Performance of a North American Field Population and a Laboratory Colony of the Potato Tuberworm, Phthorimaea operculella, on Foliage of Resistant and Susceptible Potato Clones

Foliar resistance of two potato clones was tested against a Columbia Basin field population (CBFP) and a Colorado laboratory colony (COLC) of the potato tuberworm, Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). The first clone was a cross of a cultivated potato, Solanum tuberosum L. (Solanales: Solanaceae), and a wild potato, Solanum berthaultii Hawkes (Q 174-2); the second clone was cv. Allegany, S. tuberosum L.. In no-choice assays, defoliation by P. operculella larvae of COLC and CBFP did not differ on Allegany and Q174-2. Larval weight and production of COLC and CBFP colonies were similarly reduced on Q174-2 compared to cv. Allegany, although larval weights and production of the CBFP population were slightly less affected by the host. Larval production by the COLC on Allegany was greater than that on Q174-2, while that of the CBFP on Allegany and Q174-2 did not differ. However, production of P. operculella larvae by the CBFP on Q174-2 during no-choice assays was greater than that in choice tests, indicating reduced host preference. Most of the larvae recovered from either host were fourth instars, followed by third instars. Although the levels of resistance expressed by Q174-2 potato clone to the two P. operculella populations differed in magnitude, nearly all of P. operculella performance criteria measured in this study were adversely affected by Q174-2 foliage compared to the commercial potato cultivar, cv. Allegany

The role of action research in my autoethnographical transition from the natural sciences to scholarship in education

Having graduated with a Master’s degree in Natural Sciences, the educational aspects that I engaged in during my studies seemed to have ignited my latent affinity for education, which prompted me to pursue a scholarship in education. Fortunately, I did not have to choose between the two disciplines but could merge the Natural Sciences into the field of education. However, I obtained my entrance to the field of education through enrolling for a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE). This qualification assumes that I am engaged in a professional education practice which I could comply with when I became a Life Sciences teacher-educator for postgraduate student-teachers. Obtaining the PGCHE qualification revolved around the continuing improvement and/or innovation of my education practice through a comprehensive action research project. From the onset it became clear that being a good scientist does not mean that one is a good educator. Through this action research project I quickly learned that it is not only the improvement of my professional education practice that is under scrutiny, but, since learning is personal and fundamentally holistic in nature, my personal development is also under investigation. This also provided the impetus to extend my action research project into my proposed autoethnographic PhD scholarship. I was surprised by how the simplistic cyclic conception of action research could be transformed to support a complex endeavour of cycles and spirals in which personal development of the highest order to maximise one’s potential (being not only central but also an ethical imperative in education) could so effectively be fulfilled through action research.The National Research Foundation and the University of Pretoria.https://journal.alara.net.au/index.php/alarjhj2019Humanities Educatio

The role of action research in my autoethnographical transition from the natural sciences to scholarship in education

Having graduated with a Master’s degree in Natural Sciences, the educational aspects that I engaged in during my studies seemed to have ignited my latent affinity for education, which prompted me to pursue a scholarship in education. Fortunately, I did not have to choose between the two disciplines but could merge the Natural Sciences into the field of education. However, I obtained my entrance to the field of education through enrolling for a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE).This qualification assumes that I am engaged in a professional education practice which I could comply with when I became a Life Sciences teacher-educator for postgraduate student-teachers. Obtaining the PGCHE qualification revolved around the continuing improvement and/or innovation of my education practice through a comprehensive action research project.From the onset it became clear that being a good scientist does not mean that one is a good educator. Through this action research project I quickly learned that it is not only the improvement of my professional education practice that is under scrutiny, but, since learning is personal and fundamentally holistic in nature, my personal development is also under investigation. This also provided the impetus to extend my action research project into my proposed autoethnographic PhD scholarship.I was surprised by how the simplistic cyclic conception of action research could be transformed to support a complex endeavour of cycles and spirals in which personal development of the highest order to maximise one’s potential (being not only central but also an ethical imperative in education) could so effectively be fulfilled through action research

Comparing club level rugby coaches and players’ perceptions of coaching effectiveness

The objective of this study was to compare players' and coaches' perceptions on coaching effectiveness. A total of 155 participants from the Puk Rugby institute (PRI) were available for this study (players, n = 142; coaches, n =13) (age: 18-55 years). Coaches completed the Coaching efficacy scale (CES) and players completed the adapted CES. The CES consists of 24 items measuring four constructs namely motivation, game strategy, technique and character building. Each item was rated on a 10 point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all effective) to 9 (extremely effective). High Cronbach alpha values were established for all four constructs on this specific population. Mixed models results indicated a statistical significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) on all four constructs measured when the perceptions of coaches and players were compared. A statistical significant difference exists between the coaches and players' perception regarding the respective coaches' total coaching effectiveness. In view of the inconsistent pattern found between the coaches and players perceptions on coaching effectiveness, coaches and clubs need to be more aware of the impact that players' perceptions have regarding the outcome of coaching effectiveness