4254 research outputs found
Sort by
Social deviants, urban myths, and the socialist everyday:looking at the edges of socialism
No full text
Chapter 5 of Part II – Re-Thinking the Role of Student and Lecturer. For Fosbraey, G. (Ed) Creative Learning, Teaching and Assessment for Arts and Humanities in Higher Education
No full textIntroduction For many years, the methods of teaching and learning have remained relatively unchanged, with teachers bestowing knowledge to their students in a one-way hierarchical approach to learning. This being the case was of interest to us, the authors of this chapter. We are three students who are also lecturers (ranging from early career to established) exploring pedagogy in theory and practice, plus the Course Lead who had an introduced a new module to the MA Learning and Teaching in Higher Education programme they were taking, entitled ‘Constructing Knowledge in Higher Education’. The module aimed to push at and explore the boundaries of those ‘unchanged’ teaching and learning dynamics. Each of us had dual roles, of collaborators during the module whilst also implementing and reflecting on our learning as we applied it in our own teaching contexts as educators. Whilst our contexts and backgrounds are diverse, our practice is underpinned with theory and the practical nature of our subjects: software engineering, digital design, physiotherapy, and pedagogy. Changing ‘one-way hierarchical approaches’ is of course not new. It was Brian Simon’s (1981) critical comparison of the English ‘instrumental approach to teaching’ with ‘pedagogic through and practice in Europe’ that informed the work (2000-2012) of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) to effect teaching approaches to improve outcomes. In fact, Interest in ‘active learning’, methods that put the student at the centre of their learning, have been a focus in post-war higher education. With roots in citizenship building and constructivism of Piaget and Vygotsky, active learning countered traditional notions of “there is a best way in doing everything, and that [...] best way can always be formulated into certain rules”. Instead of passive students being instructed, the aim is one of design and facilitation that enables them to engage ‘in any way that can promote active thought’. Integrating new knowledge into an existing base whilst at the same time building on it is a process of meaning making in the development of understanding, competency, and autonomy as learners. Yet even within this arena, our concern was that despite re-locating the student as active rather than passive, focus still remains on the teacher who designs and facilitates the learning environment, underpinned as it is by the assumption that without lecturer choreography of their learning, students will become ‘lost and frustrated’. Our interest, therefore, was how we might fully take on ‘traditional assumptions about the identities of, and relationships between, learners and teachers’ in our teaching practices. Indeed, earlier in the course to explore pedagogy in theory and practice, one of the themes was ‘student engagement’, this being a more recent focus in Higher Education Institutions. Student engagement is defined as the energy and effort that students employ within their learning community […] shaped by a range of structural and internal influences, including the complex interplay of relationships, learning activities and the learning environment. It is a focus based on the premise that The more students are engaged and empowered within their learning community, the more likely they are to channel that energy back into their learning, leading to a range of short- and long-term outcomes, that can likewise further fuel engagement. Even so, a rich curriculum plus provision of extra-curricular activities in which students can engage as consumers, is different to students-as-partners where ‘all participants are actively engaged in and stand to gain from the process of learning and working together’. Moreover, students-as-partners is different to students-as-producers, the latter recognising the variety of experiences and knowledge that students bring to the learning table and, crucially, encouraging them to drive their own learning. Imagining the above as a continuum of student-lecturer relations, we conceived this as ‘master-apprentice’ of instructivism, at the one end, to collaborators in the egalitarian pursuit of knowledge of students-as-producers at the other. But what would students and lecturers collaborating together to push at and explore the boundaries of traditional ‘unchanged’ teaching and learning dynamics actually involve? What would be the challenges and how would they unfold? We knew the arguments for changing our approaches to teaching and learning but what would it involve in experience? Immersed in practices of and in the module as well as in our own teaching, in this chapter we discuss what student-as-producers can mean, what it involves, and the