Peer tutoring in reading in Scotland:Thinking big

A large-scale randomised-controlled trial of reading tutoring in 80 schools in Scotland used the Paired Reading (PR) technique. On long-term evaluation, cross-age PR was significantly better than regular teaching, but same-age was not. On short-term evaluation, PR pupils did significantly better than control pupils in both years, and cross-age and same-age were similarly effective. Low socio-economic pupils, lower reading ability pupils, girls and reading with maths tutoring groups did significantly better. Implementation was good in parts, but some important aspects of technique were rare. Reading gains were significantly greater for those with mistakes about every 2 minutes and those who stopped reading to talk every 5 to 7 minutes. Significant gains in self-esteem were seen in same-age and cross-age groups, and for tutees and tutors, but not for controls. The relationship of achievement gain to quality of technique and socio-emotional gains is discussed, with implications for practice. Copyright © 2011 UKLA.

Thinking about the past, present and future in adolescents growing up in Children's Homes

The present study tested the hypothesis that adolescents growing up in Children's Homes differ from adolescents growing up in a family environment in how they think about their past, present and future, in the way they make decisions about future events and rewards, and in their levels of empathy and perspective taking. The participants were 40 adolescents from Children's Homes in Budapest, Hungary, and 40 age- and gender-matched controls. Group differences were found in participants' past and present time perspectives, and girls from Children's Homes showed reduced consistency in their plans for the future. Additionally, gender differences emerged in empathy, perspective taking, and in participants' present and future time perspectives. We discuss the implications of our findings for interventions to improve the future prospects of adolescents in Children's Homes.

Can Safe Clinical Thinking be Taught?

OBJECTIVES: To determine if: (a) safe clinical decision making can be taught to undergraduate final year medical students and (b) if such students can be taught to specifically recognise illness severity from nominal clinical data. 
METHODS: 115 final year undergraduate medical students completed a 3 hour interactive Safe Thinking Workshop which focussed entirely on nontechnical skills such as potential perceptive pitfalls, attention to detail, teamwork and safe clinical decision making. The study involved students inspecting and interpreting a set of arterial blood gas results relating to a patient with acute respiratory distress, then answering a short questionnaire addressing biochemical diagnosis, clinical diagnosis and effective management. A separate question was embedded in the questionnaire to determine if astute students could determine the severity of the illness from the CO2 value provided. The study group (n = 58) completed the questionnaire immediately after the Safe Thinking Workshop, whilst the control group (n = 57) completed the questionnaire prior to the Workshop.
RESULTS: The mean total score for study students was 80.51%, with a mean total score of 63.86% for the control group (Student’s t-test; p<0.05). Correct classification of illness severity was observed in 10.35% of study students, compared with 3.51% of control students (p<0.05). 
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that safe clinical decision making and recognition of illness severity can be fostered by specific teaching in the nontechnical skill areas described above.