Search

Ludlow Cave (CA-SBR-1887), also known as Two Raven Cave, was first formally recorded by E. W. Shepard in 1958. A complex and confusing trail of documentation follows this initial recordation. Shepard made several trips to the site, collecting artifacts which were subsequently turned over to the San Bernardino County Museum in the early 1960s. His records make reference to vandalism, but the degree of disturbance is unknown. The museum agreed to loan the collection to California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB), to be cataloged and analyzed. The purpose of this paper is to present a summary of the site history and recovered materials contained in the Ludlow Cave collection.

[No abstract]

Current pressures in higher education around student employability are driving new initiatives for change. Assessment is also a topic of debate, as it is a key driver of student behaviour, yet often falls behind other metrics in national surveys. In addition, increasing focus on digital literacies is catalysing new appreciations of what emerging digital culture might mean for both students and staff. These three highly topical challenges were jointly explored by the University of Exeter's Collaborate project, which aimed to create employability-focused assessments enhanced by technology. By combining existing research on assessment with grounded data derived from local stakeholders, the project has developed a model for assessment design which embeds employability directly into the curriculum. Digital technologies have been aligned with this model using a "top trump" metaphor, where key affordances of technologies are highlighted in the context of the model. This paper explores the design-based research approach taken to develop this model and associated "top trumps", along with results from the first practical iteration. Results suggest that the model is effective in supporting the design of an "authentic" assessment and that a targeted affordances approach can support the alignment of specific technologies with a particular pedagogic design. (Contains 9 figures and 1 table.)

Health literacy, defined as an individual's capacity to process health information in order to make appropriate health decisions, is the focus of increasing attention in medical fields due to growing awareness that suboptimal health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes. To explore this issue, a number of instruments, reported to have high internal consistency and strong correlations with general literacy tests, have been developed. However, their validity as measures of the target construct is seldom explored using multiple sources of evidence. The current study, involving collaboration between health professionals and language specialists, set out to assess the validity of the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM), which describes itself as a "reading recognition" test that measures ability to pronounce common medical and lay terms. Drawing on a sample of 310 respondents, including both native and non-native speakers of English, investigations were undertaken to probe the REALM's validity as a measure of understanding the selected terms and to consider associations between scores on this widely used test and those derived from other recognized health literacy tests. Results suggest that the REALM is underrepresenting the health literacy construct and that the test may also be biased against non-native speakers of English. The study points to an expanded role for language testers, working in collaboration with experts from medical disciplines, in developing and evaluating health literacy tools. (Contains 9 tables and 1 figure.)

Objectives We studied discordance between health literacy of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and assessment of health literacy by their treating health professionals, and explored whether discordance is associated with the patients' socioeconomic background. Methods Patients with RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA) or gout from three Dutch outpatient rheumatology clinics completed the nine-domain Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Treating health professionals assessed their patients on each HLQ domain. Discordance per domain was defined as a ≥2-point difference on a 0–10 scale (except if both scores were below three or above seven), leading to three categories: 'negative discordance' (i.e. professional scored lower), 'probably the same' or 'positive discordance' (i.e. professional scored higher). We used multivariable multilevel multinomial regression models with patients clustered by health professionals to test associations with socioeconomic factors (age, gender, education level, migration background, employment, disability for work, living alone). Results We observed considerable discordance (21–40% of patients) across HLQ domains. Most discordance occurred for 'Critically appraising information' (40.5%, domain 5). Comparatively, positive discordance occurred more frequently. Negative discordance was more frequently and strongly associated with socioeconomic factors, specifically lower education level and non-Western migration background (for five HLQ domains). Associations between socioeconomic factors and positive discordance were less consistent. Conclusion Frequent discordance between patients' scores and professionals' estimations indicates there may be hidden challenges in communication and care, which differ between socioeconomic groups. Successfully addressing patients' health literacy needs cannot solely depend on health professionals' estimations but will require measurement and dialogue. Video Abstract A video abstract of this article can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggnB1rATdQ4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]