Law Library

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the third of the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981. Image from 1935 UM calendar.

Legal Research Library

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the third of the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981. On verso: Xmas card of Arthur Lyon Cross.

The back of the Legal Research Library

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the thirdof the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981.

Law Quad

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the third of the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981.

Legal Research Library

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the third of the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981.

Legal Research Library

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the third of the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981. Image from 1935 UM calendar.

Legal Research Library

York and Sawyer, architects. The Wiliam W. Cook Legal Research Building was completed in 1931, the third of the four buildings William W. Cook gave to form the Law Quadrangle, 1924-1933. In 1955, the original six level stackroom was increased to ten levels. The underground addition designed by Gunnar Birkerts Associates was completed in 1981.

University of Michigan Football Team, 1950

Top Row: Bob Dingman, Russ Rescorla, Ben Pedersen, Leslie Popp, Dick McWilliams, Don Rahrig, Mark Scarr, Tom Johnson, John Hess, Peter Kinyon, Leo Koceski, Don Peterson, Tom Witherspoon, Gene Hinton, Fred Pickard, Don Dugger, Bob Littleson, Bruce Bartholomew, Dick Strozewski, Bill Putich, James Skala, Merritt Green, Dick Farrer, Don Oldham.

3RD Row: David Stinson, Lowell Perry, Frank Howell, Norman Jackson, Coaches Bill Orwig, George Ceithaml, J. T. White, Bennie Oosterbaan, Jack Blott, Cliff Keen, Ernie McCoy, Don Robinson, Dave Hill, Terry Nuif, Wes Bradford, Art Dunne.

2nd Row: Dave Tinkham, Carl Brunsting, Allen Jackson, Harry Smale, Tom Kelsey, Dave Ray, Carl Kreager, Bill Ohlenroth, Capt. Al Wahl, Charles Ortmann, Jim Wolter, Harry Allis, Ozzie Clark, Don Dufek, Joe Beel.

Front Row: Ted Kress, John Powers, Bob Hurley, Bill Billings, James Eldridge, Ralph Straffon, Richard Aartila, Jerry Burns, Russ Osterman, Bud Reeme, Bob Timm, Stanley King, Ralph Stribe.

Fallon, assistant trainer, UM Football ca. 1920

[Item loaned to library for scanning]

PRÁTICAS DE RESPONSABILIDADE SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL INTERNA EM PEQUENAS EMPRESAS DO GRANDE ABC

A Responsabilidade Social Empresarial representa um dos destaques das discussões sobre o papel das empresas e seu compromisso com os diversos públicos com a qual se relacionam. Por isso mesmo, este tema tem demandado esforços e a atenção das empresas e de diferentes setores da sociedade e do governo implicando, desta forma, numa concepção de Responsabilidade Social para além do que determina a lei tendo, ainda, as empresas que atuar de maneira responsável com todos seus stakeholders. Um dos aspectos do compromisso social se refere ao público interno como um diferencial competitivo das empresas no processo de gestão. Desta forma, o presente trabalho tem como objetivo identificar se empresas de pequeno porte do ramo industrial desenvolvem práticas internas de Responsabilidade Social Empresarial. Este trabalho, de caráter qualitativo, foi delineado por meio de pesquisa descritiva realizada em empresas localizadas na região do Grande ABC, selecionados a partir do Guia ABCD. Para tanto, utilizou-se de questionário estruturado, adaptado do instrumento de coleta de dados desenvolvido pelo Instituto Ethos de Responsabilidade Social Empresarial em parceria com o Sebrae, como instrumento de coleta. O questionário foi aplicado em 14 empresas do Grande ABC do ramo industrial. Os resultados demonstraram que as empresas pesquisadas possuem, em sua maioria, práticas de responsabilidade social interna, principalmente, as práticas que não necessitam de grande investimento ou são determinadas pela lei. Outras empresas que não possuem as referidas práticas estão em processo de conscientização.

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.