Books of the Month

THE DEAL OF THE CENTURY: THE BREAKUP OF AT&T by Steve Coll (New York: Atheneum, 1986—$18.95)

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY ECONOMICS: A GUIDE FOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS by Harold L. Vogel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986—$24.95)

THE CONTROL REVOLUTION: TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY by James R. Beniger (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986—$25.00)     

‘Teamwork’ or ‘Working as a Team’? The Theory and Practice of Top Team Working in UK Higher Education

This article focuses on the theory and practice of teamwork in ‘top management teams’ in UK higher education institutions. It is informed by some of the key findings from a recent two‐year research project sponsored by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education that investigated the different ways in which UK higher education institutions organise their ‘top management’ and ‘senior management’ structures ( Kennie and Woodfield, 2008 ). The authors discuss literature from the corporate and higher education sectors on the meaning of ‘teamwork’ in top teams (e.g. Bensimon and Neumann, 1993 ; Katzenbach, 1998 ; Wageman et al., 2008 ) and relate the findings to the challenges of top level team working in higher education settings. Particular issues discussed include: the terminology related to higher education top teams, areas of decision‐making and time‐management, team orientation and agenda setting, team behaviours and team roles, team performance and evaluation, location, logistical support and resources, and team development. The authors conclude that the challenges of top team working in higher education settings are similar to those found in the corporate sector, albeit nuanced by different organisational cultures, and suggest some key principles to help top teams in higher education institutions improve their ability to work effectively together.     

Thermoneutral immersion exercise accelerates heart rate recovery: A potential novel training modality

This study compared heart rate recovery (HRR) after incremental maximal exercise performed at the same external power output (P_ext) on dry land ergocycle (DE) vs. immersible ergocycle (IE). Fifteen young healthy participants (30?±?7 years, 13 men and 2 women) performed incremental maximal exercise tests on DE and on IE. The initial P_ext on DE was 25?W and was increased by 25?W/min at a pedalling cadence between 60 and 80?rpm, while during IE immersion at chest level in thermoneutral water (30°C), the initial P_ext deployment was at a cadence of 40?rpm which was increased by 10?rpm until 70?rpm and thereafter by 5?rpm until exhaustion. Gas exchange and heart rate (HR) were measured continuously during exercise and recovery for 5?min. Maximal HR (DE: 176?±?15 vs. IE 169?±?12?bpm) reached by the subjects in the two conditions did not differ (P?>?.05). Parasympathetic reactivation parameters (ΔHR from 10 to 300?s) were compared during the DE and IE HR recovery recordings. During the IE recovery, parasympathetic reactivation in the early phase was more predominant (HRR at Δ10–Δ60?s, P?<?.05), but similar in the late phase (HRR at Δ120–Δ300?s, P?>?.05) when compared to the DE condition. In conclusion, incremental maximal IE exercise at chest level immersion in thermoneutral water accelerates the early phase parasympathetic reactivation compared to DE in healthy young participants.     

Turning a Service Learning Experience into a Model of Student Engagement: The Lighthouse Heritage Research Connections (LHRC) Project in Hong Kong

The digital shift has provided easy access to academic library users, and yet, the usage of archival collections continues to be low. At the same time, the need for innovation in library services for cultural heritage scholarship and its advancement is emerging. This paper outlines a library-led service-learning program that connects students with lighthouse artifacts, archival collections, scholars in global academia, and wider communities. Student engagement cases are provided to illustrate the way in which the librarian utilizes the Framework of Information Literacy for Higher Education by ACRL to work closely with students. These cases also demonstrate how students can contribute to knowledge creation and preservation efforts for a specific cultural heritage topic that is not static, but which keeps receiving new contributions or additions to the depository. Thus, this paper is an answer to the ACRL's call for pilot projects to be assessed and shared with the wider community of academic librarians and support staff. It also builds on emerging roles for academic libraries like engaged learning. Librarians must move beyond simply seeing themselves as partners. Instead, librarians should see themselves as prime facilitators that co-create and co-develop cultural heritage research and historical projects by connecting actors and resources more effectively than any single actor can do alone.     

Common core writing and language standards and aligned state assessments: a national survey of teacher beliefs and attitudes

A random sample of 482 teachers in grades 3 through 8 from across the United States were surveyed about (a) their perceptions of the version of the Common Core writing and language standards adopted by their state and their state’s writing assessment, (b) their preparation to teach writing, and (c) their self-efficacy beliefs for teaching writing. Regardless of grade, a majority of teachers believed that the adopted standards are more rigorous than prior standards, provide clear expectations for students that can be straightforwardly translated into activities and lessons, and have pushed them to address writing more often. However, many surveyed felt the new writing and language standards are too numerous to cover, omit key aspects of writing development, and may be inappropriate for struggling writers. Moreover, most did not feel that professional development efforts have been sufficient to achieve successful implementation, and nearly one in five respondents was not familiar with the standards. The respondents were generally less sanguine regarding their state’s writing test, with elementary teachers even less positive than middle school teachers on some aspects, though nearly a third were unfamiliar with their state test. A majority believed state writing tests, though more rigorous than prior tests, fail to address important aspects of writing development, do not accommodate the needs of students with diverse abilities, and require more time than is available to prepare students. Additionally, many teachers believed professional development efforts have been insufficient to help them understand measurement properties of the assessments and how to use test data to identify students’ writing needs. Teachers who were better prepared to teach writing and who held more positive personal teaching efficacy beliefs for writing exhibited generally more positive perceptions of their state’s standards. In contrast, only teacher efficacy beliefs made a unique contribution to the survey respondents’ attitudes and beliefs about their state’s writing test.