College Students’ Reasons for Depression Nondisclosure in Primary Care

Unwillingness to share depression experiences with primary care physicians contributes to the undertreatment of depression. This project examined college students’ reasons for depression nondisclosure to primary care providers (PCPs). Undergraduate participants read a vignette describing someone with depression and completed measures of disclosure barriers. Analyses indicated 26% of respondents would NOT disclose depression symptoms to PCPs. Reasons for nondisclosure included difficulty initiating the depression conversation, medication aversion, and fear of referral to a psychologist. Also, anger toward the vignette character varied with disclosure willingness, suggesting that nondisclosers feel more stigma than disclosers and are less likely to engage in psychotherapy. Because engagement in pharmacological and/or psychotherapeutic treatment requires identification of depression in healthcare settings, increased understanding of disclosure barriers could increase students’ access to depression treatment.     

Changes in the Most-Cited Scholars and Works Over 25 Years: The Evolution of the Field of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Cohn and Farrington’s work in citation analysis has examined scholarly influence within criminological research for over 25 years. The current analysis tracks the ten most-cited scholars and each scholar’s most-cited works in four international criminology journals and six American criminology and criminal justice journals over twenty-five years and five time periods—1986–1990, 1991–1995, 1996–2000, 2001–2005, and 2006–2010. This approach extends the traditional approach to citation analysis by documenting increases and decreases in individual citation careers as well as in the most-cited scholarly contributions of the most-cited scholars during a period of significant growth in criminology. The most-cited works mostly fall within the areas of developmental and life-course criminology and criminal careers, reflecting the importance of these topics in criminology.     

The linguistic construction of expert identity in professor–student discussions of science

This study examines how participation in a verbal exchange during an inquiry-based classroom activity allows three college students and their science instructor to use linguistic signs (choices of words, grammatical structures, discursive structures, prosody and poetic discourse) to construct authority and expertise. Our work explores linguistic and interactional processes of identification (the dynamic construction and transaction of expert identity) and examines how discursive strategies adopted by the professor at different moments of the verbal exchange influence the students’ subsequent discursive practices and perceptions of authority. We adopt a dialogic, socio-constructivist perspective on identity, viewing personal identities as being partially constructed via interactional positioning. Our findings reveal that the attainment of expertise involves two different types of language-mediated processes: the transmission of a professional vision or intension and the emergence of a perception of agency among students. The former is centered on referential-denotative meanings of speech (elicitation of standard account and operational definition) while the latter requires effective use of pragmatic–performative functions of speech (non-evaluative and more than minimal recipient practices). Consideration is given to the need for science instructors to be able to utilize pragmatic functions of language strategically to encourage students to position themselves within the identity of science expertise.     

Reviews

Foster , John , L. (Editor ). (1977). Reluctant to Read? Edinburgh Reading Tests - Stages 1 and 4 - Godfrey Thomson Unit. Dubin , F. and Olshtain , E. (1977). Facilitating Language Learning. Skitt , Frank . (1978). Themes for Language Learning.     

Books and articles of academic interest

Books and articles of academic interest     

Adapting the delivery of learning materials to student preferences: Two studies with a course model based on ‘cases’

Current printed courses of the Open universiteit (Ou) have been designed according to a variety of course models; for example the ‘learning unit model’ or the ‘textbook‐workbook model’ (van den Boom & Schlusmans 1991). Considering the potential of the ILCE approach (Valcke & Martens, this issue), one can imagine new and innovative course models that build on the interactivity and flexibility possibilities of such an environment An essential feature of the ILCE approach is that developers can consider student differences when designing and producing learning materials.

In this article we will explore the problem of adapting the delivery of learning materials to student characteristics in relation to a course based on ‘cases’ in the law domain. Two different study modes are researched: a study mode that starts with the theory and next moves to practical work with the cases versus a study mode that starts with the practical work and next moves to the theoretical base.

Two studies are presented. Within the exploratory study, the research questions focus on the potential interrelations between student characteristics and the preference/choice for one of the two study modes. From the results can be concluded that almost all students from the Open universiteit prefer a theory‐based study mode, because they have a relatively large amount of experience with this study mode and because they find it a successful study mode.

In the second study, an experimental design is adopted with students studying in one of four different conditions: two study modes of printed learning materials and two study modes of interactive learning materials. In contrast with the exploratory study students clearly indicate a more diverse preference for certain study modes. Students also differ in their preference for the delivery mode. However the more traditional study and delivery mode (theory‐based and printed learning material) remains more popular. Again this might again be due to the greater experience students have with this approach. Only two student characteristics are significantly related to opting for the practice‐based study mode: the experience level with a study mode and one's prior knowledge with the subject matter. Comparable results were detected regarding the preferred delivery mode: students with little prior knowledge more readily prefer a printed book, probably because they have a better overview.