Differences among fastball,curveball, and change-up pitching biomechanics across various levels of baseball

Controversy continues whether curveballs are stressful for young baseball pitchers. Furthermore, it is unproven whether professional baseball pitchers have fewer kinematic differences between fastballs and off-speed pitches than lower level pitchers. Kinematic and kinetic data were measured for 111 healthy baseball pitchers (26 youth, 21 high school, 20 collegiate, 26 minor league, and 18 major league level) throwing fastballs, curveballs, and change-ups in an indoor biomechanics laboratory with a high-speed, automated digitising system. Differences between pitch types and between competition levels were analysed with repeated measures ANOVA. Shoulder and elbow kinetics were greater in fastballs than in change-ups, while curveball kinetics were not different from the other two types of pitches. Kinematic angles at the instant of ball release varied between pitch types, while kinematic angles at the instant of lead foot contact varied between competition levels. There were no significant interactions between pitch type and competition level, meaning that kinetic and kinematic differences between pitch types did not vary by competition level. Like previous investigations, this study did not support the theory that curveballs are relatively more stressful for young pitchers. Although pitchers desire consistent kinematics, there were differences between pitch types, independent of competition level.     

Earth surface modeling for education: How effective is it? Four semesters of classroom tests with WILSIM-GC

This paper presents results from a randomized experimental design replicated over four semesters that compared students’ performance in understanding landform evolution processes as measured by the pretest to posttest score growth between two treatment methods: an online interactive simulation tool and a paper-based exercise. While both methods were shown to be effective at enhancing students’ learning of the landform concepts and processes, there was no statistically significant difference in score growth between the two instructional methods. However, the attitudinal survey indicated that students consistently favored the simulation approach over the paper-based exercise. With the simulation method, female students showed greater score growth than males, especially for test items requiring higher level thinking. This indicates that the visually rich interactive simulation tool may be integrated to better support female students’ learning in geoscience. Science major students generally outperformed non-science major students in terms of score growth, which suggests that background knowledge played an important role in realizing the potential of computer modeling in enhancing students’ learning. Sufficient scaffolding is necessary to maximize the effect of interactive earth surface modeling in geoscience education.