Courtney E. Brewster ’04 started working for Hope College in January 2022 as part of the Philanthropy and Engagement team. As the inaugural senior philanthropy advisor for diversity, equity and inclusive excellence (DEI), Courtney is responsible for partnering with affinity, divisional and institutional leadership throughout the college to advance the Philanthropy and Engagement goals for DEI and Hope Forward. Equally importantly, she engages as an accomplished and proactive leader on the Philanthropy and Engagement Leadership Council and on the college’s External Affairs Committee.
Prior to coming to Hope, Courtney worked at Washington University in St. Louis as the director of the College Prep Program (CPP), a three-year immersive learning experience that serves to successfully prepare high-achieving first-generation college students for college, career and military. As the senior leader of CPP, she was responsible for all aspects of program design, implementation and evaluation and worked alongside university advancement and leadership to support donor relations with AT&T, The Mysun Foundation, Dana Brown Charitable Trust, Centene Corporation and The Teagle Foundation. Additionally, Courtney was selected to participate in Washington University’s Professional Leadership Academy & Network (PLAN), a year-long professional development program intended to cultivate future leaders and impact tomorrow’s education.
Courtney has also worked in higher education roles and supported institutional initiatives at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Iowa State University, and Syracuse University. She is a Social Justice Training Institute (SJTI) alumnus, a qualified administrator of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI, LLC) and has taught courses in psychology and intergroup dialogue education.
Courtney believes Hope is a place where you can build a foundation for the future and find a community of support forever. She is grateful to have the opportunity to return as a professional and enthusiastically looks forward to having a positive impact in the division, with students, and on the entire Hope community and beyond.
SUNY ESF is bound by the SUNY Child Protection Policy (CPP) for all activities that our faculty, staff, students, and volunteers participate in work with minors under the age of 17. This policy is to protect minors who participate in University-related programs, whether on or off campus.
If you are currently or planning to work, supervise, or do research with minors under the age of 17 who are not matriculated into the college, please contact Interim VP of Research, William Nicholson (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Cheryl Liptak (email@example.com) so that we may evaluate the program and work to certify you as a “Covered Person” so that you many continue these activities. In order to be confirmed, you must complete the CPP Training Modules and CPP Acknowledgement Form. You will be required to review the SUNY Child Protection Policy Slides which are available here.
Once you have reviewed the SUNY policy and training slides, you will be required to sign and return the SUNY Child Protection Policy Acknowledgement Form that affirms that you have reviewed and will be compliant with this SUNY policy.
This Acknowledgement Form also certifies your approval to allow SUNY-ESF to perform a background check against the New York Sex Offender Registry and National Sex Offender Public Registry. Please note that this form requests your date of birth which UPD requires in order to perform the registry check. This must be done not more than 90 days prior to your covered activity and reconfirmed thereafter during the course of interaction with minors. Once we receive clearance from your background check and confirmation of your training, you will be affirmed as a "Covered Person" with respect to activities involving custody of minors.
Thank you for doing everything we can to protect minors that we interact with.
Professor Sophy Smith, Director of the Institute of Creative Technologies
De Montfort University
Queens Building, Room 3.05
T: +44 (0)116 255 1551
Sophy Smith develops and leads initiatives to contribute to the development of distinctive knowledge and creative practice in the wider creative technologies sectors, both relating artistic and commercial practice. She is Director of DAPPer (Digital Arts Performance Practice – emerging research), a cross-sector research initiative/network where people working in all areas of digital performance can come together – practitioners, technologists, academics, organisations and all those in-between – to capture, share, discuss, experiment and develop work and ideas relating to digital art and performance.
Both Sophy’s research and practice has strong impact and real-world value, directly influencing the practice of the arts, cultural and education sectors, while making a significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge and its application to the subject area and professional practice.
Elsoms Creates, funded through The Creative People and Places (CPP) programme (Arts Council England) developed new ways for arts companies to work in partnership with the business sector and has been identified by ACE as an example of best practice. The project has had strong impact across the arts and business sector, with the project described as “absolutely phenomenal” and “invaluable”, in terms of developing sustainable relationships with business.
In 2013 Sophy’s monograph Hip Hop Turntablism, Creativity and Collaboration was published by Ashgate, internationally recognised as being the first book on hip hop music to discuss the music on equal terms with its context. In 2017 it was re-issued in paperback.
