31 research outputs found
Zingiber Officinalis: Pharmalogical Properties And Drug Interactions
No full textZINGIBER OFFICINALIS: PHARMACOLOGICAL PROPERTTIES AND DRUG INTERACTIONS Burak Cem Soner1, Mehmet Mesut Pişkin2, Mevra Al3, Ayşe Saide Şahin1 ABSTRACT Ginger has been widely using, as a cooking spice and medicinal plant from ancient times in India and in China. Today ginger is part of the folk medicine as well as in modern medicine. It is used for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and for prevention of travel and sea sickness. Many countries have approved ginger as a nonprescription drug for the prevention of motion sickness. It is also recognized with its anti-inflammatory effect in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, being on par with many steroidal preparations. The essential oil of Rhizoma Zingiberis (Ginger) include o-zingiberene, ar-curcumene, o-bisabolene, neral, geranial, (E)-a-farnesene and zingiberol. Pungent compound (gingerols and shogaols), diarylheptanoids (gingerenones A and B), vitamins and “050 starch are also present. Fresh ginger root contains gingerols, shogaols, 6- dehydrogingerdione, and galanolactone as the major constituents. 6-gingerol is the main pungent component of dried ginger. 6-gingerol can convert to 6-shogaols due to dehydration of 6-gingerols. Fresh ginger is used as antiemetic, antitussive, expectorant, and for inducing perspiration and dispel cold, whereas dried ginger is used for stomachache, vomiting, and diarrhoca accompanied by cold extremities and low pulse, resolve phlegm retention, for cough and dyspnea with copious frothy expectoration and for abnormal uterine bleeding. In vitro studies have shown that fresh ginger extract inhibits both cyclooxygenase and lipoxygenase. Inhibition of arachidonic acid metabolism results with platelet aggregation and inhibition of prostaglandin and leukotriene production. 6-gingerol, 10- dehydrogingerdione and 10-gingerdione are the main ingredients responsible from these effects. According in vitro studies, these components inhibit prostaglandin synthesis more potentiy than indomethacin. The chemical structures of gingerols shows partial similarities with prostaglandins. Gingerols have been found to be potent inhibitors of prostaglandin biosynthesis. 6-gingerol reduces nausea and vomiting by increasing motility. Galanolacton, similar with ondansetron, has an anti- emetic effect via serotonin (5HT-3) receptors located in ileum. Antiserotonergic activity of ginger including 6-, 8- ve 10-gingerols has also been shown by in vitro studies. Dried ginger is shown to be useful in rheumatoid arthritis. More than 7596 of arthritis patients who consumed ginger rhizome powder experienced analgesic effects and .reduction in joint swelling. Gingerols have been reported to be hypoglycemic in diabetic rats. Ginger can interact with antacids, H2 antagonists and proton pump inhibitors by its potential in increasing stomach pH. The high dosage of ginger may cause central nervous system (CNS) depression and theoretically increases the effect of barbiturates, benzodiazepines and CNS depressants. Ginger may have a dose-dependent inotropic activity and theoretically may interact with positive inotropic agents and beta-blockers. In diabetic rats serum glucose levels are significantly lowered due to the hypoglycemic effect of ginger, which may Corresponding Author: AYŞE SAİDE ŞAHİN, 1NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ MERAM TIP FAKÜLTESİ TIBBİ FARMAKOLOJİ AD. 2NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ MERAM TIP FAKÜLTESİ ÜROLOJİ AD. 3KTO KARATAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ TIP FAKÜLTESİ TIBBİ FARMAKOLOJİ AD
Impacts of aerosol particles on the microphysical and radiative properties of stratocumulus clouds over the southeast Pacific Ocean
No full textThe southeast Pacific Ocean is covered by the world's largest stratocumulus cloud layer, which has a strong impact on ocean temperatures and climate in the region. The effect of anthropogenic sources of aerosol particles on the stratocumulus deck was investigated during the VOCALS field experiment. Aerosol measurements below and above cloud were made with a ultra-high sensitivity aerosol spectrometer and analytical electron microscopy. In addition to more standard in-cloud measurements, droplets were collected and evaporated using a counterflow virtual impactor (CVI), and the non-volatile residual particles were analyzed. Many flights focused on the gradient in cloud properties on an E-W track along 20° S from near the Chilean coast to remote areas offshore. Mean statistics, including their significance, from eight flights and many individual legs were