27 research outputs found

    Black gold: trustworthiness in artistic research (seen from the sidelines of arts and health)

    Get PDF
    Rigour plays a central role in contemporary research culture. But how appropriate a concept is it to think, perform, and make judgements with on what is trustworthy and excellent in artistic research and its neighbouring field of arts and health? The historical meanings of rigour suggest severity and rigidity: straight lines, austere habits, privations. As a word, rigour has a mixed ancestry – French, Latin, Middle English. Some of its earliest uses coincide with a feudal system of government in Europe, with rigge [verb] meaning to plough a straight line in a narrow strip, and rig [verb] to provide a straight ridge to a house. Rig [noun] a derivation of ridge, was used in England five hundred years ago of human and animal backbones, perhaps reflecting everyday physical burdens. Rigours [noun] conveyed the meting out of un-cautioned punishments and cruelty. While the temperament of rigour might be appropriate for research that follows pre-set norms and standards of repeatability, its use to judge what is trustworthy in artistic research is questionable. Though artistic researchers need to understand the rigour concept, by contrast, artistic research as a kind of ‘thinking through making’ (Ravetz, 2011, 159; Ingold, 2013, 6), places value on improvisation, chance encounter, unforeseen admixture and the in- and outward- folding of process, affect and material. Once it is accepted that poiesis is part of the research process (Ingold, 2013; Haraway, 2016), it becomes apparent that artistic research cannot easily accommodate straight backed rigour

    Strategic Use of Role Playing in a Training Workshop for Chemistry Laboratory Teaching Assistants

    Get PDF
    Many Canadian universities have created professional development programs for their teaching assistants (TA) but may be uncertain about how to bridge the gap between TAs’ knowledge of effective teaching strategies and TAs’ confident applications of these strategies. We present a technique used in a two-day training workshop to enhance graduate students skills in using effective teaching strategies: role playing. This paper outlines a framework that includes five key elements (Icebreaking, Shared Experiences, Modelling, Acting and Debriefing) to strategically design role playing activities in a training program. We describe each of the 5 elements and explain how they support training through role play exercises. Participant written feedback collected in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014 suggested that role playing was a useful and enjoyable technique. Pre and post workshop questionnaire data suggested that self-perceived competencies for specified tasks directly connected to a role play activity promoted greater positive differences between the pre and post groups compared to self-perceived competencies for specified tasks not directly connected to a role play activity. Based on these results, we assert that training programs which rely on strategic role playing activities will lead to a better overall TA experience of the training program and improvements in TAs’ self-perceptions of certain teaching competencies.  Bien que plusieurs universitĂ©s canadiennes aient crĂ©Ă© des programmes de perfectionnement professionnel pour leurs auxiliaires Ă  l’enseignement, il peut ĂȘtre difficile pour ces auxiliaires d’appliquer avec confiance les techniques d’enseignement efficace qu’ils ont apprises. Nous avons donc intĂ©grĂ© le jeu de rĂŽles Ă  un atelier de deux jours suivi par des Ă©tudiants diplĂŽmĂ©s afin d’amĂ©liorer leur stratĂ©gies d’enseignement. Le prĂ©sent article illustre les cinq principes essentiels qui permettent d’inclure le jeu de rĂŽles de façon stratĂ©gique en contexte de formation : brise-glace, partage d’expĂ©riences, modĂ©lisation, pratique par le jeu et compte rendu. Nous dĂ©crivons ces cinq Ă©lĂ©ments et expliquons comment, par des jeux de rĂŽles, chacun est utile Ă  la formation. Les remarques Ă©crites soumises par les participants des ateliers de 2010, 2011, 2012 et 2014 soutiennent l’idĂ©e que le jeu de rĂŽle est un outil d’apprentissage Ă  la fois utile et agrĂ©able. Remplis avant et aprĂšs la sĂ©ance de formation, les rĂ©ponses aux questionnaires d’auto-Ă©valuation des aptitudes personnelles dĂ©montrent une meilleure Ă©volution des habiletĂ©s prĂ©sentĂ©es avec une activitĂ© de jeu de rĂŽles, comparativement Ă  celles exposĂ©es sans cette composante. De par ces rĂ©sultats, nous Ă©tablissons que l’emploi stratĂ©gique du jeu de rĂŽles lors de sĂ©ances de formation mĂšne Ă  une meilleure expĂ©rience pour les auxiliaires Ă  l’enseignement, en plus d’amĂ©liorer leur auto-perception de certaines compĂ©tences en enseignement

    Information presentation through a head-worn display (“smart glasses”) has a smaller influence on the temporal structure of gait variability during dual-task gait compared to handheld displays (paper-based system and smartphone)

    No full text
    <div><p>The need to complete multiple tasks concurrently is a common occurrence both daily life and in occupational activities, which can often include simultaneous cognitive and physical demands. As one example, there is increasing availability of head-worn display technologies that can be employed when a user is mobile (e.g., while walking). This new method of information presentation may, however, introduce risks of adverse outcomes such as a decrement to gait performance. The goal of this study was thus to quantify the effects of a head-worn display (i.e., smart glasses) on motor variability during gait and to compare these effects with those of other common information displays (i.e., smartphone and paper-based system). Twenty participants completed four walking conditions, as a single task and in three dual-task conditions (three information displays). In the dual-task conditions, the information display was used to present several cognitive tasks. Three different measures were used to quantify variability in gait parameters for each walking condition (using the cycle-to-cycle standard deviation, sample entropy, and the “goal-equivalent manifold” approach). Our results indicated that participants used less adaptable gait strategies in dual-task walking using the paper-based system and smartphone conditions compared with single-task walking. Gait performance, however, was less affected during dual-task walking with the smart glasses. We conclude that the risk of an adverse gait event (e.g., a fall) in head-down walking conditions (i.e., the paper-based system and smartphone conditions) were higher than in single-task walking, and that head-worn displays might help reduce the risk of such events during dual-task gait conditions.</p></div

    Summary of results of pairwise comparisons related to cognitive load outcomes for 20 participants.

    No full text
    <p>Both least-square means (LMS) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are given for the different displays, for questionnaire responses and task performance. Values in a row not sharing same superscripted letters are significantly different.</p

    Summary of ANOVA results related to the cognitive load outcomes for 20 participants.

    No full text
    <p>Both <i>p</i> values and effect sizes (<i>η</i><sub><i>p</i></sub><sup><i>2</i></sup>) are given for the main and interaction effects of different displays conditions (D) and gender (G) for questionnaire responses and task performance. Significant effects are highlighted using bold font, and effects approaching significant are italicized.</p

    Summary of ANOVA results related to the GEM-based outcomes for 20 participants.

    No full text
    <p>Both <i>p-</i>values and effect sizes (<i>η</i><sub><i>p</i></sub><sup><i>2</i></sup>) are given for the main and interaction effects of different display conditions (DC) and gender (G) for SD of stride length, stride time, and stride speed. Significant effects are highlighted using bold font and effects approaching significance are italicized.</p

    Mean (SD) information of the study participants.

    No full text
    <p>Mean (SD) information of the study participants.</p

    Illustration of the different walking condition.

    No full text
    <p>From left to right: single-task walking; dual-task walking using the paper based system; dual-task walking using the smartphone; dual-task walking using the smart glasses. The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details.</p
    corecore