Sophy is also an internationally renowned composer, creating electronic soundtracks for dance and theatre companies and festivals, including the 2012 Cultural Olympiad and European Capital of Culture 2013 and 2021.
In addition to her practice, Sophy produces high quality and distinctive text-based outputs and is a regular contributor to books, journals and peer reviewed conference proceedings both nationally and internationally.
Ernest Edmonds, Professor of Computational Art
T: +44 (0)116 207 8571
Ernest Edmonds is a pioneer computer artist and HCI innovator for whom combing creative arts practice with creative technologies has been a life-long pursuit.
In 2017 he won both the ACM SIGCHI Lifetime Achievement Award for Practice in Human-Computer Interaction and the ACM SIGGRAPH Distinguished Artist Award for Lifetime Achievement in Digital Art. He is Chairman of the Board of ISEA International, whose main activity is the annual International Symposium on Electronic Art that began in 1988. He has been elected to both the SIGGRAPH Academy and the CHI Academy.
His books include The Separable User Interface (Academic Press), Explorations in Art and Technology (Springer), and Interacting: Art, Research and the Creative Practitioner (Libri), the last two co-authored with Linda Candy. A second revised edition of Explorations is in press. His most latest book is “The Art of Interaction: what HCI can learn from Interactive Art” (Morgan & Claypool, 2018).
He is an Honorary Editor of Leonardo and Editor-in-Chief of Springer’s Cultural Computing book series. In the last 50 years, Ernest has published over 400 books and papers, exhibited his artwork across the globe and been a keynote speaker in many countries. He has recently exhibited in Venice, Leicester, Denver, Vancouver, Beijing, Shanghai, and Rio de Janeiro.
His work is described in the book by Francesca Franco, “Generative Systems Art: The Work of Ernest Edmonds” (Routledge, 2017).
Tracy Harwood, Professor of Digital Culture
T: +44 (0)116207 8028
Tracy Harwood is a transdisciplinary researcher, working across computer science, arts, design, health and marketing subjects. Current projects relate to the application of emerging technologies to business and consumer contexts, including AI, Internet of things, VR and AR.
She has a management background in practice, with a PhD in negotiation behaviour, and is also manager of the university’s Usability Lab. She is a specialist in mixed methods research and has taught on postgraduate and research development programmes on this approach, latterly focussing on practice-based research. She has published in leading marketing and digital creativity journals, including Journal of Services Management, Journal of Service Marketing, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Leonardo, Digital Creativity and Journal of Visual Culture.
She is Area Editor for the European Innovation Alliance's Endorsed Transactions on Creative Technologies and a Programme Committee Member of the IEEE International Conference on Creative Lifestyle Computing.
Fabrizio Poltronieri, Lecturer in Creative Technologies
T: +44 (0)116 257 7444
Fabrizio Augusto Poltronieri is an award-winning computer artist, designer, researcher, writer and curator with a special interest in the relationships between art, design, digital media, gamification, and technology, whose expertise lies in the development of creative coding and its exchanges with philosophical questions.
He holds a PhD in Semiotics from the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC/SP), Brazil, with a thesis about the role of chance in computational art. In 2011-2012, he was awarded a fellowship to develop a postdoctoral research project on the early days of computer art at the Royal College of Art in London.
One of the outcomes of this research was a major exhibition with four pioneer computer artists. This exhibition, entitled “Primary Codes”, which Dr Poltronieri co-curated and organized, featured artworks and talks by Ernest Edmonds, Frieder Nake, Harold Cohen and Paul Brown and took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 2015.
His second postdoctoral research was at Leuphana Universität’s Gamification Lab, in Lüneburg, Germany, which reflected on how the video games’ universe, the notions of gamification and post-history affect language production mediated by digital apparatuses.
Two of his artworks from the “Visual Theogonies” series (Dionysus and Calliope) are in the V&A's Victoria and Albert Museum collection, in London, UK. Dr Poltronieri is currently researching Creativity and Artificial Intelligence, applying machine and deep learning techniques to the production and design of narratives, moving images and objects.
Craig Vear, Professor of Digital Performance (Music)
T: +44 (0)116 207 8131
Craig Vear explores the meeting point of music, creative technology, computational intelligence, mixed reality performance and gaming through practice-based research.
He is currently running two research projects: The Living Score which he investigates the changes in musicianship and creativity afforded by digital technology and its transformation of "the score".
This ranges from images of paper-scores shown on iPads through to robotics and A.I. embedded in software generating scores. And Embodied Intelligence in Music that investigates the meeting point of embodied cognition, artificial intelligence, music composition and performance, game and software philosophy, and R&D for the entertainment industry.
Mental health and burnout are rife within UK universities, with the higher education sector failing to meet minimum standards for psychosocial risk. Dr Siobhan Wray and Professor Gail Kinman take a deep dive into the findings of their wide-ranging study, which highlights the health needs of university staff.
This article reports on a national survey examining working life in UK universities. The survey focused on the psychosocial hazards associated with work (Cousins et al, 2004), the psychosocial safety climate (Dollard & King, 2007), the support available to support workers and the levels of mental health, burnout and work-life conflict associated with work.
Evidence suggests that the wellbeing of academic staff has deteriorated over time. Three surveys of university staff in the UK, undertaken between 2008 and 2014, used the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) management standards indicator tool to assess levels of psychosocial hazards (demands, control, manager and peer support, relationships, role, and change) and compare against benchmarks.
Across all hazard categories, university staff experienced greater hazard exposure than the HSE benchmark. Furthermore, job demands, manager and peer support failed to reach the fifth percentile of the HSE’s benchmark in any of the three waves of data collected.
Comparisons across three waves identified significant increases in the hazards associated with job demands, control, relationships, role and change. Whilst control has remained relatively high in university staff, this domain has seen a significant negative trend over time (Wray and Kinman, 2020).
Mental health, assessed using the General Health Questionnaire, was poor in all waves with six out of 10 respondents meeting “caseness” levels of psychological distress. These findings are supported by work undertaken by Morrish (2019) which examined the level of referrals to counselling and occupational health services in UK universities between 2006 and 2019. These referrals, which increased three or four-fold in some institutions, suggests an escalation in the incidence of mental health issues.
Whilst there is strong evidence to suggest that UK university staff are struggling with high demands and low resources, and that mental health in particular is an area of concern, little is known about the support they need to Strengthen the nature of their work or their wellbeing. This study, commissioned by the Education Support Partnership, aimed to examine the working lives of UK university staff and to investigate the support services available.
Respondents were presented with 47 potential sources of support that may be provided by their institutions. These covered a range of different areas: work/home interface and recovery; support for health and wellbeing; counselling, coaching and guidance; stress management training; social support and working relationships; managing workload and pressure; reducing inequalities, tackling bullying and external professional support. We asked participants to rate each source of support twice – once indicating if the type of support was available and then again to rate how helpful they would find each type of support (1 – not at all helpful; 5 – very helpful).
Additionally, the study examined stigma associated with accessing support at work. This was measured using a scale developed by Britt et al (2008) to assess whether individuals perceived barriers to accessing support. The original scale was supplemented with three sector-specific questions developed for the study.
Psychosocial safety climate (Dollard & Kang, 2007) examines the extent to which respondents believe their organisation has appropriate policies, procedures, and practices in place to protect the psychological wellbeing of their staff. This is a particularly relevant measure considering latest ISO guidance (ISO 45003) and guidance developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence which both highlight the importance of employer responsibilities around the monitoring, management, and strategic leadership of employee mental wellbeing. Previous research has indicated that poor psychosocial safety climate is linked to higher risk of job strain and depressive symptoms (Bailey et al, 2015).
The HSE’s management standards indicator tool (Cousins et al, 2004) was used to measure key psychosocial hazards and compare these with previous studies and national standards.
Illegitimate tasks (Semmer et al, 2010) are defined as tasks that respondents consider unreasonable – in that they are extant to their occupational role, or unnecessary. For example, the re-entering of data because two computer systems are incompatible.
Finally, the study measured mental health using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (Stewart-Brown et al, 2008); burnout (Maslach burnout inventory, Maslach et al, 1996) to assess the core aspects of burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and personal accomplishment and work-life balance (Fisher et al, 2009).
Some 2,046 university staff responded to the survey, 86% of whom worked in academic roles. Most respondents worked full time (79%) and were in permanent employment (80.4%).
Sixty-two per cent reported working more than 40 hours per week, and 21% reported working in excess of 50 hours. Academic staff reported working longer than academic related staff, with 21% reporting working an extra 16 hours per week – equivalent to two extra working days. Just under half (44%) said that they felt pressured to work long hours often or always.
Psychosocial safety climate
Psychosocial safety climate (PSC) assesses how well an organisation manages psychological health and safety. Results can be compared against international benchmarks, where scores of 37 or below indicates “high risk” – where employees are at greater risk of job strain and depressive symptoms (Bailey et al, 2015). In this survey, the means score for PSC was 25.89, suggesting that the risks for higher education employees in the UK is high.
Furthermore, 71% of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement: “Senior management show support for stress prevention through involvement and commitment.” Three-quarters did not agree that senior managers considered the psychological health of employees as equivalently important as productivity (77.5%); that psychological wellbeing of staff was a priority (70.9%); that communication around psychological safety was good (72.5%) or that senior managers take prompt action to address problems affecting employees’ psychological health (69.1%).
These results suggest that the psychological safety climate in universities is poor, and respondents do not feel that senior management teams are engaged in activities to promote a psychologically safe climate.
The management standards indicator tool utilises a risk assessment approach to work-related stress, where stress is seen as a significant threat to the health of employees. These workplace threats are then assessed against benchmarks set by the HSE to determine the level of threat associated with key hazards (Cousins et al, 2004). In this study, psychological hazards were assessed across six of the seven domains and compared with the HSE benchmark data (see table below). The data from this survey was collected during the Covid pandemic, therefore the final hazard category assessing the management of change was not included. It was felt that during the pandemic organisations‘ ability to manage change was greatly reduced.
The table shows that with the exception of control, all hazard categories failed to meet the HSE benchmark, and all fell into the bottom 20th percentile of mean scores, indicating an “urgent need for action”. This indicates that university staff are at considerable risk from high job demands, low support, role, and poor relationships at work. Comparisons with previous surveys in the sector (Wray and Kinman, 2021) indicate that there has been little change in these hazard categories over time.
Unnecessary tasks were of significant importance to university staff. Nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated that they “often” or “frequently” undertook tasks that would not exist or could be completed more easily if they were organised differently (69.1%) and tasks that exist “simply because some people demand it this way” (68.1%). These results suggest that university staff may struggle to understand the relevance of certain tasks to their job and consider some tasks unnecessary or overcomplicated because of the way that they are organised.
Support and stigma
Working from home was identified as the key source of support available to staff with 86% of respondents indicating that this was helpful or very helpful. It was also the source of support perceived to be most available to university staff with 86% indicating that this was available to them. Other forms of support that were most commonly available included support from trade unions; training on and clear policies around equality, diversity and inclusion; occupational health and other support for wellbeing; and peer support from colleagues.
Sources of support that were least available were associated with organisational policies and procedures, specifically only 15% of staff indicated that they had a workplace stress policy that was clear and accessible, that stress risk assessments were regularly undertaken (14%) and that steps were taken to manage workload and pressure (8%).
Conversely, the sources of support that were considered most helpful for wellbeing were at the organisational level and included managing workload and pressure at source, developing a culture of openness that normalises conversations about stress and managing timetabling to ensure opportunities for adequate breaks and recovery. Sources of support aimed at the individual level were considered the least helpful and included guidance on personal issues and stress management training. Qualitative comments from respondents further highlighted these issues:
“Individual interventions such as mindfulness and relaxation will not help when we are working 100 hours a week and still can’t meet our deadlines.”
“I am cynical about all types of support, as those offered are individualised ‘sticking plasters’, rather than representing real change that would make a difference for staff.”
Qualitative comments also suggested that some respondents felt that when wellbeing audits were undertaken, results were not disseminated or failed to address the issues raised:
“Make sure that the results of staff surveys are actually communicated and acted upon rather than implementing yet more tokenistic wellbeing initiatives that will make no difference.”
The results regarding availability and helpfulness of sources of support suggest a disconnect between what is seen as available and what is perceived as helpful.
In addition to the availability of helpful sources of support, the survey found that there may be significant stigma associated with seeking support for work-related stress and mental health problems in UK universities. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents indicated that they were concerned that they would be seen as weak if they sought help for stress or mental health problems and over 70% believed that it would harm their career.
Additionally, 61% of respondents indicated that they would not approach their manager for support because they did not have the knowledge or skills required to provide support. Again, these reservations were reflected in comments from respondents:
I am cynical about all types of support, as those offered are individualised ‘sticking plasters’, rather than representing real change that would make a difference for staff.” – survey respondent
“I don’t trust my local management not to try and use against me any difficulties that I did highlight.”
“The line manager is often the problem, so talking to them about your wellbeing then becomes either a massive ‘no-no’ or makes the matter worse.”
Mental wellbeing, burnout, and work-life balance
The WEMWBS (Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well Being Scale) assesses and individual’s psychological functioning, ability to forge relationships and their overall satisfaction with life (Stewart-Brown et al, 2008). This summed score can then be compared against population benchmarks. In this survey the average mean score for the trial (39.86) was much lower than population norms. Only 29.4% of respondents scored 45 or above, indicating average wellbeing, whereas 53.2% scored 40 or below indicating probable depression.
With reference to burnout, levels of emotional exhaustion were high, with 65.3% reporting that they felt emotionally drained from their work at least once a week, and 28.6 % reporting feeling like this daily. However, depersonalisation was less prevalent with the majority of respondents indicating that they felt desensitised to peoples needs only once a month or less. Levels of personal accomplishment were moderate, with 56.2% indicating that they deal effectively with the problems of other people they work with once a month or less.
Few respondents indicated that their work life rarely (12%) or never (2%) interferes with their personal life, whilst 69% reported that they often (or always) come home from work too tired to do things that they would like to do. Little evidence was found for work to life enrichment with less than 10% indicating that their job gave them the energy for pursue important activities outside of work.
Finally, we examined the associations between the measures of the working environment (working hours, psychosocial hazards, psychosocial safety climate and illegitimate tasks and sources of support) and wellbeing (mental health, burnout, and work-life balance).
Longer working hours were associated with higher job demands and lower levels of control, support (manger and peer), role and working relationships. This was associated with poorer perceptions of the psychosocial safety climate at work, higher levels of self-reported mental health problems, burnout, and greater conflict between work and personal life.
Higher levels of psychosocial hazards were associated with a range of outcomes. Hazards associated with role, demands, peer support and control were strong predictors of burnout and mental health problems. Additionally, these factors plus hazards associated with relationships were associated with greater work-life conflict.
Those who reported undertaking illegitimate tasks regularly were at greater risk of mental health problems and work-life conflict.
Finally, respondents reporting higher levels of mental health problems and burnout were more likely to report poorer perceptions of psychosocial safety climate in their organisation and were more likely to report that seeking support for mental health problems was highly stigmatised.
The findings from the report indicate that working hours across higher education remain high and that psychosocial hazards in the sector continue to fail to meet the HSE’s minimum standards. The psychosocial safety climate within UK universities is considerably lower than in studies of other organisations. Levels of self-reported mental health and burnout are higher than reported population norms and work-life conflict remains high.
Whilst universities in the UK offer a range of support services for staff, these are often perceived to be unfit for purpose or fail to address systemic issues. Additionally, stigma around accessing support for mental health is a significant issue in the sector.
These findings provide evidence for a strategic examination of working practices within UK universities, with senior teams working closely with staff to develop and implement effective policies, procedures, practices, and interventions to promote and imbed employee wellbeing.
Bailey, T. S., Dollard, M. F., McLinton, S. S., & Richards, P. A. (2015). Psychosocial safety climate, psychosocial and physical factors in the aetiology of musculoskeletal disorder symptoms and workplace injury compensation claims. Work & Stress, 29(2), 190-211.
Britt, T.W., Greene–Shortridge, T.M., Brink, S., Nguyen, Q.B., Rath, J., Cox, A.L., Hoge, C.W. and Castro, C.A. (2008). ‘Perceived stigma and barriers to care for psychological treatment: Implications for reactions to stressors in different contexts’. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(4), pp.317-335.
Cousins, R., Mackay, C.J., Clarke, S.D., Kelly, C., Kelly, P.J. and McCaig, R.H. (2004).
‘Management standards’ work-related stress in the UK: Practical development’. Work and Stress, 18(2), pp.113-136.
Dollard, M.F. and Kang, S. (2007). ‘Psychosocial safety climate measure’. Work & Stress Research Group. University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Dougall, I., Weick, M. and Vasiljevic, M. (2021). Inside UK Universities: Staff mental health and wellbeing during the coronavirus pandemic. PsyArXiv. June, 22. europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr360395
Fisher, G.G., Bulger, C.A. and Smith, C.S. (2009). ‘Beyond work and family: a measure of work/nonwork interference and enhancement’. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(4), p.441-456.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E. and Leiter, M.P. (1996). MBI: Maslach Burnout Inventory. Sunnyvale, CA: CPP, Incorporated.
