Needs of elementary and middle school teachers developing online courses for a virtual school

Eight teams of elementary and middle school teachers developed pilot online courses for the North Carolina Virtual Public School (NCVPS) in the USA. A qualitative case study with focus groups and a follow‐up survey helped to identify common needs of these non‐traditional course designers during course development efforts. Findings suggest virtual schools can better support non‐traditional course designers by providing leadership components such as technical expertise, regular feedback, and clear expectations, including an understanding of the target students. Findings further suggest designers need a range of bite‐sized professional development on replicating model courses, using course management systems, assessing learners online, designing with copyright and safety issues in mind, integrating Web tools, and developing course documentation for deployment. The article concludes with a discussion of support structures that may aid instructors tasked with online course development.     

Differential training loads and individual fitness responses to pre-season in professional rugby union players

We aimed to compare differentiated training loads (TL) between fitness responders and non-responders to an eight-week pre-season training period in a squad of thirty-five professional rugby union players. Differential TL were calculated by multiplying player’s perceptions of breathlessness (sRPE-B) and leg muscle exertion (sRPE-L) with training duration for each completed session. Performance-based fitness measures included the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 (YYIRTL1), 10-, 20-, and 30-m linear sprint times, countermovement jump height (CMJ) and predicted one-repetition maximum back squat (P1RM Squat). The proportion of responders (≥ 75% chance that the observed change in fitness was > typical error and smallest worthwhile change) were 37%, 50%, 52%, 82% and 70% for YYIRTL1, 20/30-m, 10-m, CMJ and P1RM Squat, respectively. Weekly sRPE-B-TL was very likely higher in YYIRTL1 responders (mean difference = 18%; ±90% confidence limits 11%), likely lower in 20/30-m (19%; ±20%) and 10-m (18%; ±17%) responders, and likely higher in CMJ responders (15%; ±16%). All other comparisons were unclear. Weekly sRPE-B discriminate between rugby union players who respond to pre-season training when compared with players who do not. Our findings support the collection of differential ratings of perceived exertion and the use of individual response analysis in team-sport athletes.     

A comparison of two methods for the calculation of accumulated oxygen deficit

The aim of this study was to compare accumulated oxygen deficit data derived using two different exercise protocols with the aim of producing a less time-consuming test specifically for use with athletes. Six road and four track male endurance cyclists performed two series of cycle ergometer tests. The first series involved five 10 min sub-maximal cycle exercise bouts, a VO2peak test and a 115% VO2peak test. Data from these tests were used to estimate the accumulated oxygen deficit according to the calculations of Medb? et al. (1988). In the second series of tests, participants performed a 15 min incremental cycle ergometer test followed, 2 min later, by a 2 min variable resistance test in which they completed as much work as possible while pedalling at a constant rate. Analysis revealed that the accumulated oxygen deficit calculated from the first series of tests was higher (P < 0.02) than that calculated from the second series: 52.3 +/- 11.7 and 43.9 +/- 6.4 ml x kg(-1), respectively (mean +/- s). Other significant differences between the two protocols were observed for VO2peak, total work and maximal heart rate; all were higher during the modified protocol (P < 0.01 and P < 0.02, respectively). Oxygen kinetics were also significantly faster during the modified 2 min maximal test. We conclude that the difference in accumulated oxygen deficit between protocols was probably due to a reduced oxygen uptake, possibly caused by a slower oxygen on-response during the 115% VO2peak test in the first series, and VO2-power output regression differences caused by an elevated VO2 during the early stages of the second series.