Communities worldwide are critically re-examining their seasonal cultures and calendars. As cultural frameworks, seasons have long patterned community life and provided repertoires for living by annual rhythms. In a chaotic world, the seasons - winter, the monsoon and so on - can feel like stable cultural landmarks for reckoning time and orienting our communities. Seasons are rooted in our pasts and reproduced in our present. They act as schemes for synchronising community activities and professional practices, and as symbol systems for interpreting what happens in the world. But on closer inspection, seasons can be unstable and unreliable. Their meanings can change over time. Seasonal cultures evolve with environments and communities’ worldviews, values, technologies and practices, affecting how people perceive seasonal patterns and behave accordingly. Calendars are contested, especially now. Communities today find themselves in a moment of accelerated and intersecting changes - from climate to social, political, and technological - that are destabilizing seasonal cultures. How they reorient themselves to shifting patterns may affect whether seasonal rhythms serve as resources, or lead people down maladaptive pathways. A focus on seasonal cultures builds on multi-disciplinary work. The social sciences, from anthropology to sociology, have long studied how seasons order people’s sense of time, social life, relationship to the environment, and politics. In the humanities, seasons play an important role in literature, art, archaeology and history. This book advances scholarship in these fields, and enriches it with extrascientific insights from practice, to open up exiting new directions in climate adaptation. Critically questions traditional, often-static notions of seasons; re-interpreting them as more flexible, cultural frameworks adapting to changes to our societies and environments.
LINK
Due to fast and unpredictable developments, professional education is challenged with being responsive, which demands a rethinking of conventional curriculum development approaches. Yet, literature on curriculum development falls short in terms of recognising how to react rapidly and adequately to these new developments. This study focuses on curriculum development initiatives at the school level in a Dutch university of applied sciences. Open interviews were held with 29 curriculum developers to explore how they define and give substance to developing curricula for new, changing or unpredictable professions. These 29 participants were involved in seven curriculum development trajectories. Four themes were detected: (1) curriculum developers are in favour of open, flexible and authentic curricula; (2) the context in which the curriculum development takes place and the different roles and responsibilities of curriculum developers are challenging; (3) curriculum developers feel insufficiently equipped to carry out their tasks; and (4) involving stakeholders is necessary but results in a “viscous” social–political process. Responsive curriculum development requires a great deal of flexibility and adaptability from curriculum developers. Yet, in our study, “institutional concrete” is found to severely hinder responsive curriculum development processes. To be responsive, such processes need to be supported and institutional barriers need to be removed.
Objectives: To investigate immediate changes in walking performance associated with three implicit motor learning strategies and to explore patient experiences of each strategy. Design: Participants were randomly allocated to one of three implicit motor learning strategies. Within-group comparisons of spatiotemporal parameters at baseline and post strategy were performed. Setting: Laboratory setting. Subjects: A total of 56 community-dwelling post-stroke individuals. Interventions: Implicit learning strategies were analogy instructions, environmental constraints and action observation. Different analogy instructions and environmental constraints were used to facilitate specific gait parameters. Within action observation, only videotaped gait was shown. Main measures: Spatiotemporal measures (speed, step length, step width, step height) were recorded using Vicon 3D motion analysis. Patient experiences were assessed by questionnaire. Results: At a group level, three of the four analogy instructions (n=19) led to small but significant changes in speed (d=0.088m/s), step height (affected side d=0.006m) and step width (d=–0.019m), and one environmental constraint (n=17) led to significant changes in step width (d=–0.040m). At an individual level, results showed wide variation in the magnitude of changes. Within action observation (n=20), no significant changes were found. Overall, participants found it easy to use the different strategies and experienced some changes in their walking performance. Conclusion: Analogy instructions and environmental constraints can lead to specific, immediate changes in the walking performance and were in general experienced as feasible by the participants. However, the response of an individual patient may vary quite considerably.