challenges for ‘us-as-lecturers-and-students’. At the same time, by creating this chapter together, we reflect on our own learning and model ourselves as co-producers along the way. Already readers will be spotting complexities, including • the creation of a ‘module’ collaboratively, which essentially requires discrete knowledge that must fit regulatory framework requirements of pre-stated Learning Outcomes; and • explaining a collaborative approach and reassuring students who need to pass ‘it’ in order to be able to complete their qualification. In this chapter: • We track our experiences through what we identify as three interwoven themes: values, roles, and interaction. • We emphasise the significance of the creativity of the affective domain in learning and teaching; and offer a practical framework to support implementation of student-as-producer influenced by problem-based learning. • We describe how we applied this creative interdisciplinary student-led framework, named ‘The Triple ‘P’’, to teaching practice to support creativity and encourage student engagement in their own education. In doing so we convey something of the ’beautiful precarity’ of collaborative approaches to teaching and learning. Values, Roles, and Interaction On a cognitive level, it is apparent that collaborative learning is approached as a process of active co-construction of knowledge. But further, this is not an individual endeavour, but a social process based in interpersonal interaction, that is located in history and culture, space, and place. Furthermore, to ensure that teaching and meaning are not ‘done to’ others through the power of one, the collaborative process is accompanied by commentary and reflection. As Damsa puts it, an awareness of ‘how the epistemic aspects of the interaction unfold, how it is regarded and discussed, and how it is materialised into knowledge objects through collaborative work’ [emphasis added]. As a consequence, students and teachers are more likely to ‘invest fully into the work, use their skills to the fullest potential, create something with the utmost care, strive for perfection, and recognise their responsibility to the craft itself and the community it is serving’. This sits within the arena of heutagogy. The ‘essence of heutagogy’ is focused ‘on what and how the learners want to learn, not on what is to be taught’. This does not mean that the lecturer is not present. Instead, their role becomes one ‘facilitator or guide’. Risks and challenges The risks and challenges we experience, as well as expressed by our students as we attempted to take a collaborative approach into practice emerged and unfolded from the outset and onward. These concerns broadly encompassed: 1. Students not ‘getting’ the approach and feeling cheated by not being fed information, expressed as, for instance ‘What am I getting for my money?’. 2. Lecturers feeling disempowered and disavowed of their knowledge, for example expressed as ‘I am paid for my knowledge and expertise, so what is my purpose if I am not communicating it to students?’. 3. Lecturers and students engaging at the outset with good intention but becoming disillusioned, or lose their confidence (because, after all, a choreographed path through a wood of trees is clear to all parties!). This was expressed, for example, as ‘It’s a nice idea but at the end of the day, its better we stick to what we know best’. 4. High risk stakes of engagement, expressed variously, such as for the lecturers, ‘My students have to pass the relevant National Occupational Standards if they are to be able to qualify and practice in the professions, they can’t make it up as they go along’, and similarly for the students ‘It’s fun but I need to know what I have to pass in so I can get on and pass’. Students not ‘getting’ the approach and feeling cheated by not being fed information This is not surprising. As Stoszkowski and McCarthy explain, Most students are products of a teacher-centred, outcome-based educational system, where the environment is ‘more for grades and degrees than for developing curious, self-directing, lovers of learning. This is the case even whilst it is acknowledged that such systems ‘are ill suited to equip people to work and live in a knowledge economy and self-determined learning would be more effective. Indeed, ‘changing the way people learn’ is one of The World Bank directives pointed up to better support society in its ‘demands’ for ‘teamwork, problem solving, motivation for lifelong learning’. Further, the OECD put the case for a personalised learning environment that supports and motivates each student to nurture his or her passions, make connections between different learning experiences and opportunities, and design their own learning projects and processes in collaboration with others. But in the UK this is paralleled by a more recent and stronger requirement to train teachers in ways that ‘presents teaching as general, easily replicated sequences of activities’. Added to this, focus