Athletic Training: Instructors Perceived Preparedness for Teaching in an Athletic Training Education Program

Athletic trainers work in clinical settings such as secondary schools, colleges and universities, sports medicine clinics, professional sports, hospitals, and other healthcare environments. However, with the rapid expansion of athletic training education programs (ATEP) over the years, another role for the athletic trainer has developed, the athletic trainer educator. Consequently, it is currently becoming increasingly apparent that athletic trainers must also be equipped with the knowledge and expertise to teach, mentor, and train the future generations of certified athletic trainers within the classroom. Recently, researchers (Hertel et al., 2001; Craig, 2006; Rich, 2009) have argued that athletic training instructors lack the necessary pedagogical knowledge to be more effective instructors. However, athletic training education is a unique environment that provides both a wealth of content knowledge and many opportunities for students and professionals to engage in inquiry, action, interaction, mentoring, and reflection. Does the athletic training environment provide informal opportunities for students and instructors to gain pedagogical expertise? To learn more about instructors’ preparation for teaching, this dissertation explored athletic training instructors perceived preparedness for teaching in an ATEP. This study used a mixed methods research approach through a self-developed and pre-piloted electronic questionnaire. The approach consisted of collecting and analyzing scalable quantitative and qualitative data as well as written narrative qualitative responses from 364 participants currently teaching within an ATEP. In addition, quantitative data was collected from ATEP program directors regarding their perceptions of pedagogy on instructor preparation and its place within athletic training (AT) education. Through the study’s findings, it became evident that instructors’ perceived preparedness for teaching is explained by several theories of learning, such as the mentor/protégé model of learning, experiential learning theory, and social learning theory. Demonstrated by their actions, attitudes, and beliefs, participants placed high value on pedagogy, its importance on effective teaching, and its place within AT education. Furthermore, from within athletic training’s unique clinical field and classroom settings, participants demonstrated how each environment provided them with their perceived foundations for teaching within an ATEP. Despite these findings, formal pedagogical preparation and its place within athletic training curricula needs further exploration

Experiencing the World

Since even the earliest paintings in the caves of Cantabria, Spain, the visual intensions of western cultures have been centrally focused activities for producing the objects of art

Designing a task-based syllabus and materials for Tyndale Level 1

The purpose of this project is to provide the Tyndale St. George's Community Centre with a program it could adopt for its Level 1 adult ESL course by adapting a structural/functional set of materials and syllabus to reflect a different approach. It is by exploring and putting into practice current thinking and research in syllabus design, second language acquisition, methodology, and adult education that the author has designed a new program to address the specific needs of Tyndale adults. The four chapters of the thesis present: (1) the rationale for the project with a description of Tyndale students and their language needs, (2) the rationale for designing the new Level 1 program according to the principles of task-based language teaching, (3) a description of the pilot project which consisted of designing task-based materials and then piloting them with a Level 1 class at Tyndale, (4) the author's conclusions based on the pilot project. The three appendices present: (1) the student materials that could be used in the new Level 1 program, (2) the Teacher's Guide, (3) materials used in the pilot project and referred to in Chapter 3 but not included in the final version of the new program

Focal and Ambient Processing of Built Environments: Intellectual and Atmospheric Experiences of Architecture

Citation: Rooney, K. K., Condia, R. J., & Loschky, L. C. (2017). Focal and Ambient Processing of Built Environments: Intellectual and Atmospheric Experiences of Architecture. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 20. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00326Neuroscience has well established that human vision divides into the central and peripheral fields of view. Central vision extends from the point of gaze (where we are looking) out to about 5 degrees of visual angle (the width of one's fist at arm's length), while peripheral vision is the vast remainder of the visual field. These visual fields project to the parvo and magno ganglion cells, which process distinctly different types of information from the world around us and project that information to the ventral and dorsal visual streams, respectively. Building on the dorsal/ventral stream dichotomy, we can further distinguish between focal processing of central vision, and ambient processing of peripheral vision. Thus, our visual processing of and attention to objects and scenes depends on how and where these stimuli fall on the retina. The built environment is no exception to these dependencies, specifically in terms of how focal object perception and ambient spatial perception create different types of experiences we have with built environments. We argue that these foundational mechanisms of the eye and the visual stream are limiting parameters of architectural experience. We hypothesize that people experience architecture in two basic ways based on these visual limitations; by intellectually assessing architecture consciously through focal object processing and assessing architecture in terms of atmosphere through pre-conscious ambient spatial processing. Furthermore, these separate ways of processing architectural stimuli operate in parallel throughout the visual perceptual system. Thus, a more comprehensive understanding of architecture must take into account that built environments are stimuli that are treated differently by focal and ambient vision, which enable intellectual analysis of architectural experience versus the experience of architectural atmosphere, respectively. We offer this theoretical model to help advance a more precise understanding of the experience of architecture, which can be tested through future experimentation. (298 words

Vision and the experience of built environments: two visual pathways of awareness, attention and embodiment in architecture