compiled. Consistent with a continental source of cloud condensation nuclei, below-cloud accumulation-mode aerosol and droplet number concentration generally decreased from near shore to offshore. Single particle analysis was used to reveal types and sources of the enhanced particle number that influence droplet concentration. While a variety of particle types were found throughout the region, the dominant particles near shore were partially neutralized sulfates. Modeling and chemical analysis indicated that the predominant source of these particles in the marine boundary layer along 20° S was anthropogenic pollution from central Chilean sources, with copper smelters a relatively small contribution. Cloud droplets were smaller in regions of enhanced particles near shore. However, physically thinner clouds, and not just higher droplet number concentrations from pollution, both contributed to the smaller droplets. Satellite measurements were used to show that cloud albedo was highest 500–1000 km offshore, and actually slightly lower closer to shore due to the generally thinner clouds and lower liquid water paths there. Thus, larger scale forcings that impact cloud macrophysical properties, as well as enhanced aerosol particles, are important in determining cloud droplet size and cloud albedo. Differences in the size distribution of droplet residual particles and ambient aerosol particles were observed. By progressively excluding small droplets from the CVI sample, we were able to show that the larger drops, some of which may initiate drizzle, contain the largest aerosol particles. Geometric mean diameters of droplet residual particles were larger than those of the below-cloud and above cloud distributions. However, a wide range of particle sizes can act as droplet nuclei in these stratocumulus clouds. A detailed LES microphysical model was used to show that this can occur without invoking differences in chemical composition of cloud-nucleating particles
Statistical Reasoning of Impact of Motivation on Students’ Achievement in Foreign Language Learning
No full textAbstractThis research focuses on statistical reasoning in motivation issues in learning a foreign language. The opinions of university students studying at different departments and taking a foreign language course have been investigated through 43 statements related to motivation issues in order to find out their opinions on motivation sources in general, classroom motivation sources and motivation problems that arise or they encounter during their foreign language studies. The responses of participants through all the statements were in very close line with each other, without revealing any significant difference. The relation between the participants achievement level in foreign language courses and motivation revealed contradiction as the respondents claim lack of motivation but have a achievement level over the minimum pass level. This result reveals that in terms of statistical reasoning there is a contradiction between negative motivation and positive achievement
Designing and Developing Programmes in Open, Distance and e-Learning
No full textThis paper flows from a pre-conference workshop developed and facilitated by the author for the National Association of Distance Education and Open Learning in South Africa (Nadeosa) conference 2017. The paper and workshop explore the nature of programmes generally and the particular challenges of designing programmes for open, distance and e-learning (ODeL), in particular drawing upon the author’s work for Saide, the University of Pretoria and a DEd study in progress exploring the mainstreaming of Open Educational Resources in curriculum practices. Approaching the issue from a non-determinist, interpretivist and transactional perspective, and drawing upon a number of metatheoretical perspectives, but most strongly hermeneutics and systems theory, it is argued that while there is no one right way to develop a programme for an ODeL context, there are a number of questions and perspectives that are likely to provide useful lenses. This argument favours curriculum as an evolving and consultative process rather than a discrete and technical event
Supplemental Material for Demonstrating Eye Movement Biometrics in Virtual Reality
No full textResources accompanying the paper entitled, "Demonstrating Eye Movement Biometrics in Virtual Reality.
Regulating AI Against Discrimination: From Data Protection Legislation to AI-Specific Measures