by the Office for Students on ‘regulatory ‘sandbox’ activity for providers wishing to experiment in innovative and flexible approaches in a way that continues to satisfy our requirements’ [emphasis added]. It does not augur well for lecturers or students who wish to radically change their teaching and learning approaches. On the other hand, however, is the epistemological risk for student, lecturer, and professions that being left to design their own learning creates the potential to evolve a ‘warped perspective’ of their chosen subject. Similarly, if not engaging with a pre-determined curriculum, the risk ontologically is of students not gaining the required ‘personal qualities and dispositions’. Indeed, these are reasons why Subject Benchmarks and National Occupational Standards exist in the first place. Moreover, the disciplines in focus for us as we explored collaborative approaches were fields with skilled worker shortages and so methods that might be perceived as putting graduation into jeopardy were a risky business. Therefore, for all these reasons there is always a significant focus on graduate outcomes and the need to ensure that students understand the core requirements of their field. But we contend there is a balance to be had. Of course, students are not just graduates, they are graduates of their chosen study/professional qualification, yet there is value too in collaborating in the class as well as working on their own to explore, create and produce the subject for themselves. Here, then, is space for ‘curiosity, open mindedness, imagination, and problem solving’, the core higher-order, transferable skills of creativity. In the UK this has a history in early and primary education but not at a tertiary level. Creativity, indeed, play, is just as critical in higher education. In sum, collaborative approaches challenge power dynamics, the assumed hierarchies of who holds knowledge, what knowledge is, who gets to speak, and who controls the ‘play’ in the room. Even so, some students were troubled about not understanding the approach or by feeling cheated at not being fed information. We found a way forward by providing a suggested schedule for the module that was designed to scaffold progress without tying them to specific milestones. At the same time, we used the first session to describe and explore collaboration and partnership in learning and its value to their specific discipline. The schedule was enabling students to take increasing amounts of responsibility for their own learning. After all, as Blaschke emphasizes, we need to develop as lifelong learners who can survive and thrive in a global knowledge economy – ‘learners who have the capability to effectively and creatively apply skills and competencies to new situations in an ever-changing, complex world. Lecturers feeling disempowered and disavowed of their knowledge Thus, it is now clear that an important aspect of a collaborative approach to teaching and learning is that students discover learning for themselves. It led to a dilemma for some of us in relation to what, then, should we do in the classroom. Specifically, if lecturers are employed for their expertise, how were they meant to apply it? Indeed, a key application of the affordances of heutagogy has been its ‘net-centricity’, bringing in to question the need for teachers at all. The role of facilitator rather than guardian of, in Ranciere’s terms, ‘choreographer’ of learning, was, we felt, an experience that had resonance with Schön’s work on the significance of ‘coaches’. In his writing, coaches demonstrate their capacity for professional artistry and in doing so “help” students develop it too. ‘Professional artistry’ is a complex concept for which a detailed exploration lies beyond the exegesis of this chapter and can be found in Trelfa. To summarise sufficient to understand it in relation to coaches, it concerns more than mere competence, comprised as it is of, as Trelfa posits, ‘Identity-Of, Identity-As’ through ‘The Trappings, Connection, Being Prepared, Performance, Qualities of Me and Reflective Practice’ of professional practice, “in the texture of the everyday”. ‘Capacity’ involves subject and discipline-based expertise, creative and analytical thinking, social skills of application, and contextual understanding. We can surmise that ‘helping students’ to develop those same attributes requires capability, that is, ‘coaches’ (in Schon’s terms) who have ‘the ability to identify and define problems and handle complex contexts, the ability to adapt to change, generate new knowledge and continuously improve’. Applied to teaching, this takes skilful praxis, working with individuals and groups of a range of sizes, at different levels and with differing learning needs and preferences. Regardless of whether the topic of student/s focus fell within our direct specialist knowledge, we found that we drew on our research experience to signpost how they could discover information for themselves whilst