Assessment in higher education (HE) is often focused on concluding modules with one or more tests that students need to pass. As a result, both students and teachers are primarily concerned with the summative function of assessment: information from tests is used to make pass/fail decisions about students. In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the formative function of assessment and focus has shifted towards how assessment can stimulate learning. However, this also leads to a search for balance between both functions of assessment. Programmatic assessment (PA) is an assessment concept in which their intertwining is embraced to strike a new balance. A growing number of higher education programmes has implemented PA. Although there is consensus about the theoretical principles that form the basis for the design of PA, programmes make various specific design choices based on these principles, fitting with their own context. This paper provides insight into the design choices that programmes make when implementing PA and into the considerations that play a role in making these design choices. Such an overview is important for research purposes because it creates a framework for investigating the effects of different design choices within PA.
Background: Over the years, a plethora of frailty assessment tools has been developed. These instruments can be basically grouped into two types of conceptualizations – unidimensional, based on the physical–biological dimension – and multidimensional, based on the connections among the physical, psychological, and social domains. At present, studies on the comparison between uni- and multidimensional frailty measures are limited. Objective: The aims of this paper were: 1) to compare the prevalence of frailty obtained using a uni- and a multidimensional measure; 2) to analyze differences in the functional status among individuals captured as frail or robust by the two measures; and 3) to investigate relations between the two frailty measures and disability.
Objective: To obtain insight into (a) the prevalence of nursing staff–experienced barriers regarding the promotion of functional activity among nursing home residents, and (b) the association between these barriers and nursing staff–perceived promotion of functional activity. Method: Barriers experienced by 368 nurses from 41 nursing homes in the Netherlands were measured with the MAastrIcht Nurses Activity INventory (MAINtAIN)-barriers; perceived promotion of functional activities was measured with the MAINtAIN-behaviors. Descriptive statistics and hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed. Results: Most often experienced barriers were staffing levels, capabilities of residents, and availability of resources. Barriers that were most strongly associated with the promotion of functional activity were communication within the team, (a lack of) referral to responsibilities, and care routines. Discussion: Barriers that are most often experienced among nursing staff are not necessarily the barriers that are most strongly associated with nursing staff–perceived promotion of functional activity.
Everyone has the right to participate in society to the best of their ability. This right also applies to people with a visual impairment, in combination with a severe or profound intellectual and possibly motor disability (VISPIMD). However, due to their limitations, for their participation these people are often highly dependent on those around them, such as family members andhealthcare professionals. They determine how people with VISPIMD participate and to what extent. To optimize this support, they must have a good understanding of what people with disabilities can still do with their remaining vision.It is currently difficult to gain insight into the visual abilities of people with disabilities, especially those with VISPIMD. As a professional said, "Everything we can think of or develop to assess the functional vision of this vulnerable group will help improve our understanding and thus our ability to support them. Now, we are more or less guessing about what they can see.Moreover, what little we know about their vision is hard to communicate to other professionals”. Therefore, there is a need for methods that can provide insight into the functional vision of people with VISPIMD, in order to predict their options in daily life situations. This is crucial knowledge to ensure that these people can participate in society to their fullest extent.What makes it so difficult to get this insight at the moment? Visual impairments can be caused by a range of eye or brain disorders and can manifest in various ways. While we understand fairly well how low vision affects a person's abilities on relatively simple visual tasks, it is much more difficult to predict this in more complex dynamic everyday situations such asfinding your way or moving around during daily activities. This is because, among other things, conventional ophthalmic tests provide little information about what people can do with their remaining vision in everyday life (i.e., their functional vision).An additional problem in assessing vision in people with intellectual disabilities is that many conventional tests are difficult to perform or are too fatiguing, resulting in either no or the wrong information. In addition to their visual impairment, there is also a very serious intellectual disability (possibly combined with a motor impairment), which makes it even more complex to assesstheir functional vision. Due to the interplay between their visual, intellectual, and motor disabilities, it is almost impossible to determine whether persons are unable to perform an activity because they do not see it, do not notice it, do not understand it, cannot communicate about it, or are not able to move their head towards the stimulus due to motor disabilities.Although an expert professional can make a reasonable estimate of the functional possibilities through long-term and careful observation, the time and correct measurement data are usually lacking to find out the required information. So far, it is insufficiently clear what people with VZEVMB provoke to see and what they see exactly.Our goal with this project is to improve the understanding of the visual capabilities of people with VISPIMD. This then makes it possible to also improve the support for participation of the target group. We want to achieve this goal by developing and, in pilot form, testing a new combination of measurement and analysis methods - primarily based on eye movement registration -to determine the functional vision of people with VISPIMD. Our goal is to systematically determine what someone is responding to (“what”), where it may be (“where”), and how much time that response will take (“when”). When developing methods, we take the possibilities and preferences of the person in question as a starting point in relation to the technological possibilities.Because existing technological methods were originally developed for a different purpose, this partly requires adaptation to the possibilities of the target group.The concrete end product of our pilot will be a manual with an overview of available technological methods (as well as the methods themselves) for assessing functional vision, linked to the specific characteristics of the target group in the cognitive, motor area: 'Given that a client has this (estimated) combination of limitations (cognitive, motor and attention, time in whichsomeone can concentrate), the order of assessments is as follows:' followed by a description of the methods. We will also report on our findings in a workshop for professionals, a Dutch-language article and at least two scientific articles. This project is executed in the line: “I am seen; with all my strengths and limitations”. During the project, we closely collaborate with relevant stakeholders, i.e. the professionals with specific expertise working with the target group, family members of the persons with VISPIMD, and persons experiencing a visual impairment (‘experience experts’).
