Search

Although active learning improves student outcomes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs, it may provoke anxiety in some students. We examined whether two psychological variables, social anxiety (psychological distress relating to the fear of negative evaluation by others) and academic self-efficacy (confidence in one's ability to overcome academic challenges), interact with student perceptions of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) and associate with their final grades in a STEM-related course. Human anatomy and physiology students in community college courses rated various EBIPs for their perceived educational value and their capacity to elicit anxiety (N = 227). In general, practices causing students the most anxiety (e.g., cold calling) were reported by students as having the least educational value. When controlling for students' self-reported grade point averages, socially anxious students rated several EBIPs as more anxiety inducing, whereas high-efficacy students reported less anxiety surrounding other EBIPs. Furthermore, mediation analysis revealed that individual differences in academic self-efficacy at the beginning of the term explained some of the negative association between students' social anxiety levels and final grades in the course. Our results, obtained in a community college context, support a growing body of evidence that social anxiety and academic self-efficacy are linked with how students perceive and perform in an active-learning environment.

Ivane Beritashvili has been regarded as an “anti-Pavlovian” for nearly a century. One respect in which Beritashvili is said to be anti-Pavlovian is in granting an explanatory role to subjective mental states in his doctrine of image-driven behavior. In this article, I aim to problematize the anti-Pavlovian assessment and argue that Beritashvili did not deviate from Pavlovian scientific norms, minor points of theoretical and methodological differences between them notwithstanding. Furthermore, several respects in which Beritashvili is claimed to be anti-Pavlovian are ways in which he resembles Pavlov. Turning my attention to Beritashvili’s critics in the Soviet Union, those responsible for his censure, I argue that it is the critique of Beritashvili that runs counter to the norms Pavlov embraced. I contest the claim that his alleged deviations from Pavlovian orthodoxy justify classification as anti-Pavlovian in a sense that is either historically accurate or philosophically interesting, and submit that the grounds on which Beritashvili is derided as anti-Pavlovian would also justify labeling Pavlov himself as anti-Pavlovian. Informed by the case of Beritashvili and others who were politically persecuted for their scientific work in the Soviet Union, I conclude with reflections on science, politics, and the intrusion of the latter in the former. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with postoperative acute kidney injury and neurocognitive disorders, including delirium. Intra‐operative inflammation and/or impaired tissue perfusion/oxygenation are thought to be contributors to these outcomes. It has been hypothesised that these problems may be ameliorated by the highly selective α2‐agonist, dexmedetomidine. We tested the effects of dexmedetomidine on renal and cerebral microcirculatory tissue perfusion, oxygenation and histology in a clinically relevant ovine model. Sixteen sheep were studied while conscious, after induction of anaesthesia and during 2 h of cardiopulmonary bypass. Eight sheep were allocated randomly to receive an intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.4–0.8 μg.kg‐1.h‐1) from induction of anaesthesia to the end of cardiopulmonary bypass, and eight to receive an equivalent volume of matched placebo (0.9% sodium chloride). Commencement of cardiopulmonary bypass decreased renal medullary tissue oxygenation in the placebo group (mean (95%CI) 5.96 (4.24–7.23) to 1.56 (0.84–2.09) kPa, p = 0.001), with similar hypoxic levels observed in the dexmedetomidine group (6.33 (5.33–7.07) to 1.51 (0.33–2.39) kPa, p = 0.002). While no differences in kidney function (i.e. reduced creatinine clearance) were evident, a greater incidence of histological renal tubular injury was observed in sheep receiving dexmedetomidine (7/8 sheep) compared with placebo (2/8 sheep), p = 0.041. Graded on a semi‐quantitative scale (0–3), median (IQR [range]) severity of histological renal tubular injury was higher in the dexmedetomidine group compared with placebo (1.5 (1–2 [0–3]) vs. 0 (0–0.3 [0–1]) respectively, p = 0.013). There was no difference in cerebral tissue microglial activation (neuroinflammation) between the groups. Dexmedetomidine did not reduce renal medullary hypoxia or cerebral neuroinflammation in sheep undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Paul E. Newton argues in favor of a conception of validity, viz, "the consensus definition of validity," according to which the extension of the predicate "is valid" is a subset of "assessment-based decision-making procedure[s], which [are] underwritten by an argument that the assessment procedure can be used to measure the attribute entailed by that decision". Standing in contrast to this conception of validity is Borsboom's (2005) account, according to which the extension of the predicate "is valid" is a subset of psychological tests. In Borsboom's own words, "a test is valid for measuring an attribute if and only if (a) the attribute exists and (b) variations in the attribute causally produce variations in the outcomes of the measurement procedure". The consensus definition of validity and Borsboom's instrument-based accounts are clearly incompatible, and in the course of defending the former, Newton argues against the latter in an effort to motivate his own account. In what follows I assess the two principal reasons Newton gives for rejecting Borsboom's analysis. The first pertains to differential measurement quality in light of four considerations: adherence to proper measurement procedures and guidelines, the context of the measurement, characteristics of the group being assessed, and the use of measurement outcomes. The second objection is, in effect, the charge that Borsboom's account (and the instrument-based account in general) underrepresents the concept of validity. I will argue that Newton's objections to the instrument-based account either constitute no serious objection to the instrument-based account or they are question begging.