UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| Problem Statement: Physical conditioning related course has been widely accepted as one of the fundamental courses for any exercise science or physical education programs or certifications. However, the teaching and learning approach are varied between one lecturer/instructor to another. Many physical conditioning courses conducted still relies on theoretical classroom approach and sometimes mix with a bit of lecturer-centered practical classes. Thus, questions arise whether a hands-on purely experiential student-centered approach may provide the best outcome. Thus, this research is proposed. Objectives: To compare outcome of experiential student-centered learning method versus classroom lecturer-centered learning method applied during physical conditioning related short course. Research Methodology: Thirty-five participants recruited for the purpose of the study. Participants were divided into two groups (experiential and classroom). Both groups participated in a course focusing on basic concepts of strength training basics exercise techniques. Pre and post learning assessment using squat’s Movement Competency Screening (MCS) were conducted to determine learning outcome, based on ability to perform the movement appropriately. Results were compared statistically to serves the objectives of the study. Outcome: Result of this study indicated that no significant changes existed between pre and post learning process in both experiential and classroom approaches. Future Studies: Other variables that should be tested in the future may be the duration of actual practices effect on improving technical skills capabilities, as it seems learning alone without sufficient practice time will not improve technical skills capabilities. Impact: At this stage, it can safely be said that strength and conditioning educators can used both learning methods, but more practice time need to be allocated, even outside the learning sessions to assist mastery of technical skills.
|
| References |
1. M.A. Murray, R.A. Zakrajsek, and B.T. Gearity, Developing effective internships in strength and conditioning: A community of practice approach. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 2014. 36(1): p. 35-40. 2. I. Mesquita, et al., Coach learning and coach education: Portuguese expert coaches’ perspective. The Sport Psychologist, 2014. 28(2): p. 124-136. 3. A.C. Craig, and J.M. Eickhoff-Shemek, Educating and training the personal fitness trainer: a pedagogical approach. ACSM'S Health & Fitness Journal, 2009. 13(2): p. 8-15. 4. D.J. Hutson, “Your body is your business card”: Bodily capital and health authority in the fitness industry. Social Science & Medicine, 2013. 90: p. 63-71. 5. M. Akerson, Investigating Personal Fitness Trainers' Qualifications, 2014, University of Central Florida: Orlando, Florida, USA. 6. M. Kritz, J. Cronin, and P. Hume, The bodyweight squat: A movement screen for the squat pattern. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 2009. 31(1): p. 76-85. 7. M. Kritz, Development, reliability and effectiveness of the Movement Competency Screen (MCS), 2012, Auckland University of Technology. 8. C. Damsted, R.O. Nielsen, and L.H. Larsen, Reliability of video-based quantification of the knee‐and hip angle at foot strike during running. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 2015. 10(2): p. 147. 9. S.H. Elwardany, W.H. El-Sayed, and M.F. Ali, Reliability of Kinovea computer program in measuring cervical range of motion in sagittal plane. Open Access Libr J, 2015. 2(9): p. 1. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |