The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of short-term unilateral resistance training (UL) and bilateral resistance training (BL) with free weights on several tests of unilateral and bilateral lower-body strength and power in men and women. Thirty-eight untrained men and women (mean body mass 78.3 +/- 21.47 kg; age 20.74 +/- 2.6 years) completed the study. The groups trained 2 days per week for 8 weeks with free weights and 2 days per week for 5 of the 8 weeks with plyometric drills. The resistance-training program consisted of a progression from 3 sets of 15 repetitions at 50% of the subject's predicted 1 repetition maximum (1RM) to 6 sets of 5 repetitions at 87% 1RM. Training volume and intensity were equal for each group. The free-weight squat was used to measure unilateral and bilateral strength. Power was measured by the Magaria-Kalamen stair-climb test and the unilateral and bilateral vertical jump test. Analysis of covariance was used to analyze differences between men and women and the interaction of group and gender. Pretest scores were used as the covariate. The UL group improved more than the BL group on the unilateral vertical jump height (p = 0.001) and relative power (p = 0.013). After adjusting for pretest differences, the improved scores on all tests, except for the unilateral squat, were similar between the men and the women. No significant interactions on all tests were found for the men or women comparison between training groups. These results indicate that UL and BL are equally effective for early phase improvement of unilateral and bilateral leg strength and power in untrained men and women.

Academic underachievement is a national problem according to the U.S. Department of Education (1993) report, National Excellence: A Case for Developing America's Talent. The report states that 40% of the top 5% of high school graduates will not graduate from college. Not only is underachievement a problem among gifted students, it also appears to be a problem at all ability levels. A report by the Carnegie Corporation of New York (1996) indicates that by the fourth grade, the performance of most American children has dropped below grade level; it has also dropped below the performance level of fourth graders from other countries, many of which are our economic competitors.

No abstract

Researchers examined roles and actions of members of “co-teaching” teams including a special educator and a regular educator in a public high school. Observational data were collected using momentary time sampling procedures. Results indicated that regular educators presented material to students in 29.93% of observed intervals; special educators presented material in less than 1% of observed intervals. Researchers observed regular educators conducting non-interaction instructional tasks (e.g., preparing for instruction) in 28.33% of the intervals; special educators conducted these tasks in 3.96% of intervals. Special educators observed or drifted in 45.24% of the intervals and responded to students more often (i.e., 29.86% observation intervals) than regular educators. Results are discussed in terms of needed study related to roles of general and special educators as increasing numbers of students with disabilities are expected to master the general curriculum.

This article focuses on the learning style preferences of achieving and underachieving gifted middle school students. Learning style was determined through administration of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI). Both groups of participants revealed several learning style preferences that were quite similar. However, examination of LSI profiles revealed some differences between achievers and underachievers in preferences for quiet or sound, flexibility or structure in assignments, and level of need for mobility. Many low achievers showed a strong need for tactile and kinesthetic modalities; intake of food, drinks, or both; sound in the learning environment; informal seating design; and dim lighting. The low achievers did not perceive themselves to be persistent, and scores revealed that they needed structure in assignments. Persistence seemed to be a key to success for the achieving learners in this study since they were able to maintain high academic performance in all content areas. Over half of the low achievers, on the other hand, did not judge themselves to be successful at task completion.