Strategic development of transport systems: a study of the physical constraints on planning processes

Investment in transport infrastructure can be highly sensitive to uncertainty. The scale and lead time of strategic transport programmes are such that they require continuing policy support and accurate forecasting. Delay, cost escalation and abandonment of projects often result if these conditions are not present. In Part One the physical characteristics of infrastructure are identified as a major constraint on planning processes. The extent to which strategies and techniques acknowledge these constraints is examined. A simple simulation model is developed to evaluate the effects on system development of variations in the scale and lead time of investments. In Part Two, two case studies of strategic infrastructure investment are analysed. The absence of a policy consensus for airport location was an important factor in the delayed resolution of the Third London Airport issue. In London itself, the traffic and environmental effects of major highway investment ultimately resulted in the abandonment of plans to construct urban motorways. In both cases, the infrastructure implications of alternative strategies are reviewed with reference to the problems of uncertainty. In conclusion, the scale of infrastructure investment is considered the most important of the constraints on the processes of transport planning. Adequate appraisal of such constraints may best be achieved by evaluation more closely aligned to policy objectives.

An emerging consensus on aquaporin translocation as a regulatory mechanism

Water passes through cell membranes relatively slowly by diffusion. In order to maintain water homeostasis, the rapid and specific regulation of cellular water flow is mediated by the aquaporin (AQP) family of membrane protein water channels. The wide range of tissues that are known to express AQPs is reflected by their involvement in many physiological processes and diseases; thirteen human AQPs have been identified to date and the majority are highly specific for water while others show selectivity for water, glycerol and other small solutes. Receptor mediated translocation, via hormone activation, is an established method of AQP regulation, especially for AQP2. There is now an emerging consensus that the rapid and reversible translocation of other AQPs from intracellular vesicles to the plasma membrane, triggered by a range of stimuli, confers altered membrane permeability thereby acting as a regulatory mechanism. This review examines the molecular components that may enable such AQP regulation; these include cytoskeletal proteins, kinases, calcium and retention or localization signals. Current knowledge on the dynamic regulation of sub-cellular AQP translocation in response to a specific trigger is explored in the context of the regulation of cellular water flow. © 2013 Informa UK, Ltd.

Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback:a systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes

Much has been written in the educational psychology literature about effective feedback and how to deliver it. However, it is equally important to understand how learners actively receive, engage with, and implement feedback. This article reports a systematic review of the research evidence pertaining to this issue. Through an analysis of 195 outputs published between 1985 and early 2014, we identified various factors that have been proposed to influence the likelihood of feedback being used. Furthermore, we identified diverse interventions with the common aim of supporting and promoting learners' agentic engagement with feedback processes. We outline the various components used in these interventions, and the reports of their successes and limitations. Moreover we propose a novel taxonomy of four recipience processes targeted by these interventions. This review and taxonomy provide a theoretical basis for conceptualizing learners' responsibility within feedback dialogues and for guiding the strategic design and evaluation of interventions. Receiving feedback on one's skills and understanding is an invaluable part of the learning process, benefiting learners far more than does simply receiving praise or punishment (Black & Wiliam, 1998 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102[Taylor & Francis Online]; Hattie & Timperley, 2007 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]). Inevitably, the benefits of receiving feedback are not uniform across all circumstances, and so it is imperative to understand how these gains can be maximized. There is increasing consensus that a critical determinant of feedback effectiveness is the quality of learners' engagement with, and use of, the feedback they receive. However, studies investigating this engagement are underrepresented in academic research (Bounds et al., 2013 Bounds, R., Bush, C., Aghera, A., Rodriguez, N., Stansfield, R. B., & Santeen, S. A. (2013). Emergency medicine residents' self-assessments play a critical role when receiving feedback. Academic Emergency Medicine, 20, 1055–1061. doi:10.1111/acem.12231[CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]), which leaves a “blind spot” in our understanding (Burke, 2009 Burke, D. (2009). Strategies for using feedback students bring to higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 41–50. doi:10.1080/02602930801895711[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]). With this blind spot in mind, the present work sets out to systematically map the research literature concerning learners' proactive recipience of feedback. We use the term “proactive recipience” here to connote a state or activity of engaging actively with feedback processes, thus emphasizing the fundamental contribution and responsibility of the learner (Winstone, Nash, Rowntree, & Parker, in press Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (in press). ‘It'd be useful, but I wouldn't use it’: Barriers to university students' feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032[Taylor & Francis Online]). In other words, just as Reeve and Tseng (2011 Reeve, J., & Tseng, M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of student engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]) defined “agentic engagement” as a “student's constructive contribution into the flow of the instruction they receive” (p. 258), likewise proactive recipience is a form of agentic engagement that involves the learner sharing responsibility for making feedback processes effective.