Describing Connections between Science Content and Future Careers: Implementing Texas Curriculum for Rural At-Risk High School Students Using Purposefully-Designed Field Trips

The state of Texas has an ‘essential knowledge’ component in some high school science courses indicating that students be able to describe connections between academic science content and future jobs or training through effective exposure to course content. The participants in this study were from a small rural high school in central Texas. Each was labeled as ‘at-risk’ and self-identified an inability to describe those types of connections after earning credit in more than one science course with that ‘essential knowledge’ component. A career-focused field trip to a local vocational/technology training center was designed to address that particular deficit. This study followed a narrative multiple-case case study design. Data included school records, surveys, individual and focus group interviews, and field notes from observations during the field trip. The effectiveness of the field trip was evident as each participant was able to describe connections immediately following the excursion

Approaches to healthcare personnel exemption requests from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination: Results of a national survey

OBJECTIVE: Although a growing number of healthcare facilities are implementing healthcare personnel (HCP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination requirements, vaccine exemption request management as a part of such programs is not well described. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Infectious disease (ID) physician members of the Emerging Infections Network with infection prevention or hospital epidemiology responsibilities. METHODS: Eligible persons were sent a web-based survey focused on hospital plans and practices around exemption allowances from HCP COVID-19 vaccine requirements. RESULTS: Of the 695 ID physicians surveyed, 263 (38%) responded. Overall, 160 respondent institutions (92%) allowed medical exemptions, whereas 132 (76%) allowed religious exemptions. In contrast, only 14% (n = 24) allowed deeply held personal belief exemptions. The types of medical exemptions allowed varied considerably across facilities, with allergic reactions to the vaccine or its components accepted by 145 facilities (84%). For selected scenarios commonly used as the basis for religious and deeply held personal belief exemption requests, 144 institutions (83%) would not approve exemptions focused on concerns regarding right of consent or violations of freedom of personal choice, and 140 institutions (81%) would not approve exemptions focused on introducing foreign substances into one\u27s body or the sanctity of the body. Most respondents noted plans for additional infection prevention interventions for HCP who received an exemption for COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Although many respondent institutions allowed exemptions from HCP COVID-19 vaccination requirements, the types of exemptions allowed and how the exemption programs were structured varied widely

Mechanisms Underlying the Response to Inequitable Outcomes in Chimpanzees, Pan Troglodytes

Several species of non-human primates respond negatively to inequitable outcomes, a trait shared with humans. Despite previous research, questions regarding the response to inequity remain. In this study, we replicated the methodology from previous studies to address four questions related to inequity. First, we explored the impact of basic social factors. Second, we addressed whether negative responses to inequity require a task, or exist when rewards are given for ‘free’. Third, we addressed whether differences in the experimental procedure or the level of effort required to obtain a reward affected responses. Finally, we explored the interaction between ‘individual’ expectations (based on one’s own previous experience) and ‘social’ expectations (based on the partner’s experience). These questions were investigated in 16 socially-housed adult chimpanzees using eight conditions that varied across the dimensions of reward, effort, and procedure. Subjects did respond to inequity, but only in the context of a task. Differences in procedure and level of effort required did not cause individuals to change their behavior. Males were more sensitive to social than to individual expectation, while females were more sensitive to individual expectation. Finally, subjects also increased refusals when receiving a better reward than their partner, which has not been seen previously. These results indicate that chimpanzees are more sensitive to reward inequity than procedures, and that there is interaction between social and individual expectations that depends upon social factors

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination preparedness policies in US hospitals

We surveyed infectious disease specialists about early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination preparedness. Almost all responding institutions rated their facility\u27s preparedness plan as either excellent or adequate. Vaccine hesitancy and concern about adverse reactions were the most commonly anticipated barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Only 60% believed that COVID-19 vaccination should be mandatory

Inside Hollins (1947)

https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/insideh/1003/thumbnail.jp

Inside Hollins (1949)

https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/insideh/1004/thumbnail.jp

Inside Hollins (1950)

https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/insideh/1005/thumbnail.jp

Inside Hollins (1951)

https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/insideh/1006/thumbnail.jp

Comparative Economics: Responses to the Assurance Game in Monkeys, Apes, and Humans Using Equivalent Procedures

There is great interest in the evolution of economic behavior. In typical studies, species are asked to play one of a series of economic games, derived from game theory, and their responses are compared. The advantage of this approach is the relative level of consistency and control that emerges from the games themselves; however in the typical experiment, procedures and conditions differ widely, particularly between humans and other species. Thus, in the current study we investigated how three primate species, capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans, played the Assurance (or Stag Hunt) Game using procedures which were, to the best of our ability, the same across species, particularly with respect to training and pre-testing. Our goal was to determine what, if any, differences existed in the ways in which these species made decisions in this game. We hypothesized differences along phylogenetic lines, which we found. However, the species were more similar than might be expected. In particular, humans who played using ‘non-human primate-friendly’ rules did not behave as is typical. Thus, we find evidence for similarity in decision-making processes across the Order Primates. These results indicate that such comparative studies are possible and moreover that in any comparison rating species’ relative abilities, extreme care must be taken in ensuring that one species does not have an advantage over the others due to methodological procedures