Differences in trunk and upper extremity kinematics and segmental velocities during the offside forehand polo swing between male and female athletes

ABSTRACT

Although polo is a well-known equestrian sport, it is fundamentally misunderstood. The purpose of this study was to examine trunk and upper extremity kinematics and segmental velocities during the offside forehand polo swing between male and female athletes. Ten female and 17 male professional polo athletes volunteered. An electromagnetic tracking system collected kinematic data at 100 Hz while participants performed three offside forehand polo swings from a stationary wooden horse. One-way ANOVAs revealed statistically significant differences (p<0.05) in all kinematic variables and segmental velocities. Specifically, males exhibited a greater mean difference (MD=23°) of trunk flexion at take away (TA) and top of backswing (TOB)(MD=29°) trunk lateral flexion at ball contact (BC)(MD=23°), trunk rotation at TA(MD=97°) and TOB(MD=118°), shoulder abduction at TOB(MD=64°), and shoulder elevation at TOB(MD=13°) and BC(MD=40°). Females displayed greater trunk rotation at BC(MD=91°), shoulder elevation at TA(MD=19°), and elbow flexion at TA(MD=90°). Additionally, females generated greater segmental velocities early in the swing, while the males generated velocity later. The movement patterns observed amongst the males suggest energy is being transferred more efficiently along the kinetic chain, thus more efficient swing mechanics, but further investigation into the role of the trunk and lumbopelvic-hip complex in reference to the polo swing is warranted.     

A review of Catherine Milne��s book, The Invention of Science

Catherine Milne’s book, The Invention of Science, recounts the history of science (mainly Eurocentric) from cross-cultural, historical and philosophical worldviews. Scientists, science educators, and teachers would find this an interesting book, not only for themselves but also for those with whom they interact. Most accounts are of the great men in science with some to women in science, including reference to the exclusion of women from science. Milne provides thought-provoking activities to use in the classroom, like asking students to write the processes that occur when sugar dissolves in hot tea, with students including the three components of causal explanation. She also encourages teachers to use narratives to help students learn the context of discovery in science. In a comparison of analogical, deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning, she encourages teachers to pay attention to dialogical arguments. Book review author predicts that Milne’s book will fit well with the nation’s next generation science standards, still in development form. Milne succeeded in her goal “to combine aspects of the philosophy and history; not just to focus on specific scientific ideas but to provide a hint of the complex relationship between place and history, space and time, in the development of Eurocentric science.”     

Science for early adolescence teachers (science FEAT): A program for research and learning

This article is based on a paper which received the “Innovations in Teaching Science Teachers” award at the 1995 meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. The award is made possible by Delta Education. This material is based upon work supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 9253170). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.     

Forum: dialogue about dialogue—cogeneration, research and science education

This forum discussion focuses on seven themes drawn from Sonya’s fascinating paper: the terminology of “cogenerative dialogues,” the roles of participants and their power relations within such dialogues, the use of metaphor and analogy in the paper, science and science education for all students, the ways in which students’ expectations about learning change in innovative classrooms, teacher research and the “theory-practice gap,” and the tension between conducting cogenerative dialogues with individual students or with whole classes. These themes by no means exhaust the ideas in Sonya’s paper, but we feel that they have allowed us to explore the classroom research she reports, and to extend our discussion beyond the paper to explore some of these themes more broadly.