Using a participatory learning approach, we report on the delivery and evaluation of a climate change and risk assessment tool to help manage water risks within the agricultural sector. Post-graduate water-professional students from a range of countries, from both developed and emerging economies were involved in using this tool. Our approach included participative learning tools – group discussion, software, and risk matrices. The materials developed met the needs of the students, allowing these students to incorporate their learning and adapt the package of materials for use in their home countries. Analysis of evaluations show that the tools and materials are particularly useful and emphasizes the need for sound learning materials and tools, funding to deliver training, and policy support to accelerate education and adoption of authentic climate change adaptation practices. The expected benefits for water professionals about climate change will be translated into improved socioeconomic and environmental outcomes if adopted. 相似文献
Regulating technologies, innovations and risks is an activity that, as much as scientific research needs proofs and evidence. It is the site of development of a distinct kind of science, regulatory science. This special issue addresses the question of the standards of knowledge governing how we test, assess and monitor technologies and their effects. This topic is relevant and timely in the light of problematics of regulation of innovation, regulatory failure and capture. Given the enormous decisions and stakes regulatory science commends, it becomes crucial to ask where its standards come from and gain credibility, but also what valuations of technology and appreciations of their risks or benefits do they embed, and who controls them? This paper introduces the four contributions comprising the special issue, and outlines a perspective from which to question the construction of regulatory science or, in the terminology adopted here, the authorization and standardization of regulatory knowledge, particularly the role of networks of scientific experts therein. 相似文献
Since Cronbach's (1951) elaboration of α from its introduction by Guttman (1945), this coefficient has become ubiquitous in characterizing assessment instruments in education, psychology, and other social sciences. Also ubiquitous are caveats on the calculation and interpretation of this coefficient. This article summarizes a recent contribution (Andrich, 2015) on the use of coefficient α which complements these many caveats. It shows that in the presence of a simple bifactor structure of a scale where unique components of variance are homogeneous in magnitude, three components of variance and the common latent common correlation among the subscales can be calculated from the ratio of two calculations of α, one at the level of the items, the other at the level of the subscales. It was suggested that these two ready calculations and their interpretation, and the reporting of all four indices in the analysis of scales with a subscale structure, would reduce the misinterpretation of this coefficient. An illustrative example of the application of the calculations is also shown. 相似文献
The library channel is often underappreciated as a key part of a publisher’s business strategy. In an age where publishers are constantly seeking new revenue and marketing opportunities, presence in the library—digitally—can yield significant growth. This paper examines the library channel, its business model based on library lending, the performance of eBooks and audiobooks across all subjects, and consumer reading behavior. Digital Book Clubs, a relatively new phenomenon, are also defined and illustrated with examples demonstrating the library’s valuable role in increasing discoverability and ultimately sales. 相似文献
Purpose: This study discusses the process of co-constructing a prototype pedagogical model for working with youth from socially vulnerable backgrounds.
Participants and settings: This six-month activist research project was conducted in a soccer program in a socially vulnerable area of Brazil in 2013. The study included 17 youths, 4 coaches, a pedagogic coordinator and a social worker. An expert in student-centered pedagogy and inquiry-based activism assisted as a debriefer helping in the progressive data analysis and the planning of the work sessions.
Data collection/analysis: Multiple sources of data were collected, including 38 field journal/observation and audio records of: 18 youth work sessions, 16 coaches’ work sessions, 3 combined coaches and youth work sessions, and 37 meetings between the researcher and the expert.
Findings: The process of co-construction of this prototype pedagogical model was divided into three phases. The first phase involved the youth and coaches identifying barriers to sport opportunities in their community. In the second phase, the youth, coaches and researchers imagined alternative possibilities to the barriers identified. In the final phase, we worked collaboratively to create realistic opportunities for the youth to begin to negotiate some of the barriers they identified. In this phase, the coaches and youth designed an action plan to implement (involving a Leadership Program) aimed at addressing the youths’ needs in the sport program. Five critical elements of a prototype pedagogical model were co-created through the first two processes and four learning aspirations emerged in the last phase of the project.
Implications: We suggest an activist approach of co-creating a pedagogical model of sport for working with youth from socially vulnerable backgrounds is beneficial. That is, creating opportunities for youth to learn to name, critique and negotiate barriers to their engagement in sport in order to create empowering possibilities. 相似文献