Search

Blended learning (BL) continues to evolve in pedagogy as theorists conceptualise pathways for students to engage with course materials. It is important to establish theories to inform future developments in BL to facilitate learning styles and learning objects. However, implementing theories into effective teaching and learning practice is a constant challenge for stakeholders, as students face many barriers while they adapt to higher education. Multiple influences propel or deter student participation with the learning process. Therefore, motivating students to participate in BL requires analysis and discussion. This Mixed Method research study explores first year undergraduate students’ perception of BL and investigates the positive and negative influences impacting their motivation to engage with learning. The sample population of 1,764 first year students at Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology (GMIT) were surveyed, returning a response rate of 29%. The questionnaire was formatted through Survey Monkey, communicated through college emails, and analysed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS software. The survey involved ranking and rating questions on student perception of BL over a thirteen week period. The survey included an open question seeking student recommendations on how to enhance motivation to learn during their programme of study. Findings highlight the fact BL does impact motivation to engage with learning. However, barriers to engage with learning remain as students continue to face many challenges. Many students suffer in silence and this research gives these students a voice. Students call for collaboration between management, teachers, and students alike to advance the teaching and learning process. The study confirms that students have different learning styles, are responsive to appropriate learning objects, and require training to adapt to BL environments.

Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) has been a source of inspiration for many relativistic theories in the social sciences and beyond (1962, 1970, 1996). Despite an ever-growing number of books and articles, however, the question of what sort of relativism, if any, and on what grounds it follows from SSR has not yet been adequately addressed. This thesis attempts to shed light on the connections between the Kuhnian view of science and relativism by investigating the precise mechanisms by which various kinds of relativism might be grounded in Kuhn's account of science. Traditionally, arguments for relativism, in SSR and beyond, have been framed on the presupposition of the possibility of incommensurability between scientific paradigm or conceptual schemes. However, Donald Davidson, Hilary Putnam and others have argued that relativism is impossible or incoherent, because if paradigms are incommensurable to the degree claimed then we cannot engage with other paradigms in order to consider them genuine alternatives and find no means of judging objectively between them, as an argument for relativism would require. Contrary to their views, this thesis argues that, within a Kuhnian framework, there could be levels of incommensurability that will be hospitable to some forms of relativism. However, we need a finer grade understanding of the very idea of incommensurability as well as of relativism in order to see how plausible arguments for relativism could be framed based on Kuhn's views of science in SSR. This thesis shows that a non-scientist observing from outside of a scientific paradigm, lacking objective criteria to assess the meaning of terms in scientific language; the methods and standards, including knowledge claims, of the paradigm; and the ontological commitments of the paradigm, can articulate arguments for relativism at any point in the Kuhnian cycle of scientific revolution. Scientists working within a scientific paradigm adhere to the semantic, methods and standards, and ontological criteria of the paradigm, accepting these standards as objectively correct, and so they do not frame arguments for relativism about science at any point in the Kuhnian cycle. The thesis does not defend relativism about science; rather, it is an attempt at clarifying some core issues in a contentious area of philosophy of science.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic and progressive form of lung disease of unknown etiology for which a paucity of therapies suggest benefit, and for which none have demonstrated improved survival. Acute exacerbation of IPF (AE-IPF) is defined as a sudden acceleration of the disease or an idiopathic acute injury superimposed on diseased lung that leads to a significant decline in lung function. An AE-IPF is associated with a mortality rate as high as 85% with mean survival periods of between 3 to 13 days. Under these circumstances, mechanical ventilation (MV) is controversial, unless used a as a bridge to lung transplantation. Judicious fluid management may be helpful. Pharmaceutical treatment regimens for AE-IPF include the use of high dose corticosteroids with or without immunosuppressive agents such as cyclosporine A (CsA), and broad spectrum antibiotics, despite the lack of convincing evidence demonstrating benefit. Newer research focuses on abnormal wound healing as a cause of fibrosis and preventing fibrosis itself through blocking growth factors and their downstream intra-cellular signaling pathways. Several novel pharmaceutical approaches are discussed.