Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study investigates the effects of two blended learning strategies on improving tacking technique in Optimist sailing among children aged 11–13. Specifically, it compares video feedback with online written instructions (BLIV) and online written instructions only (BLI). Thirty-one children aged 11–13 years old were randomly divided into three groups with different learning strategies: BLIV, BLI, and a control group (CONT). Each participant completed a pre-test (T0) and a post-test (T1) following a four-session learning unit. Evaluations focused on (i) tacking technique, rated by three sailing coaches, (ii) execution time measured using Kinovea software, and (iii) theoretical knowledge, assessed through a test involving error detection in a novice’s video. Statistical analyses revealed that the BLIV group demonstrated significant improvements at T1 in technical performance ( p  < 0.001, Hedges’ g = 2.71), execution time ( p  = 0.006, Hedges’ g = 1.14), and theoretical knowledge ( p  < 0.001, Hedges’ g = 1.98), outperforming the BLI and CONT groups in tacking performance. These findings underscore the effectiveness of the BLIV strategy in enhancing learning outcomes in environments with high levels of sensory distractions. By facilitating a deeper understanding of technique and error correction, this technology-enhanced instructional approach shows promise as a valuable tool for teaching complex motor skills in sports. The research findings suggest that BLIV demonstrates significant improvements in sailing skills, execution time, and theoretical understanding among young sailors compared to other methods. The study advocates for the integration of blended learning approaches that combine in-class activities with delayed video-based feedback delivered online to enhance skill acquisition young sailors.

Aim: To compare the efficacy between verbal, written & audio-visual modes of communication in relation to post-operative instructions after extraction of teeth. Materials & Methods: Ninety patients were equally divided into three groups. Group 1 were given verbal instructions, Group 2 in written format and Group 3- Audio visual mode. Their responses were recorded using a standard questionnaire after 24 hours of extraction and subjected to statistical analysis. Results: Significant differences (p<0.05) was found when the responses were compared between Group 1 and Group 3 and Group 2 and Group 3. Conclusion: Patients who received post-operative instructions through audio-visual mode (Group 3) had more understanding when compared to other groups. Incorporation of technology in communication has to be encouraged as it helps for better understanding. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol.23 (Special Issue) 2024 p.S48-S52

This study aimed to assess the effect of extending pre-scan written instructions to patients undergoing head magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations on motion artifacts. A controlled study was conducted in King Fahad Hospital at the Department of Radiology. A total of 100 patients were involved: 50 received only routine oral hospital instructions (control group), and another 50 received pre-scan extended written instructions besides routine oral hospital instructions (intervention group). The head MRI images were assessed regarding motion artifacts. Informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study. The incidence of motion artifacts was significantly less in the intervention group than in the control group, 10% and 58%, respectively (p-value=0.001). The motion artifacts decreased significantly in the intervention group compared to the control group. Extending written information before an MRI scan could significantly reduce motion artifacts and improve image quality.

Despite the importance of spelling for both writing and reading, there is considerable disagreement regarding how spelling skills are best acquired. During this and virtually all of the last century, some scholars have argued that spelling should not be directly or formally taught as such instruction is not effective or efficient. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies to address these claims. The corpus of 53 studies in this review included 6,037 students in kindergarten through 12th grade and yielded 58 effect sizes (ESs) that were used to answer eight research questions concerning the impact of formally teaching spelling on spelling, phonological awareness, reading, and writing performance. An average weighted ES was calculated for each question and the quality of included studies was systematically evaluated. Results provided strong and consistent support for teaching spelling, as it improved spelling performance when compared to no/unrelated instruction (ES = 0.54) or informal/incidental approaches to improving spelling performance (ES = 0.43). Increasing the amount of formal spelling instruction also proved beneficial (ES = 0.70). Gains in spelling were maintained over time (ES = 0.53) and generalized to spelling when writing (ES = 0.94). Improvements in phonological awareness (ES = 0.51) and reading skills (ES = 0.44) were also found. The positive outcomes associated with formal spelling instruction were generally consistent, regardless of students’ grade level or literacy skills.

Reading is critical to students' success in and out of school. One potential means for improving students' reading is writing. In this meta-analysis of true and quasi-experiments, Graham and Herbert present evidence that writing about material read improves students' comprehension of it; that teaching students how to write improves their reading comprehension, reading fluency, and word reading; and that increasing how much students write enhances their reading comprehension. These findings provide empirical support for long-standing beliefs about the power of writing to facilitate reading. (Contains 6 tables.)

