Biology Undergraduates' Misconceptions about Genetic Drift

This study explores biology undergraduates' misconceptions about genetic drift. We use qualitative and quantitative methods to describe students' definitions, identify common misconceptions, and examine differences before and after instruction on genetic drift. We identify and describe five overarching categories that include 16 distinct misconceptions about genetic drift. The accuracy of students' conceptions ranges considerably, from responses indicating only superficial, if any, knowledge of any aspect of evolution to responses indicating knowledge of genetic drift but confusion about the nuances of genetic drift. After instruction, a significantly greater number of responses indicate some knowledge of genetic drift (p = 0.005), but 74.6% of responses still contain at least one misconception. We conclude by presenting a framework that organizes how students' conceptions of genetic drift change with instruction. We also articulate three hypotheses regarding undergraduates' conceptions of evolution in general and genetic drift in particular. We propose that: 1) students begin with undeveloped conceptions of evolution that do not recognize different mechanisms of change; 2) students develop more complex, but still inaccurate, conceptual frameworks that reflect experience with vocabulary but still lack deep understanding; and 3) some new misconceptions about genetic drift emerge as students comprehend more about evolution.     

Considering ‘teacher resilience’ from critical discourse and labour process theory perspectives

This article considers the construct of ‘teacher resilience’ from critical discourse and labour process perspectives in order to cast new light on what has been traditionally viewed from a psychological perspective. In this respect, the construct of resilience is placed in the broad political landscape of teachers’ work and the labour process of teaching, within a neoliberal globalised economic paradigm. Importantly, this article argues that any conceptualisations of teacher resilience should be critically appraised and not simply ‘taken for granted’. While the concept of developing ‘teacher resilience’ as a means, for example, of addressing alarmingly high rates of early career teacher attrition may sound like a good idea, it is important to consider the way such constructs can be used to shape and potentially control teacher identity and the nature of teachers’ work.     

The influence of crank rate on peak oxygen consumption during arm crank ergometry

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of three imposed crank rates on the attainment of peak oxygen consumption ( V O 2peak ) and other physiological responses during incremental arm crank ergometry. Twenty physically active, although non-specifically trained, males volunteered for the study. They completed an exercise protocol using an electrically braked arm ergometer (Lode Angio, Groningen, Netherlands) at crank rates of 60, 70 and 80 rev·min -1 . The order of tests was randomized and they were separated by at least 2 days. Peak V O 2 was significantly higher ( P ? 0.05) at 70 and 80 rev·min -1 than at 60 rev·min -1 . Peak ventilation volume increased as a function of crank rate and was higher ( P ? 0.05) at 80 than at 60 rev·min -1 . Peak heart rate was higher ( P ? 0.05) at 70 and 80 rev·min -1 than at 60 rev·min -1 . Furthermore, 70 and 80 rev·min -1 resulted in an extended test time compared with 60 rev·min -1 . The greater physiological responses observed during the tests at the two faster crank rates might have been the result of a postponement of acute localized neuromuscular fatigue, allowing for more work to be completed. We recommend, therefore, that an imposed crank rate between 70 and 80 rev·min -1 should be used to elicit V O 2peak and other physiological responses in arm crank ergometry.     

Evaluation Dimensions for Full-Time Head Coaches at NCAA Division II Institutions

Respondents (n=34) participated in three rounds of a Delphi study to determine dimensions that should be included in the evaluation of full-time head coaches at NCAA Division II institutions. Delphi panel members included athletic directors, intercollegiate head coaches, and student-athletes at randomly selected NCAA Division II institutions. In total, 175 (92.6 per cent) of the initial 189 unique behaviors reached consensus for inclusion. Only two behaviors (1.1 per cent) reached consensus for exclusion. Twelve behaviors (6.3 per cent) failed to reach consensus. Differences between respondent groups were found in only seven (3.7 per cent) of the 189 behaviors. Only small absolute differences in mean importance ratings of the twenty categories were found. To develop a more practical evaluation tool, the results obtained were refined, lowering the number of categories to fifteen and the number of behaviors to ninety-one. The refined evaluation tool contains the most important dimensions for evaluating head coaches. It represents the essentials of a coaching evaluation.