also building our own learning about the topic with them simultaneously. In turn, this enables students to engage authentically in ways that suit their personal needs. But importantly for us, students are collaborators in this process and not merely receivers of coaching, the risk with Schon’s recommendation; and to that matter, and where collaborative approaches can differ to heutagogy, it is a shared process. ‘Collaboration’ requires interpersonal, group and teamwork, and thus the development of associated attributes, dispositions, and skills. This does not mean it was easy! We found that we needed to give ourselves time and space to generate momentum and ownership of this different relationship and way of working together, matched similarly by students as they too strived to build their understanding and confidence. Here we found our skilful facilitation had fit with Amabile & Kramer’s research in motivating teams in organisations. Underpinned by the values highlighted above, our practice comprised of: • respect, by deeply hearing the frustrations, and concerns (own and students!) whilst continuing to take the process forward; • encouragement, holding a foundation of belief in capacity and capability to engage in collaborative learning and to trust the unfolding process; • emotional support, a key aspect of the facilitation role, requiring confidence to be able to encompass this skilful area of interaction; and • facilitating affiliation, through a range of activities and the underpinning structuring and support of reflective Action Learning Circles, the approach was taken forward Thus, lecturers practice in these skills was essential, albeit a different, and for some new, ‘knowledge’ to just their subject discipline. Lecturers and students engaging at the outset with good intention but becoming disillusioned, or losing their confidence We found that throwing lecturers with little experience of working in such demanding ways, or confronting lecturers set in comfortable ways of how they teach and now asking them to do something different, risked them becoming disillusioned or losing confidence. Recognizing the essential nature of practice in, and application of, such skills, and the need for time to build up confidence and momentum, led to the creation of ‘The Triple P Learning Framework’. This Framework assists in promoting a collaborative approach to learning and developing those critically important (so-called) soft skills. Indeed, skills linked to respect, encouragement, emotional support and facilitating affiliation are highlighted in the TLRP, OECD and World Bank reports as being vital in supporting lifelong learning. The Triple P Learning Framework builds from Barell’s ‘Directed Inquiry’ model from problem-based learning. It does so by being distinctive in its simplicity, important for staff given the range of their subject disciplines, teaching experience and confidence, and given the range of potential classroom/student topic areas that might be stimulated. Moreover, it is distinctive in its application. Students identify the issues that they need and want to research. Through the approach, the lecturer supports the students working on their own and in groups in relation to what they need to consider for carrying out their enquiry, such as the validity of different knowledge, the significance of argument and evidence, and the importance of creativity. Finally, the presentation element enables students to reflect on what they have learnt, demonstrate their findings and also facilitate shared learning, both about the topic itself but also how the learning process they were engaged in enabled that insight. In other words, not just what they learned about the topic, but what they learned about learning, themselves, and each other. Whilst working with The Triple P Learning Framework to support the adoption of collaborative approaches to learning and teaching, it was clear to us in our endeavours together as well as in our own teaching and classrooms that ‘students’ of course are not homogenous! Although supporting a particular classroom approach, it remained critical within it to recognise that each person has their own learning histories, preferences, needs, traits, and qualities. This includes the fact that whilst we were working in such a way that appreciated the significance of collaborative approaches, not everyone does. As Stoszkowski and McCarthy note, “Although some students may thrive in an environment that affords them greater freedom and autonomy, others may not”. Of course, the nature of mass education means, even in adult education where choice plays a part, that entirely individualised approaches cannot be put into practice by teachers, ironic in the context of self-directed learning. But we found that such tensions could be alleviated through The Triple P Learning Framework. Interestingly it is for this reason that Stoszkowski & McCarthy recommend not ‘deploying [collaborative approaches] over shorter periods (a