Morrish, L. (2019). ‘Pressure Vessels: The epidemic of poor mental health among higher education staff.’ HEPI Occasional Paper 20. Higher Education Policy Institute.
Semmer, N.K., Tschan, F., Meier, L.L., Facchin, S. and Jacobshagen, N. (2010). ‘Illegitimate tasks and counterproductive work behavior’. Applied Psychology, 59(1), pp.70-96.
Stewart-Brown, S. and Janmohamed, K. (2008). Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale. User guide. Version, 1.
Wray, S. and Kinman, G., 2020. The psychosocial hazards of academic work: an analysis of trends. Studies in Higher Education, pp.1-12. doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1793934
I specialize in EMDR, trauma focused -CBT, positive psychology, motivational interviewing, psychodynamic and relaxation based treatments.
I am a young and vibrant Psychologist who can relate to individuals ranging from adolescence to older adults. Based on my own cultural and diversity experiences, I understand that treatment should be tailored to fit the unique backgrounds of my clients, regardless of age, ethnicity, spiritual preference. I also understand that clients will present with a range of difficulties and I always strive to understand underlying needs to ensure that treatment is effective. I have an extensive background in treating individuals who are experiencing depression, anxiety, relationship difficulty, OCD, and symptoms as a result of TBI.
ChildCare Education Institute Offers No-Cost Online Course on Character Education in the School-Age Child Care Environment
ChildCare Education Institute Offers No-Cost Online Course on Character Education in the School-Age Child Care Environment
ATLANTA, GA, Aug. 02, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- ChildCare Education Institute® (CCEI), an online child care training provider dedicated exclusively to the early care and education workforce, offers SCH106: Character Education in the School-Age Child Care Environment as a no-cost trial course to new CCEI users August 1-31, 2022.
Character education teaches the habits of thought and deed that help people live and work together as families, friends, neighbors, communities, and nations. Character education is a learning process that enables students and adults in a school community to understand, care about, and act on core ethical values such as respect, justice, civic virtue and citizenship, and responsibility for self and others. Upon such core values, we form the attitudes and actions that are the hallmark of safe, healthy, and informed communities that serve as the foundation of our society.
As children grow through adolescence, their social and emotional skills become more solidified. Bad decisions evolve to have serious consequences related to fighting, bullying, stealing, lying, substance abuse, and other risky or antisocial behaviors. These behaviors are part of the reality of working with young people, whether in the regular classroom or the out-of-school-time (OST) program.
This course is not only about preventing violent or other antisocial behaviors. There is much more to character education than that. Character education is really about how to help young people learn to make the right choices about all kinds of things, not just socially but also personally. It is not just about teaching them to follow the rules or understand the consequences; it is about teaching them to do the right thing for themselves and their community.
Today′s young people are developing in a society unlike any other in history, thanks in no small part to the internet and social media. Character education is becoming more challenging as new technologies add new layers to young people′s social lives. With or without the internet and social media, young people need the same basic skills necessary to make the right choices for their futures and the well-being of those around them.
This course explores the importance of character education in schools and out-of-school programs, focusing on environments for school-age children and adolescents. There are many possible approaches to character education, and no single approach is definitively better than another. Character education must involve all stakeholders in the school community to be truly effective; however, this course focuses primarily on practices and strategies for teachers, whether they are looking to supplement or Strengthen an existing character education program or start a new one.
“Character education programs are designed with the whole community in mind and the assumption that adults must work together to help children develop good character,” says Maria C. Taylor, President and CEO of CCEI. “When families and schools play their part in the process, better outcomes can be expected.”
SCH106: Character Education in the School-Age Child Care Environment is a three-hour, intermediate-level course and grants 0.3 IACET CEU upon successful completion. Current CCEI users with active, unlimited annual subscriptions can register for professional development courses at no additional cost when logged in to their CCEI account. Users without subscriptions can purchase child care training courses as block hours through CCEI online enrollment.
For more information, visit www.cceionline.edu or call 1.800.499.9907, prompt 3, Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EDT
ChildCare Education Institute, LLC
ChildCare Education Institute® provides high-quality, distance education certificates and child care training programs in an array of child care settings, including preschool centers, family child care, prekindergarten classrooms, nanny care, online daycare training and more. Over 150 English and Spanish child care training courses are available online to meet licensing, recognition program, and Head Start Requirements. CCEI also has online certification programs that provide the coursework requirement for national credentials including the CDA, Director and Early Childhood Credentials. CCEI, a Council for Professional Recognition CDA Gold Standard™ training provider, is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC), is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and is accredited as an Authorized Provider by the International Accreditors for Continuing Education and Training (IACET).
