136 research outputs found

    Higher Education Learning Trends: Selected Bibliography

    Get PDF
    The University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history.The Learning Group worked to develop a strongly and pervasively learner-centered view of the Ohio State University Libraries. It examined trends in teaching and learning at Ohio State University by interviewing campus administrators, faculty, and staff closely involved with academic programs and student life; surveyed recent higher education and library publications concerned with teaching and learning; and learned from the example of other academic libraries. This bibliography partially addresses the second and third activity. The group surveyed the literature to identify current trends in higher education learning, which in the groups judgement, were applicable to the Thompson Library renovation project. The Learning Group members were: Miriam Conteh-Morgan, Karen Diaz, Anne Fields, Marty Jamison, Fred Roecker, Rocki Strader,Tom Cetwinski, Linda Gonzalez and Scott Bennett (Consultant)

    Report on the Renovation of the Thompson Library

    Get PDF
    The University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history.The Learning Group worked to develop a strongly and pervasively learner-centered view of the Ohio State University Libraries. It examined trends in teaching and learning at Ohio State University by interviewing campus administrators, faculty, and staff closely involved with academic programs and student life; surveyed recent higher education and library publications concerned with teaching and learning; and learned from the example of other academic libraries. The report speaks to the renovation of the Thompson Library and addresses the various parties planning that renovation. Three themes pervade the report: the library as a contributing member of a learning community, learning as an acculturation process, and technology that inspires and supports acculturation. The Learning Group members were: Miriam Conteh-Morgan, Karen Diaz, Anne Fields, Marty Jamison, Fred Roecker, Rocki Strader,Tom Cetwinski, Linda Gonzalez and Scott Bennett (Consultant

    Learning Commons/Library Futures: Selected Bibliography

    Get PDF
    The University Archives has determined that this item is of continuing value to OSU's history.The Learning Group worked to develop a strongly and pervasively learner-centered view of the Ohio State University Libraries. It examined trends in teaching and learning at Ohio State University by interviewing campus administrators, faculty, and staff closely involved with academic programs and student life; surveyed recent higher education and library publications concerned with teaching and learning; and learned from the example of other academic libraries. This bibliography partially addresses the second and third activity. The group surveyed current literature on the learning commons/information commons concept that appeared, in their judgement, applicable to the Thompson Library renovation project. The Learning Group members were: Miriam Conteh-Morgan, Karen Diaz, Anne Fields, Marty Jamison, Fred Roecker, Rocki Strader,Tom Cetwinski, Linda Gonzalez and Scott Bennett (Consultant

    First-Year Success Program: Living Learning Communities

    Get PDF
    Student success is central to UMaine\u27s mission, values, reputation and fiscal health. Improving first-year student success is a major focus for Academic Affairs and Student Affairs in 2018-2019. The goal is to develop an integrated plan of actions that will result in improved first year student success as defined by first year retention. Living Learning Communities Develop a set of recommendations for how living-learning communities can support first year student success at UMaine. Please consider the following questions as you complete this work. 1. What is the current status of living learning communities at UMaine? a. How many communities are offered to students, and what do they focus on? b. How many students enroll? c. What student groups comprise these communities? d. What is the evidence of impact? Is there demographic data indicating which students take advantage of living learning communities? 2. What are the goals of living learning communities? Are these goals being met? What data is there to support attainment (or not) of goals? 3. What are considered best practices with respect to living learning communities? 4. Are there types of these communities that we don\u27t have, but should (per the best practice literature)? 5. How might some of these practices be enacted at UMaine? Which practices might be beneficial, but come with resource challenges

    Short‐ and longer‐term impacts of Child Friendly Space Interventions in Rwamwanja Refugee Settlement, Uganda

    Get PDF
    Alastair Ager - ORCID 0000-0002-9474-3563 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9474-3563Karin Diaconu - ORCID 0000-0002-5810-9725 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5810-9725Background The establishment of Child Friendly Spaces (CFSs) has become a widespread intervention targeting protection and support for displaced children in humanitarian contexts. There is a lack of evidence of impact of these interventions with respect to both short‐term outcomes and longer‐term developmental trajectories.Methods We collected data from caregivers of Congolese refugee children residing in Rwamwanja Refugee Settlement at three timepoints. To assess short‐term impact of CFSs, we compared indicators assessed shortly after refugees’ arrival (baseline, T1) and endline (T2, three to six months after CFS implementation) amongst 430 CFS attenders and 161 nonattenders. Follow‐up assessments after the end of CFS programming were conducted 18 months post‐baseline (T3) with caregivers of 249 previous CFS attenders and 77 CFS nonattenders.Results In the short‐term, attendance at CFSs was associated with better maintenance of psychosocial well‐being (PSWB; β = 2.093, p < .001, Cohen's d = .347) and greater increases in developmental assets (β = 2.517, p < .001, Cohen's d = .231), with significantly stronger impacts for girls. CFS interventions meeting higher programing quality criteria were associated with greater impact on both PSWB and development assets (β = 2.603 vs. β = 1.793 and β = 2.942 vs. β = 2.337 for attenders at higher and lower‐quality CFSs c.f. nonattenders, respectively). Amongst boys, benefits of program attendance were only indicated for those attending higher‐quality CFS (β = 2.084, p = .006 for PSWB). At follow‐up, however, there were no discernable impacts of prior CFS attendance on any measures. Age and school attendance were the only characteristics that predicted an outcome – developmental assets – at follow‐up.Conclusions Attendance at CFSs – particularly involving higher‐quality programming – supported children's well‐being and development. However, sustained impact beyond active CFS programming was not demonstrated. Intervention goals and strategies in humanitarian contexts need to address the challenge of connecting children to other resources to facilitate developmental progress in conditions of protracted displacement.This research was funded by World Vision International and Elrha's Research for Health in Humanitarian Crises (R2HC) Programme (elrha.org/r2hc), which aims to improve health outcomes by strengthening the evidence base for public health interventions in humanitarian crises. At the time of the award supporting this study, the R2HC program was funded equally by the Wellcome Trust and the UK Department for International Development.https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.1306960pubpub1

