96 results
Potential range shifts and climatic refugia of rupicolous reptiles in a biodiversity hotspot of South Africa
- Melissa Anne Petford, Graham John Alexander
-
- Journal:
- Environmental Conservation / Volume 48 / Issue 4 / December 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 22 November 2021, pp. 264-273
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Climate change is causing the geographical ranges of some species to track suitable conditions. Habitat specialists, range-restricted species and species with limited dispersal abilities may be unable to track changing conditions, increasing their extinction risk. In response to changing conditions and species movement patterns, there is a need to account for the effects of climate change when designing protected areas and identifying potential climate refugia. We used ecological niche models projected into future climates to identify potential impacts of climate change on the distribution of 11 rupicolous reptile species in the Soutpansberg Mountains, South Africa. Lygodactylus incognitus, Lygodactylus soutpansbergensis, Platysaurus relictus and Vhembelacerta rupicola were identified as being vulnerable to climate change due to substantial reductions in suitable habitat and low spatial overlap between current and future niche envelopes. We identified areas of high conservation importance for the persistence of these species under present-day and projected future conditions. The western Soutpansberg was identified as an area of high conservation priority as it is a potential refuge under future projections. Projecting distributions of vulnerable species into future climate predictions can guide future research and identify potential refugia that will best conserve species with restricted ranges in a world with climate change.
Surveillance cultures following a regional outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii
- Frida Rivera, Allison Reeme, Mary Beth Graham, Blake W. Buchan, Nathan A. Ledeboer, Ann M. Valley, L. Silvia Munoz-Price
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 43 / Issue 4 / April 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 14 May 2021, pp. 454-460
- Print publication:
- April 2022
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives:
The primary aim of this study was to assess the epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) for 9 months following a regional outbreak with this organism. We also aimed to determine the differential positivity rate from different body sites and characterize the longitudinal changes of surveillance test results among CRAB patients.
Design:Observational study.
Setting:A 607-bed tertiary-care teaching hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Patients:Any patient admitted from postacute care facilities and any patient housed in the same inpatient unit as a positive CRAB patient.
Methods:Participants underwent CRAB surveillance cultures from tracheostomy secretions, skin, and stool from December 5, 2018, to September 6, 2019. Cultures were performed using a validated, qualitative culture method, and final bacterial identification was performed using mass spectrometry.
Results:In total, 682 patients were tested for CRAB, of whom 16 (2.3%) were positive. Of the 16 CRAB-positive patients, 14 (87.5%) were residents from postacute care facilities and 11 (68.8%) were African American. Among positive patients, the positivity rates by body site were 38% (6 of 16) for tracheal aspirations, 56% (9 of 16) for skin, and 82% (13 of 16) for stool.
Conclusions:Residents from postacute care facilities were more frequently colonized by CRAB than patients admitted from home. Stool had the highest yield for identification of CRAB.
Mental health in UK Biobank – development, implementation and results from an online questionnaire completed by 157 366 participants: a reanalysis
- Katrina A. S. Davis, Jonathan R. I. Coleman, Mark Adams, Naomi Allen, Gerome Breen, Breda Cullen, Chris Dickens, Elaine Fox, Nick Graham, Jo Holliday, Louise M. Howard, Ann John, William Lee, Rose McCabe, Andrew McIntosh, Robert Pearsall, Daniel J. Smith, Cathie Sudlow, Joey Ward, Stan Zammit, Matthew Hotopf
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 6 / Issue 2 / March 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 February 2020, e18
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
UK Biobank is a well-characterised cohort of over 500 000 participants including genetics, environmental data and imaging. An online mental health questionnaire was designed for UK Biobank participants to expand its potential.
AimsDescribe the development, implementation and results of this questionnaire.
MethodAn expert working group designed the questionnaire, using established measures where possible, and consulting a patient group. Operational criteria were agreed for defining likely disorder and risk states, including lifetime depression, mania/hypomania, generalised anxiety disorder, unusual experiences and self-harm, and current post-traumatic stress and hazardous/harmful alcohol use.
