Academic literature on the topic 'Wartburg College'

The focus of this study was to investigate the effects that different basketball shoe outsole tread patterns have on the amount of slip and therefore the performance of the individual while undergoing normal basketball transitions. Tread grooves and patterns must exist on the outsole of a basketball shoe to account for the chances of contamination and for the practical durability of the shoes. With the existence of so many basketball shoes with varying tread patterns and characteristics it presents the question of whether or not varying patterns affect traction, slip, and athletic performance. This study evaluated the amount of slips of two pairs of basketball shoes with human participants running basketball drills on a hardwood basketball floor at Wartburg College. The results indicated that one shoe with a more unique tread pattern exhibited fewer slips and severe slips, especially when considering lateral movements, than the shoe with a tread pattern seen more often in shoes available on the market today.

Abstract Ludwig von Mühlenfels as Advocatus Schleiermacheri. An addendum. The editorial copy of the “Allgemeine Zeitung” has survived in the Cotta-Archive with the names of the contributors. This has made it possible to identify belatedly the author of the apologia “Another word about Schleiermacher” in the “Außerordentliche Beilage der Allgemeinen Zeitung” (Augsburg) of April 2, 1834. It was Ludwig Friedrich von Mühlenfels (1793–1861). Mühlenfels, who led a rather varied life, was related to Schleiermacher’s wife Henriette, and thus belonged to Schleiermacher’s extended family. (1) Member of Lützow’s Freicorps. On Schleiermacher’s suggestion, Mühlenfels participated in the war of liberation against Napoleon as a volunteer with the “Black Hunters”, in the end in the so-called Battle of the Nations at Leipzig. He finished the study of law in 1816 and, on probation, joined the prosecutor’s office in Cologne where the French legal code was still in force. (2) Incarcerated as a demagogue under the investigating judge E. T. A. Hoffmann. Mühlenfels became one of the formative figures in the early history of German fraternities and participated in the Wartburg Festival in October 1817. He was arrested in July 1819 by the authorities in Berlin, charged with activities as a demagogue and incarcerated in Berlin on September 17. Mühlenfels contested the jurisdiction of the authorities in Berlin and refused to testify. The investigative judge was the writer and composer E. T. A. Hoffmann who wanted to have Mühlenfels released, and who later used him as a literary figure in a satirical novel. (3) Flight from Berlin – Exile in Sweden. On May 5, 1821, Mühlenfels succeeded in fleeing to Sweden where he made a meagerly living as a private tutor. (4) Professor for German and Scandinavian Literature in London – Return to Prussia. In October 1827, Mühlenfels reached London. Supported by some German scholars, he obtained the Chair for German and Scandinavian at the newly founded University College. He taught there until 1831 and publishedseveral textbooks. When he was acquitted by a court ruling in 1830, he returned to the Prussian public service in August 1831 and gradually built a solid career. (5) The defender of Schleiermacher. His apologia of Schleiermacher written in opposition to the obituary by Gutzkow is a masterpiece of literary and legal writing. – First publication: Six letters between Mühlenfels, Henriette and Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Georg Andreas Reimer.

A Review of: 
 Gremmels, G. S., and K. S. Lehmann. “Assessment of Student Learning from Reference Service." College & Research Libraries 68.6 (2007): 488-501.
 
 Objective – The study explores the instructional nature of reference encounters from the perspective of students and librarians. Specifically, the study asks: 1) whether students perceive reference interactions to be instructional, 2) whether what they learn is the same as what the librarians intended to teach, and 3) whether they connect reference-based instruction with any formal information literacy classes in which they may have participated. 
 
 Design – Survey questionnaire with two parts: one for students and the second for reference librarians, administered twice (revisions to the study and to the questionnaire were made in between).
 
 Setting – Wartburg College in Iowa, United States. Wartburg is a 1,800-student private, residential, coeducational college with a strong course-integrated information literacy program. 
 
 Subjects – An unknown number of undergraduate students who were perceived by reference librarians to have asked instructional questions at the reference desk (264 surveys were collected from students, but some students may have completed more than one survey as the first implementation of the study allowed repeated participation for students with more than one instructional reference encounter) and four librarians. 
 
 Methods – The study was conducted two times during the years 2003 and 2004 (referred to here as study A and study B) and findings are reported for each study separately. The data collection instrument in both implementations was a paper survey that was divided into two sections and perforated to collect information from two perspectives: the student and the librarian. The surveys were numbered to facilitate matching between the two sections after the survey was completed and returned by the student/librarian pair. 
 
