This study quantified changes in tennis skills and dose of practice in adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities following an 8-week adapted tennis program. Twenty-seven adults with disabilities (mean age 24.7) participated in an 8-week adapted tennis program (1-hour, twice a week). Participants’ racquets were equipped with sensors that measured the number of shots during the program (dose). Pre- and post-test tennis skill assessments (process scores) were conducted for the forehand and backhand. All participants showed significant improvements in forehand and backhand process scores. Level of function, but not age or disability type, was associated with forehand and backhand process scores. The number of forehand shots performed during the adapted tennis program did not change across the program. The number of forehand shots was associated with age and disability type, but not level of function. The number of backhand shots (dose) was not associated with age, disability, or level of function. The number of forehand or backhand shots (dose) was not associated with changes in forehand or backhand process scores, respectively. This study provides evidence of the efficacy of this adapted tennis program to develop fundamental tennis skills in novice players with developmental and intellectual disabilities.
Loriane Favoretto, Zach Hutchison, Claire M. Mowling, and Melissa M. Pangelinan
Melissa Pangelinan, Marc Norcross, Megan MacDonald, Mary Rudisill, Danielle Wadsworth, and James McDonald
Experiential learning provides undergraduate students rich opportunities to enhance their knowledge of core concepts in kinesiology. Beyond these outcomes, it enables students to gain exposure to, build empathy for, and affect the lives of individuals from diverse populations. However, the development, management, and systematic evaluation of experiential learning vary drastically across programs. Thus, the purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the experiential-learning programs at Auburn University and Oregon State University with respect to best practices outlined by the National Society for Experiential Education. The authors provide examples of lessons learned from these two programs to help others improve the implementation and impact of undergraduate experiential learning.
Jill Whitall, Farid Bardid, Nancy Getchell, Melissa M. Pangelinan, Leah E. Robinson, Nadja Schott, and Jane E. Clark
In Part I of this series I, we looked back at the 20th century and re-examined the history of Motor Development research described in Clark & Whitall’s 1989 paper “What is Motor Development? The Lessons of History”. We now move to the 21st century, where the trajectories of developmental research have evolved in focus, branched in scope, and diverged into three new areas. These have progressed to be independent research areas, co-existing in time. We posit that the research focus on Dynamical Systems at the end of the 20th century has evolved into a Developmental Systems approach in the 21st century. Additionally, the focus on brain imaging and the neural basis of movement have resulted in a new approach, which we entitled Developmental Motor Neuroscience. Finally, as the world-wide obesity epidemic identified in the 1990s threatened to become a public health crisis, researchers in the field responded by examining the role of motor development in physical activity and health-related outcomes; we refer to this research area as the Developmental Health approach. The glue that holds these research areas together is their focus on movement behavior as it changes across the lifespan.