ResultsA total of 157 366 completed online questionnaires were available by August 2017. Participants were aged 45–82 (53% were ≥65 years) and 57% women. Comparison of self-reported diagnosed mental disorder with a contemporary study shows a similar prevalence, despite respondents being of higher average socioeconomic status. Lifetime depression was a common finding, with 24% (37 434) of participants meeting criteria and current hazardous/harmful alcohol use criteria were met by 21% (32 602), whereas other criteria were met by less than 8% of the participants. There was extensive comorbidity among the syndromes. Mental disorders were associated with a high neuroticism score, adverse life events and long-term illness; addiction and bipolar affective disorder in particular were associated with measures of deprivation.
ConclusionsThe UK Biobank questionnaire represents a very large mental health survey in itself, and the results presented here show high face validity, although caution is needed because of selection bias. Built into UK Biobank, these data intersect with other health data to offer unparalleled potential for crosscutting biomedical research involving mental health.
Mental health in UK Biobank: development, implementation and results from an online questionnaire completed by 157 366 participants — RETRACTED
- Katrina A. S. Davis, Jonathan R. I. Coleman, Mark Adams, Naomi Allen, Gerome Breen, Breda Cullen, Chris Dickens, Elaine Fox, Nick Graham, Jo Holliday, Louise M. Howard, Ann John, William Lee, Rose McCabe, Andrew McIntosh, Robert Pearsall, Daniel J. Smith, Cathie Sudlow, Joey Ward, Stan Zammit, Matthew Hotopf
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 5 / Issue 4 / July 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 June 2019, e56
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
Mental health in UK Biobank: development, implementation and results from an online questionnaire completed by 157 366 participants – CORRIGENDUM
- Katrina A. S. Davis, Jonathan R. I. Coleman, Mark Adams, Naomi Allen, Gerome Breen, Breda Cullen, Chris Dickens, Elaine Fox, Nick Graham, Jo Holliday, Louise M. Howard, Ann John, William Lee, Rose McCabe, Andrew McIntosh, Robert Pearsall, Daniel J. Smith, Cathie Sudlow, Joey Ward, Stan Zammit, Matthew Hotopf
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 4 / Issue 5 / September 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 15 August 2018, pp. 352-353
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
Mental health in UK Biobank: development, implementation and results from an online questionnaire completed by 157 366 participants – CORRIGENDUM
- Katrina A. S. Davis, Jonathan R. I. Coleman, Mark Adams, Naomi Allen, Gerome Breen, Breda Cullen, Chris Dickens, Elaine Fox, Nick Graham, Jo Holliday, Louise M. Howard, Ann John, William Lee, Rose McCabe, Andrew McIntosh, Robert Pearsall, Cathie Sudlow, Joey Ward, Stan Zammit, Matthew Hotopf
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 4 / Issue 3 / May 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 19 April 2018, p. 136
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
RETRACTED – Mental health in UK Biobank: development, implementation and results from an online questionnaire completed by 157 366 participants
- Katrina A. S. Davis, Jonathan R. I. Coleman, Mark Adams, Naomi Allen, Gerome Breen, Breda Cullen, Chris Dickens, Elaine Fox, Nick Graham, Jo Holliday, Louise M. Howard, Ann John, William Lee, Rose McCabe, Andrew McIntosh, Robert Pearsall, Daniel J. Smith, Cathie Sudlow, Joey Ward, Stan Zammit, Matthew Hotopf
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 4 / Issue 3 / May 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 April 2018, pp. 83-90
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
UK Biobank is a well-characterised cohort of over 500 000 participants that offers unique opportunities to investigate multiple diseases and risk factors.
AimsAn online mental health questionnaire completed by UK Biobank participants was expected to expand the potential for research into mental disorders.
MethodAn expert working group designed the questionnaire, using established measures where possible, and consulting with a patient group regarding acceptability. Case definitions were defined using operational criteria for lifetime depression, mania, anxiety disorder, psychotic-like experiences and self-harm, as well as current post-traumatic stress and alcohol use disorders.
Results157 366 completed online questionnaires were available by August 2017. Comparison of self-reported diagnosed mental disorder with a contemporary study shows a similar prevalence, despite respondents being of higher average socioeconomic status than the general population across a range of indicators. Thirty-five per cent (55 750) of participants had at least one defined syndrome, of which lifetime depression was the most common at 24% (37 434). There was extensive comorbidity among the syndromes. Mental disorders were associated with high neuroticism score, adverse life events and long-term illness; addiction and bipolar affective disorder in particular were associated with measures of deprivation.
ConclusionsThe questionnaire represents a very large mental health survey in itself, and the results presented here show high face validity, although caution is needed owing to selection bias. Built into UK Biobank, these data intersect with other health data to offer unparalleled potential for crosscutting biomedical research involving mental health.
