Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda

This article focuses on (a) theoretical underpinnings of social constructivism and multicultural education and (b) aspects of social constructivism that can provide frameworks for research in multicultural science education. According to the author, multicultural science education is “a field of inquiry with constructs, methodologies, and processes aimed at providing equitable opportunities for all students to learn quality science.” Multicultural science education research continues to be influenced by class, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, and different lifestyles; however, another appropriate epistemology for this area of research is social constructivism. The essence of social constructivism and its implications for multicultural science education research includes an understanding of whatever realities might be constructed by individuals from various cultural groups and how these realities can be reconstituted, if necessary, to include a scientific reality. Hence, multicultural science education should be a field of study in which many science education researchers are generating new knowledge. The author strives to persuade other researchers to expand their research and teaching efforts into multicultural science education, a blending of social constructivism with multicultural science education. This blending is illustrated in the final section of this article. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

The effectiveness of a 17-week lifestyle intervention on health behaviors among airline pilots during COVID-19

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a 17-week, 3-component lifestyle intervention for enhancing health behaviors during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsA parallel-group (intervention and control) study was conducted amongst 79 airline pilots over a 17-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. The intervention group (n = 38) received a personalized sleep, dietary, and physical activity (PA) program. The control group (n = 41) received no intervention. Outcome measures for sleep, fruit and vegetable intake, PA, and subjective health were measured though an online survey before and after the 17-week period. The changes in outcome measures were used to determine the efficacy of the intervention.ResultsSignificant main effects for time × group were found for International Physical Activity Questionnaire-walk (p = 0.02) and for all other outcome measures (p < 0.01). The intervention group significantly improved in sleep duration (p < 0.01; d = 1.35), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score (p < 0.01; d = 1.14), moderate-to-vigorous PA (p < 0.01; d = 1.44), fruit and vegetable intake (p < 0.01; d = 2.09), Short Form 12v2 physical score (p < 0.01; d = 1.52), and Short Form 12v2 mental score (p < 0.01; d = 2.09). The control group showed significant negative change for sleep duration, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score, and Short Form 12v2 mental score (p < 0.01).ConclusionResults provide preliminary evidence that a 3-component healthy sleep, eating, and PA intervention elicit improvements in health behaviors and perceived subjective health in pilots and may improve quality of life during an unprecedented global pandemic.     

A comparison of learning disabled college students' achievement from WRAT and PIAT grade,standard, and subtest scores

Although there have been a number of studies that compared the test results of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) and the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT), none had been accomplished with a group of college-aged learning disabled students. Indeed, few researchers had investigated populations over 16 years of age, and none had compared grade scores and standard scores with appropriate subtest scores as derived from these two instruments. With the recent emphasis on postsecondary education for the learning disabled, it is deemed critical that researchers should develop a data base for study of this population. The current research demonstrated that although both tests purport to measure academic achievement in reading, spelling, and arthmetic, in reality, significantly different scores are derived when WRAT (1965, 1978) norms are compared to PIAT (1970) norms as stated in grade scores and standard scores. These significant differences in the grade and standard scores clearly indicate that the WRAT and the PIAT, particularly in regard to arthmetic and to a lesser degree to reading, are not interchangeable instruments of academic achievement.