNγ ELISPOT were highly specific for each antigen, with minimal cross-reactivity between gp100 and MelanA/MART-1. The assays were sensitive; detection could be achieved at as few as 1/4545–1/6667 cells by tetramer analysis, 1/50,000 cells by real time RT-PCR, and 1/10,000–1/20,000 by ELISPOT. The assays met criteria for precision with %CV < 20% (except ELISPOT using high PBMC numbers with %CV < 25%) although flow cytometric assays and cell based functional assays are known to have high assay variability. Most importantly, assays were demonstrated to be effective for their intended use. A positive IFNγ response (by RT-PCR and ELISPOT) to gp100 was demonstrated in PBMC from 3 melanoma patients. Another patient showed a positive MART-1 response measured by all 3 validated methods.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results demonstrated the tetramer flow cytometry assay, IFNγ real-time RT-PCR, and INFγ ELISPOT met validation criteria. Validation approaches provide a guide for others in the field to validate these and other similar assays for assessment of patient T cell response. These methods can be applied not only to cancer vaccines but to other therapeutic proteins as part of immunogenicity and safety analyses.</p

Child Care Workforce and Quality -- Policy Brief: Summary Brief #5

The study showed the average provider in the Midwest is female, married and a parent. This provider had some training or education beyond high school but not an advanced degree, was active in child care training, had a first aid/CPR certificate, considered child care her profession or calling, had been in the child care field for over 5 years and planned to remain a provider for at least 5 years. The average provider was observed to provide minimal quality child care. Using well-established observational measures of quality, center-based preschool care averaged 4.57 on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R); 4.38 on the Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS); and family child care averaged 4.14 on the Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS). A “5” is considered “good” quality. There was great variability across all types of care. · Quality in infant-toddler and family child care was lower in Iowa, a state that has fewer regulatory requirements than the other three states. · In center-based care, there were no differences between providers who cared for children receiving government child care subsidies and those who did not but in family child care there were differences. Quality, training, education and professionally-oriented attitudes were lower among subsidy-receiving family child care providers than for non-subsidy receiving counterparts. · Providers in Early Head Start/Head Start partnerships offered higher quality care and received more training than other child care providers. Three of the four states had invested training funds to enable Early Head Start/Head Start programs to partner with programs to follow the Head Start Performance Standards and these partnerships did appear to result in higher quality than average

Policy Brief: Compensation of Early Childhood Teachers: What Value do we Place on Young Children?

In 2001, university researchers and state program partners in four states (Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska) initiated the Midwest Child Care Research Consortium (MCCRC). The focus of the Consortium’s work is to conduct a longitudinal study on a range of issues associated with early childhood program quality and the workforce. Across the four states, a random sample of 2,022 child care providers participated in the study representing licensed infant, toddler, and preschool centers as well as Head Start and Early Head Start programs, license-exempt centers, and licensed and unlicensed family child care homes. In Nebraska, 508 providers participated in telephone interviews and 85 of those programs were randomly selected for an observational quality assessment. The purpose of this policy brief is to present findings relating to child care provider compensation and benefits in Nebraska and the relation of these to quality

Policy Brief - Infant Care in Nebraska: Characteristics of Providers, Quality of Care, and Parent Perceptions

In 2001, university researchers and state program partners in Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska initiated the Midwest Child Care Research Consortium. A random sample of 2,022 child care providers from all four states participated in the study representing licensed infant, toddler, and preschool centers and including Head Start and Early Head Start programs, license-exempt centers, and licensed and unlicensed family child care homes. In Nebraska, 508 providers participated in telephone interviews and 85 of those programs were randomly selected for an observational quality assessment. This report summarizes the survey responses of 236 Nebraska professionals providing care for infants and toddlers, observations of care in infant-toddler center based programs and family child care homes, and 478 surveys of parents of infants (393 in center-based care, and 167 in family child care homes)