Declaration of interestG.B. received grants from the National Institute for Health Research during the study; and support from Illumina Ltd. and the European Commission outside the submitted work. B.C. received grants from the Scottish Executive Chief Scientist Office and from The Dr Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation during the study. C.S. received grants from the Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust during the study, and is the Chief Scientist for UK Biobank. M.H. received grants from the Innovative Medicines Initiative via the RADAR-CNS programme and personal fees as an expert witness outside the submitted work.
Consumer’s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis: Ten Tips for Being an Informed Policymaker
- Susan Dudley, Richard Belzer, Glenn Blomquist, Timothy Brennan, Christopher Carrigan, Joseph Cordes, Louis A. Cox, Arthur Fraas, John Graham, George Gray, James Hammitt, Kerry Krutilla, Peter Linquiti, Randall Lutter, Brian Mannix, Stuart Shapiro, Anne Smith, W. Kip Viscusi, Richard Zerbe
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis / Volume 8 / Issue 2 / Summer 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 July 2017, pp. 187-204
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) weigh the benefits of regulations against the burdens they impose and are invaluable tools for informing decision makers. We offer 10 tips for nonspecialist policymakers and interested stakeholders who will be reading RIAs as consumers.
1. Core problem: Determine whether the RIA identifies the core problem (compelling public need) the regulation is intended to address.
2. Alternatives: Look for an objective, policy-neutral evaluation of the relative merits of reasonable alternatives.
3. Baseline: Check whether the RIA presents a reasonable “counterfactual” against which benefits and costs are measured.
4. Increments: Evaluate whether totals and averages obscure relevant distinctions and trade-offs.
5. Uncertainty: Recognize that all estimates involve uncertainty, and ask what effect key assumptions, data, and models have on those estimates.
6. Transparency: Look for transparency and objectivity of analytical inputs.
7. Benefits: Examine how projected benefits relate to stated objectives.
8. Costs: Understand what costs are included.
9. Distribution: Consider how benefits and costs are distributed.
10. Symmetrical treatment: Ensure that benefits and costs are presented symmetrically.
Adenosine Triphosphate Quantification Correlates Poorly with Microbial Contamination of Duodenoscopes
- Lovisa B. Olafsdottir, Sharon B. Wright, Anne Smithey, Riley Heroux, Elizabeth B. Hirsch, Alice Chen, Benjamin Lane, Mandeep S. Sawhney, Graham M. Snyder
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 38 / Issue 6 / June 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 April 2017, pp. 678-684
- Print publication:
- June 2017
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to quantify the correlation between adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measurements and bacterial cultures from duodenoscopes for evaluation of contamination following high-level disinfection.
DESIGNDuodenoscopes used for any intended endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure were included. Microbiologic and ATP data were collected concomitantly and in the same manner from ERCP duodenoscopes.
SETTINGA high-volume endoscopy unit at a tertiary referral acute-care facility.
METHODSDuodenoscopes were sampled for ATP and bacterial contamination in a contemporaneous and highly standardized fashion using a “flush-brush-flush” method for the working channel (WC) and a dry flocked swab for the elevator mechanism (EM). Specimens were processed for any aerobic bacterial growth (colony-forming units, CFU). Growth of CFU>0 and ATP relative light unit (RLU)>0 was considered a contaminated result. Frequency of discord between among WC and EM measurements were calculated using 2×2 contingency tables. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to calculate the relatedness of bacterial contamination and ATP as continuous measurements.
RESULTSThe Spearman correlation coefficient did not demonstrate significant relatedness between ATP and CFU for either a WC or EM site. Among 390 duodenoscope sampling events, ATP and CFU assessments of contamination were discordant in 82 of 390 WC measurements (21%) and 331 of 390 of EM measurements (84.9%). The EM was frequently and markedly positive by ATP measurement.
