Leeds City College

Abstract ABSTRACT Background To determine, from October 2010 to October 2018, the epidemiology of Deep Neck Infections (DNIs), regarding the detection, the identification and the susceptibility to antimicrobials of causative microorganisms, in Thessaly-Central Greece. Methods An analysis of data from a prospective database was conducted on 610 consecutive patients with DNIs treated in the Otolaryngology / Head & Neck Surgery Department of University Hospital of Larissa. Demographics, clinical features and microbiological data were analyzed. Results Among the 610 patients (1,9/1 male to female ratio, mean age: 39,24±17,25) with DNIs, 584 had a single space (95,7%), while the remaining had a multi-space (4,3%) DNI. The most common areas affected were the peritonsillar space (84,6%) followed by the submandibular space (6,5%). Clinical samples were obtained from 462 patients, and were tested by culture and by the application of 16S rRNA PCR. Two hundred fifty-five samples (55,2%) gave positive cultures, in which Streptococcus pyogenes and Staphylococcus aureus were predominant. The application of the 16S rRNA PCR revealed that 183 samples (39,6%) were positive for bacterial DNA; 22 of them, culture negative, were found to be positive for anaerobic ( Fusobacterium necrophorum, Actinomyces israellii etc) and for fastidious microorganisms ( Brucella mellitensis, Mycobacterium avium ). Conclusion DNIs represent a medical and surgical emergency and evidence-guided empirical treatment with intravenous infusion of antibiotics at the time of diagnosis is mandatory, highlighting the importance of epidemiological studies regarding the causative microorganisms. Although, in our study, the predominant pathogens were S. pyogenes and S. aureus, the combination of culture and molecular assay revealed that anaerobic bacteria play also a significant role in the pathogenesis of DNIs.

This is a book analysing how tutors have, could and might deal with difficult, challenging or disruptive students in many different post-school education contexts, currently referred to as the Education and Training sector. It is, overall, a book based on primary research and reflection on experiences, observations, case studies and interviews with teachers and students about challenging experiences in the classroom, particularly showing the differences between what theorists, authorities, trainers and managers say and the reality of what actually happens in classroom practice. It focuses on the 16-plus age group, but many of the ideas and experiences could be translated into other teaching and learning contexts. There are interviews with tutors, teacher educators, trainees and managers who have faced disruptive or difficult students or have worked out strategies for dealing with these situations. It also questions disruptive students and begins the process of hearing the narrative from their point of view. It not only covers what various gurus, theorists, models and textbooks say, but also analyses the complexity and difficulty of the relationship between tutors and learners where disruption takes place in a range of diverse situations and institutions.

The background of this chapter is that after investigating classroom management for many years, I was asked by managers at different colleges to speak to staff about strategies for counteracting the problems tutors faced in many classes on a daily basis. A question that emerged was how might managers in the Education and Training sector support lecturers in coping with stressful situations. My research methods aimed to determine managers’ views, using a survey to find out a sample of perspectives. This led to focus groups with managers opening up exploratory discussions, followed by an interview with an experienced manager working with challenging classes. The purpose of this interview was to review model strategies that might be used to help managers support staff and students create more effective learning environments in the future. The next stage was to subject managers’ suggestions to the views of teachers. What did tutors think of managers’ suggestions?

This paper draws on data from over 60 students in order to find out how disruptive students viewed disrupted classes. The purpose of this research was to prepare training for tutors who were finding disruptive classes difficult to teach. Classes were identified as ‘disruptive’ by their tutors and then the researcher was asked by managers to give some training to the relevant tutors. The scope of this small-scale research was to report on the findings of what students said about disruptive classes. The rationale behind the research was that if we could find out what disruptive students said they wanted, teachers might be in a better position to teach them. The problem then was how to frame questions so that they would be understandable by the students and yet produce meaningful, authentic data. The findings showed that several students from these classes said that they had been involved in physical and verbal violence in class and that learning was compromised. From this research it emerged that the sample of students from classes identified as disruptive by their teachers said that their preferred sessions would be supportive, respectful, one-to-one; they would learn more, be involved in discussions and enjoyed practical work. In other words all the features that would be associated with normative good practice in teaching and learning. The consequent challenge implicit in this research is how to help teachers communicate these strategies, attitudes and values in a disruptive and challenging environment.

This small-scale qualitative research inquiry investigates how a small sample of experienced teachers dealt with disruptive students in their classes in the Lifelong Learning Sector (LLS) in West Yorkshire. I wanted to continue my earlier writing on these issues by listening to what teachers said about their challenging experiences on the front line of the classroom interfacing with negative student behaviour. I firstly discuss a research instrument for collecting this data from these teachers’ experiences, and also explore their strategies for dealing with disruptive student behaviours. It seemed very important to hear from practitioners rather than relying on what textbooks advised. Previously I was interested in the experiences of trainee tutors facing these difficulties; in this piece I am more concerned with how experienced tutors deal with these unpleasant circumstances. I outline the findings that this questionnaire elicited in terms of key negative incidents that these teachers had experienced in class and the strategies they had deployed to overcome the social and emotional challenges of disruptive student behaviour. I briefly summarise these tutors’ perspectives on the support they felt they did or did not receive on these issues. I conclude with an analysis of the findings and question the problematics of this research, its meaning, validity and possible application in other teaching contexts.

To evaluate the role of reflection in the development of critical thinking, this chapter takes a cross-disciplinary approach. Criticality is rooted in the philosophical debate about subject-object notions of truth, reflected in a widening educational divide and impact on the reflective practice paradigm, flaws in epistemology reveal the dilemma in approaches to verifying truth. The subject-object paradox is mirrored in competing models of reflection linked to the theory practice divide. Questions of validity and context have polarised current thinking about the role of reflective practice in learning. The work throws light on issues impacting the scope of reflective activities in education and wider socio political implications. The discourse supports embedding critically reflective practice through a reconciled, contextualised approach of reasoned reflection described as 'reflective rationalism'.