Study Overview
Who is Being Studied?
This Action Research study began with six participants, two male and four female. Each participant received a coded name indicating their sex and the order in which they were filmed. Hence a male, that was filmed first became M1. Thus the participants in this study are M1, M2, F1, F2, F3 and F4.
Special Note: M1, although present for the first video recording in Cycle One and for commenting on everyone elses stroke technique, switched teams before the second video recording in cycle one. Hence why no videos of M1 are displayed. Also, F2 and F4 were frequently absent throughout the cycle studies. Therefore, in cycle two, F4's videos are not displayed, but she does return in cycle 3. F2 was absent from the second video recordings in both cycles two and three. She also did not post comments frequently, but when she did, they are included in this study.
Special Note: M1, although present for the first video recording in Cycle One and for commenting on everyone elses stroke technique, switched teams before the second video recording in cycle one. Hence why no videos of M1 are displayed. Also, F2 and F4 were frequently absent throughout the cycle studies. Therefore, in cycle two, F4's videos are not displayed, but she does return in cycle 3. F2 was absent from the second video recordings in both cycles two and three. She also did not post comments frequently, but when she did, they are included in this study.
How did this study occur?
The study of Seeing Below the Surface: How Technology Can Make Coaching a Shared Experience occured over three cycles. Each cycle followed a simple framework of:
Phase One: Record Time & Underwater Video
In phase one, the participants swam a 50 yard distance of a specific stroke, relative to the cycle. During their swim they were recorded underwater on video. The amount of time that elapsed from the start of their 50 yard swim to their finish was also recorded.
|
Phase Two: Post Video & Discuss
The recorded videos were edited and posted either in person or online, depending on the cycle. The group then critiqued eachothers stroke technique, from under the surface.
|
Phase Three: Video Annotations
The videos were then annotated both with audio and graphic overlays depicting the critiques the swimmers had received. These video were once again posted for participant viewing. The participants were given a week to view their stroke and make any changes.
|
Phase Four: Record Time & Underwater Video Session 2
The swimmers, after a week of being able to watch their annotated video, swam another 50 yard distance of the same stroke. Their elapsed time was recorded and tracked for improvement or regression. They were once again recorded on video from under the water. In addition to their time, they were also tracked for any improvements to their stroke technique based off of the critiques they received from their peers in the group.
|
Overall Research Question:
Can the use of social learning technology
increase swimmer performance?
(click the bubbles below to see detailed accounts of each cycle).
increase swimmer performance?
(click the bubbles below to see detailed accounts of each cycle).
Cycle 1
Cycle Question:
Will face-to-face discussion, based on video analysis, increase swimmer performance? |
Cycle 2
Cycle Question:
Will peer review, asynchronously posted on Lore.com, based on video analysis, increase swimmer performance? |
Cycle 3
Cycle Question:
Will peer review, asynchronously posted on Lore.com and based on video analysis, increase swimmer performance with the addition of a structured method of analysis? |