No full textVarious legislation regarding data protection acknowledges the right to protection of personal data as fundamental human right and introduces certain legal obligations to people who have access to personal data to prevent this data to be used without data subject’s knowledge and even in some cases their consent. Processing personal data by automated decision-making (ADM) systems bears the risk of discrimination. Especially, when these ADM systems use Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies, natural persons’ data may be fed into the system to train the model. Hence, natural persons’ personal data constitutes a basis for ADM systems’ decisions. Data protection legislation includes certain general principles and measures to prevent misjudgments and discrimination. In the scope of these principles and measures, data processing activity shall be adequate, relevant, and limited in relation to the intended purposes, “privacy by design” and “privacy by default” principles and objection mechanisms regarding negative decisions taken exclusively by ADM systems shall be implemented, accountability and risk-based approach shall be considered. On the other hand, data protection legislation may not be sufficient to eliminate all the risks and threats of AI. Hence, specific regulations, guidelines, and recommendations addressing AI are being drafted. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2024
Investigation Of Pumpkin Seed Use In The Treatment Of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
No full textINVESTIGATION OF PUMPKIN SEED USE IN THE TREATMENT OF BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA Ayten Demirci1, Mehmet Mesut Pişkini2, Esra Büyük2, Mevra Al3, Ayşe Sade Şahin2, Burak Cem Soner2 ABSTRACT Investigation of Pumpkin Seed Use in The Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the main cause of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in older men. Prevalence of BPH is about 506 in men 51-60 years of age and the ratio increases up to 906 among men in 81-90 years of age. BPH symptoms have negative influences on life guality and restrict daily activities. The recommended medication for BPH treatment is alpha adrenergic receptor blockers which reduces the prostate and bladder neck smooth muscle tone, and S-alpha reductase inhibitors which reduce prostate volume via epithelial atrophy. Although medicines used for BPH treatment have positive effects on life guality, the adverse effects (including sexual problems) lead patients to herbal medicines with less adverse effects and low cost. In Italy, 5090 of the prescribed medications used in BPH is herbal originated. According to a research in USA while 666 of the patients with LUTS related to BPH were using only prescription drugs, 146 of the patients were receiving only phytotherapy and 2096 of the patients were using both prescription drug and phytotherapy. In Europe, particularly in Germany, Austria, Italy and France, phytotherapy is often the first-line therapy for the treatment of BPH symptoms. The German commission E monograph reports that pumpkin seed oil is traditionally being used for prostate growth treatment in Europe. Besides pharmacotherapy and surgical treatment, phytotherapeutics are also involved in Canadian, American and European Urology Association guidelines for BPH treatment. According to these guidelines Serenoa rapens, Pygeum africanum, Urtica dioca and Cucurbita pepo (pumpkin seed) plants can be used for this purpose. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of pumpkin seeds on BPH and LUTS in consideration of current researches. In Europe, pumpkin seeds and pumpkin seed oil have been used for many years in overactive bladder-related micturition disorders and enlargement of prostate gland. The pumpkin seed contains about 509/4 fatty oil (linoleic acid oleic acid and tocopherol), but it is assumed that active substances of pumpkin seed are A7-sterols (avenasterol, spinasterol) and A5-sterols (sitosterol, stigmasterol). In 2014 according to GRANU (The German Research Activities on Natural Urologicals) research, the activities of pumpkin seed, pumpkin seed extract and placebo were evaluated for 12 months in a double-blind, randomized study in 1431 patients with BPH/LUTS. A clinically significant improvement in international prostate symptom score (IPSS) related guality of life (OoL) was observed on pumpkin seed group compared to the placebo group. This study supports the use of pumpkin seed in BPH/LUTS patients. A prospective randomized clinical trial in Iran, published in 2014, compared the efficacy of pumpkin seed oil and prazosin (alpha adrenergic receptor blocker) on 100 patients with symptomatic BPH. In this study, it was stated that pumpkin seed oil reduced IPSS score and increased QoL, but it was emphasized that prazosin was more effective than. Corresponding Author: BURAK CEM SONER, 1NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ TIBBİ FARMAKOLOJİ A.B.D. 2NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ ÜROLOJİ A.B.D. 3KTO KARATAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ TIBBİ FARMAKOLOJİ A.B.D
