Taking Students Seriously: Their rights to be safe at school

In a broader study of students' rights at school, high school students in New Zealand were asked about whether gay/lesbian/bisexual students would feel safe at their school. Data are reported from a nationwide survey of 107 high schools involving 821 students (aged 15-16 years) and 438 staff who responded to a questionnaire. The article focuses on how students and staff describe attitudes to lesbian/gay/bisexual students, and identifies the most prevalent discourses, including a counter-discourse of acceptance. Although attention to a discourse of acceptance risks the effect of undermining the implications of extreme violence against lesbian/gay/bisexual students, it also challenges the pervasive construction of lesbian/gay/bisexual students as victims. The authors argue that attention to discourses of acceptance might open up further discursive and material strategies for working towards the safety of all school students, including lesbian/gay/bisexual students.     

How Do Profoundly Deaf Children Learn to Read?

Reading requires two related, but separable, capabilities: (1) familiarity with a language, and (2) understanding the mapping between that language and the printed word (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000; Hoover & Gough, 1990). Children who are profoundly deaf are disadvantaged on both counts. Not surprisingly, then, reading is difficult for profoundly deaf children. But some deaf children do manage to read fluently. How? Are they simply the smartest of the crop, or do they have some strategy, or circumstance, that facilitates linking the written code with language? A priori one might guess that knowing American Sign Language (ASL) would interfere with learning to read English simply because ASL does not map in any systematic way onto English. However, recent research has suggested that individuals with good signing skills are not worse, and may even be better, readers than individuals with poor signing skills (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000). Thus, knowing a language (even if it is not the language captured in print) appears to facilitate learning to read. Nonetheless, skill in signing does not guarantee skill in reading—reading must be taught. The next frontier for reading research in deaf education is to understand how deaf readers map their knowledge of sign language onto print, and how instruction can best be used to turn signers into readers.     

Development, Implementation, and Validation of a Computerized Test for Statewide Assessment

How does a testing component function in an integrated learning system? How can you customize computerized tests to meet local specifications? How are computerized tests implemented and evaluated? Is the pay-off of computerized testing justified?     

Comparison of methods for determining power generated on a rope-braked cycle ergometer during low-intensity exercise

This study compares the instrumentation and analysis techniques used when determining the power expended pedalling a rope-braked ergometer manufactured by Monark (Sweden) during a low intensity test. Power values were generated by eight subjects. The instrumentation consisted of load cells to measure the rope brake forces, a tachometer to measure the flywheel velocity and instrumented pedal cranks manufactured by Schoberer Rad Messtechnik (SRM). The subjects pedalled a rope-braked ergometer at 60 rev min^-1, against a resistance of 3 kg, for 5 minutes. Three different measurements of the mean power were recorded and these were compared with the value given by Monark. The SRM cranks provided two sets of results using different software packages supplied with the cranks. SRM standard software is used for taking measurements during training and cycle races over long time periods. An additional piece of software is provided by SRM called Ptnew, which gives readings of torque and pedal cadence over periods up to 30 seconds. Using the values supplied by Monark each subject generated 180 W of power. The mean power for the eight subjects, measured using the SRM cranks, was 170.36 W (SD 4.11) using the alternative SRM software (Ptnew) over a 30 second period and 173.68 W (SD 2.21) using the standard SRM software. From the direct measurement of the brake forces and flywheel velocity the mean power across the eight subjects was 148.90 W (SD 5.89). The SRM cranks measure the input power, whereas the direct measurement system measures the power output excluding mechanical losses. These values give a figure for the mechanical efficiency for the roped-braked ergometer of 88%. It was found that Monark overestimates the power generated by the subjects when compared with both the SRM systems and the direct measurement instrumentation.