Below is a listing of the purposes for each of the projects:
Feedback. Athletes must have feedback to improve motor skills. The most important feedback is intrinsic to the athlete as they perform the skill (Hughes & Franks, 2004). The athlete's senses (e.g. vision, touch) and proprioceptors (i.e. muscle movement sensors) provide this intrinsic feedback concurrently as they practice and play a sport.
Augmented feedback is extrinsic feedback beyond what the athlete experiences intrinsically during the event. Video is a form of augmented feedback that allows the participant to re-examine their technique from an external perspective.
Another distinction to note is the difference between knowledge of results (KR) and knowledge of performance (KP). Knowledge of results is a motor learning term that denotes feedback to the subject about the end product of the movement. Examples include seeing a basketball go through the hoop, reading the final placement results in a racing event, or finding out the measured distance of a throw. Knowledge of performance is the feedback provided about the execution of a skill. KP examines the technical or tactical techniques displayed by the athlete particularly in relation to how this achieves the purpose of the intended KR. This project focuses mostly on knowledge of performance.
Video is a valuable medium for providing augmented feedback that allows the learner to examine movement patterns in a controllable and information rich visual presentation. Coaching and teaching experts recommend using video for both feedback and modeling (Liebermann & Franks, 2004; Pangrazi, 2007; Rink, 2006; Schempp, 2003).
Modeling. By viewing a vicarious performance, the athlete receives feedback to apply to their own performance. This is known as observational learning. Liebermann and Franks (2004) show that humans instinctively imitate each other and this motor responsiveness to visual examples may be a more efficient means of learning motor skills then other forms of augmented feedback.
The model examples allow athletes to examine critical elements (both good and bad) and enhance their learning. Franks (2004) recommends using expert model performers to demonstrate a skill. Conversely, Rose and Christina (2006) provide evidence that suggests learners may benefit from viewing models of varying skill levels. Videos of other athletes also serve as models for coaches to enter into dialog with their own athletes, and sometimes this intervention is necessary when athletes become passive in error detecting (Liebermann & Franks, 2004). Research strongly supports the effectiveness of modeling interventions for learners of all ages (Rose & Christina).
It is also recommended that coaches and teachers use video for demonstrations of skills during the teaching process (Rink, 2006; Pangrazi, 2007) especially when teachers have physical or skill limitations (Darst & Pangrazi, 2006). McCullagh and Weiss (2002) recommend the following modeling strategies:
Analysis by the professional. "The essence of the coaching process is to instigate observable changes in behaviour. The coaching and teaching of skill depends heavily on analysis in order to effect an improvement in athletic performance. It is clear . . . that informed and accurate measures are necessary for effective feedback and hence improvement of performance" (Franks, 2004, p. 12). Coaches and teachers--even ones with experience--often fall short in their sport skill analysis proficiency. These professionals should use video to practice and improve their recognition of critical kinematic features so they can provide appropriate feedback to learners.
Reflection. Despite all of the aforementioned benefits of video and the popularity of online video content, very little instructional-targeted sport skill video exists online. This project is an attempt to improve sport movement analysis and feedback by providing quality instructional video online.
Teachers and coaches now have these resources available for improving their sport skill analysis proficiency, which is also a benefit for students. Future teachers preparing for entrance exams that require video analysis will also find the resources helpful. The sport video clips also provide a medium for coaches to enter a dialog with athletes. Teachers and coaches are being encouraged to participate in the project. The sites may also be used as a project for college students to record video and upload their own skills. And, the athletes that are filmed have the video available for them to view multiple times at their own convenience, as Rink and Franks recommend. Since the information will be available to everyone, its usefulness may go beyond the intended audience.
The use of commercially available video editing software allows for enhancements like drawings, tracking, and quantitative data. The video is edited to provide more meaningful instructional demonstrations (Liebermann & Franks), which are particularly important for athletes in early stages of learning (Hughes & Franks).
These websites have been developed using the open source content management system Drupal. The platform allows the site to be interactive, consistent with web design for the Web 2.0 paradigm. Special modules were employed to handle video uploading and conversion to Flash media format.
