Search

During a five-year period the authors taught over 100 students in a graduate course (The Nature of Science) counting toward teacher certification at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Despite the fact that students had undergraduate degrees in the sciences, most of them found the application of models in science challenging and the epistemological consequences unsettling. Moreover, students found it especially difficult to use a model to correctly generate predictions, which was starkly illustrated with the application of Archimedes' principle during our unit on floating and sinking. We examine the deceptive belief that student success with algorithms and word problems leads to conceptual understanding as well as the conceptual change necessary to understand the relationship between evidence and inference as explored in the nature of science. Considering the apparently strong science backgrounds of our students, we doubt that typical pre-college students can achieve the goals described in the National Science Education Standards in the short time typically allotted for their science studies. We explore the issues students face in "understanding" science as well as the impact of science education on students and teachers, and implications for policy makers and pre-service programs.

BackgroundChronic pain is prevalent, costly, and clinically vexatious. Clinicians typically use a trial-and-error approach to treatment selection. Repeated crossover trials in a single patient (n-of-1 trials) may provide greater therapeutic precision. N-of-1 trials are the most direct way to estimate individual treatment effects and are useful in comparing the effectiveness and toxicity of different analgesic regimens. The goal of the PREEMPT study is to test the 'Trialist' mobile health smartphone app, which has been developed to make n-of-1 trials easier to accomplish, and to provide patients and clinicians with tools for individualizing treatments for chronic pain.Methods/designA randomized controlled trial is being conducted to test the feasibility and effectiveness of the Trialist app. A total of 244 participants will be randomized to either the Trialist app intervention group (122 patients) or a usual care control group (122 patients). Patients assigned to the Trialist app will work with their clinicians to set up an n-of-1 trial comparing two pain regimens, selected from a menu of flexible options. The Trialist app provides treatment reminders and collects data entered daily by the patient on pain levels and treatment side effects. Upon completion of the n-of-1 trial, patients review results with their clinicians and develop a long-term treatment plan. The primary study outcome (comparing Trialist to usual care patients) is pain-related interference with daily functioning at 26 weeks.DiscussionTrialist will allow patients and clinicians to conduct personalized n-of-1 trials. In prior studies, n-of-1 trials have been shown to encourage greater patient involvement with care, which has in turn been associated with better health outcomes. mHealth technology implemented using smartphones may offer an efficient means of facilitating n-of-1 trials so that more patients can benefit from this approach.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02116621 , first registered 15 April 2014.

Interview data from secondary and postsecondary science instructors explored their in-depth views on preparing students for college science. Professors expressed a high level of consensus concerning two factors: general student skills and mathematics preparation. Teachers, who expressed lower levels of consensus, did agree on the importance of mathematics, but also highlighted a variety of factors that promote active pedagogy in the classroom as well as the importance of technology, textbooks, other materials, and assessments. Given this divergence, the authors explored the research supporting the value of these factors as well as highlighted possible strategies for narrowing the gap. (Contains 5 figures and 3 tables.)

Purpose: Telegenetics has become the predominant mode of cancer genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify potential patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic genetic counseling. Methods: We analyzed post-counseling (pre-result disclosure) follow-up data from a randomized noninferiority trial of a telephone genetic counseling versus usual care genetic counseling. Among 669 randomized participants, 600 completed pre-test counseling and 568 completed a 2-week follow-up assessment before receiving test results. In this analysis, we focused on genetic counseling outcomes (knowledge, decisional conflict, and distress). In multivariate models controlling for bivariate predictors of these outcomes, we tested our a priori hypotheses that pre-counseling numeracy, perceived stress, and race/ethnicity would moderate the outcomes of telephone genetic counseling versus usual care. Results: Only numeracy significantly moderated associations between mode of genetic counseling and outcomes. Higher numeracy was associated with higher post-counseling knowledge following telephone genetic counseling (p < 0.001), but not usual care (p = 0.450). Higher numeracy was also associated with lower distress following telephone genetic counseling (p = 0.009) but not usual care (p = 0.16). Neither perceived stress nor race/ethnicity exhibited differential impacts on telephone genetic counseling versus usual care (p s > 0.20). Conclusion: Although high numeracy was associated with higher levels of knowledge following telegenetic counseling, we did not identify any clinically significant patient-level contraindicators for telegenetic counseling. These results lend further confidence to the broad use of telegenetics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the evolution of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE), the field, alongside that of the International Mind, Brain and Education Society (IMBES). The reflections stem mostly from my observations while serving as vice president, president-elect, and president of IMBES during the past 10 years. The article highlights the evolution during that time about the meaning of MBE and some of the representations that help illustrate the problems and challenges in arriving at a consensus about what MBE means and how IMBES can best serve its members. I explore how IMBES, incorporated in 2004, experimented with a number of different conference models to provide frameworks for thinking about MBE, as well as a structure for supporting collaboration between the disciplines represented in Mind, Brain, and Education. Those models help highlight what IMBES has accomplished in scaffolding the complex conversation unfolding in the field, as well as offering a strategy for a collaborative enterprise that informs practice and new research agendas in the future.