The Dual Descriptor Reveals the Janus–Faced Behaviour of Diiodine
No full textIndexación: Scopus.The Janus–faced ligand behavior of diiodine (I2) was evidenced after applying the dual descriptor (DD or second-order Fukui function), thus providing additional support to the work performed by Rogachev and Hoffmann in 2013. Along with its capacity to reveal sites susceptible to undergo attacks simultaneously of nucleophilic and electrophilic types, another advantage of DD lies in being an orbital-free descriptor. That means it is based only upon total electron densities when written in its most accurate operational formula. This quality is not exclusive of DD because when Fukui functions are written in terms of electron densities instead of densities of frontier molecular orbitals, they become orbital-free descriptors too. Furthermore, the present work is an application of the generalized operational formula of the dual descriptor published in 2016 that takes into account any possible degeneracy in frontier molecular orbitals. As a proof about capabilities of DD, the possible sites for a favorable interaction between I2 with two organometallic compounds [Rh2(O2CCF3)4] and [(C8H11N2)Pt (CH3)] were correctly revealed by overlapping the biggest lobe for receiving nucleophilic attacks of one molecule with the biggest lobe for receiving electrophilic attacks of the other molecule, so allowing to predict the same coordination modes as experimentally known: linear “end–on” for the [(C8H11N2)Pt (CH3)]…I2, and bent “end–on” for the [Rh2(O2CCF3)4]…I2 interactions.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fchem.2022.869110/fullThe present work was financed by FONDECYT grant No. 1181504.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The author acknowledges the financial support provided by FONDECYT through the grant No. 1181504 and wishes to thank miss Alessandra Misad Saide for her valuable technical assistance to lead improving the writing of the article. The author wishes to thank reviewers’ suggestions and corrections, which improved the article’s quality. In such a way, it also turned into a more pedagogical document for those colleagues and students interested in learning more about chemical reactivity from the perspective of the Conceptual Density Functional Theory (CDFT) and how to apply one of its reactivity descriptors, thus accomplishing the primary goal of this Research Topic dedicated to the CDFT.S
Fresno State vs Utah, September 23, 1995
No full textFootball game statisticsAttendance: 31362; Head Coach Ron McBrideFootballFresno State 21 Utah 25NCAA OFFICIAL SCORING SUMMARY FRESNO STATE VS. UTAH Visitor Home Overall Record Now 3-1 Stadium Rice Stadium Overall Record Now 2-2 Date Sept. 23, 1995 Score by Quarters (V) FRESNO STATE (H) UTAH (Team) (Qtr. ) (Time Site Salt Lake City, Utah Attendance 31,362 (City, State) 1 2 3 4 7 0 14 0 7 0 3 15 (Scoring Play) (Conversion) (Drive Final 21 25 (Score) Left) Play-Yards) FSU 1st 9:37 Brown 1 run Lysand kick 10-87 0-7 UTAH 1st 7:48 Henry 46 pass from Dyson Pulsipher kick 4-65 7-7 FSU 3rd 12:35 Oliver 33 run Lysand kick 6-74 7-14 UTAH 3rd 6:29 Pulsipher 20 field goal 6-77 10-14 FSU 3rd 1:07 Jones 57 pass from Donati Lysand kick 6-80 10-21 UTAH 4th 2:09 Fuamatu-Ma\u27afala 3 run Pass (Dyson) 11-80 18-21 UTAH 4th 0:47 Henry 34 pass from-Pouts PulSipher kick 5-66 25-21 (Kissed Field Goals) Team Qtr Time/Player/Distance UTAH 1st 0:28/Pulsipher/41 yards FSU 4th 7:26/Lysand/47 yards UTAH 4th 6:05/Pulsipher/49 yards Time of Game: Kickoff 7:05 p.m. End of Game 10:40 p.m. Total Elapsed Time 3:35 Officials Bill McCabe. Tim Kuhlman. Jim Crittenden, David Lambros, Royce Cooley, Gordan Birk, John Lothrop , I I ~femperature 66 degrees Wind West 5 MPH Weather Su~ny NCAA FINAL TEAM STATISTICS I.U\u27J171 U ?.:: i Home Visitor i First Downs ................................. . ?q Rushing ............................... . 12 12 Passing ................................ . 15 Penalty ................................ . 2 2 Rushing Attempts ............................. . 39 Yards Gained Rushing .......................... . 188 \u2748 Yards Lost Rushing ............................ . 22 11 Net Yards Rushing ........................... . 1C:C: I .... ..,..., I Net Yards Passing ............................ . I 404 I .184 J Passes Attempted ........................ . 50 29 I Passes Completed ....................... . 28 13 Had Intercepted 3 2 j Total Offensive Plays 89 I II ! 