CONTACT: Ashley Sasher ChildCare Education Institute 678-942-1531 firstname.lastname@example.org
You will have access to our purpose-built Hugh Aston Building, equipped with lecture theatres and classrooms, break-out spaces for group work, quiet study zones for individual work and IT labs. Wherever possible, students will be given home access to specialist software.
You’ll also have access to the building’s new £5.5 million extension called The Yard, which provides more than 22,000 square metres of extra space. This is designed to facilitate your learning experience with large and airy breakout spaces, a new Student Advice Centre, and a balcony on the top floor. The Yard also features more comfortable classrooms and self-study spaces, allowing you to carry out independent study as well as group work.
On campus, the main Kimberlin Library offers a space where you can work, study and access a vast range of print materials, with computer stations, laptops, plasma screens and assistive technology also available.
As well as providing a physical space in which to work, we offer online tools to support your studies, and our extensive online collection of resources accessible from our Library website, e-books, specialised databases and electronic journals and films which can be remotely accessed from anywhere you choose.
We will support you to confidently use a huge range of learning technologies, including Blackboard, Collaborate Ultra, DMU Replay, MS Teams, Turnitin and more. Alongside this, you can access LinkedIn Learning and learn how to use Microsoft 365, and study support software such as mind mapping and note-taking through our new Digital Student Skills Hub.
The library staff offer additional support to students, including help with academic writing, research strategies, literature searching, reference management and assistive technology. There is also a ‘Just Ask’ service for help and advice, live LibChat, online workshops, tutorials and drop-ins available from our Learning Services, and weekly library live chat sessions that supply you the chance to ask the library teams for help.
Our Learning Zones and The Greenhouse also provide space for group or individual work and study.
There are 1,600 study places across all library locations, more than 700 computer stations, laptops to borrow, free wi-fi and desktop power outlets.
You can also book rooms with plasma screens, laptops and DVD facilities for group work and presentations, secure an individual study room with adjustable lighting or make use of our assistive technology.
In the third episode of the IFSEC Global Security in Focus podcast we speak with Mike Gips, Principal at Global Insight in Professional Security and IFSEC Global top influencer in thought leaders for 2022.
Michael Gips, JD, CPP, CSyP, CAE, is a security professional, attorney, writer, researcher, executive, and principal of Global Insights in Professional Security. He is also a senior advisor for Cardinal Point Strategies and the Network Contagion Research Institute, a leadership columnist for Security Magazine, and an associate with the insider risk firm Signpost Six. The former Chief Global Knowledge and Learning Officer for ASIS International, Mike founded the CSO Roundtable (now CSO Center) and served as editor and publisher of Security Management. Mike was named 2022 Outstanding U.S. Security Consultant (OSPAs), IFSEC’s most influential security thought leader in 2022, and one of Security magazine’s most influential people in security in 2019. A graduate of Tufts University and Harvard Law School, Mike is president of the Global Life Safety Alliance and heads the security committee for a large house of worship. He mentors several young professionals.
During the episode, we discuss Mike’s background in the physical security sector, starting in 1994, as he explores some of the key changes he’s witnessed over the years. In particular, Mike details how security professionals are now getting a ‘seat at the table’ in boardrooms – the pandemic having played a role in this.
In the second half of the episode, listeners will hear Mike’s predictions for the future, as we discuss key trends set to impact the physical security sector in the years to come. Mike highlights several points, but we particularly focus on the evolution of social media and the insider threat, and how these two growing challenges are becoming more intertwined than ever.
We finish on a fascinating story regarding an ex-US intelligence agent, so keep listening to find out more!
Listen to the podcast below, or find it on Spotify, Google Podcasts, or Apple Podcasts.
There were a total of 85 children included in this analysis, including 18 with AHT. Patient demographics are presented in Table 1. There were six children who had an initial GCS score more than 8 who subsequently deteriorated to GCS score of less than or equal to 8, thereby meeting the definition of severe TBI. There were a total of 34 children (40%) with unfavorable outcomes. The mean age of children with unfavorable outcome was younger than those with favorable outcome (5.2 ± 0.8 vs 6.9 ± 0.7 yr); there were nine deaths (11% mortality rate); of which, two occurred during the monitoring period of this study. Within the unfavorable outcome cohort, the most common mechanism of injury was AHT (35%; Table 2). Unfavorable outcome was observed in 66.7% of victims of AHT and 32.8% of victims of accidental TBI (Table 2).
