Older adults have been described as a vulnerable group in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Canada, where this study took place, older adults have been encouraged to self-isolate while the rest of the population has been cautioned against in-person contact with them. Prior to COVID-19, social isolation and loneliness among older adults was considered a serious public health concern. Using a series of semi-structured interviews with 26 community-dwelling older adults (65 +) living in rural Manitoba, we explore older adults’ experiences of isolation and loneliness in the initial stages of the pandemic between the months of May and July 2020. Participants identified a loss of autonomy, loss of activities and social spaces (e.g., having coffee or eating out, volunteering, and going to church), and lack of meaningful connection at home as factors influencing their sense of isolation and loneliness. Although these loses initially influenced participants’ self-reported isolation and loneliness, the majority developed strategies to mitigate isolation and loneliness, such as drawing on past experiences of isolation, engaging in physically distanced visits, connecting remotely, and “keeping busy.” Our findings call attention to the role of different environments and resources in supporting older adults social and emotional wellbeing, particularly as they adapt to changes in social contact over time.

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed social organizations and altered children’s worlds. As part of an ongoing longitudinal study of the institutional organization of disabled children’s lives, since March 2020 we have conducted interviews with families in rural and urban communities across Canada (65 families at the time of writing). The narrow focus of governments on the economy, childcare, and schooling does not reflect the scope of experiences of families and disabled children. We describe emerging findings about what the effects of the pandemic closures demonstrate about the social valuing of childhood, disability, and diverse family lives in early childhood education and care. Our research makes the case that ableism, exclusion, and procedural bias are the products of cumulative experiences across institutional sites and that it is critical we understand disabled childhoods more broadly if we are to return to more inclusive early childhood education and care.

No abstract

This article examines the reciprocal relationships between parental disciplinary practices and child emotion regulation in the first 3 years of life. Using three‐wave cross‐lagged panel models, more salient effects are found from parent to child than from child to parent at the very first stage. The stronger parent–child effects hold for both corrective and harsh disciplinary practices. Furthermore, the results indicate significant gender differences in the bidirectionality across time: for girls a parent–child–parent association is found in which corrective discipline significantly predicts child emotion regulation and child emotion regulation in turn predicts corrective discipline, whereas for boys, only a child–parent link emerges such that emotion regulation at time 2 is associated with corrective discipline at time 3. These findings portray the early transactional characteristics of parental disciplinary action and child emotion development as well as the gender‐differentiated effects in reciprocity.

Learning styles is perhaps one of the most widespread and believed myths in education. The idea is based on the claim that all students can be classified according to their particular learning style, and that they learn best when teachers match instruction to the preferred style of the student. This popular theory has been proven false by many learning scientists. Learning styles theory reduces sophisticated and complex processes like teaching and learning into overly simple categories and labels students in ways that can limit their potential. Studies performed by scientists who study the brain and education have found that learning and teaching are much more complicated than simply matching teaching to a student's learning style.