74 Total Net Yards .............................. . 570 J I Jt:t 421 I Average Gain Per Play .................... . 6.4 5.7 Fumbles: Number-Lost ........................ . ! 1 -1 1 - 0 Penalties: Number-Yards ....................... . 5 -62 7 -65 Number of Punts-Yards ........................ . 3 -134 6 -268 Average Per Punt ........................ . 44.7 44.7 Punt Returns: Number-Yards .................... . 4 -23 0 -0 Kickoff Returns: Number-Yards .................. . 2 -40 3 -43 Interception Returns: Number-Yards .............. . 2 - 6 3 8 Fumble Returns: Number-Yards ................. . 0 - 1 -1 Possession Time ..... : ......................... . 31 : 06 28:54 r :)rd-Down Conversions ........................ . 6 of 14 7 o~ 5 Fourth-Down Conversions ....................... . 1 of 1 0 of 0 Sacks By: Number-Yards ...................... . 1 5 2 19 Copyright 1995 National Collegiate Athletic Association NCAA 10430-5195 NCAA FINAL INDIVIDUAL STATISTICS 2 9 7 6 7 1 9 123 ·18 I 6 \84 • 1 UTAH 25 Home Rushing AU. Gain Lost Net TO Long .T .T n h n !\u27:nT" .,1 IQ7 I~ Iq4 I (1 ~ J:.T""n T.ll!\u27:k 1 12 0 12 0 12 n/Wn"f-4 Fl1:=1m::.\u27i\u27:b. M;:,;:,f;:,l;:, 1 6 6 \u27T\u27llrok"",r 4 78 24 Dvson . 1 2fi 1 1 Kozlowski 1 be; ?e; -TA (,JIJ(\u27,!~ \u271- ~ .J \u27 \u27i- I Totals I 28 404 2 46 Punting No. Yds. Avg. Long 301 nol\u27,ulsiPher ,I Totals Field Goals 30E,PlllSiPher \41, 20 (49) (After player\u27s name list distances of each attempt and circle FGs Made. e.g .• 46-@ ·35) Punts, Kickoffs Int. Passes All Returns* No. Yds. ~P No. Yds. LP No. Yds. LP 5,"P Beck _1 - 9 ==="\u27--_ -4- \u2723-\u27 ..1.4... -.l. -lii... __ \u27 8 1 - 6 I Totals 5 4 o FRESNO STATE 21 Visitor Rushing AIL Gain Lost Net TO Long T f"\u27Il;uo ..... \u27)0 111"7 11 11 A ":l ~ 33 P \u27Rr ..... t.7Tl 1.1. Q1 n Q1 1 1 Q ,., T\u27\~ .... ~.j- ~ 3 \u270 7 3 0 1 U Totals I 45 248 11 ~ 2 33 Passing Alt.-Comp.-Int. Yards TO Long Sacks I 1Et~~ r -13-2 r~l] 157 ri 8 3 4 4 2 Pass Receiving :b.rn ..... lr1 Rnher!\u27:nn .T ..... n"" Klc~f~ I=~~ Ilull/~ :a, 7 12;S( • u.r~w "\u27:- i ,. " \u275 \u27~7 Kl~t=-F o 7:48 L9tc~tAltl b5 4 \u27:4\u27l I tI II t.tW- &:.ll PUJJT ~~ :t:J ·REU)~ 4~ ,1. S:t3 ~r:. I, 2JJD LrrD~ F.(~ U:2f putJT 14 5 2,\u27:33 " " ~~~ \u27t,\u2721 Wr€1U£PflD~ i=~ ~P4 LJ~ 41 12 4:\u271 u H 1AtT\u27A\u27K l\ 2~lq puur lk~ :91 P(\u27{lJ\" 3~{\ t=i{kJl LtW lD:4 FUust.£ -( 0 0 I IL h lA.W 7:21, ~frf~~ ~i! ~c6 Pll:\u27lMUW ~Pf 3~ 15 2!ug ~?S :47 NCAA 10430-5/95 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH VS. FRESNO STATE UNIVERSITY. sept. 23, 1995 7 pm Rice Stadium, Salt Lake City, UT OFFICIALS: Bill McCabe (R), Jim Crittenden (U), Royce Cooley (L), John Lothrop (LJ), Tim Kuhlman (FJ), David Lambrose (SJ), Gordan Birk (BJ) weather: 66 degrees, wind west @ 5 mph, partly cloudy. Utah wins the toss and elects toreceive; FSU defends North goal Torigian kikks off for FSU to Beck at U3, far side, returns 24 tonear side 1-10 U 27 Fouts with catchers co~ered, runs up middle and right for 0 2-10 U 27 Fouts spot pass to Hen Lusk far sideline for 14, 1st DOWWN 1-10 U 41 Johnson up the middle, breaks left for 12, 1st DOWN 1-10 F 47 Fouts pass to Hen Lusk complete for 5 (22) 2- 5 F 42Johnson on pitchout left loses 3 (57) 3- 8 ~ 45 Fouts pass complete to Henry far sideline for 11, 1st DOWN 1-10 F 34 Fouts paSS OFF Henry\u27s hands, intercepted by Wilson at 1~, J ret i 12:09 to go I · 1-10 F 27\u27 Donati pass ,"}.inc. for Nero who fell down ~ 2-10 F 27 Donati pass inc. for Roberson (20) i I 1 10 F 13 Oliver at left side for 14 t8, 26) I -:;z 3-10 F 27 Donati pass inc. for Brown. i~7·(8) ~ 4-*0 F 27 Roberts punts 45 yards to Hen Lusk at U 28, return of ~ ~ ID F 43 Donati\u27s pitch to Oliver at re for 2 ~} 13 null. by roughing kicker pen. of 1~ yards, 1st down LL 2~ 8 F 45 Donati pass inc. for Jones broken up by Beck 3- 8 F 43 Donati pass complete to Arnold for 16 (6), 1st DOWN ~F 1-10 U 39 Donati perfgectly -led pass to Roberson for 38 (20) 1- G U 1 Oliver dives 19 for no gain (50, 46) 2- G U 1 Oloiverdives rg for TD with 9:37 to go (87 in10 plays) (, ·r Lyssand kicks P.T FSU 7, UTAH 0 drive took 2:32 Torigian kicks off out of bounds near sideline; UTAH elects ball at 35 1-10 U 35 Johnson bulls off rg for 2 (91) -ie -r~ ~~g:::::~~::~~:::::~k :::s~:: f~~::: ::::~~:~:o w::n~s::T:mplete ~o---~ wide open Henry for TD with 7:48 to play 65 yuards in 4 plays in 1:49 ~ Pulsipher kicks PAT UTAH 7, FSU 7 pulsipher kicks off to Arnold at F 4, returns 19 to 23 1 -1 0 F 23 Donati fumbles snap, FSU covers for loss of 2 2-12 F 21 Donati pass complete to Jones for 5 ( 5) 3- 7 F 26 Donati pass inc. for Jones at U 25 ( 5, 26) 4- 7 F 26 Robert/s punts to Hen Lusk 45 XIl!IXRiM, 0 return 6:02 to go 1-10 U 