Surface Level Introduction to Cycle 2
Cycle Two dove into the effects of peer based review, based on video analysis, on the social networking site name Lore.com, on swimmer performance. The stroke that was used for this second cycle, for all five swimmers, was the third stroke in the order of the Individual Medley known as Breaststroke.
Starting the RippleCycle 2 Research Question:
Will peer review, asynchronously posted on Lore.com, based on video analysis, increase swimmer performance? |
A New EnvironmentA significant part of cycle two involved an attempt to move the discussion of stroke technique from a face-to-face one, as seen in cycle one, to a social networking environment. Lore.com was chosen.
Lore.com is an online learning tool that incorporates social networking features. It was originally launched as Coursekit in November 2011. The company aims to be a platform where learners and instructors can continuously share educational content in a simple and social online environment. |
Seeing Below the Surface
Video Sessions 1 and 2
Learning from cycle one, the video annotations were utilized differently for cycle 2. Following the posting of all stroke technique critiques on Lore.com, based on non-annotated video postings, the same videos (those taken during video session 1) were then taken, edited and annotated based on the biofeedback each participant had received. The updated videos, once complete with the annotation based on peer review, were then reposted on Lore.com, in order to give the participants an opportunity to see a visual representation of the critiques they had received. After each participant had a week to review their video, a second recording was taken of them during a session called video session 2. Video Session 2, then served the purpose to compare the swimmer's improvement from one session to the second, based off of the feedback they had received. To see these videos please select: M2, F1, F3. Due to a lack of attendance F2 and F4, were unable to participate during Cycle 2, hence why their videos are not displayed.
Dive Into The Cycle 2 Report
Findings Surfaced
The below figures illustrate the findings of this second cycle.
The above figure indicates all critiques received by all 5 participants.
Interesting |
The above percentage refers to the 2 critiques that were corrected out of a potential 13 for the group.
|
Of the 5 participants 3 completed the study. 1 of those 5 improved her time. The other two added roughly .5 of a second to their swims.
|
Interesting to note, but the one swimmer who improved, made no corrections to her stroke based on the peer critiques.
|
What do these figures mean?
The findings of the Cycle Two study indicate that asynchronous involvement on Lore.com was low. As a result of low involvement fewer critiques were received by each participant when compared to the amount received in Cycle One. Additionally, M2 and F1, although having modified their strokes based on group critique did not improve their times, indicating that peer review of stroke technique does not always develop performance improvement. Finally, F3, having made no corrections to her stroke, based on user biofeedback, improved her performance. This suggests that making no changes may prove to increase performance rather than adapting to group review.
Special Note: One thing lacking from this study, that was present in Cycle One, is a structured method of analysis for stroke technique review.
Special Note: One thing lacking from this study, that was present in Cycle One, is a structured method of analysis for stroke technique review.