10 Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/11

Browse

Publication Type: search.filters.UBSTyp.Preprint

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Interdisziplinärer Informatikunterricht - zwischen Chance und Herausforderung
    (2024) Bahr, Tobias
    In Europa wird Informatikunterricht disziplinär und interdisziplinär in der Sekundarstufe vermittelt. Seit 2018 gibt es das Profilfach Informatik, Mathematik, Physik (IMP) an Gymnasien in Baden-Württemberg. Bislang gibt es keine Evidenz zur Umsetzung des interdisziplinären Profilfaches. In einer Interviewstudie (N = 21) wurden IMP-Lehrpersonen zur ihrer Motivation, Qualifikation, Fachvernetzung und Umsetzung befragt. Die explorativen Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die unterrichtliche Umsetzung von fachgetrenntem Unterricht ohne interdisziplinäre Abstimmung bis hin zu einer fächerverbindenden und fächerüberschreitenden Umsetzung reicht. Interdisziplinäre Umsetzung wird als Chance gesehen. Mangelnde Abstimmung zwischen den Lehrpersonen führt zur Disziplinarität. Geschlechterungleichheit, Mängel in der Ausstattung und der volle Stundenverteilungsplan sind Herausforderungen. Die Ergebnisse deuten begrenzten Erfolg der interdisziplinären Umsetzung an.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The size of the functional base of support decreases with age
    (2025) Sloot, Lizeth H.; Gerhardy, Thomas; Mombaur, Katja; Millard, Matthew
    Falls occur more often as we age. To identify people at risk of falling, balance analysis requires an accurate base-of-support model. We previously developed a functional base-of-support (fBOS) model for standing young adults and showed that its area is smaller than the footprint area. Our fBOS model is a polygon that contains centre-of-pressure trajectories recorded as standing participants move their bodies in the largest possible loop while keeping their feet flat on the ground. Here we assess how the size of the fBOS area changes with age by comparing 38 younger (YA), 14 middle-aged (MA), and 34 older adults (OA). The fBOS area is smaller in older adults: OA area is 58% of the YA area (p<0.001), and 59% of the MA area (p=0.001), with no difference between YA and MA. The reduction in fBOS area among the OA is primarily caused by a reduction in the length of the fBOS. In addition, among older adults smaller fBOS areas correlated with a lower score on the Short Physical Performance Battery (τ=0.28, p=0.04), a reduced walking speed (τ=0.25, p=0.04), and a higher frailty level (p=0.09). So that others can extend our work, we have made our fBOS models available online.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A polygon model of the functional base-of-support improves the accuracy of balance analysis
    (2025) Millard, Matthew; Sloot, Lizeth H.
    Mathematical balance models have the potential to identify people at risk of falling before an injury occurs. However, most balance models depend on a model of the base-of-support (BOS) of the feet to calculate how well someone is balancing. Here we evaluate the functional base-of-support (fBOS): the convex polygon on the bottom of the foot that can support a large fraction of the body's weight. First, we develop a geometric model of the fBOS by measuring the center-of-pressure (COP) and kinematic data of the feet of 27 younger adults instructed to move their body mass in large loops without taking a step. We extract a planar convex polygon that contains the COP data. Finally, we compare the area of this fBOS model to a marker-based BOS model before evaluating if the fBOS differs across four everyday conditions: footwear, stance-width, foot dominance, and during single and double stance. We found that the fBOS is much smaller (23% the size) than a marker-based BOS model. Our analysis suggests that using the fBOS, rather than a marker-based BOS, can improve the accuracy of the margin-of-stability by 20% of foot width and 16% of the length. In addition, we found that the fBOS area does not differ across footwear (p=0.88), stance-width (p=0.88), and foot dominance (p=0.68), but during single stance the fBOS is 17% (p=0.0003) larger than during double stance. So that others can use and extend our work, we have made the models, example data and code publicly available.