29 Fouts swing pass compo to Johnson, loses 7 (13) 2-1\u27 U 22 Johnson delay at right side for no gain 3-17 U 22 Fouts pass complete to Hen. Lusk for 19, 1st DOWN 1-10 U 41 Johnson on the draw play, jiterbugs left for 5 (57) 2- 5 U 46 Johnson ~right up the gut for 12, 1st DOWN 1~1~ F 4~2 Johnson up the middle for 4 more 2- 6 F 38 Fouts pas compo to Hen Lusk for 2 (5) 3- 4 F 34 Fouts pass complete near sideline to F-Maafala for 4, 1st DOWN 1-10 F 30 Fouts keeps fora 0 gain 2-20 F 30 Johnson drags people thru rg for 7 (5) 3- 3 F 23 Johnson tries rg for no gain 4- 3 F 23 Pulsipher 40 FG wide to left with 28 seconds left, 48 yds, 12 1-10 Oliver sweeps re for 1 (8) 2- 9 F 24 quarter ends FSU 7 POSSESSION TIME: Utah 10:14 FSU 4:46 pSi./. /-3 STATMAN II(tm) FIRST QUARTER TEAM STATISTICS BULLDOGS UTES Firs t Downs.......................................... 4 8 r", , \ Rushing ............................................................................... .. 1 3 Passing ................................................................................ .. 2 5 Penal ty .................................................................. .............. .. 1 0 Rushing Attempts ............................ . \u27 ....................................... .. 6 12 Yards Rushing ............................................................................. .. 18 50 Tackles-Yards Lost Rushing .•...••••.•••.•••.••.••••.• 1/2 1/3 Net Yards Rushing •••.••.• \u27 ••.•••••••••..••.••.••.••••• 16 47 Net Yards Passing ..................................................................... .. 59 105 Passes Attempted ••••.••..•••.•••••••••.•••.••••• 8 10 Passes Compi eted .............................................................. .. 3 9 Had Intercepted •••••••.••.•••••••••••••••••..... 0 1 Total Offensive Plays ••.•••••••••••••••••.••••••.•••. 14 22 Total Net Yards ••.••...••.•.••..••...••.• \u27 •..••..•..•• 75 152 Avg Gain Per Play ..•..•••.•..•••.•••.•••.••••••• 5.4 6.9 RA-turn yards ............................................................................. ".8 ( \J 1 0 \ / FU"mbl es : Number-Lost .............. . \u27 .......... \u27 ............................ \u27 .......... .. 1-0 0-0 Penal ties: Number-Yards •..••..••..•...•.••••••.•.•• \u27 ••• 0-0 1-16· Interceptions:Nurnber-Yards .•...••.•...••.••..•.•.•••. 1-1 0-0 Number of Punts-yards ••.••••••.••..••••••.••.•••.•••. 1-45 0-0 Average per Pllnt ............................................. . 45.0 0.0 Punt Returns:Number-Yards .•...••..•......•••••.••.•.• 0-0\u27 . 0-0 Kickoff Returns:Number-Yards ••..•.••..••.••••••.•.•.• 1-19 1-24 Possession Time ............................................ . 4:46 10:14 Thi rd Down Conversions •..••.••...•.•.•..•..••••..•.•• ,1/;3_ .. - 33% 3/4 - 75% Fourth Down Conversions ••.•••••..•••.••..•••.•.••...• 0/0 - 0% 0/0 - 0% Sacks/Sack Yds •••••.•.•.••.•••.•••.••.•••.••.••••.•.• 0.0/0 0.0/0 STATMAN II(tm) FIRST QUARTER INDIVIDUAL STATISTICS VISITORS: BULLDOGS HOME: UTES /~~SHING \ "--------- Oliver Brown Donati TOTALS PASSING Donati TOTALS RECEIVING Arnold C.Jones Roberson TOTALS NO GRS NEG NET AVG 4 17 1 1 1 0 6 18 o 17 4.3 o 1 1.0 2 -2 -2.0 2 16 2.7 LG TD 14 0 1 1 -2 0 14 1 NO CP YDS SK/YDS LG TD I 8 3 59 0 8 3 59 0 a 380 a a 38 a a NO YDS LG TD 1 1 1 3 16 16 5 5 38 38 59 38 o a a a RUSHING Johnson Fouts TOTALS NO GRS NEG NET AVG 10 50 2 a 12 50 3 47 4.7 a a 0.0 3 47 3.9 LG TD 12 a o a 12 0 PASSING NO CP YDS SK/YDS LG TD I Fouts Dyson TOTALS 9 8 59 0 1 1 46 0 10 9 105 a o 19 a 1 o 46 1 0 a 46 1 1 RECEIVING NO YDS LG TD He. Lusk 4 Henry 3 Fua-Ma 1 afa1a 1 Johnson 1 TOTALS 9 40 19 66 46 6 6 -7 -7 105 46 a 1 a a 1 FIELD GOALS FIELD GOALS )rERCEPTS NO YDS LG TD Wilson TOTALS 1 1 1 1 1 1 a a PUNTING NO YDS AVG TB 120 LG Roberts TOTALS 1 1 45 45.0 45 45.0 a a a 45 a 45 PUNT RETURNS NO FC YDS LG TD TOTALS o o o o KICK RETURNS NO YDS LG TD Arnold TOTALS 1 1 19 19 19 19 o a a Pulsipher 41WL INTERCEPTS TOTALS PUNTING TOTALS PUNT RETURNS He. Lusk TOTALS KICK RETURNS Beck TOTALS NO YDS LG TD a a a a NO YDS AVG TB I20LG a a 0.0 a a a NO FC\u27 YDS LG TD a a 1 1 a a a a NO YDS LG TD 1 1 24 24 24 24 o o o a FUMBLES NO OWN YD LG TD OPP YD LG TD FUMBLES NO OWN YD LG TD OPP YD LG TD i ;-------- ho-nati 1 TOTALS 1 100 a 100 0 000 0 o 0 a 0 TOTALS 0 a 0 0 0 a a 0 a 2nd quarter sept. 23, 1995 UTAH 7 FRESNO STATE 7 FSU has ball for 2nd play on drive wfuich began own 23 with 0:28 left 2- 9 F 24 Donati pass comp_ to Jones for 5 (8) 3- 4 F 29 010mati swing pass far side for 11 (91), 1st DOWN 1-10 F 40 D6nati pass complete to Roberson for 12 (8.) 1-10 U 48 Olivber bursts thru rg for 5, bu FSU pen 5, ill.motion 1-17 F 47 Donati pass intercepted b .