The effect of imaginative play actions on language development in five-year-old children

The study, using 60 five-year-olds, investigated forms of play: (a) self-action, (b) puppet-action, and (c) control treatments and differences between the sexes on aural language recall scores using semantic, absolute, and syntactic criteria. The results of the preliminary analyses between treatment groups and sex differences on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the Harris-Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test indicated no significant main or interaction effects. The subjects in treatment groups and boys and girls were relatively homogeneous on receptive language IQ and motor coordination, respectively. With 3 × 2 factorial analysis of variance experiments run on aural language recall for each of the three criteria, several significant results were noted: (a) Using the semantic criteria for scoring aural language recall, self-action play yielded significantly higher mean scores than either puppet-action or control groups. (b) Using the semantic criteria to score aural language recall, girls yielded significantly higher scores than boys. (c) Using either the absolute or syntactic scoring criteria, the results of the analysis indicated no significant main or interaction effects on aural language recall.     

Concurrent and predictive validity of the WISC-R,McCarthy Scales,Woodcock-Johnson,and academic achievement

Twenty-six normal first-grade children (M = 7.0 years) were administered the WISC-R, the McCarthy Scales, and the Woodcock-Johnson Scales of Cognitive Ability. Two years later, their levels of academic achievement were determined by way of the WRAT and global teacher ratings of classroom performance. Pearson intercorrelations among the summary indices of the three intellectual measures were significant and uniformly high (rang. 77-.95). Correlations between first-grade ability scores and third-grade achievement measures also were significant (range .64-.90), suggesting strong predictive validity for each of the cognitive instruments. Though not significantly so, the correlations between the Woodcock-Johnson and achievement tended to be the highest. The results indicate that all three intellectual measures are appropriate for predicting later academic achievement in young school-aged children.     

阁楼上的研究所

威廉皇帝物理研究所(Kaiser Wilhelm Institut für Physik)正式成立于1917年10月,爱因斯坦是它的首任所长。研究所并没有一栋宏伟宽敞的建筑,其办公地点就设在这位著名所长的私人住房里。正如柏林的马普科学史研究所所长雷恩     

Has inclusion become a barrier to inclusion?

In this reflective piece the author focuses on the meaning that he made of inclusion in a book that was published almost twenty years ago. He then reflects on the meaning he makes of the current situation. He explores the problematic nature of the concept of inclusion, whether labels actually enable inclusion, research-informed implications of inclusion for those who do not experience SEND and the damaging impact of hyperaccountability and marketisation. He proposes that we may find future solutions by embracing complexities and educating for diversities.     

Young Children’s Ability to Produce Valid and Relevant Counter-Arguments

In collaborative problem solving, children produce and evaluate arguments for proposals. We investigated whether 3- and 5-year-olds (N = 192) can produce and evaluate arguments against those arguments (i.e., counter-arguments). In Study 1, each child within a peer dyad was privately given a reason to prefer one over another solution to a task. One child, however, was given further information that would refute the reasoning of their partner. Five-year-olds, but not 3-year-olds, identified and produced valid and relevant counter-arguments. In Study 2, 3-year-olds were given discourse training (discourse that contrasted valid and invalid counter-arguments) and then given the same problem-solving tasks. After training, 3-year-olds could also identify and produce valid and relevant counter-arguments. Thus, participating in discourse about reasons facilitates children’s counter-argumentation.     

ATriple Iron triathlon leads to a decrease in total body mass but not to dehydration

A loss in total body mass during an ultraendurance performance is usually attributed to dehydration. We identified the changes in total body mass, fat mass, skeletal muscle mass, and selected markers of hydration status in 31 male nonprofessional ultratriathletes participating in a Triple Iron triathlon involving 11.4 km swimming, 540 km cycling and 126.6 km running. Measurements were taken prior to starting the race and after arrival at the finish line. Total body mass decreased by 1.66 kg (SD = 1.92; -5.3 kg to +1.2 kg; p < .001), skeletal muscle mass by 1.00 kg (SD = 0.90; -2.54 kg to +2.07 kg; p < .001), and fat mass by 0.58 kg (SD = 0.78; -1.74 kg to +0.87 kg; p < .001). The decrease in total body mass was associated with the decrease in skeletal muscle mass (r = .44; p < .05) and fat mass (r = .51; p < .05). Total body water and urinary specific gravity did not significantly change. Plasma urea increased significantly (p < .001); the decrease in skeletal muscle mass and the increase in plasma urea were associated (r = .39; p < .05). We conclude that completing a Triple Iron triathlon leads to decreased total body mass due to reduced fat mass and skeletal muscle mass but not to dehydration. The association of decrease in skeletal muscle mass and increased plasma urea suggests a loss in skeletal muscle mass.     

Agreement in Body Fat Estimates Between a Hand-Held Bioelectrical Impedance Analyzer and Skinfold Thicknesses in African American and Caucasian Adolescents

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of active versus passive recovery on 6 repeated Wingate tests (30-s all-out cycling sprints on a Velotron ergometer). Method: Fifteen healthy participants aged 29 (SD = 8) years old (body mass index = 23 [3] kg/m²) participated in 3 sprint interval training sessions separated by 3 to 7 days between each session during a period of 1 month. The 1st visit was familiarization to 6 cycling sprints; the 2nd and 3rd visits involved a warm-up followed by 6 30-s cycling sprints. Each sprint was followed by 4 min of passive (resting still on the ergometer) or active recovery (pedaling at 1.1 W/kg). The same recovery was used within each visit, and recovery type was randomized between visits. Results: Active recovery resulted in a 0.6 W/kg lower peak power output in the second sprint (95% confidence interval [CI] [ ? 0.2, ? 0.8 W/kg], effect size = 0.50, p < .01) and a 0.4 W/kg greater average power output in the 5th and 6th sprints (95% CI [+0.2,+0.6 W/kg], effect size = 0.50, p < .01) compared with passive recovery. There was little difference between fatigue index, total work, or accumulated work between the 2 recovery conditions. Conclusions: Passive recovery is beneficial when only 2 sprints are completed, whereas active recovery better maintains average power output compared with passive recovery when several sprints are performed sequentially (partial eta squared between conditions for multiple sprints = .38).