single semester or academic year, for example)’. Yet we found doing so to be an extremely useful and important way forward, that is, to incrementally build collaborative approaches through The Triple P Learning Framework. From our experience, the Framework enabled individuals to encounter, reflect on and build or hone the ‘requisite attributes’ to understand and engage. It was also clear to us that collaborating in teaching and learning would not become the approach of choice by all lecturers, even whilst the value of doing so was understood. Yet our finding was that by engaging in the experiment at all impacted on our pedagogy. Not all of us would go on to fully immerse ourselves and our classrooms in a heutagogical end of the instructivist-students-as-producers continuum, but experiencing the skills and practices broadened our scope and understanding of what was possible. In our case we were already lecturers with an interest in exploring pedagogy and so arguably open to this anyway. But in an educative epoch where featured focus is on student engagement and active learning, the model enabled engagement which piqued curiosity and the development of skills that can only help towards such ends even if not fully embracing students-as-producers. High risk stakes of engagement The Triple P Learning Framework takes inspiration from design thinking and software ‘hackathons’, both of which are based on the facilitation of agency, focus, ownership, and collaboration in building ideas. However, where contexts for design thinking and hackathons are (typically) low-risk, students in higher education are assessed on their knowledge and are, for the most part, anxious to at least pass, or indeed do extremely well. Moreover, the performance and practice quality of teaching staff is, to an extent, explicitly or implicitly, judged on student grades, whether through mechanisms such as the National Student Survey and the Teaching Excellence Framework, both delivered through the Office for Students, a government office in the UK, or exam
The experiences of student physiotherapists applying a novel therapeutic tool within simulated practice; A qualitative study
No full textAbstractObjectives: The purpose of the qualitative study was to consider the experiences of physiotherapy students applying a brief therapeutic interaction online versus in person. Design: An interpretative hermeneutic phenomenological study was undertaken.Setting: two settings were selected in person and onlineParticipants: 25 participants completed the in-person study and 13 completed the online studyInterventions: E-training focusing on the principles of the Model of emotions, Adaptation and Hope was delivered before a 10-minute simulation was undertaken by each student (online or in person)Main outcome measures: semi-structured interview examining the experiences and perceptions of the e-training, therapeutic tool and simulation was undertaken. Results: Three major themes across both groups were identified: (a) the content and value of the e-training (b) the experience and perception of the simulation, (c) The application of the MEAH screening tool, and (d) future training needs. Conclusions: Brief communication interventions which focus on practical and needed communication skills should be considered within the physiotherapy curriculum. <br/
Playing the Investiture Contest: Modding as Historical Debate in the Undergraduate and Postgraduate Classroom
Get PDFThis chapter addresses the practical application of user modification as a pedagogical method within an undergraduate module and a taught postgraduate module at the University of Winchester. Through a practical example it demonstrates that tabletop games may provide an effective medium for students to explore historical arguments, to interrogate these arguments, and ultimately to create their own counterarguments and debate through the alteration of the game. In doing so, this chapter engages with a diverse range of pedagogical literature and highlights the potential and pitfalls of the approach. In sum, the chapter makes a case for the use of games as educational tools at the highest levels of history study.</p
Covid-19 and the lost hidden curriculum: locating an evolving narrative ecology of Schools-in-Covid