Doctor of PhilosophyEnvironmental Design and Planning ProgramRobert J. CondiaThe unique contribution of Vision and the Experience of Built Environments is its specific investigation into the visual processing system of the mind in relationship with the features of awareness and embodiment during the experience of architecture. Each facet of this investigation reflects the essential ingredients of sensation (the visual system), perception (our awareness), and emotions (our embodiment) respectively as a process for aesthetically experiencing our built environments. In regards to our visual system, it is well established in neuroscience that human vision divides into the central and peripheral fields of view. Central vision extends from the point of gaze (where we are looking) out to about 5° of visual angle (the width of one’s fist at arm’s length), while peripheral vision is the vast remainder of the visual field. These visual fields project to the parvo and magno ganglion cells which process distinctly different types of information from the world around us and project that information to the ventral and dorsal visual streams respectively. Building on the dorsal/ventral stream dichotomy, we can further distinguish between focal processing of central vision and ambient processing of peripheral vision. Thus, our visual processing of, and attention to, objects and scenes depends on how and where these stimuli fall on the retina. Built environments are no exception to these dependencies, specifically in terms of how focal object perception and ambient spatial perception create intellectual and phenomenal experiences respectively with architecture. These two forms of visual processing limit and guide our perception of the built world around us and subsequently our projected and extended embodied interactions with it as manifested in the act of aesthetic experience. By bringing peripheral vision and central vision together in a balanced perspective we will more fully understand that our aesthetic relationship with our built environment is greatly dependent on the dichotomous visual mechanisms of awareness and embodiment

Developing an Academic Performance Reporting Model for a Centralized University

Higher education faces increasing challenges regarding economics, efficiency and accountability. To assist administrators, staff and faculty developing management accounting systems (MAS), this paper presents a model of an MAS that reports profitability of academic programs at a university with centralized decision making. The model contains measures of profitability appropriate for both academic programs (e.g., majors) and for departments. The paper describes difficulties regarding the calculation of net tuition revenues, faculty costs, and other expenses. The paper also includes authors’ recommendations related to allocation decisions. An example demonstrates how the model rolls lower levels into higher academic units

Meaning in Architecture: Affordances, Atmosphere and Mood

Abstract: Meaning in Architecture: Affordances, Atmosphere and Mood, began as a public forum about human awareness of building, specifically speaking to the significance of affordances, embodied simulation theory, atmosphere and mood. It is herewith presented in copy form for broader distribution. An exchange between scientists and architects, this symposium was the inaugural Interface event of ANFA (the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture, Salk Institute) held 17 April 2018 in the Regnier Forum of APDesign, Kansas State University. The authors for Meaning in Architecture: Affordances, Atmosphere and Mood will escort you to the intersection of deep brain function, as studied by neuroscientists, and our built-environment the expertise of architects. Unmistakably, these subjects are no longer separate matters of analysis, rather a collective pursuit to discover the physiological framework when confronted with our natural and built environment. Or to borrow from Dr. Rooney’s “Introduction:” What benefit, if any, is there to gain by combining the efforts of architecture and neuroscience? The former profession lays claim to thousands of years of physically manifesting civilization, while the latter, whose own enlightenment is taking shape, has greatly expanded our conceptualization of how our minds operate. Did the ancient Greeks suffer from a lack of neuroscientific knowledge when building the Parthenon? Did early neuroscientist need to know about architecture in order to discover the relationship between lesions and motor activity? No. Although that answer is true, it seems to remove a very common element amongst both professions. The element of environments. Regardless of your position as an architect, a neuroscientist or as a lay philosopher, humans live in the world and that world is predominantly built by humans. Any study of neuroscience inevitably must ground its findings in our world if it is to say anything useful, and any built architecture must come forth through the use of imagination held together by the neurons firing across regions in the brain. Speaking to our body, brain, and environments agenda, Dr. Michael Arbib, a neuroscientist studying buildings and their design, discusses in “The Architecture-Neuroscience Conversation and the Action-Perception Cycle,” the makeup of our brain and its relevant purposes, specifically the significance of the hippocampus. With knowledge stretching beyond cognitive generalities, architects and neuroscientists alike can begin to join design intentions to the human’s subconscious need to create place and memory through cognitive mapping. Through “Place, Peripheral Vision, and Space Perception: a pilot study in VR.” Dr. Colin Ellard and Robert Condia demonstrate the consequences of our peripheral and central vision. Investigated were measured human physiological responses, using biofeedback technology for subjects in virtual reality settings of 2 urban squares one classical and one in glass modernism. The lesson learnt is that central vision has little to do with perceiving where we are in space. Similarly, Dr. Brent Chamberlain’s “The Physio-Affective Built Environment” explores the exchange of the body and space in a direct application to our urban environment in a real-world experiment. Exposing our bodies to different environmental characteristics allow for real time biological results when crossing a street or turning a corner; an action we perform in our daily lives without consideration for its effect on our physiology. Our contract with space is this, the environment (built and otherwise) directly effects how we feel at any particular moment and place in time. Necessarily, our conversation begins by exploring the brain and body’s physiological response to constructed environments. To wit. recent advances in the biological sciences confirm how we construct and imagine space, while opening new doors to understanding perception holistically within our experience of architecture and urban design. Architecture embodies our natural tendencies and potentials for actions, what we now know as affordances of space. Interestingly, what you expect of a place has much to do with what it will afford you. Comments \u27\u27This collection of research uncovers key findings--for one, that central, focused vision has little to do with how we experience the ambience of a city square, that peripheral vision is more suited to the richness of architectural experience and that expectation and imaginative perception condition what our surroundings might afford us. These findings confirm what the very best architects have long known through their embodied knowledge honed in many years of practice--making it available to young architects who are just entering the field. What is more--the process of this research underscores the value of interdisciplinary collaboration precisely because it brings the embodied methods and intuitions of the architect together with the biocultural constraints being discovered in neuroscience to bear on the crucial project of designing the settings in which our daily lives unfold. - Sarah Robinson, AIAhttps://newprairiepress.org/ebooks/1033/thumbnail.jp