LONG-TERM INHIBITION OF Na~ /H~ EXCHANGE ATTENUATES CARDIAC REMODELING AFTER MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION IN RATS

ＩＮＴＲＯＤＵＣＴＩＯＮＴｈｅＮａ /Ｈ ｅｘｃｈａｎｇｅｒ (ＮＨＥ)ｉｓａｐＨ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｏｒｙｐｒｏｔｅｉｎｐｒｅｓｅｎｔｉｎｔｈｅｐｌａｓｍａｍｅｍ ｂｒａｎｃｅｏｆｃａｒｄｉｏｍｙｏｃｙｔｅｓａｎｄｏｔｈｅｒｃｅｌｌｔｙｐｅｓ.ＡｌｔｈｏｕｇｈｓｅｖｅｒａｌｉｓｏｆｏｒｍｓｏｆＮＨＥｈａｖｅｂｅｅｎｄｅ ｃｒｉｂｅｄ,ｔｈｅｐｒｅｄｏｍｉｎａｎｔｉｓｏｆｏｒｍｉｎｔｈｅｈｅａｒｔｉｓｔｈｅｕｂｉｑｕｉｔｏｕｓＮＨＥ 1 ,ｗｈｉｃｈｕｎｄｅｒｃｅｎｔａｉｎｐｈｙｓｉｏｌｏｇｉｃａｌｃｏｎｄｉｔｉ…     

A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement

This study is a meta-analysis of the question “What are the effects on achievement of different teaching techniques?” Twelve categories of teaching techniques were specified. Among these are questioning, wait-time, testing, focusing, manipulative, presentation approach, inquiry or discovery, audio-visual, and teacher direction. A coding form was then developed to allow for the uniform examination and recording of 76 variables from each study. One or more effect sizes were calculated and coded for each study. Over 300 microfilmed dissertations covering the past 30 years were examined. Some 2000 ERIC science abstracts were reviewed and suitable studies obtained. Finally, journal articles were reviewed. A total of 400 effect sizes representing 160 studies were produced. The main effect size overall was 0.34. Thus, for all samples considered the experimental science teaching techniques on the average resulted in one-third of a standard deviation improvement over traditional techniques. Mean effect sizes also were calculated for each technique. More than 20 other variables such as class size, community type, and science subject area were cross-tabulated with effect size.     

Cultural sensitivity: How important is it for effective home visits?

The implementation of home visits as a technique for involving parents has recently resurfaced. This educational trend has received additional emphasis as the nation attempts to meet the national education goals — particularly the first goal, which states, By the year 2000, all children will enter school ready to learn.Sally A. LaPoint is an Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of South Carolina at Beaufort. She also administers the At Risk Early Childhood Family Initiative, located at the historic Penn Center on St. Helena Island, South Carolina. Gloria S. Boutte is an Assistant Professor, Kevin J. Swick is a Professor, and Mac H. Brown is an Associate Professor, Early Childhood Education, at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.     

Impaired Students: Applying the Therapeutic Process Model to Graduate Training Programs

This article updates and adds to the literature on graduate trainee impairment provided by L. Forrest, N. Elman, S. Gizara, and T. Vacha‐Haase (1999) in their comprehensive literature review. Based on recommendations by Forrest et al., a program model for dealing with impaired trainees is proposed. The 5‐step therapeutic process model includes (a) informed consent, (b) intake and assessment, (c) evaluation, (d) treatment planning and follow‐up, and (e) termination. Each step is explained within the context of graduate training programs, and key points to consider are discussed.     

The Right Tools for the Wrong Job: a response to Leach and Siddall on parental involvement in the teaching of reading with particular reference to Pause,Prompt and Praise tutoring

Leach and Siddall (1990) present a comparison study of four methods of involving parents in the teaching of reading. It is argued here that one of the procedures they employed, ‘Pause, Prompt and Praise’, was used inappropriately with a group of children for whom it was not designed. Consequently, any conclusions drawn from this study about the relative effectiveness of ‘Pause, Prompt and Praise’ compared with the other procedures are unwarranted.     

Some Reservations About the Use of the Analysis of Co‐variance in Educational Research: a response to Dugard and Todman

Dugard and Todman (this issue), in this journal, present convincing arguments for the greater utilisation by educational researchers of the analysis of co‐variance when analysing data from experiments employing pre‐test‐post‐test control group designs. We applaud this initiative, but caution against too readily employing co‐variance procedures where it may be inappropriate to do so and repeat some of the cautions concerning ‘pitfalls for the unwary’ previously voiced (Lambourne & Wheldall, 1979).