CONCLUSIONATP measurements correlate poorly with a microbiologic standard assessing duodenoscope contamination, particularly for EM sampling. ATP may reflect biological material other than nonviable aerobic bacteria and may not serve as an adequate marker of bacterial contamination.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:678–684
Three - Implicit values: uncounted legacies
- Edited by Keri Facer, University of Bristol, Kate Pahl, Manchester Metropolitan University
-
- Book:
- Valuing Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 05 April 2022
- Print publication:
- 05 April 2017, pp 65-84
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
University–community collaborations are often complex, fraught, emotional affairs. Participants devote a lot of time, energy and emotion to bridging differences, improvising solutions, and making things work. This can be difficult and sometimes frustrating, but can also have a transformative legacy for the participants and the wider communities they are part of. These legacies, however, are not always easy to observe, identify and authorise. As we will explore in this chapter, some of the most important legacies of community–university partnerships are intangible and refer to emotions, affects, ongoing processes and emerging potentials: for example, inspiration, confidence, friendship, as well as knowledge, ideas and networks. These legacies are at least as important as projects’ harder, more tangible and easily measurable legacies.
Our exploration of legacies started with a shared interest in the role that values play in collaborative research, and in the way in which we understand related outcomes. Exploring this through the concept of legacy was particularly relevant as it allows for a more fluid understanding, and one that can be shaped by the local project context. Thus, the theoretical starting point for this work was that making the values within collaborative projects explicit would allow for the identification and evaluation of those, ‘less tangible’, legacies. Our University of Brighton authors Harder, Burford and Hoover previously established that a values-based approach could be very successful for evaluating ‘intangible’ outcomes and achievements projects led by civil society organisations (Burford et al, 2013). They brought the approach, named WeValue, as a raw starting point to the members of two complex partnerships called Scaling Up Co-Design and the Authority Research Network (ARN), and then collectively as a consortium we co-explored, co-developed and co-generated a localisable, values-based approach for a new purpose: to identify and legitimise legacies (not only outcomes) from partnership projects (not projects from a single group or organisation).
By ‘starting from values’, we mean starting with what participants consider valuable, meaningful and worthwhile in the context of their group or partnership. An explicit values lens is first locally constructed, and then used to view, identify and evaluate legacies. The WeValue approach was previously developed to allow a formal, rigorous evaluation of ‘soft’ or ‘intangible’ achievements.
Selective Herbicides Reduce Alligator Weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) Biomass by Enhancing Competition
- Shon Schooler, Tony Cook, Anne Bourne, Graham Prichard, Mic Julien
-
- Journal:
- Weed Science / Volume 56 / Issue 2 / April 2008
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 259-264
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Physical and chemical methods of managing invasive plants (weeds) create disturbances that paradoxically often promote these species because weeds tend to have traits that confer competitive advantages over desired species in disturbed habitats. A more holistic and sustainable method of managing invasive plants is to design disturbance regimes to favor desired species over weeds. This study investigated how the biomass of a herbicide-tolerant plant, alligator weed, and its competitors respond to different chemical disturbances over a 2-yr period. We compared the response of alligator weed and its monocotyledon competitors to 16 different herbicide treatments in a blocked 4 by 2 by 2 factorial design. Treatments included broad spectrum (nonselective) and dicotyledon specific (selective) herbicides applied at two concentrations (variable depending on herbicide) and two frequency regimes (three or four applications). Belowground biomass of alligator weed in unmanipulated control plots was 10 times greater than aboveground biomass, highlighting the need to reduce belowground material if control is to be achieved. All herbicide treatments reduced belowground alligator weed biomass when compared with controls; however in the short term (8 d after the final treatment), even four applications at the highest listed concentration were not sufficient to eliminate alligator weed from study plots. Over the long term (15 mo after the final treatment), selective herbicide application resulted in a sustained reduction in alligator weed biomass and an increase in monocot biomass.
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 6 - Learning for all
- Lorraine Graham, Jeanette Berman, Massey University, Auckland, Anne Bellert, Southern Cross University, Australia
-
- Book:
- Sustainable Learning
- Published online:
- 06 August 2018
- Print publication:
- 15 January 2015, pp 137-167
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Intended learning outcomes
Engagement with the text in this chapter will enable readers to do the following:
utilise the ATRiUM capabilities to focus on the strengths and needs of individual students when planning and implementing responsive teaching for effective learning
explain the limitations of using labels to categorise the learning needs of students with disabilities or learning difficulties and understand that responsive teachers focus on learning, not labels, in order to best provide learning for all
describe key aspects of some major disability categories and identify capabilities on which to focus when planning learning support for students with disabilities or learning difficulties
reflect on how collaboration with families and systematic frameworks for intervention inform and support responsive teaching
distinguish how key strategies and instructional approaches support teaching for learning for all
Big ideas
In learning for all, responsive teachers strive to provide teaching and learning that meet the needs of all learners. This requires insight into the needs of all students in the class and knowledge about evidence-based strategies and approaches to teaching.
