The initiation of distance learning at Thomas Jefferson University: the library as integral partner

In 1998 Thomas Jefferson University offered its first entirely online course. Librarians and library staff were integral in the development, support, evaluation, and refinement of this course. While staff members may have taken non-traditional roles in this effort, their roles generally fell within the broad guidelines of assisting University faculty with information and knowledge management. The development and support of distance course offerings will continue to be a focus at Scott Memorial Library.     

A review of batting in men's cricket

In this review, we critically evaluate the scientific research into the morphology and physiology of cricket batsmen. We consider all aspects of the motor control of this skill, in the context of research into dynamic interceptive actions, the biomechanics (kinematics and kinetics) of the various phases of batting strokes and injuries to batsmen. Some attention is also devoted to batting equipment and to psychological factors in batting. Because of the lack of published scientific research into women's cricket, this review focuses on the men's game and covers research on batsmen of various playing standards. For the future, we see as a high priority research into injury mechanisms, rather than simple injury statistics, and the role of cricket equipment design in injury prevention. A second priority is for multi- or inter-disciplinary research, linking the biomechanics of batting to the underlying motor control of the movements and the effect of environmental information. Biomechanical studies of the variability of the batsman's movements are needed, and these should be related to the compensatory variability proposal of ecological psychology. Clearly, there is also a need for scientific research into batting in women's cricket, which has been inadequately researched to date.     

Acute effects of intense interval training on running mechanics

The aims of this study were to determine if there are significant kinematic changes in running pattern after intense interval workouts, whether duration of recovery affects running kinematics, and whether changes in running economy are related to changes in running kinematics. Seven highly trained male endurance runners (VO 2max = 72.3 +/- 3.3 ml kg -1 min -1 ; mean +/- s) performed three interval running workouts of 10 X 400 m at a speed of 5.94 +/- 0.19 m s -1 (356 +/- 11.2 m min -1 ) with a minimum of 4 days recovery between runs. Recovery of 60, 120 or 180 s between each 400 m repetition was assigned at random. Before and after each workout, running economy and several kinematic variables were measured at speeds of 3.33 and 4.47 m s -1 (200 and 268 m min -1 ). Speed was found to have a significant effect on shank angle, knee velocity and stride length (P ? 0.05). Correlations between changes pre- and post-test for VO 2 (ml kg -1 min -1 ) and several kinematic variables were not significant (P > 0.05) at both speeds. In general, duration of recovery was not found to adversely affect running economy or the kinematic variables assessed, possibly because of intra-individual adaptations to fatigue.     

Effects of active and passive recovery on performance during repeated-sprint swimming

Abstract

The effect of active and passive recovery on repeated-sprint swimming bouts was studied in eight elite swimmers. Participants performed three trials of two sets of front crawl swims with 5 min rest between sets. Set A consisted of four 30-s bouts of high-intensity tethered swimming separated by 30 s passive rest, whereas Set B consisted of four 50-yard maximal-sprint swimming repetitions at intervals of 2 min. Recovery was active only between sets (AP trial), between sets and repetitions of Set B (AA trial) or passive throughout (PP trial). Performance during and metabolic responses after Set A were similar between trials. Blood lactate concentration after Set B was higher and blood pH was lower in the PP (18.29 ± 1.31 mmol · l^?1 and 7.12 ± 0.11 respectively) and AP (17.56 ± 1.22 mmol · l^?1 and 7.14 ± 0.11 respectively) trials compared with the AA (14.13 ± 1.56 mmol · l^?1 and 7.23 ± 0.10 respectively) trial (P < 0.01). Performance time during Set B was not different between trials (P > 0.05), but the decline in performance during Set B of the AP trial was less marked than in the AA or PP trials (main effect of sprints, P < 0.05). Results suggest that active recovery (60% of the 100-m pace) could be beneficial between training sets, and may compromise swimming performance between repetitions when recovery durations are short (< 2 min).