Kulturelle Werte des Orients und des Okzidents — Die Aufgabe des Lehrers Internationales Seminar für Junglehrer. Bursa/Tiirkei,Juli 1960

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

Cardiorespiratory and perceptual responses to arm crank and wheelchair exercise using various handrims in male paraplegics

The purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of 10-in [0.25-m] versus 16-in [0.41-m] wheelchair handrims on cardiorespiratory and psychophysiological exercise responses during wheelchair propulsion at selected velocities. Fifteen male paraplegics (27.0 +/- 5.5 yrs) performed three discontinuous exercise tests (ACE = arm crank ergometer; WERG = wheelchair roller ergometer) and two 1600-m performance-based track trials (TRACK) under simulated race conditions. There were no significant differences in HR, VO2, VE, HLa, or category-ratio ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) using different handrims during wheelchair propulsion at 4 km.h-1. In contrast, at 8 km.h-1 subjects demonstrated a 13% lower steady state VO2 (p less than .05) using the 10-in handrims, coincident with a 23% lower VE. Steady state HR during WERG at 8 km.h-1 using the 10-in (124.4 +/- 3.9 b.min-1) or 16-in (130.6 +/- 4.6 b.min-1) handrims were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences between ACE or WERG conditions during maximal effort for VO2 or VE. However, HRpeak during ACE was 7% higher than HRpeak during WERG16 (183 +/- 15 b.min-1 vs. 171 +/- 12 b.min-1, p less than .05), and whole blood HLa during ACE was also significantly higher (by 2.3-2.5 mmol; p less than .05) compared to WERG. There were no significant differences for HR, performance time, or RPE between trials using different handrim diameters during the 1600-m event.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Four Anxieties about Open-mindedness: Reassuring Peter Gardner

In this article four anxieties expressed by Peter Gardner about our conception of open-mindedness and its educational implications are examined. It is argued that none of Gardner's anxieties undermine our view that open-mindedness requires neither neutrality nor indecision with respect to a matter in question, but rather that open-mindedness is compatible with holding of beliefs and commitments about such matters provided that the beliefs and commitments are formed and held in such a way that they are open to revision in the light of evidence and argument.