Acquiring argumentative reading and writing practices reflects a key component of recent curricular reforms in schools and universities throughout the United States and the world as well as a major challenge to teachers of reading and writing in K-12 and college writing classrooms. In this review, we consider the contributions of two research perspectives, cognitive and social, that researchers have employed in the study of the teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing. We address two basic questions: How do these perspectives with their own disciplinary frameworks and logics of inquiry interactively inform how researchers study argumentative reading and writing, and consequently, how have these orientations informed pedagogical knowledge that may support teachers' understanding of what argumentation is and how it may be taken up in the educational contexts? We analyze relevant conceptual and empirical studies by considering assumptions underlying the cognitive and social disciplinary perspectives, especially in terms of the warrants that those perspectives assume. We also interrogate how these perspectives' logics of inquiry reveal assumptions about the transfer of learning as supported by instruction and other practices, such as classroom discussion, computer-supported collaborations, and other forms of instructional support. Using empirical studies of the teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing conducted in grades K-12 and college writing classrooms, we delineate the assumptions that drive the two perspectives and their instructional consequences, arguing that researchers and teachers need an understanding of their assumptions about knowledge and transfer to establish a clear and coherent relationship between theory and practice. We offer a vision for research that integrates the cognitive and social perspectives to argue that the work of literacy research is to reveal cognitive processes and instructional practices that teachers can promote and students can employ for learning how to do argumentative reading and writing.

A random sample of language arts, social studies, and science middle school teachers from the United States were surveyed about their preparation to teach writing, beliefs about responsibilities for teaching writing, use of evidence-based writing practices, assessment of writing, use of technology, and adaptations for struggling writers. The findings from this survey raised concerns about the quality of middle school writing instruction. Many teachers believed their preservice and inservice preparation to teach writing was inadequate. Middle school students spend little time writing or being taught how to write. While most teachers used a variety of evidenced-based writing practices and made adaptations for struggling writers, such methods were applied infrequently. Most teachers did not appear to use assessment data to shape how they taught writing, and computers played a relatively minor role in middle school writing instruction. Even though teachers generally agreed that writing was a collective responsibility, language arts teachers placed a greater emphasis on writing instruction than social studies and science teachers.

The Writing Pal is an intelligent tutoring system that provides writing strategy training. A large part of its artificial intelligence resides in the natural language processing algorithms to assess essay quality and guide feedback to students. Because writing is often highly nuanced and subjective, the development of these algorithms must consider a broad array of linguistic, rhetorical, and contextual features. This study assesses the potential for computational indices to predict human ratings of essay quality. Past studies have demonstrated that linguistic indices related to lexical diversity, word frequency, and syntactic complexity are significant predictors of human judgments of essay quality but that indices of cohesion are not. The present study extends prior work by including a larger data sample and an expanded set of indices to assess new lexical, syntactic, cohesion, rhetorical, and reading ease indices. Three models were assessed. The model reported by McNamara, Crossley, and McCarthy ( Written Communication 27:57-86, 2010 ) including three indices of lexical diversity, word frequency, and syntactic complexity accounted for only 6 % of the variance in the larger data set. A regression model including the full set of indices examined in prior studies of writing predicted 38 % of the variance in human scores of essay quality with 91 % adjacent accuracy (i.e., within 1 point). A regression model that also included new indices related to rhetoric and cohesion predicted 44 % of the variance with 94 % adjacent accuracy. The new indices increased accuracy but, more importantly, afford the means to provide more meaningful feedback in the context of a writing tutoring system.

A random sample of elementary teachers in grades 4–6 from across the United States were surveyed about their writing practices. Their responses raised concerns about the quality of writing instruction in upper-elementary grades. Almost two-thirds of the teachers reported that the teacher education courses they took in college provided them with little preparation to teach writing. They also reported that they teach writing for only 15 minutes a day and their students spend just 25 minutes a day writing texts of paragraph length or longer. The writing activities they mostly assigned involved writing-to-learn activities, but other important types of writing like persuasive writing, writing to inform, writing to describe, and research reports were assigned infrequently. Teachers reported using a wide range of evidenced-based instructional practices, but most of these practices were used infrequently. They make a variety of different types of adaptations for weaker writers, and most of these adaptations were applied frequently.