We examined three thresholds of ICP (> 14, > 20, and > 30), which were used to define intracranial hypertension. For each threshold, the number of hours above the threshold for each person was calculated over the first 5 days after ICP monitor placement. Analyses were then conducted for each threshold to determine if the number of hours above the threshold was associated with outcome. The evaluation of ICP threshold results is shown in Table 3. The model with the number of hours that the ICP exceeded 20 had the best fit (C = 0.641; 95% CI, 0.523–0.762). The CIs of the three estimates overlap, indicating that there is not a significant difference between the three estimates of fit and no one threshold is superior (or inferior).
A similar approach was used to investigate thresholds for the hours below a specific CPP. Thresholds of CPP (< 40, < 45, < 50, < 55, and < 60) were examined. The comparison of the ability of various CPP thresholds to discriminate outcome is shown in Table 3. The model of the number of hours with a CPP less than 45 mm Hg provided the best ability to discriminate outcome (C = 0.702; 95% CI, 0.586–0.805). As was the case for the ICP thresholds, the CIs of the five estimates overlap, indicating that there is not a significant difference between the five estimates of fit and no one threshold is superior (or inferior).
Next, we hypothesized that there would be differences in the association of ICP and CPP thresholds with outcomes between children with accidental and abusive TBI mechanisms. The models with the best fit at discriminating outcome using the number of hours above an ICP threshold and the number of hours below a CPP threshold were selected to be used to determine if the mechanism of injury (abuse or not) had a differential impact on the ability of that threshold to discriminate. For ICP, a logistic regression model was fit with main effects for the hours above the threshold, mechanism of injury (abuse and nonabuse), and the two-way interaction. A statistically significant interaction would indicate a different association in threshold between those abused and not abused. The process was repeated for CPP. As is seen in Table 4, there is no statistically significant interaction between abuse and the threshold for either ICP or CPP, indicating that the threshold does not differ by mechanism.
Both the intracranial hypertension index and the cerebral hypoperfusion index are significantly associated with the outcome, as shown in Table 5. In general, the odds ratio (OR) indicates that as each index increases by one unit; the odds of a poor outcome increase (by 5% for the intracranial hypertension index and 3.5% for the cerebral hypoperfusion index).
Only two factors were independently associated with a poor outcome, as seen in Table 6. As the number of hours of ICP more than 20 mm Hg increases by 1, the odds of a poor outcome increased by 4.6% (OR = 1.046; 95% CI, 1.012–1.082). Children with AHT had much greater odds of a poor outcome than nonabused children (OR = 5.101; 95% CI, 1.571–16.563).
Germany based organiser of international agrofood & plastprintpack trade shows in Africa & the Middle East, fairtrade Messe, and the Africa Packaging Organisation APO, headquartered in Nigeria, have agreed to join forces and to create synergies. This has recently been agreed by Paul März, fairtrade Managing Director and Ahmed Alex Omah, the President of the Africa Packaging Organisation.
Outlines Ahmed Alex Omah: “After intense discussions of APO’s and fairtrade’s areas of interest for collaboration and partnership, we have agreed that APO will be recognised by fairtrade as an official institutional partner and endorser of fairtrade’s plastprintpack trade shows in Algeria, Ethiopia, Ghana, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kenya and Nigeria. We take pride to be associated with these leading international packaging events for Africa & the Middle East. By means of our collaboration, APO contributes to bring even more professional trade visitors to fairtrade’s events.”
And Paul März adds: “We are honoured to be the first Corporate Member of APO. APO enriches our plastprintpack trade shows by introducing various Packaging Education Classes leading to certifications such as CPP Certified Packaging Professional in collaboration with the Institute of Packaging Professional USA and endorsed by WPO, the World Packaging Organisation. In addition, APO will add value to our trade shows by organising the Packaging Awards for Excellence – Afristar Award alongside our shows, as well as the Lifetime Achievement Award (LAA) for Packaging enthusiasts in the Industry
The cooperation is filled with life for the first time on the occasion of the 6th edition of the International Trade Show agrofood & plastprintpack from 26 to 28 October 2021 at the Landmark Centre in Lagos.