Correction to Doyle et al. (2021)

In the article The Importance of Incorporating Lived Experience in Efforts to Reduce Australian Reincarceration Rates by Caroline Doyle, Karen Gardner and Karen Wells (The International Journal of Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.1666) published on February 17, 2021, some text in the literature review was unintentionally missing attribution. This corrected version of the article can be found at https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.194

Correction to Oxley (2020)

In the book review Decolonising Criminology: Imagining Justice in a Postcolonial World by Harry Blagg and Thalia Anthony reviewed by Robyn Oxley (The International Journal of Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 9(3) https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v9i3.1618 ) published on August 5, 2020, one sentence is changed to correct an error in the number of scholars cited. This corrected version of the article can be found at https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.2933   

Applying a social justice framework to ensure good practice in monitoring student learning engagement

A current Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) funded action research project aims to provide a set of practical resources founded on a social justice framework, to guide good practice for monitoring student learning engagement (MSLE) in higher education. The project involves ten Australasian institutions, eight of which are engaged in various MSLE type projects. A draft framework, consisting of six social justice principles which emerged from the literature has been examined with reference to the eight institutional approaches for MSLE in conjunction with the personnel working on these initiatives during the first action research cycle. The cycle will examine the strategic and operational implications of the framework in each of the participating institutions. Cycle 2 will also build capacity to embed the principles within the institutional MSLE program and will identify and collect examples and resources that exemplify the principles in practice. The final cycle will seek to pilot the framework to guide new MSLE initiatives. In its entirety, the project will deliver significant resources to the sector in the form of a social justice framework for MSLE, guidelines and sector exemplars for MSLE. As well as increasing the awareness amongst staff around the criticality of transition to university (thereby preventing attrition) and the significance of the learning and teaching agenda in enhancing student engagement, the project will build leadership capacity within the participating institutions and provide a knowledge base and institutional capacity for the Australasian HE sector to deploy the deliverables that will safeguard student learning engagement At this early stage of the project the workshop session provides an opportunity to discuss and examine the draft set of social justice principles and to discuss their potential value for the participants’ institutional contexts. Specifically, the workshop will explore critical questions associated with the principles

Using a maturity model to move student engagement practices beyond the generational approach

This paper proposes that the generational approach to conceptualising first year student learning behaviour, while it has made a very useful contribution to understanding that behaviour, can be expanded upon. The generational approach has an explicit focus on student behaviour and it is suggested that a capability maturity model interpretation may provide a complementary extension of that as it allows an assessment of institutional capability to initiate, plan, manage and evaluate institutional student engagement practices. The development of a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM) is discussed along with Australasian FYE generational data and Australian SESR-MM data

ePortfolio use by university students in Australia: A review of the Australian ePortfolio Project

In October 2008, the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) released the final report for the commissioned project ePortfolio use by university students in Australia: Informing excellence in policy and practice. The Australian ePortfolio Project represented the first attempt to examine the breadth and depth of ePortfolio practice in the Australian higher education sector. The research activities included surveys of stakeholder groups in learning and teaching, academic management and human resource management, with respondents representing all Australian universities; a series of focus groups and semi-structured interviews which sought to explore key issues in greater depth; and surveys designed to capture students’ pre-course expectations and their post-course experiences of ePortfolio learning. Further qualitative data was collected through interviews with ‘mature users’ of ePortfolios. Project findings revealed that, while there was a high level of interest in the use of ePortfolios in terms of the potential to help students become reflective learners who were conscious of their personal and professional strengths and weaknesses, the state of play in Australian universities was very fragmented. The project investigation identified four individual, yet interrelated, contexts where strategies may be employed to support and foster effective ePortfolio practice in higher education: government policy, technical standards, academic policy, and learning and teaching. Four scenarios for the future were also presented with the goal of stimulating discussion about opportunities for stakeholder engagement. It is argued that the effective use of ePortfolios requires open dialogue and collaboration between the different stakeholders across this range of contexts

Editorial

This issue is being published during a time of massive disruption and change associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. A situation which has been further complicated by rapid changes in higher education public policy, funding and regulation in Australia and elsewhere. Despite all these challenges, our friends and colleagues and higher education practitioners across the world have been responsive and innovative in the face of restrictive conditions, have focused on what they can and will learn from these strange times and have continued to share expertise and experiences, and importantly have never lost sight of what really matters – our students and their success. We salute each and every one of you

Rosa del Olmo Prize: Introductory Essay

Academic prizes have three problems: they feed an individualist ethos, perpetuate the idea of the ‘marketplace of ideas’ as a fair and even playing field, and build a stereotype of white, Western men as the ultimate knowledge creators. However, prizes can also challenge stereotypes and help democratise knowledge creation by enlarging the visibility of communitarian knowledge creation beyond Western scripts and outside hegemonic masculinities. The International Journal for Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, committed to cognitive justice, knowledge democratisation, and encouraging voices on the periphery to partake in global academic debate, established the Rosa del Olmo Prize. Seeking to challenge criminological stereotypes about who can create knowledge that contributes to the development of criminology, the Journal honours Venezuelan criminologist Rosa del Olmo (1937-2000) through this award. Rosa symbolises critical, feminist, decolonial criminology working to advance social justice

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707