No full textThe Covid-19 pandemic brought seismic changes to children and families, with schools at the forefront of the daily battle to maintain learning. We report on our reflexive thematic analysis of data collected with 28 participants in 14 schools in England during the summer of 2021, following two extensive national lockdowns, and two transition points of returning to school under Covid safety measures. Our data reflects an emerging narrative ecology of Schools-in-Covid, developing as the pandemic continued to unfold for children and families, schools, policy makers and ourselves, in a co-construction of what this pandemic has brought to our lives. We present our findings as a reportage, as our collective experience continues to unfold. Our superordinate themes re-position the UK Government priority of academic catch up as secondary to mental health, and argue the re-establishment of the hidden curriculum was the main vehicle for social and emotional learning (SEL) and wellbeing through direct instruction, modelling and practice, typically associated with improved attitudes about the self, others and school and with consequential higher attainment. We report a partial inversion of expectations; rather than a heavy emphasis towards widening disadvantage, our participants report some benefit to vulnerable children and young people who gained from a changed in-person learning environment, and overwhelming distress to those deemed less vulnerable. Our findings identify Schools in the Community, Care before Curriculum, Agility (adapt, survive and thrive), and Reflective and Responsive, as the key aspects of an emerging narrative ecology of Schools-in-Covid.</p
The Experiences of Occupational Therapists Working as Rehabilitation Ward Leaders:Role Reinvention
No full textBackground/Aims: Rehabilitation teams have piloted the deployment of physiotherapists and occupational therapists into the role of ward leader. This was the first research study designed specifically to explore the experiences of physiotherapists and occupational therapists working as ward leaders on wards with a patient rehabilitation focus and how to optimise this workforce transformation. Methods: An interpretivist qualitative study was designed to enable the detailed exploration of physiotherapists’ and occupational therapists’ working experiences during their time as ward leaders. A total of 11 physiotherapists and occupational therapists with between 6 months’ and 3 years’ experience of working as ward leaders participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was undertaken. Results: Four themes were derived from the data analysis that related to participants’ experiences: becoming a rehabilitation ward leader; responsibilities of physiotherapists and occupational therapists; perceptions of the role; and impact of allied health professionals in ward leader roles. Although taking on the role of a rehabilitation ward leader was reported as ‘challenging’, participants would recommend it. Success was perceived by interviewees to be relative to the presence of personal leadership qualities, the belief of the individual in their unique skill set and the confidence in the leadership team to value the unique and shared skills of the profession or individual and thus reinvent the role. Conclusions: This study identifies the key attributes that evidence the unique contribution that physiotherapists and occupational therapists working as rehabilitation ward leaders can make. The findings of this study are significant and highly relevant for the ongoing pandemic, which has seen a need for increased rehabilitation capability
Using an Online Narrative Approach to Explore Diverse Participants’ Understanding of Emerging Technology: Citizen’s Perspectives on Living With Emotional AI
No full textThis case study moves beyond traditional focus groups to introduce an innovative approach to collecting rich qualitative data from participants in an online setting. Its key challenge was to quickly explain a set of emerging technologies to diverse lay participants in a clear and engaging way to elicit their views. It proposes the use of a multimodal narrative created through Twine, an interactive fiction writing tool. The narrative was developed drawing on ideas and concepts from Design Fiction, chiefly the use of diegetic prototypes, and incorporates elements of ContraVision, a method that has been found to encourage a greater range of responses.This work emerges from a larger research project seeking to understand citizen views on Emotional Artificial Intelligence (EAI) and whether they see a way to “live well” with it. Introducing an unfamiliar topic can cause issues for participants, limiting discussion or contributing to a focus on technical aspects rather than the practicalities and impacts of actually using the technology. By taking this narrative approach, participants were able to better engage with the implications of living with emergent technologies.This case study will examine why these approaches were selected and how they were implemented to encourage empathic immersion in the world of the narrative and surface specific issues. While the overall approach was highly successful, I include suggestions for improvement and some caveats to its use, focusing on potential skill and time/effort requirements
A systematic review investigating the risk of COVID-19 severity and mortality associated with vitamin D sufficiency and deficiency within the adult population
