Explore the vast range of titles available.

Written by emerging and experienced classroom researchers from several countries as part of a project aimed at building on and extending Professor Graham Nuthall's (1935-2004) research and promoting the conducting, teaching and supervision of classroom research. --Derived from cover (p. [4]).

In a recent development of what may be called biological philosophy of science , scholars have proposed that aligning notions of research environments with biological concepts of environment holds great promise for understanding the socio-material contexts in and through which science happens. Here, I explore the prospects and potential shortcomings of building sound research environment concepts by contrasting them with biological environment concepts. In doing so, I emphasize the importance of adhering to two central desiderata : the need to clarify what is being environed (i.e., what the counter relatum of an environment is) and what is doing the environing (i.e., what type of environmental partition is instantiated). Subsequently, I juxtapose two biological construals of environment—organismal environments and population environments—with possible articulations of what ‘research environments’ might stand for, and I maintain that each presents distinct epistemic upshots and limitations. More generally, I argue that there are two broad relations that could exist between biological and research environments: ontological parallels and ontic discordance. Finally, employing the visual metaphor of epistemic parallax, I conclude by conveying some lessons and cautionary notes arising from these comparisons and the importation of biological environment concepts into philosophy of science. While environment concepts may come with epistemic purchase, we should be careful when ontologizing them.

This volume is a commemorative book celebrating the 30th Anniversary of the Special Interest Group (SIG) on Learning Environments of the American Educational Researchers' Association. It includes a historical perspective starting with the formation of the SIG in 1984 and the first program space at the AERA annual meeting in 1985 in Chicago. This retrospective notes other landmarks in the development of the SIG such as the creation of the international journal Learning Environments Research. The study of learning environments was first conceptualized around the need to develop perceptual and psychosocial measures for describing students' individual or shared educational experiences (e.g. 'feel of the class' or 'classroom climate'). Over the ensuing decades, the field expanded considerably from its early roots in science education to describe other phenomenon such as teacher-student interpersonal relationships, or applications in pre-service teacher education and action research. The book also describes several new areas of promise for the expanding field of learning environments research that in the future will include more diverse contexts and applications. These will include new contexts but established research programs in areas such as information and communications technology and environmental education, but also in emerging research contexts such as the physical classroom environment and links among learning environment contexts and students' emotional health and well-being.-- Source other than the Library of Congress.

