Search

Following the action of the ACRL Board in February 2015 in accepting the "Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education" as one of the "constellation of documents" that promote and guide information literacy instruction and program development, discussion in the library community continues about steps in implementing the "Framework." The spectrum of possibilities for implementing the "Framework" encompasses both curricular and co-curricular settings within colleges and universities. At this early stage of implementing the "Framework," we suggest five curricular and instructional structures that can be thought of as a continuum of deepened engagement with its core ideas. The second half of this article presents two examples that show possible ways to incorporate elements of the "Framework": a redesigned single instruction session and a course that illustrates a hybrid model blending the unit-based assignments with a course redesign.

The first PA Forward Information Literacy Summit was held in State College at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park campus, on Wednesday, July 24, 2013. This summit brought together K-12 and academic librarians from Pennsylvania to discuss current issues in information literacy. This text is a transcript of a discussion between Ellysa Cahoy, past chair of the of the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards Committee, and the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards Review Task Force, and Craig Gibson and Trudi Jacobson who are currently co-chairs of the ACRL Information Literacy Standards Revision Task Force. This Revision Task Force is charged with reviewing and revising the current ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, that were originally adopted by ACRL in 2000. This discussion was about the process by which the Standards came to be under review, some of the issues involved in the review, and the time line for the review and librarian feedback and comment on the process. The PowerPoint presentation which accompanied this discussion, as well as other documents mentioned during the presentation are attached to this transcript as supplemental files. [PowerPoint presentation and other supplemental files are not included in the ERIC version of this document.]

Introduction: There is variability in clinical practice regarding the number of radiographic views required to accurately determine umbilical venous catheter (UVC) tip position. Some units prefer performing a single anteroposterior (AP) view and others do both AP and lateral views. The aim of this study was to compare the need for one versus two radiographical views to accurately determine UVC tip position. Methods: Radiographs of 382 infants (all gestations) from two level six neonatal units were included in the study. Patients with congenital anomalies and those who had adjustment of UVC position between AP and lateral films being performed were excluded. Six clinicians reviewed anonymized AP only images and documented UVC tip position. Subsequently, they reviewed both AP and lateral views and again documented the UVC tip position. Results were compared to the expert consensus which was taken from the consensus of two paediatric radiologists. Results: The study population had a mean gestational age of 32.8 weeks and birth weight of 2190 g, with 58% males. The UVC tip positions were accurately determined 76% times by the AP view alone and 82% times by using both the AP and lateral views (P < 0.001). The low placed UVC tip position which is the most inappropriate for use was more accurately determined by two images (78% times) rather than single image (70% times) (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Utilising both AP and lateral views was superior in accurately determining UVC tip position to AP view alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We in the twenty-first century walk on the graves of those untold millions who perished during the violent twentieth century, and, though we barely admit it to ourselves, let alone [...]

In terms of assessing a child's developmental abilities, what age group first comes to mind? Often, early childhood educators begin thinking about developmental assessments when children are between the ages of 3 and 5. However, they need to be cognizant of the fact that child development begins from the moment a child is born. It is, therefore, their responsibility as early childhood professionals to begin examining and assessing children's growth and development from the very moment they are placed in their care; this can happen as early as 6 weeks of age. In this article, the authors provide a framework of the five domains of development and highlight which areas to focus on when assessing infants (0-12 months). (Contains 3 resources and 3 online resources.)

Early childhood professionals take on numerous roles: They inspire; they nurture; they foster creativity in the young and impressionable minds of tomorrow. And while each one of these roles holds equal importance to the other, none is more important than the role of the observer. But when a teacher has 15, 20, or more children in his/her class, it is extremely difficult to focus one's attention on each of the five developmental domains per child: cognition, communication, social-emotional, physical, and adaptive. The "key," however, is to know exactly what to look for in each one of the students, so that a teacher can make an informed decision when determining whether or not there may be a "delay" in a given area of development. When assessing the "whole child," one is looking at a total of five developmental domains: (1) cognition development (thinking and learning skills); (2) communication development; (3) social/emotional development (interpersonal relationships); (4) physical development (fine motor and gross motor skills); and (5) adaptive behavior development (self-care skills). When an early childhood professional is familiar with each area of development, he/she can then conduct thorough and effective informal assessments within the daily activities and routines. (Contains 4 print resources and 4 online resources.)

Discussion of the theory behind learning libraries focuses on four programmatic models at the George Mason University library: course-related, course-integrated, orientation/peer advising, and information/term paper counseling and coaching. Topics include sociocultural theories; social interaction; learning communities; curricular integration; and interaction among students, faculty, and librarians. (LRW)