Alone-Together: Shelves as Intergenerational Maps of Sense-Laden, Relational, Multimodal Pedagogies

Engaging with the concept of sensory shelfies, this essay exhibits how children and adults move across and between sounds, images and objects to make meaning and to tell stories. We glance beyond boundaries and imagine the notion of the shelf as an ongoing mapping of self where layers of experience enmesh and superimpose, and where our sense of self unfolds in the in-between, liminal spaces. These twelve shelves multimodally depict the porosity and fissures that opened up as we moved fluidly between online-offline spaces alone-together. Putting into practice an experimental and speculative approach to our research (Truman et al, 2020; Springgay and Truman, 2018), we argue for these methods as pedagogies that engage with the dynamic complexity of spaces of self. The point of departure for this researc

Alone-together:intergenerational mapping of digital and analogue spaces of self

The project featured in this article experiments with mapping methods as part of a research-creation approach to exploring spaces, times, and movements within materialisations of self. Bringing together adults and children across two cities during lockdown, the project problematises a stance on ‘learning loss’ during the pandemic and instead focuses on the potential of the experiential blurriness of analogue and digital spaces. Rather than seeking to control and structure online learning – thereby denying and limiting its possibilities, explorations, and senses of self – three researchers set out on a speculative approach that acknowledges the dynamic complexity of physical and virtual ways of knowing and being. The article discusses the affordances and challenges that the methodology offers and concludes with the broader implications of this research for reimagined post-pandemic pedagogies. In the end, we advocate for mapping as a way of generously creating spaces and activating meaning-making in diverse learning contexts

Board # 139 : Rethinking Engineering Diversity, Transforming Engineering Diversity (REDTED)

The research project described in this paper is titled “Rethinking Engineering Diversity, Transforming Engineering Diversity (REDTED),” which is part of the National Science Foundation, Revolutionizing Engineering Department (RED) grants. The project is in its first year and therefore what is described in this paper will be a brief overview of the project and some of the work done during the first year. The proposed research is to explore how the representation of women and Underrepresented Minority (URM) students and historically underserved groups will be increased in an engineering department by deploying a multi-pronged approach. The approach includes curricular and extra-curricular reform, which is targeted at the Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) Department at Rowan University and includes: a) Radically changing admission standards to promote excellence; b) Enhancing the perception and understanding of diversity and equality among students, faculty and administrators to create a more inclusive environment; c) Developing Advocate and Allies Mentoring Program for first year, and transfer students; d) Transforming existing engineering curriculum of second and third year from a narrow sub-discipline based approach to a more inclusive, system-based approach; e) Enriching students’ aspirations by providing successful and diverse role models from industry and academia; and f) Developing a model for inclusion of diverse students. The study is unique in that the definition of diversity is expanded to include both visible and invisible aspects. It also takes a comprehensive approach in making engineering more appealing to a more diverse population while also making sure that the diverse students who do choose to pursue engineering find an inclusive and welcoming climate. The first year of the study has been devoted to building partnerships and developing a consistent message. In addition, surveys of students and faculty to get baseline data on the attitudes to inclusivity have also been conducted to inform the strategies to be employed. In addition, faculty workshops to begin the process of modifying the curriculum is also being conducted. In addition, the student peer mentoring program and its structure is also being developed and student workshops are being conducted to develop peer mentoring skills

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570