This article focuses on the limitations and possibilities of teaching as a research-based activity in the current context of further education (FE) practice. The article argues that research can deliver real improvements in the quality of teaching and learning in further education. To enable this improvement to take place, the article suggests that colleges will need a cultural shift in how they perceive research and build research capacity. It is argued that the technical/rational approaches to improving teaching and learning that currently pervade FE policy and practice limit the transformative potential of research. A much more unique and situated approach to research-based practice is required. The article argues that the current 'audit culture' of FE, whilst increasing accountability and control, does little to improve teaching and learning on the ground. A more active engagement in research by teachers will lead to improved learning cultures that will enable colleges to reach their stated aims and objectives. In moving towards achieving this two issues are important. First, there is a need to centrally address the deficit view of the FE practitioner, and to recognise the unique place of teachers to improve teaching and learning. Secondly, there is a need to raise the public level of such debate, by including examples of how to improve teaching and learning in FE through research. This article, based on the experiences of F/HE research practitioners working together, provides one such illustrative example of what may be achieved.

No abstract

Improving the quality of care for patients with chronic illness has become a high priority. Implementing training programs in disease management (DM) so the next generation of physicians can manage chronic illness more effectively is challenging. Residency training programs have no specific mandate to implement DM training. Additional barriers at the training facility include: 1) lack of a population-based perspective for service delivery; 2) weak support for self-management of illness; 3) incomplete implementation due to physician resistance or inertia; and 4) few incentives to change practices and behaviors. In order to overcome these barriers, training programs must take the initiative to implement DM training that addresses each of these issues. We report the implementation of a chronic illness management curriculum based on the Improving Chronic Illness Care (ICIC) Model. Features of this process included both patient care and learner objectives. These were: development of a multidisciplinary diabetes DM team; development of a patient registry; development of diabetes teaching clinics in the family practice center (nutrition, general management classes, and one-on-one teaching); development of a group visit model; and training the residents in the elements of the ICIC Model, ie, the community, the health system, self-management support, delivery system design, decision support, and clinical information systems. Barriers to implementing these curricular changes were: the development of a patient registry; buy-in from faculty, residents, clinic leadership, staff, and patients for the chronic care model; the ability to bill for services and maintain clinical productivity; and support from the health system key stakeholders for sustainability. Unique features of each training site will dictate differences in emphasis and structure; however, the core principles of the ICIC Model in enhancing self-management may be generalized to all sites.

More so than most other diseases, effective control of type 2 diabetes (DM) requires that patients are actively engaged in the self-management of their health. In this paper we define and characterize the elements of self-management and review the published literature for the evidence of the benefit of interventions that support patient self-management.

This paper measures the effectiveness of green industry firms' promotion and advertising expenditures in enhancing sales. Specifically the paper addresses the following three questions: 1) Are promotion and advertising expenditures effective in increasing sales of green industry firms? 2) What are the types of promotion and advertising efforts that have the highest returns for their investment? 3) How does the answer to these two questions change depending on the size of the firm? In order to answer these questions, a model was specified to measure the increase in sales for green industry firms as a result of promotion activities and the associated elasticities of promotion were used to calculate a benefit cost ratio. The returns to promotion expenditures differed depending on media used and also by firm size with ranges from not significant to $7.5 returns per every $1 allocated to promotion and advertising.