 Potential student participants in the study were identified at the reference desk: each time a librarian deemed a reference question to be instructional, he or she invited the student to complete a short survey. If the student agreed, the librarian tore off and kept the librarian portion of the survey and gave the second section to the student to complete. Students and librarians deposited their sections into a box and sections were re-matched and moved to a secure location every few days.
 
 On their section of the survey, students were asked whether the librarian who assisted them taught them anything while answering their question, and if so, to describe what the librarian taught them in their own words. Additionally they were asked if what the librarian taught them built upon skills learned in a library session held for the present assignment or from a previous class, if applicable. On the librarians’ section of the survey, there were two questions: what the librarian intended to teach the student (to be chosen from a checklist) and whether the librarian thought the student understood that intention during the reference encounter. Comments were allowed.
 
 Some revisions were made to the survey instrument between study A and study B, including two of note: a check list matching that on the librarians’ survey was added to the student survey question about what the librarian taught the student, and the student participant selection criteria were changed to limit only one response per student. 
 
 At the end of both studies, data analysis was done, including entering data into a spreadsheet and transcribing both student and librarian descriptions of learning into a narrative document (for study A) or Qualrus, a software program for qualitative research (for study B). The study authors independently compared the librarians’ and students’ descriptions of what was taught and labelled the match as either “related”, “inconclusive” or “not related” (for study A) or “strong match,” “acceptable match,” or “no match” (for study B). Disagreements were discussed and authors came to an agreement for each. 
 
 Main Results – Response rates for study A (85%) and study B (78%) were high. Most students indicated that they believed the librarian taught them something (94% for study A and 98% for study B).
 
 Findings on whether the students learned what the librarian intended to teach are mixed. For study A, 60% of the student responses were deemed matches, 20% were not related and an additional 20% were inconclusive. For study B, the authors report their findings in a different manner since the student survey included a checklist that matched the librarian survey in addition to a narrative description of what the librarian taught them. The findings therefore include whether the librarian and student surveys matched in the open-ended descriptions, in the category checklist, in both, or in neither. In this second study, 21% matched in the description only, 36% matched in the category only, 21% matched in both the description and the category, and 22% showed no match at all. This puts the overall match rate for study B at 78%.
 
 Surveys were analyzed to determine which categories were most likely to be matched. For study A, 62% of the matches were in the “tool” category, 4% in “terms,” 16% in ”strategy,” 10% in ”database,” and 8% in ”other.” For study B, 42% of the matches were in the ”tool” category, 22% in “terms,” 16% in “strategy,” 16% in “database” and 4% in “other.”
 
 Additional findings relate to the connections between the reference encounters and previous information literacy sessions. Approximately one third of students had participated in an information literacy session (33% for study A and 34% for study B) for their class. Of these students, most connected what the reference librarian taught them and what they had learned in their in-class instruction (89% for study A and 95% for study B). The rate for how many students connected reference-based instruction with a prior information literacy class was lower, but still quite high (77% for study A and 74% for study B).
 
 Conclusion – The vast majority of student participants perceived that the reference encounters were instructional and most also connected what they learned from the librarian in the reference encounter to librarian-led information literacy sessions in their current or previous classes. This suggests that post-session reference assistance could help reinforce information literacy principles in a one-on-one situation, perhaps closer to the time of need. For this follow-up instruction to be effective, reference librarians may want to refer directly to what was taught in the information literacy sessions, which could help place new skills in the context of those with which the students are already familiar. The authors also suggest that short reference encounters at the desk may not be appropriate for this kind of instruction and propose that scheduled consultations of up to 30 minutes may better meet students’ needs.
 
 Rates for matching what the student thought the librarian taught them and what the librarian intended to teach them were lower, if still relatively high at 60% (study A) and 78% (study B). The authors attribute this lower rate in study A to conservative coding, the inability of researchers to follow up on what the students meant by their answers, and the difficulty students might have in describing what they refer to as “tacit knowledge.” Undoubtedly, the open-ended nature of the students’ responses led to difficulties in matching how they might describe a skill or tool to how a librarian would describe it. Adding a checklist of categories for students to select from for study B certainly made it easier to overcome the problem of students not using (or perhaps even knowing) the same terminology to describe skills as librarians and helped to achieve a higher match rate.
 
 “Tools” was the category that was most likely to be matched in both study A and study B. The authors did not speculate on the reasons for this finding.