Validity of SenseWear® Armband v5.2 and v2.2 for estimating energy expenditure

We compared SenseWear Armband versions (v) 2.2 and 5.2 for estimating energy expenditure in healthy adults. Thirty-four adults (26 women), 30.1 ± 8.7 years old, performed two trials that included light-, moderate- and vigorous-intensity activities: (1) structured routine: seven activities performed for 8-min each, with 4-min of rest between activities; (2) semi-structured routine: 12 activities performed for 5-min each, with no rest between activities. Energy expenditure was measured by indirect calorimetry and predicted using SenseWear v2.2 and v5.2. Compared to indirect calorimetry (297.8 ± 54.2 kcal), the total energy expenditure was overestimated (P < 0.05) by both SenseWear v2.2 (355.6 ± 64.3 kcal) and v5.2 (342.6 ± 63.8 kcal) during the structured routine. During the semi-structured routine, the total energy expenditure for SenseWear v5.2 (275.2 ± 63.0 kcal) was not different than indirect calorimetry (262.8 ± 52.9 kcal), and both were lower (P < 0.05) than v2.2 (312.2 ± 74.5 kcal). The average mean absolute per cent error was lower for the SenseWear v5.2 than for v2.2 (P < 0.001). SenseWear v5.2 improved energy expenditure estimation for some activities (sweeping, loading/unloading boxes, walking), but produced larger errors for others (cycling, rowing). Although both algorithms overestimated energy expenditure as well as time spent in moderate-intensity physical activity (P < 0.05), v5.2 offered better estimates than v2.2.     

The federal communications commission and the regulation of children's television

This paper takes a specific issue, the regulation of children's television, and shows how that issue might best be examined. The method of analysis used is the Krasnow‐Longley‐Terry systems approach to broadcast regulation.     

Industrial Experience Projects: A Balance of Process and Product

Students in the final year of the Bachelor of Computing degree at Monash University must do a full year group project as a capstone subject. Each group of five or six builds a real system which is normally for a client outside the university. The project usually necessitates learning some skills that have not been taught in the course. Each group works on a different project. The emphasis is on management issues and the software development process as much as on the product, with a set of deliverables and deadlines throughout the year, and an assessment strategy reflecting this.     

Anytime,anywhere, anyplace: Articulating the meaning of flexible delivery in built environment education

This paper describes a process for negotiating aspects of flexible learning through the consideration of flexibility from student, teacher and institutional perspectives. The process aimed to reconcile, in an Australian school of architecture, the competing demands of learner's increasing flexibility demands, teacher's attributes and pedagogical objectives and the structural limitations that militate against the delivery, resourcing and maintenance of flexibility. Results indicated that the only categories of flexibility (out of time, content, access/entry requirements, pedagogy and delivery) that were demanded by students were pedagogy (but only in the choice of working in groups) and delivery; whereas teachers were merely willing to offer flexibility in delivery. Thus, what students desired of teaching, and what teachers were able to provide, were multiple mediums of knowledge delivery that allowed students flexibility in when and where they could learn. These findings, it is suggested, have relevance for course redesign throughout the creative/visual arts.