New Learning: a different way of approaching conference evaluation

New Learning (NL) is an innovative process aimed at collaborative learning in professional and scholarly events and is a new way of approaching evaluation at professional conferences. NL is a process integral to a conference that focuses on the learner and how and what they learn, rather than on presenters and presentations. Whereas most professional conferences claim learning as a primary objective, seldom do any structure or evaluate to maximize that objective. The NL process helps to structure and assess organizational learning as a primary outcome in addition to providing avenues for collection of traditional evaluation information. This article explains the NL process, reviews the literature of learning and evaluation, describes what NL is and how it works, and then compares and contrasts it with traditional evaluation methods and theory. It concludes with implications for future applications and research for NL.     

Transforming Doctoral Studies: Competencies and Artistry

This article examines the effects of recent attempts, particularly in the humanities and the social sciences, to make doctoral studies in the United Kingdom more efficient and effective and to produce the sorts of skilled researchers the economy is thought to need. It draws on the literature about the transformational effects of current state managerialism on the public services and on the nature of education for the professions to look specifically at the situation of the greatly increased numbers of research students. It also uses insights from feminist scholarship on the ''projects of masculinity'' embedded in late-modernist thinking to suggest that a general repositioning of the academic profession is occurring, and of women academics specifically, and that there are deleterious consequences for intellectual creativity from over-stressing certain ''masculine values''.     

A comparison of physiological and anthropometric characteristics among playing positions in sub-elite rugby league players

This study compared the physiological and anthropometric characteristics of specific playing positions and positional playing groups in sub-elite rugby league players. Altogether, 415 sub-elite rugby league players underwent measurements of standard anthropometry (body mass, height, sum of four skinfolds), muscular power (vertical jump), speed (10-m, 20-m, and 40-m sprint), agility ("L" run), and estimated maximal aerobic power (multi-stage fitness test). Props were significantly heavier and had a greater skinfold thickness than all other playing positions. Centres, fullbacks, and hookers were faster than props over 40 m. When the data were analysed according to positional commonality, props were taller, heavier, had a greater skinfold thickness, were less agile, and were slower over 10 m than all other positional groups. The hookers/halves and outside backs positional groups were significantly faster over 40 m than the backrowers and props positional groups. In addition, the hookers/halves and outside backs positional groups had significantly greater estimated maximal aerobic power than the props positional group. The results of this study demonstrate that few physiological and anthropometric differences exist among individual playing positions in sub-elite rugby league players, although props are taller, heavier, have greater skinfold thickness, slower 10-m and 40-m speed, less agility, and lower estimated maximal aerobic power than other positional groups. These findings provide normative data for sub-elite rugby league players competing in specific individual positions and positional playing groups.