In the Netherlands, the theme of transitioning to circular food systems is high on the national agenda. The PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has stressed that commuting to circular food chains requires a radical transformation of the food chain where (a) natural resources must be effectively used and managed (soil, water, biodiversity, minerals), (b) there must be an optimum use of food by reducing (food) waste . . ., (c) less environmental pressure, and (d) an optimum use of residue streams. The PBL also recognizes that there should be room for tailored solutions and that it is important to establish a benchmark, to be aware of impacts in the production chain and the added value of products. In the line of circular food systems, an integrated nature-inclusive circular farming approach is needed in order to develop a feasible resource-efficient and sustainable business models that brings shared value into the food chain while invigorating the rural areas including those where agricultural vacancy is occurring. Agroforestry is an example of an integrated nature-inclusive circular farming. It is a multifunctional system that diversifies and adapts the production while reducing the carbon footprint and minimizing the management efforts and input costs; where trees, crops and/or livestock open business opportunities in the food value chains as well as in the waste stream chains. To exploit the opportunities that agroforestry as an integrated resource-efficient farming system adds to the advancement towards (a) valuable circular short food chains, (b) nature-based entrepreneurship (nature-inclusive agriculture), and (c) and additionally, the re-use of abandoned agricultural spaces in the Overijssel province, this project mobilizes the private sector, provincial decision makers, financers and knowledge institutes into developing insights over the feasible implementation of agroforestry systems that can bring economic profit while enhancing and maintaining ecosystem services.
Het Lectorenplatform Biobased Economy heeft in de afgelopen twee jaar gewerkt aan een onderzoeksagenda in vier hoofdstukken: ingrediënten/inhoudstoffen, materialen, energie/nutriënten en maatschappij. Op basis van deze agenda zijn verschillende samenwerkingen geïnitieerd en gerealiseerd, zoals GoChem, enkele NWA projecten, de Learning Community Biofuels en de samenwerking met het Lectorenplatform Circulaire Economie op maatschappelijke thema’s. Er is dus al veel gerealiseerd in samenwerking en programmering. Niettemin staan er, terugkijkend, nog enkele ambities uit de eerste twee jaar overeind: het toetsen van de thema’s in meetings met bedrijven; het ontwikkelen van (meer) gezamenlijke onderzoeksprojecten; het ontwikkelen en bestendigen van een meerjarig omvattend (NWO-achtig) programma. Voor dit laatste is GoChem een goede start, maar het zou de komende twee jaar verder moeten groeien, bijvoorbeeld in een biobased SPRONG programma. Daarnaast blijven we werken aan de herkenbaarheid en vindbaarheid van het biobased onderzoek, de lectoraten en de agenda. We breiden de ambities uit naar publieke bekendheid van biobased economy in het algemeen. Verder willen we de mogelijkheid van een eigen publicatiereeks onderzoeken. Nieuw voor de komende jaren is de ambitie om onderzoekskwaliteit beter meetbaar te maken. Hoe meet je kwaliteit in praktijkonderzoek: impact is een ander doel dan wetenschappelijke publicaties. In de eerste termijn van het Lectorenplatform BBE was er additioneel en geoormerkt budget voor internationale samenwerking binnen Living Lab Biobased Brazil (LLBB). Dit budget was gekoppeld aan een gecombineerde Braziliaans/Nederlandse onderzoekscall. Dat is in de komende twee jaar niet voorzien.