For agriculture to become more sustainable, farming needs to incorporate biodiversity conservation practices. However, farmers must largely choose between agricultural production and biodiversity conservation in their land‐use decisions, and accordingly, seek knowledge and support for either of these goals. A better understanding of knowledge exchange and support in farmers' social networks could highlight how biodiversity conservation may be integrated with agricultural production. We conducted structured interviews with 70 farmers in northwest Saxony, Germany. We asked farmers about basic farm characteristics, their participation in agri‐environmental schemes (AES), with whom they exchange knowledge and how those contacts support them in reaching their agricultural or conservation goals. This information was used for social network analysis, including network autocorrelation modelling. We found that the knowledge‐exchange network related to biodiversity conservation was centralized, with non‐profit organizations as central knowledge providers. The knowledge exchange network related to agricultural production was decentral, with private companies having a central role. The farmers' support networks for achieving conservation and agricultural goals were largely overlapping. Peer support was the most important mechanism for farmers to participate in AES. Participation of large‐scale farmers was associated with the level of AES participation of other large‐scale farmers in their network. However, large‐scale farmers did not influence small‐scale farmers. Arable‐crop farmers maintained ties to large, private companies while participating in the fewest AES. If non‐profit organizations engaged in advice for agricultural production, they might reach arable‐crop farmers. Large‐scale farmers who have comprehensive experience in both agricultural production and participation in AES play a central role in both knowledge exchange and support networks. Together with non‐profit organizations, they might be important for breaking down the dichotomy of production and conservation, if they can more widely communicate their contextual, experiential knowledge of implementing AES. Policy implications. Public and non‐profit advisory services should be empowered in their ability to provide both agronomic and biodiversity conservation information to support a less dichotomous land use. Promoting mutual support among farmers may effectively facilitate AES participation. Large‐scale farmers should be encouraged to share knowledge regarding biodiversity conservation, particularly with small‐scale farmers who operate within different economic contexts. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Zusammenfassung Um nachhaltiger zu werden, muss die Landwirtschaft Maßnahmen zum Schutz der biologischen Vielfalt einbeziehen. Allerdings müssen sich Landwirt*innen bei der Frage, wie sie ihr Land nutzen wollen, oft entscheiden zwischen landwirtschaftlicher Produktion einerseits und dem Schutz der biologischen Vielfalt andererseits. Dementsprechend suchen sie vorrangig nach Wissen und Unterstützung für eines dieser Ziele. Ein besseres Verständnis davon, wie Landwirt*innen Wissen und Unterstützung in ihren sozialen Netzwerken teilen, könnte aufzeigen, wie der Schutz der biologischen Vielfalt in die landwirtschaftliche Produktion integriert werden kann. Wir haben strukturierte Interviews mit 70 Landwirt*innen in Nordwestsachsen durchgeführt und sie zu den grundlegenden Merkmalen ihrer Betriebe, ihrer Teilnahme an Agrarumwelt‐ und Klimamaßnahmen (AUKM), und ihren Wissensaustauschpartner*innen befragt. Wir wollten außerdem wissen, wie ihre Kontakte sie bei der Erreichung ihrer landwirtschaftlichen und naturschutzfachlichen Ziele unterstützen. Diese Informationen wurden für eine Analyse der sozialen Netzwerke verwendet, inklusive der Anpassung von Netzwerkmodellen unter Berücksichtigung von Autokorrelation. Wir stellten fest, dass das Netzwerk zum Austausch von Wissen zum Erhalt der biologischen Vielfalt zentralisiert war mit gemeinnützigen Organisationen als zentralen Informationsgebern. Dagegen war das Netzwerk zum Austausch von Wissen zur landwirtschaftlichen Produktion dezentral mit Privatunternehmen als zentralen Informationsgebern. Die Unterstützungsnetzwerke zur Erreichung von landwirtschaftlichen und naturschutzfachlichen Zielen deckten sich zu einem großen Teil. Die Unterstützung durch Kolleg*innen war der wichtigste Faktor, der die Teilnahme an AUKMs beeinflusste. Die Teilnahme von Großbetrieben an AUKMs wurde durch die Teilnahme anderer Großbetriebe im Netzwerk beeinflusst. Das Teilnaheverhalten der Großbetriebe hatte allerdings keinen nachweisbaren Einfluss auf das Teilnahmeverhalten von Kleinbetrieben. Rein ackerbaulich ausgerichtete Landwirt*innen unterhielten Verbindungen zu großen Privatunternehmen, während sie gleichzeitig die geringste Teilnahme an AUKMs aufwiesen. Wenn gemeinnützige Organisationen sich stärker in der Beratung zur landwirtschaftlichen Produktion engagierten, könnten so auch die Ackerbäuerinnen und ‐bauern erreicht werden. Großbetriebe mit viel Erfahrung sowohl in der Produktion als auch in der Umsetzung von AUKMs spielten eine große Rolle in allen sozialen Netzwerken. Zusammen mit gemeinnützigen Organisationen könnten sie eine entscheidende Rolle bei der Überwindung der Dichotomie von Produktion und Naturschutz spielen, sofern es ihnen gelingt, ihr Erfahrungswissen zur Umsetzung von AUKMs breiter zu kommunizieren. Politikempfehlungen: Öffentliche und gemeinnützige Beratungsstellen sollten in die Lage versetzt werden, sowohl eine agronomische als auch eine naturschutzfachliche Beratung anbieten zu können, um so eine weniger dichotome Landnutzung zu fördern. Eine Förderung der gegenseitigen Unterstützung zwischen Landwirt*innen kann die Teilnahme an AUKMs erhöhen. Großbetriebe sollten dazu ermutigt werden, ihr naturschutzfachliches Wissen zu teilen, insbesondere mit kleineren Betrieben, die in anderen ökonomischen Kontexten wirtschaften. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Description A period of rapid advance in science or engineering tends to follow the development of a new theory or a new experimental method. For example, development of the wave theory of light led to a new understanding of the elemental composition of the universe, development of the optical microscope led to a new understanding of the mechanisms that cause disease, and development of the technique of gene splicing is leading to a new understanding of the functions and mechanisms of DNA. New experimental methods include not only procedures but also new environments in which research can be conducted. Space is such an environment. To explore the opportunities for research in a low-gravity environment, the National Science Foundation (NSF) conducted a one-and-one-half-day workshop entitled Opportunities for Academic Research in a Low-Gravity Environment held in Washington, DC in July 1985. It consisted of a series of formal presentations on eight topics followed by a panel discussion on the policy implications of the identified research opportunities. The papers prepared for this workshop are the basis of this book. Topics: Infrastructures for Low-Gravity Research, Critical Phenomena, Gravitation, Crystal Growth, Metals and Alloys, Containerless Processing, Combustion, and Fluid Dynamics.

