Knot/Knotting Practice in Craft and Space

Knot/knotting Practice in Craft and Space is a three part research-creation project that used a study of knotting techniques to locate craft in an expanded field of spatial practice. The first part consisted of practical, studio based exercises in which I worked with various natural and synthetic fibres to learn common knotting techniques. The second part was an art historical study that combined craft and architecture history with critical theory related to the social production of space. The third part was an exhibition of drawing and knotted objects titled Opening Closures. This document unifies the lines inquiry that define my project. The first chapter presents the art historical justification for knotting to be understood as a spatial practice. Nineteenth-century German architect and theorist Gottfried Semper’s idea that architectural form is derived from four basic material practices allies craft and architecture in my project and is the point of departure from which I make my argument. In the second chapter, to consider the methodological concerns of research-creation as a form of knowledge production and dissemination, I adopt the format of an instruction manual to conduct an analysis of knot types and to provide instructions for the production of several common knots. In the third chapter, I address the formal and conceptual underpinnings of each artwork presented in my exhibition. I conclude with a proposal for an expanded field of spatial practice by adapting art critic and theorist Rosalind Krauss’s well-known framework for assessing sculpture in 1960s.

Perspectives of Teachers Regarding the Integration of Mathematics and Science at the Secondary School Level

The integration of mathematics and science in secondary schools in the 21st century continues to be an important topic of practice and research. The purpose of my research study, which builds on studies by Frykholm and Glasson (2005) and Berlin and White (2010), is to explore the potential constraints and benefits of integrating mathematics and science in Ontario secondary schools based on the perspectives of in-service and pre-service teachers with various math and/or science backgrounds. A qualitative and quantitative research design with an exploratory approach was used. The qualitative data was collected from a sample of 12 in-service teachers with various math and/or science backgrounds recruited from two school boards in Eastern Ontario. The quantitative and some qualitative data was collected from a sample of 81 pre-service teachers from the Queen’s University Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) program. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the in-service teachers while a survey and a focus group was conducted with the pre-service teachers. Once the data was collected, the qualitative data were abductively analyzed. For the quantitative data, descriptive and inferential statistics (one-way ANOVAs and Pearson Chi Square analyses) were calculated to examine perspectives of teachers regardless of teaching background and to compare groups of teachers based on teaching background. The findings of this study suggest that in-service and pre-service teachers have a positive attitude towards the integration of math and science and view it as valuable to student learning and success. The pre-service teachers viewed the integration as easy and did not express concerns to this integration. On the other hand, the in-service teachers highlighted concerns and challenges such as resources, scheduling, and time constraints. My results illustrate when teachers perceive it is valuable to integrate math and science and which aspects of the classroom benefit best from the integration. Furthermore, the results highlight barriers and possible solutions to better the integration of math and science. In addition to the benefits and constraints of integration, my results illustrate why some teachers may opt out of integrating math and science and the different strategies teachers have incorporated to integrate math and science in their classroom.

AN INVESTIGATION ON ROUTINE FOLLOW-UP CARE FOR HEAD AND NECK CANCER

BACKGROUND: Follow-up care aims to provide surveillance with early detection of recurring cancers and to address treatment complications and other health issues in survivorship. It is assumed that follow-up care fulfills these aims, however little evidence supports routine surveillance detecting curable disease early enough to improve survival. Cancer survivors are a diverse patient population, suggesting that a single follow-up regimen may not meet all patients’ follow-up needs. Little is known about what effective follow-up care should include for head and neck cancer patients in a Canadian setting. Identification of subgroups of patients with specific needs and current practices would allow for hypotheses to be generated for enhancing follow-up care. OBJECTIVES: 1a) To describe the follow-up needs and preferences of head and neck cancer patients, 1b) to identify which patient characteristics predict needs and preferences, 1c) to evaluate how needs and preferences change over time, 2a) to describe follow-up care practices by physician visits and imaging tests, and 2b) to identify factors associated to the delivered follow-up care. METHODS: 1) 175 patients who completed treatment between 2012 and 2013 in Kingston and London, Ontario were recruited to participate in a prospective survey study on patients’ needs and preferences in follow-up care. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to describe patient survey responses and to identify patient characteristics that predicted needs and preferences. 2) A retrospective cohort study of 3975 patients on routine follow-up from 2007 to 2015 was carried out using data linkages across registry and administrative databases to describe follow-up practices in Ontario by visits and tests. Multivariate regression analyses assessed factors related to follow-up care. RESULTS: 1) Patients’ needs and preferences were wide-ranging with several characteristics predicting needs and preferences (ORECOG=2.69 and ORAnxiety=1.13). Needs and preferences declined as patients transitioned into their second year of follow-up (p<0.05). 2) Wide variation in practices was found, with marked differences compared to existing consensus guidelines. Multiple factors were associated with follow-up practices (RRTumor site=0.73 and RRLHIN=1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics can be used to personalize care and guidelines are not informing practice. Future research should evaluate individualized approaches to follow-up care.