The process basically included three steps: (a) arranging for subjects and taking digital video, (b) capturing and editing the data on a computer, and (c) encoding the video and uploading it to a website. The following is a list of common technical characteristics in the process:
NOTE: Additional methodology specific to CyclingAnalysis.com is linked here.
Tenants. With learning as the main objective, the video on this site is presented under following premises:
Video characteristics. Consistent with the aforementioned tenants, video is presented in the various ways. This gives the viewer several media that offers different learning benefits.
Modeling. While examining models performing a sport skill, one should attempt to focus on the critical kinematic variables that will most contribute to optimizing performance. "By 'optimisation' we mean an interplay between variables that are maximised, minimised, or tuned to a criterion defined as a set of kinematic and/or dynamic equations of constraint" (Liebermann & Franks, 2004, p. 44). These are model algorithms to serve as a comparison between real and optimised performances. "Feedback about the differences between expected (modeled) and observed results (obtained, for example, from videotape analysis) could be used to change the technique and to perform closer to the model" (p. 44).
It is important that the athlete to focus on the key differences between a criterion movement pattern and the one that was actually completed. Franks (2004) outlines several issues in this comparison process:
Advantages. Providing sport video online offers many advantages:
Projects needing attention:
Collins, D. R., and Hodges, P. B. (2001). A Comprehensive Guide to Sports Skills Tests and Measurement (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Darst, P. W. & Pangrazi, R. P. (2006). Dynamic physical education for secondary school students (5th ed.). San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.
Franks, I. M. (2004). The need for feedback. In M. Hughes & I. M. Franks (Eds.), Notational analysis of sport: systems for better coaching and performance in sport (2nd ed.) (pp. 8-16). New York : Routledge.
Fronske, H. (2005). Teaching Cues for Sport Skills for Secondary School Students (3rd edition). San Francisco, CA: Pearson/Benjamin Cummings.
Fronske, H. & Wilson, R. (2002). Teaching Cues for Basic Sport Skills for Elementary and Middle School Students. San Francisco, CA: Pearson/Benjamin Cummings.
Griffin, L, & Butler, J. (2005). Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hodges, N. J. & Franks, I. M. (2004). The nature of feedback. In M. Hughes & I. M. Franks (Eds.), Notational analysis of sport: systems for better coaching and performance in sport (2nd ed.) (pp. 17-39). New York : Routledge.
Hughes,. M. & Bartlett, R. (2004). The use of performance indicators in performance analysis. In M. Hughes & I. M. Franks (Eds.), Notational analysis of sport: systems for better coaching and performance in sport (2nd ed.) (pp. 166-188). New York : Routledge.
Hopper, T. (n.d.). A tactic-to-skill approach to teaching games. Retrieved December 1, 2004, from University of Victoria Web site: http://www.educ.uvic.ca/Faculty/thopper/Unitplan452/default.html
Liebermann, D. G., & Franks, I. M. (2004). The use of feedback-based technologies. In M. Hughes & I. M. Franks (Eds.), Notational analysis of sport: systems for better coaching and performance in sport (2nd ed.) (pp. 40-58). New York: Routledge.
Mandigo, J. L., & Holt, N. L. (2002). The Inclusion of Optimal Challenge in Teaching Games for Understanding. Retrieved December 1, 2004, from Brock University, Department of Physical Education and Kinesiology Web site: http://www.pec.brocku.ca/~jmandigo/inclusionOC.pdf
McCullagh, P., & Weiss, M. R. (2002). Observational learning: The forgotten psychological method in sport psychology. In J. L. Van Raalte & B. W. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring sport and exercise psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 131-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Miller, D. K. (2002). Measurement by the Physical Educator: Why and How (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pangrazi, R. P. (2002). Dynamic Physical Education for Secondary School Students (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
Pangrazi, R. P. (2004). Dynamic Physical Education for Elementary School Children (14th ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Rink, J. E. (2006). Teaching physical education for learning. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Rose, D. J., & Christina, R. W. (2006). A multilevel approach to the study of motor control and learning. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.
Schempp, P. G. (2003). Teaching sport and physical activity: insights on the road to excellence. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A., & van der Mars, H. (2004). Complete Guide to Sport Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.