Flipped Instruction in a High School Science Classroom

This paper reports on a quasi-experimental study examining the effectiveness of flipped instruction in a 9th grade biology classroom. This study included four sections of freshmen-level biology taught by the first author at a private secondary school in the Pacific Northwest. Using a block randomized design, two sections were flipped and two remained traditional. The quiz and posttest data were adjusted for pretest differences using ANCOVA. The results suggest that flipped instruction had a positive effect student achievement, with effect sizes ranging from +0.16 to +0.44. In addition, some students reported that they preferred watching video lectures outside of class and appreciated more active approaches to learning.     

Non-diagnostic intelligent tutoring systems: Teaching without student models

The keystones of traditional intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs) have been complex procedures for student diagnosis and adaptive instruction based on diagnostic data. While some of these systems have been shown to be effective, they are also very expensive to develop. This paper describes another class of ITSs, non-diagnostic ITSs, which do little or no student diagnosis, and concentrate their intelligence in other areas. Intelligent features of non-diagnostic ITSs include: modeling of experts' reasoning processes and cognitive representations (often using graphic displays), coaching based on comparison of student and expert performance, and replays and summaries of student performance. While traditional diagnostic ITSs are usually intended to be used in a stand-alone fashion, non-diagnostic tutors are designed to facilitate collaborative learning among students and between teachers and students.This paper presents a framework for comparing the features of non-diagnostic and diagnostic tutors. A number of non-diagnostic and diagnostic ITSs are described, and data on the educational effectiveness of each type of ITS is presented along with estimates of the type and level of development work required for each. Finally, obstacles to wider use of non-diagnostic ITSs are discussed.     

The prevalence and severity of injuries in field hockey drag flickers: a retrospective cross-sectional study

The drag flick is the preferred method of scoring during a penalty corner in field hockey. Performing the drag flick requires a combination of strength, coordination and timing, which may increase susceptibility to injuries. However, injury prevalence in drag flickers has not previously been investigated. Therefore, this study compared the injury prevalence and severity of lower limb and lower back injuries between drag flickers and non-drag flickers in field hockey. A total of 432 local, national and international adult field hockey players (242 males, 188 females) completed an online questionnaire to retrospectively determine the 3-month prevalence and severity of ankle, knee, hip and lower back injuries. Of this group, 140 self-identified as drag flickers and 292 as non-drag flickers. The results showed that drag flickers had significantly higher prevalence of hip (OR: 1.541; 95% CI: 1.014, 2.343) and lower back injury (OR: 1.564; 95% CI: 1.034, 2.365) compared to non-drag flickers. No significant differences were observed between drag flickers and non-drag flickers in injury prevalence at the ankle and knee. There were no significant between-group differences in injury severity scores. Overall, the prevalence of hip and lower back injuries was significantly higher in drag flickers compared to non-drag flickers.     

Worlds apart? Amalgamation and the restructuring of the higher education system in Australia and the Netherlands

Both in Australia and the Netherlands, the higher education system is experiencing profound changes. In this article an attempt is made to analyze these changes and to explore to what extent similarities exist between two countries who are geographically far apart and whose higher education systems are located within different traditions. The article focuses an two main themes. In the first part the change and reforms within higher education policy are explored. After presenting an overview of the Dutch higher education system and the recent policy developments which have taken place, a comparison is made with the recent changes that have occurred in Australia. In this comparison, emphasis is placed on governmental steering, control and institutional autonomy. In the second part of the paper, one of the major instruments adopted in both countries for system change is discussed, namely institutional amalgamation or merger. The objective of the article is to bring forward some broad trends apparent in both countries, not a detailed analysis. A second limitation is that attention is confined to the policy documents and actions of the Australian federal government. State governments’ responses and actions are not taken into account. Although this is a severe limitation, an incorporation of State plans and actions would exceed the scope of this article.     

The power of the instructor in the solo experience: An empirical study and some non-empirical questions

The purpose of this study was to investigate participants' perceptions of an organized solo within a wilderness experience program and the influence that the instructors have on their perception of the solo. More specifically, this research project focused on the role of the instructor in the solo as perceived by the participants while still on solo, at the end of their wilderness experience, and three and a half months following the program. Qualitative data indicated that the instructors do have an influence on the participants' perception of their solo experience through the (a) preparation for, (b) facilitation during and (c) discussion after the solo. Recommendations to enhance the use of the wilderness solo include: (a) understand student expectations prior to the solo, (b) provide a clear rationale for the solo and associated activities, (c) implement an optional instructor/student visit during solo, (d) provide a one-on-one discussion with students prior to a group debrief after the solo, and (e) carefully consider the impact of the solo on program events and group dynamics that follow.