Hvordan tar barn i bruk de mulighetene uterommet kan gi i relasjonsleken? : en observasjonsstudie av hvordan noen barn leker sammen i barnehagens uterom

In my master thesis I wanted to focus on the outdoor environment of the norweigian kindergarten, and how this room or place can afford play between children. My main research question is: ”How does children make use of the possibilities that the outdoor room/place can afford in relational play?” To find an answer to this, I have used a fenomenological approach when it comes to theory and method. I am influenced among others by the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty. The term lifeworld and the body as a subject together with theories on play, relations and place make out the main part of my theory. In addition, hermeneutics and grounded theory are important factors of my method. I base this on theories developed by Heidegger and Gadamer amongst others. To collect data for my work, I spent two days a week for five weeks in a traditional kindergarten during their outdoor playtime. I was interacting with the children both as a participant in their play and as an observer from the outside. To document my data I used a notebook where I wrote down play observations and thoughts on what I saw in the everyday life of their playtime. After I had finished my field work, I decided to use five of the observations I had written down. These observations have made the platform of what I build my master thesis on. My results are based on the observations I have done and the analyses that came of this. I found a few things that stood out and seemed to be important in the children’s outdoor relational play. In short, what I found out was this; the importance of acknowledging each other, testing their own and others’ boundaries, the choice of a place out of interest, to create meaning through play and through the use of a place, and to create places not available to everyone. These were all factors that seemed important to the children I observed. They used the outdoor environment as a room to do all this. The way they did it varied from child to child, but it was clear to me that the outdoor environment afforded play, and the children used this room in a way that suitet them. The way I see it, the outdoor environment is a place that children use to their benefit, so that children of different age and base can share the same experience and share a common ground and be joined in relational play.Master i barnehagepedagogik

Hvordan tar barn i bruk de mulighetene uterommet kan gi i relasjonsleken? : en observasjonsstudie av hvordan noen barn leker sammen i barnehagens uterom

In my master thesis I wanted to focus on the outdoor environment of the norweigian kindergarten, and how this room or place can afford play between children. My main research question is: ”How does children make use of the possibilities that the outdoor room/place can afford in relational play?” To find an answer to this, I have used a fenomenological approach when it comes to theory and method. I am influenced among others by the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty. The term lifeworld and the body as a subject together with theories on play, relations and place make out the main part of my theory. In addition, hermeneutics and grounded theory are important factors of my method. I base this on theories developed by Heidegger and Gadamer amongst others. To collect data for my work, I spent two days a week for five weeks in a traditional kindergarten during their outdoor playtime. I was interacting with the children both as a participant in their play and as an observer from the outside. To document my data I used a notebook where I wrote down play observations and thoughts on what I saw in the everyday life of their playtime. After I had finished my field work, I decided to use five of the observations I had written down. These observations have made the platform of what I build my master thesis on. My results are based on the observations I have done and the analyses that came of this. I found a few things that stood out and seemed to be important in the children’s outdoor relational play. In short, what I found out was this; the importance of acknowledging each other, testing their own and others’ boundaries, the choice of a place out of interest, to create meaning through play and through the use of a place, and to create places not available to everyone. These were all factors that seemed important to the children I observed. They used the outdoor environment as a room to do all this. The way they did it varied from child to child, but it was clear to me that the outdoor environment afforded play, and the children used this room in a way that suitet them. The way I see it, the outdoor environment is a place that children use to their benefit, so that children of different age and base can share the same experience and share a common ground and be joined in relational play

Efficacy and safety of individualized coaching after stroke: the LAST Study (Life After Stroke): a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Background and Purpose: The evidence for interventions to prevent functional decline in the long term after stroke is lacking. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an 18-month follow-up program of individualized regular coaching on physical activity and exercise. Methods: This was a multicentre, pragmatic, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Adults (age ≥18 years) with first-ever or recurrent stroke, community dwelling, with modified Rankin Scale <5, and no serious comorbidities were included 10 to 16 weeks poststroke. The intervention group received individualized regular coaching on physical activity and exercise every month for 18 consecutive months. The control group received standard care. Primary outcome was the Motor Assessment Scale at end of intervention (18-month follow-up). Secondary measures were Barthel index, modified Rankin Scale, item 14 from Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go test, gait speed, 6-minute walk test, and Stroke Impact Scale. Other outcomes were adverse events and compliance to the intervention assessed by training diaries and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Results: Three hundred and eighty consenting participants were randomly assigned to individualized coaching (n=186) or standard care (n=194). The mean estimated difference on Motor Assessment Scale in favor of control group was −0.70 points (95% confidence interval, −2.80, 1.39), P=0.512. There were no differences between the groups on Barthel index, modified Rankin Scale, or Berg Balance Scale. The frequency of adverse events was low in both groups. Results from International Physical Activity Questionnaire and training diaries showed increased activity levels but low intensity of the exercise in the intervention group. Conclusions: The regular individualized coaching did not improve maintenance of motor function or the secondary outcomes compared with standard care. The intervention should be regarded as safe. Despite the neutral results, the health costs related to the intervention should be investigated