~ qar. LU\u27,\u275k at U 39, re-turns 6, out of bounds own 45, with 13:44 to go 1-10 U 45 F-Maafala at left saide for 1 2- 9 U~46 Fouts pass for Dyson broken up (face-guard?) by .22 3- 9 U 46 Fouts pass for~Dysondeep middle incomp., but FSU pen. 16 for pass interference. 1st DOWN 12:53 left 1-10 F 38 Jopnssn at left side for 3 (5, 57) 2- 7 F 35 Johnson slant-in pass over middle inc. (drop) by T*cke~rinside 20 3- 7 F 35 Fouts sacked for loss of 6 (3) 4-13 F 41 Pulsipher punts into EZ for touchback 11:21 left 1-10 F 20 Brown in the middle for for 5 (95) 2- 5 F 25 Brown off rg for 6 (50, 57) 1-10 F 31 Donati deep pass for Jones dropped at U 22 (26, 20) 2-10 F 31 Donati pass compo far sideline to Roberson for 9 3- 1 F 40 Brown drives inside rt for 4 (45), Cunninghamhurt official time at 10:06 to go 1-10 F 44 Brown sweeps left, cuts up at Ie for 11 1-10 U 45 Donati pass off Arnold1s hands, intyercp by Beck at U2~ 9:21 to play no return 1-10 U 25 Johnson high-steps way thru Ig for 12, 1st DOWN 1-10 U 37 Foiuts quixck screen pass left to Dyson £*~X for 8 2- 2 U 45Fouts, after nice fake to diving Johnson, inc.,to Dyson,drop 3- 2 U 45 FSU takes time (1) with 8:50 yo go 3- 2 U 45 F-Maafala drives thru rt for 9, 1st DOWN ) 1-10 F 46 F-Maafala off the left side for t~ 6 2- 4 F 40mF-Maafala swings wide left for ·6, 1 st DOWN 1-1~ F 34 Fouts after fake tyo diving Johnson inc. to Dyson at F 2 2~10 F 34 Fouts pass complete to Keehan for 8 3- 2 F 26F-Maafala at It forH4 1-10 F 22 F-Maafala drives off rt for 3 rf 2- 7 F 19 Fouts pass compo to Henry at F 1, but UTAH pen. at, off. interf. 2_22 F 34 Fouts pass inc. in EZ with Dyson, Kos:j.owski both ~t!here 3- 22 F 34 Fouts pass interc. by Jackson at F 2~, ret. ~ 5:04 to go 1-10 F 30 Oliver gets 3 at left side (57) 2- 7 F 33 Brown sweeps re for 6 (20,17) 3- 1 F 39 Brown gets 3 1-10 F 42 Oliver sweeps wide left for 7 (46) 2- i F 4901iver thru rg for no gain 3- 3 F 49 Donati pass compo to Jones for no gain 4- 3 F 49 Roberts punts dead at Utah 11 (4~ yards I 2:191eft 1-10 U 11 Fouts quick pass screen left to Dyson for 11, 1stDOWN 1~1~ U 22 Johnson at ;lg, spins for 3 (91,45) 2- 7 U 25 Fouts pass compo to crossing Tucker far sidelinefor 19,1stDOWN 1-10 U 44 Fouts swing pass to Johnson for 1 UTAH TINME(1) 1:18 left 2- 9 U 45 Fouts pass compo to Keehan near sideline for 4 3- 5 U 49 1:12 left Fouts pass inc. for Henry at F 32 4- 5 U 49 Pulsipher punts 51 yaRDS INTO EZ on bounce for touchback 0:59 to go 1-10 F 20 Oliver slants at It for 6 (50,17) 2- 4 F 26 Brown breaks tackle in backfield, sweeps Ie for 8 1-10 F 34 half ends with FSU in huddle FSU 7, UTAH 7 possession time: UTAH 18:14 FSU 11:46 R±d down convs. UTAH 5-9 FSU 5-8 NCAA QUICKIE STATISTICS (Circle One) Score ............................ . First Downs ....................... . Rushes-YB;rdage (Net) .•...... \u27 ...... . Passing Yardage (Net) .......•........ Passes-Att. -Camp. -I nt. _ ............. . Total Offense plays-Yards ..•••........ Fumble Returns-Yards ..... _ ....... ~ . Punt Returns-Yards " ".\u27 ....•......... Kickoff Returns-Yards ............... . Interception Returns-Yards .••.•....... Punts (Number-Average) ...•••••...... Fumbles-Lost ............••••...... Penalties-Yards Possession Time ................... . Third Home !I 7 1 c; 22 -88 156 \u27··i· -15.- l.tl\u27i -?AA 0 - 0 1 - 0 1 - 24 2 - 6 2 - 46 0 - 0 2 - 31 18: 14 INDIVIDUAL LEADERS RES I 2 I Home Visitor @ 9 7 6 Rushing Att. .T ..,..1- 13 Hen.Lusk 0 ID Fouts ~ F-Maafala 6 Passing Att. -camp: -Int. "D. Fouts ~-_2 .- 1 4.. -2 Dyson 1 - 1. 0 Net Yards 65 -- 1-6.L 29 Yards 110 4.6 1 TO long 12 -- 9 TO long 0 19··\u27; Pass Receiving No. Yards TO Long r-------------,-----,-----r---~- 9 Hen Lusk 8 25 4 10 Rushing .T nl; "tTO .... R .- B Donatj Pass Receiving In::nQ] d Roberson ones 23 Henry 18 Keehan Punting No. Avg. long Punting Att 8 8 No. i 3 3 - ~ Final FRESNO STATE Visitor I 2 11 17 16 b3 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 Net Yards 33 44 Yards 1 6 59 -75 95 -8 -2 - 120 -0 - -19 -\u278 -0 --"2.1 11 : 46 TO Long 14 1 11 TO Long 38 5 I I 30 n Plllc::inhe:>r 2 46 51 3 ,.-----------,---~--:-=-..-:-:~ Copyright 1995 National Collegiate Athletic Association NCAA 10430·5/95 ) l ) ~ 3rd quarter Sept. 23, 1995 UTAH 7 FRESNO STATE 7 FSU elects to receive to start 2nd half; Utah defends S. goal Pulsipher kicks off to Ollis at F 11, returns 15 1-10 F 2601iver off rt for 9 (measufad) (50,57) 2- 1 F 35 Brown on mia=directiOn right side for 4,1st doewn 1-10 F 39 Oliver at re for 9 (26) 2- 1 F 48 Oliver at re, cuts outside for 14 (8), 1st DOWN 1 10 U 38 Brown counter at Ig for 5 2- 5 U 33 Oliver starts at rg, cuts back left for 33 yards, TD with 12:35 to ... 