All learners have similar fundamental learning needs, yet every learner is different. These differences matter, especially in terms of planned, responsive teaching and effective learning.
By viewing students with disabilities or learning difficulties through the lens of ATRiUM capabilities, teachers can gain valuable insights that provide important information for teaching and learning.
Although knowing about disability categories may provide teachers with useful information about student learning, an overt focus on disabilities or learning difficulties can lead teachers to view students in terms of what they can’t do rather than what they can do.
Collaboration with the families of students with disabilities or learning difficulties facilitates information-sharing that is beneficial to all.
Early intervention is predicated upon the assumption that providing timely, appropriate support for learning can reduce the impact of disability, with long-term benefits for individuals, their families and their communities.
Research has validated some key instructional approaches that lead to improved learning outcomes for students with disabilities or learning difficulties. Combining direct instruction and strategy instruction is a fundamentally effective approach for supporting learning for all.
Chapter 1 - Introduction to sustainable learning
- Lorraine Graham, Jeanette Berman, Massey University, Auckland, Anne Bellert, Southern Cross University, Australia
-
- Book:
- Sustainable Learning
- Published online:
- 06 August 2018
- Print publication:
- 15 January 2015, pp 1-21
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Intended learning outcomes
Engagement with the text in this chapter will enable readers to do the following:
understand the framework of this book and its overall focus on sustainable learning as a way of bringing together inclusive teaching and learning practices in contemporary classrooms
delineate important concepts associated with special and inclusive education and effective teaching and understand how these are related through sustainable learning
be familiar with key terms used in this text and understand their derivation
understand how relevant legislative frameworks apply to educators’ responsibilities and education provision to students with disabilities or learning difficulties
Big ideas
Sustainable learning is learning for all, teaching that matters and learning that lasts. Its foundation is effective classroom practice, and its goal is to provide for the learning needs of all students throughout their school years and into lifelong learning.
Effective teaching occurs within a series of nested frameworks. Legislative frameworks define teacher responsibilities.
Teaching for sustainable learning pays attention to students’ cultures and their relationships with places, families and communities. Such teaching is responsible, relevant and intentional and focuses on the key capabilities of human performance.
The key capabilities of human performance can be summarised using the acronym ATRiUM, which stands for Active learning; Thinking; Relating to others; Using language, symbols and information and communication technology (ICT); and Managing self.
Dedication
- Lorraine Graham, Jeanette Berman, Massey University, Auckland, Anne Bellert, Southern Cross University, Australia
-
- Book:
- Sustainable Learning
- Published online:
- 06 August 2018
- Print publication:
- 15 January 2015, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
List of figures and tables
- Lorraine Graham, Jeanette Berman, Massey University, Auckland, Anne Bellert, Southern Cross University, Australia
-
- Book:
- Sustainable Learning
- Published online:
- 06 August 2018
- Print publication:
- 15 January 2015, pp xii-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 7 - Teaching that matters
- Lorraine Graham, Jeanette Berman, Massey University, Auckland, Anne Bellert, Southern Cross University, Australia
-
- Book:
- Sustainable Learning
- Published online:
- 06 August 2018
- Print publication:
- 15 January 2015, pp 168-201
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Intended learning outcomes
Engagement with the text in this chapter will enable readers to do the following:
describe the kind of teaching that is effective for students in inclusive classrooms
understand the organisation and actions involved in differentiating instruction and making educational adjustments
define and discuss the 10 essential skills that guide differentiated instruction for teaching that matters
Big ideas
Teaching that matters recognises that although all learners have similar types of learning needs, every learner is different. These differences matter in terms of effective teaching.
Whole-school and classroom approaches should be coordinated to support the most effective teaching that matters.
Differentiated instruction can be implemented in a simple but systematic way.
Using pre-testing and post-testing to inform inclusive planning and differentiating instruction gives teachers more information to use in tailoring instruction.
Planning instruction is important because differentiation should be considered in terms of intended learning outcomes.
The simplicity principle means that differentiated instruction should occur only when necessary. It is important to maintain realistically high expectations for all students’ performance.
Evidence-based practices that underpin teaching provide ways in which to address problems in literacy, numeracy and other areas experienced by students with disabilities or learning difficulties.
