This investigation used the Process‐Person‐Context‐Time Model (U. Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1995) to study adolescent diabetic control. The dependent variable was a blood test measuring diabetic control (i.e., HbA1 C [glycosylated hemoglobin]). Independent variables included adolescent/maternal perceptions of family environment and communication, blood glucose monitoring frequency, age of disease onset, disease duration, race/ethnicity, gender, and mother's education level. Stepwise regression revealed that glucose monitoring and problem communication explained 17% of the variance.

Liles is a Licensed Professional Counselor and National Certified Counselor. Liles' is also Associate Director for Educational Assessment for the NCA&T Engineering Research Center Education and Outreach program, and she is co-principal investigator for research on the NSF Content Mentoring of Middle Grade Math and Science Teachers research study. Her teaching interests include assessment and appraisal, instrument construction, education research methodology, and research ethics.

An examination of differences in perceptions of self-efficacy between students in CORE-accredited rehabilitation counseling programs and students in CACREP -accredited clinical mental health counseling programs enrolled in practicum/internship classes is absent in the literature. Results indicated there was not a significant difference (p = .05) between the total self-efficacy scores between both treatment groups (CORE and CACREP). Further, there was not a significant difference between helping skills, session management, and counseling challenging situations scores for both treatment groups (CORE and CACREP). Predictors of self-efficacy for CACREP participants consisted of prior work experience in a field other than helping. Predictors of self-efficacy for CORE participants were gender.

No abstract

This National Science Foundation supported Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) project takes into account the need for a better integration of theory, experiment, and applications. We have reported three different approaches toward enhancing undergraduate nanoscience and engineering education with an emphasis on devices and systems. We are using the practical approach of direct engagement of the students in ongoing research in our advanced materials laboratories. Our first activity for enhancing nanoscience and nanoengineering education was to introduce simple concepts of nanoscience and technology into existing required undergraduate engineering courses. Introducing the concepts of nanoscience and engineering at this early stage of undergraduate education was found to positively impact student interest in registering for a technical elective nanotechnology course that we developed as our second initiative. Under our third initiative, a limited number of undergraduates well-imbued with this foundational perspective were recruited and financially supported to engage in a semester-long research project related to nanotechnology. The efforts made by the NUE team have befitted mechanical undergraduate students at sophomore, junior and senior levels. While the Nanotechnology-I and nanotechnology-II course have jointly attracted enrollments of more than 30 per year, the introduction of basic concepts in existing course has impacted all the mechanical engineering undergraduates (over 200) for the last two years. NUE fund has also been used to support financially over 15 undergraduates students via stipend, wages, and REU programs. One of the students taking nanotechnology was selected and sent to Hannover Medical School, Germany as a part to provide international experience in the area of nano-biotechnology. To study the efficacy of the 'Nanotechnology-I course (MEEN 530.1: Fundaments of Nanoscience and Engineering), a mixed-method design is being used for the second time. With IRB approval, undergraduate students were asked to complete content-specific, pre-/post-tests inventorysurveys and participate in an exit interview at the end of the semester. The inventory was developed by NUE team members with expertise in nanotechnology undergraduate education. Inventory items are clustered across five domains, including: (a) Nanoscale dimension and basics, (b) Synthesis methods, (c) structural characterization, (d) Carbon-nanostructure and Bioengineering, and (e) Device applications. The exit interview was recorded and is in the process of being transcribed. A preliminary comparison of the pre-and post-data review of pre-/post-assessment data suggests that students experienced positive change-in-learning related to course content in all the five categories.