    The post-2015 debate and the place of education in development thinking

    Get PDF
    As the end date for the Millennium Development Goals approaches so the focus on goals, visions and policies for development after 2015 becomes ever heightened. However, there has been relatively little engagement by educational research community in these debates. What then is being written about education in the key post-2015 documents? How is education's role in development conceptualised by those most central to shaping new accounts? I explore these issues through an analysis of a key text on post-2015, the High Level Panel Report of May 2013 (UN-HLP 2013), and an exploration of a year's worth of posts on 30 prominent blogs and websites discussing post-2015 matters. This leads me to two further, interlinked questions: what are the implications of potential marginalisation and irrelevance from these debates for the field of international education and development research? What are the potential dangers for the field of closer engagement in these debates and their growing use of social media? The academic international education and development community may be more comfortable in keeping these policy debates at a distance, but this may play against the strong educational research drive to engage in social science that makes a difference. If there is to be engagement with post-2015 then alternative ways of developing practices of research, action and dialogue need further strengthened. This may include interdisciplinary dialogues around such issues as early childhood development, the role of professions in development or environmental sustainability. Engagement with the post-2015 debate would also require a careful analysis of how best to engage with the instrumentalised accounts of education that are dominant in the policy-advocacy arena. This would entail more strategic positions on the uses and dangers of social media. At the same time, engagement with development studies as well as the development policy community requires a reappraisal of epistemological and methodological stances

    Physicians' migration in Europe: an overview of the current situation

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The migration of medical professionals as a result of the expansion of the European Union is cause for concern. But there is a significant lack of information available about this phenomenon.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Search of secondary databases about the presence of european doctors working abroad, through two search engines in the Internet (Google and Pubmed) and a survey of professional organisations and regulators in countries of the European Union.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The United Kingdom has more foreign doctors than all other European countries for which figures are available (Ireland, France, Germany, Norway, Portugal, Italy, Austria and Poland). Some 74,031 foreign doctors are registered in the UK, 30.94% of the total. European countries with the highest percentage of doctors working abroad are Ireland (47.5%, or 10,065 doctors) and Malta (23.1%, 376 doctors). The data obtained from Norway, France and Germany do not indicate an increase in the migration of professionals from countries recently incorporated into the EU.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is significant mobility and heterogeneous distribution of doctors within the EEA and it should be cause for concern among health care authorities. However, there is no evidence about a possible increase in this phenomenon after the recent expansion of the EU.</p

    Self-management toolkit and delivery strategy for end-of-life pain: the mixed-methods feasibility study

    Get PDF
    Background: Pain affects most people approaching the end of life and can be severe for some. Opioid analgesia is effective, but evidence is needed about how best to support patients in managing these medicines. Objectives: To develop a self-management support toolkit (SMST) and delivery strategy and to test the feasibility of evaluating this intervention in a future definitive trial. Design: Phase I – evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews with patients and carers. Phase II – qualitative semistructured focus groups and interviews with patients, carers and specialist palliative care health professionals. Phase III – multicentre mixed-methods single-arm pre–post observational feasibility study. Participants: Phase I – six patients and carers. Phase II – 15 patients, four carers and 19 professionals. Phase III – 19 patients recruited to intervention that experienced pain, living at home and were treated with strong opioid analgesia. Process evaluation interviews with 13 patients, seven carers and 11 study nurses. Intervention: Self-Management of Analgesia and Related Treatments at the end of life (SMART) intervention comprising a SMST and a four-step educational delivery approach by clinical nurse specialists in palliative care over 6 weeks. Main outcome measures: Recruitment rate, treatment fidelity, treatment acceptability, patient-reported outcomes (such as scores on the Brief Pain Inventory, Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale, and feasibility of collecting data on health-care resource use for economic evaluation). Results: Phase I – key themes on supported self-management were identified from evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews. Phase II – the SMST was developed and refined. The delivery approach was nested within a nurse–patient consultation. Phase III – intervention was delivered to 17 (89%) patients, follow-up data at 6 weeks were available on 15 patients. Overall, the intervention was viewed as acceptable and valued. Descriptive analysis of patient-reported outcomes suggested that interference from pain and self-efficacy were likely to be candidates for primary outcomes in a future trial. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. The health economic analysis suggested that SMART could be cost-effective. We identified key limitations and considerations for a future trial: improve recruitment through widening eligibility criteria, refine the SMST resources content, enhance fidelity of intervention delivery, secure research nurse support at recruiting sites, refine trial procedures (including withdrawal process and data collection frequency), and consider a cluster randomised design with nurse as cluster unit. Limitations: (1) The recruitment rate was lower than anticipated. (2) The content of the intervention was focused on strong opioids only. (3) The fidelity of intervention delivery was limited by the need for ongoing training and support. (4) Recruitment sites where clinical research nurse support was not secured had lower recruitment rates. (5) The process for recording withdrawal was not sufficiently detailed. (6) The number of follow-up visits was considered burdensome for some participants. (7) The feasibility trial did not have a control arm or assess randomisation processes. Conclusions: A future randomised controlled trial is feasible and acceptable
    corecore