Introduction
Sustainable learning depends on teaching that matters. This chapter builds on the content of chapter 6 to focus on the differentiation of instruction in inclusive classrooms. With a growing evidence base of effective teaching practices available from websites like the What Works Clearinghouse (n.d.), the BES (Iterative Best Evidence Synthesis) Programme (Education Counts, n.d.) and Scootle (2014), teachers have an ever-expanding choice of effective strategies to utilise when learners need a different way to master a lesson’s learning intentions.
Frontmatter
- Lorraine Graham, Jeanette Berman, Massey University, Auckland, Anne Bellert, Southern Cross University, Australia
-
- Book:
- Sustainable Learning
- Published online:
- 06 August 2018
- Print publication:
- 15 January 2015, pp i-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 2 - Learning processes
- Lorraine Graham, Jeanette Berman, Massey University, Auckland, Anne Bellert, Southern Cross University, Australia
-
- Book:
- Sustainable Learning
- Published online:
- 06 August 2018
- Print publication:
- 15 January 2015, pp 22-47
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Intended learning outcomes
Engagement with the text in this chapter will enable readers to do the following:
articulate an understanding of what learning is in the context of school
describe how the ATRiUM capabilities relate to the cultural, interpersonal, intrapersonal, physical and cognitive dimensions of learning
explain some key learning theories and principles and identify how they are evident in effective teaching practice
develop an understanding of learning as a developmental process that results in individual differences
describe cognitive processes of learning from an information processing perspective
Big ideas
Learning is a thinking process. It is developmental and cumulative. Understandings of what learning is are often culturally determined.
Despite diverse perceptions of what constitutes knowledge and learning and the myriad factors that impact on how individuals and societies value and transmit knowledge, there are common cognitive processes that constitute the mechanisms of learning. Inclusive, effective pedagogy addresses these cognitive processes of learning.
Teaching and learning are enhanced when teachers have evolving understandings of the cognitive processes of learning and when they develop knowledge about their students’ strengths and needs in terms of these.
Introduction
Learning processes vary with each student, teacher and learning environment. Factors such as values and attitudes, prior experiences and skills and the context and content of the intended learning task determine how individual students engage in learning activities and what they learn. Also, social, emotional and cultural factors impact on student learning and the learning environment. The cultural, interpersonal, intrapersonal, physical and cognitive dimensions of human functioning work together to underpin development and learning. Consequently, learning is complex and diverse, and unique to each individual student.
Chapter 4 - Influences on learning
- Lorraine Graham, Jeanette Berman, Massey University, Auckland, Anne Bellert, Southern Cross University, Australia
-
- Book:
- Sustainable Learning
- Published online:
- 06 August 2018
- Print publication:
- 15 January 2015, pp 78-102
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Intended learning outcomes
Engagement with the text in this chapter will enable readers to do the following:
understand the kinds of ecological factors (social, structural, political, economic, cultural, community, family and school) that influence learning and provide specific examples of these
reflect on the nature of physical, cognitive, intrapersonal, interpersonal and cultural diversity and compare the types of developmental differences that can occur between learners
analyse how specific aspects of development support and hinder learning
Big ideas
Each learner brings a complex combination of abilities, strengths and potential to the school setting, embedded within particular cultural, linguistic, emotional, spiritual and familial contexts. Many factors can support or hinder learning. Influences on student learning can be found both within and outside the individual learner.
Each educational setting and classroom creates its own context and operates using a set of embedded expectations. Effective teachers understand and manage classroom diversity to create equitable learning opportunities for all students.
All learners can experience periods of learning difficulty due to different developmental rates, health, home resources, family (whānau) stressors and relationships as well as mismatches between teaching and learning needs. These influence the key learning processes, which can be summed up in the acronym ATRiUM.
Students experiencing significant difficulties in learning and behaviour in the classroom may have complex disabilities or learning difficulties. Specific impairments (for example, auditory, visual, physical or intellectual, or those brought about through chronic illness or brain injury) generate the need for particular long-term adaptations to allow equity of access to learning opportunities.
Teachers and families (whānau) need to develop a shared understanding of each learner’s strengths and learning needs without creating limitations or barriers to learning based on labels, language or assumptions. Teachers must make sense of what supports and what hinders learning for individual learners in order to effectively personalise teaching and differentiate instruction for their students.