No full textCOVID-19 has caused a global pandemic and resulted in 230 million cases and 4.72 million deaths worldwide as of 24 Sep 2021(1). Vitamin D (VitD) affects the immune system through the regulation of cathelicidin and Th1 cytokine synthesis. Cathelicidin prevents respiratory illnesses by damaging viral cell membranes(Reference Beard, Bearden and Striker2). COVID-19 infection is associated with an inflammatory cytokine storm. Activated VitD (VDR) receptors down-regulate the synthesis of pro-inflammatory cytokines and increase synthesis of anti-inflammatory cytokines(Reference Grant, Lahore and McDonnell3). VitD may decrease the infection risk of COVID-19 by down-regulating ACE2 receptors(Reference Hribar, Cobbold and Church4). Down-regulation of these cytokines by VDRs could mean that VitD can reduce complications associated with COVID-19(Reference Grant, Lahore and McDonnell3). Approximately 29% of the UK adult population is VitD deficient and there is a lack of large-scale randomised control trials (RCT's) on VitD status and COVID-19 mortality and severity(Reference Phillips5). Therefore, this systematic review (SR) aimed to assess the risk of COVID-19 mortality and severity according to VitD status within the adult population (>18 years).Pubmed, Cohrane library, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched using MeSH terms and keywords relevant to the research question. Studies on vitD status, COVID-19 severity and mortality, published in English, recruiting adults >18 years were included. COVID-19 severity was assessed by ICU admission. Study titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion, followed by a full text review according to the preferred reporting items for SR's and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A data extraction checklist was used to extract data and conduct statistical analysis on the included studies. Methodological appraisal was undertaken using the checklist of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP). Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots. Heterogeneity within the studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. A random-effects model and forest plots were used to evaluate the odds ratio (OR) and thus, estimate the association between VitD deficiency (VDD) or insufficiency and COVID-19 mortality and or severity.A total of twelve studies with 2458 participants were included in the SR. Overall, the studies showed a low risk of bias through analysis using the CASP tool. The funnel plot for COVID-19 severity was asymmetrical potentially evidencing small-study bias. The studies evidenced moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 36% p = 0.12). Therefore, it was appropriate to continue with the meta-analysis. The random- effects analysis found that mortality risk was tripled among VDD or insufficient patients compared with VD sufficient patients (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.83–4.42). Severity of COVID-19 was 3 times higher among VDD or insufficient patients compared with VD sufficient patients (OR = 3.51, 95% CI 2.69–4.57).VDD increases COVID-19 severity and mortality risk among adults. This SR is limited by potential selection bias. Findings are limited to hospitalised patients and cannot be generalised. Further research is warranted to assess the impact of sex on COVID-19 outcomes and larger RCTs are required
Validity of Calculating Continuous Relative Phase during Cycling from Measures Taken with Skin-Mounted Electro-Goniometers
No full textThe aim of this study was to assess the validity of electro-goniometers as a tool for recording continuous relative phase data at two joint couplings during cycling tasks at a range of cadences. Seven participants (4 male, 3 female, age: 29 ± 7 years, height: 1.76 ± 0.10 m, mass: 71.97 ± 11.57 kg) performed exercise bouts of 30 s at four prescribed cadences (60, 80, 100, 120 rev·min−1) on a stationary ergometer (Wattbike, Nottingham, UK). Measures were synchronously recorded by bi-axial electro-goniometers (Biometrics, UK) and a 12-camera motion-capture system (Qualisys, Gothenburg, Sweden), with both systems sampling at 500 Hz. Sagittal plane joint angle and joint angular velocity were recorded at the hip, knee and ankle and analysed for ten complete pedal revolutions per participant per condition. Data were interpolated to 100 time points and used to calculate mean continuous relative phase (CRP) per pedal revolution at two intra-limb couplings: (i) knee flexion/extension–ankle plantarflexion/dorsiflexion (KA) and (ii) hip flexion/extension–knee flexion/extension (HK). At the KA coupling, significant differences in mean CRP were found between measurement systems at 120 rev·min−1 (p = 0.006). At the HK coupling, significant differences in mean CRP were found between measurement systems at 80 rev·min−1 (p = 0.043) and 100 rev·min−1 (p = 0.028). ICC values for most comparisons were below 0.5, suggesting poor levels of agreement between systems. Significant differences in mean CRP per pedal revolution and poor levels of agreement between systems suggests that electro-goniometers are not a suitable alternative to motion-capture systems when attempting to record CRP during cycling