Search

This article describes a new and unique context for integrating STEM and literacy instruction—Novel Engineering. Oftentimes, STEM design challenges are focused on developing solutions to th...

In two studies, we examined the relationship between resistance to heteronormativity and political engagement among heterosexuals. In the first, we examined the relationship between awareness of heterosexual privilege, resistance to heteronormativity, and engagement in lesbian and gay rights activism among contemporary heterosexualcollegestudents.Asexpected,womenscoredhigherthanmenonboth heterosexual privilege awareness and resistance to heteronormativity. For women, both heterosexual privilege awareness and resistance to heteronormativity were related to engagement in lesbian and gay rights activism. In the second study, we examined heteronormative attitudes in three cohorts of women spanning 40 years (college graduates in 1951/2, 1972, and 1992), looking at both generational differences in endorsement of heteronormative attitudes and the relationship of these attitudes to engagement in lesbian and gay rights activism. As expected, the two younger cohorts of women were significantly less heteronormative than the oldest cohort. Implications of these results are discussed. Privilege, defined as socially conferred benefits or advantages that result from mere membership in a particular social group, is now well understood to confer both blindness to others’ experience, and to one’s own power (Pratto & Stewart, 2012). Although systems of privilege exist worldwide, this article focuses on a particular context—the UnitedStates.Intwostudies,weexamine someconditions ∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Samantha A. Montgomery

In this chapter we examine the UP series of documentary films, a longitudinal examination of the lives of 14 British individuals. The first film, 7 UP!, depicted participants at age 7 and was produced in 1963. The most recent, 49 UP, was produced in 2005. We consider the value and the limitations of the series as a study of personality development and describe the trajectories of the lives of three participants in some detail.

We report a single center's 10-year experience with 21 consecutive cases of repeat aortic valve replacement for prosthesis-patient mismatch (P-PM) in which there was no hospital mortality among 12 patients treated for isolated P-PM. With an overall survival of 92% at a median follow-up of 4.5 years and functional class I symptoms in most survivors (73%), we conclude that repeat surgery for isolated P-PM has a relatively low mortality and a good intermediate-term clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVESWe sought to: 1) identify trends in the diagnostic testing of patients with prosthetic aortic valve (AVR) obstruction who undergo reoperation and 2) compare diagnostic test results with pathologic findings at surgery.BACKGROUNDIt is unclear whether Doppler transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) have reduced hemodynamic catheterization rates.METHODSWe reviewed 92 consecutive cases of AVR reoperation at a single center from 1989 to 1998, comparing 49 cases of mechanical AVR obstruction (group A) to 43 cases of bioprosthetic obstruction (group B). Preoperative Doppler TTE was performed in all cases.RESULTSIn group A cases, there was a marginally significant trend towards lower catheterization rates for the Gorlin AVR area, from 36% in 1989 to 1990 to 10% in 1997 to 1998 (p = 0.07), but diagnostic TEE utilization (47% of cases) did not vary. The cause of mechanical AVR obstruction was pannus in 26 cases (53%), mismatch (P-PM) in 19 (39%) and thrombosis in 4 (8%). The mechanism (pannus/thrombus vs. mismatch) was identified in 10% by TTE and 49% by TEE (p < 0.001). In group B cases, hemodynamic catheterization rates (21%) and diagnostic TEE utilization (21%) did not vary with time. Obstruction was caused by structural degeneration in 37 cases (86%), thrombosis in 3 (7%), mismatch in 2 (5%) and pannus in 1 (2%). The mechanism was correctly identified in 63% by TTE and in 81% by TEE (p = 0.18).CONCLUSIONSDoppler TTE is the primary means to diagnose AVR obstruction; hemodynamic catheterization is not routinely needed. In unselected patients with mechanical AVR obstruction, TEE differentiation of pannus or thrombus from mismatch is challenging.