Objective To describe the rationale, the participatory nature of the methodology, and the lessons learned during the First Nations Food, Nutrition and Environment Study (FNFNES), a community-based participatory research project implemented in eight Assembly of First Nations regions, which includes the entirety of Canada south of the 60 th parallel. Methods FNFNES respected the First Nations principles of Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP®) ( https://fnigc.ca/ocap ). A random sampling strategy based on an ecosystem framework comprising 11 ecozones was adopted to collect representative nutritional and environmental health results for all First Nations adults living on-reserve south of the 60 th parallel. Data collection occurred during the fall months from 2008 to 2016. Respective First Nations were involved in the planning and implementation of data collection for the five principal components: household interviews, tap water sampling for metals, surface water sampling for pharmaceuticals, hair sampling for mercury, and traditional food sampling for contaminants. Results A total of 6487 adults from 92 First Nations participated in the Study (participation rate 78%). A higher percentage of females (66%) participated than males (34%). The average age of males and females was similar (44 and 45 years, respectively). This study offers a novel body of coherent and regionally representative evidence on the human dimension of the ongoing environmental degradation affecting First Nations. Conclusion FNFNES serves as a good example of participatory research. We encourage public health professionals to develop policy and programs building on the participatory dimension of the research as well as on its results. The information collected by the FNFNES is also important for community empowerment, environmental stewardship and the general promotion of good health by and for First Nations peoples in Canada.

\"What makes you the way you are--and what makes each of us different from everyone else? In Innate, leading neuroscientist and popular science blogger Kevin Mitchell traces human diversity and individual differences to their deepest level: in the wiring of our brains. Deftly guiding us through important new research, including his own work, he explains how variations in the way our brains develop before birth strongly influence our psychology and behavior throughout our lives, shaping our personality, intelligence, sexuality, and even the way we perceive the world. We all share a genetic program for making a human brain, and the program for making a brain like yours is specifically encoded in your DNA. But, as Mitchell explains, the way that program plays out is affected by random processes of development that manifest uniquely in each person, even identical twins. The key insight of Innate is that the combination of these developmental and genetic variations creates innate differences in how our brains are wired--differences that impact all aspects of our psychology--and this insight promises to transform the way we see the interplay of nature and nurture. Innate also explores the genetic and neural underpinnings of disorders such as autism, schizophrenia, and epilepsy, and how our understanding of these conditions is being revolutionized. In addition, the book examines the social and ethical implications of these ideas and of new technologies that may soon offer the means to predict or manipulate human traits are\"-- Provided by the publisher.

- The research environment plays a major role in students’ satisfaction and productivity. So far, many studies have tried to identify factors that affect student satisfaction and productivity, but they have not addressed the most important environmental factors. In this paper, we explored different environmental factors of computer students at one of the Shiraz University labs. For this purpose, we used mixed methods of multiple stage research design. At first 14 students were interviewed in various computer majors. As a result, the most important environmental factors were the ability to communicate with supervisors and other students, noises, social norms and signals, cleanliness, view, and light. A survey was designed based on interviews and previous work factors with alpha Cronbach 85%. Then, the survey was sent to 175 students and received 73 responses. Survey’s data analyzed at two levels of descriptive statistics and statistical models. Statistical models were built for satisfaction with the work environment and perceived productivity. In the satisfaction model, a specific place in the lab and the ability to communicate with the supervisor were important factors among others. In productivity models light, communicating with supervisor, overall satisfaction, and social norms were important factors.