74 yards, 6 plays, 2:25 Lyssand kicks PAT FSU 14 UTAH 7 Torigian kicks off 8 deep in EZ and out 1-10 U 20 Johnson at Ig for loss of 1, but FSU pen. 5 (offsides) 1- 5 U 25 Johnson up the middle for 3 (57) 2- 2 U 28 Johnson at rt for no gain 3- 2 U 28 o~F-Maafala plows thru rt for 16 (23,22) pancaking 2~ 1-10 U 44 Fouts pass compo to Tucker over the middle for 20, 1st down 1-10 F 36 Johnson at rg, spins left for 5 (50,57) 2- 5 F 31 Johnson squirts thru Ig, trips for 6, \u271st DOWN 1 1~ F 25 Johnson stymied at It for 1 2~ 9 F 24 Fouts quick pass compo to Tucker for 15, 1st DOWN 1- G F 9 F-Maafala slides off It for 4 2~ G F 5 F-Maafala on delay at 19 for 1 3- G F 4 Johnson bobbles hanfoff at rg for 1 4- G F 3 Pulsipher 20-yard field goal is good with 6:29 left 12 plays, 77 in 6:06 FSU 14 UTAH 10 Pulsipher kicks off and downed in EZ for touchback 1-10 F 20 Oliver at c, slides left for 4 ( 50) 2- 6 F 24 PQnatipass inc. for Arnold ( 1 7 ) 3- 6 F 24 Donati rolling right swing pass tyo Brown for 7,1 stDOWl\u27 1-10 F 31 Oliver gets 1 (45) 2- 9 F 32 Donati pass for Roberson broken up by Lawson 3 9 F 32 Donati pass unbderthrown, Cunningahm can\u27t hold 4 inte:r 4- 9 F 32 4:21 to go 1-10 U 37 Johnson at 1- 12 U35 Fouts pass 2-12 U 35 Fouts pass 1-10 F 34 Fouts pass 3:37 to go Roberts punt of 45 taken by Hen.Lusk at left sidefor 8~ U pen. 10 for hold for Henry inc. at F 30, (5,22) complete dowen middle 31 yards to Hen inc. for Henry, overthrown, interc by 1-10 F 20 Brogwn at Ig for ~ (17) 23, runs 14 Lusk (5),1st dov Jackson in EX 2- 6 F 24 Donati pass compo to Roberson right side for 5 (45) 3- 1 F 29 Brown strung out wide right, escapes 17 for 3,1st down 1-10 F 32 Oliver sweeps le, strung out for 3 2- 7 F 35 Oliver sweeps ;le behind 64 for 8 (8) 31362 ATTN. 1-10 F 43 Donati pass complete to Jones for 57 yds, TD,1st DOWN WITH 4:07 to go; :Lyssand kicks PAT FSU 21, UTAH 10 80 yds, 6 plays in 2:30 Torigian kicks off Hen.Lusk at U2, returns 16 to 18 1 10 U 18 Fouts pass to Tucker far side for 24, 1st DOWN 1-10 U 42 Johnson cuts up over It for 5 2- 5 U 47 Fouts spot pass right side to Henry for 12, 1st DOWN, as Q ends FSU 21, UTRR 10 3rd down conversions UTAH 6-11 FSU 6 10 possession time UTAH 26:11 FS~ 18:49 STATMAN II(tm) ~ TEAM STATISTICS BULLDOGS First Downs.......................................... 18 Rushing. . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Passing. . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . • . . . • . • . . . . . . . 6 Penal ty. . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . • . . • . . . • . . . 1 Rushing Attempts.. . . • . • . . . . . • . • . . • . • • . • . . . . • • . . . . . . . . 29 Yards Rushing ..•.•.•..•.••.••....•. 0 •••••••••••• 0 • • • • 174 Tackles-Yards Lost Rushing........................... 1/2 Net Yards Rushing ••••....•••. 0 ••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••• Net Yards Passing •....•...... 0 ••••• 0 • 0 ••• 0 ••••••••••• Passes Attempted •....•.•....•..•......•..•.•..•. Passes Completed ••....••....••..•••.....•.....•.. Had Intercepted ....••...••...•.•.••.....••..•...• Total Offensive Plays .•.....•.•....••...•.••.•••..•.. Total Net yards .•.•..••.•....••••••..•••.•..••..•...• Avg Gain Per Play .••..••...•.•••...•..••.•.•..•. Return Yards ................... ....................................................... .. () FUllloles : Number-Lost .....•..•...••...••....•....•..•.. Penal ties : Number-Yards ......••.•..................... Interceptions:Number-Yards •.•...••..
The implementation of Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) in Grade 8 Natural Science classrooms in the Western Cape
No full textIncludes abstract.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 169-177).The present study aimed to monitor the extent to which educators implement an outcomes-based environment in Grade 8 Natural Science classrooms in the Western Cape. The results from the current study in the Western Cape were compared to those collected in a matching study done by Aldridge, Laugksch, Seopa and Fraser (2006) in the Limpopo Province. The comparison is essential as it provides a general impression of the extent to which educators implement an outcomes-based learning environment in South Africa. This study is a replication study of research conducted by Aldridge, et al. (2006), and makes use ofa mixed-methods research approach. The nature of the study lent itself to large scale collection of quantitative data. Quantitative data were collected in the form of questionnaires. The questionnaires used, were developed by Aldridge, et al. (2006) and called the Outcomes-Based Learning Environment Questionnaire (OBLEQ). The OBLEQ was adapted for use in the Western Cape by translating the already existing questionnaire into Afrikaans and isiXhosa
