1 / 17

Example Group Presentation

Using . Example Group Presentation. Part 1: Article Overview. Purpose What question were the authors trying to answer? What was the primary relationship being studied? Methods Subtitles: Participants; Task/Apparatus; Procedure

kacy
Télécharger la présentation

Example Group Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Example Group Presentation

  2. Part 1: Article Overview • Purpose • What question were the authors trying to answer? • What was the primary relationship being studied? • Methods • Subtitles: Participants; Task/Apparatus; Procedure • How did they get their sample? How many participants (ages, gender; ethnicity, etc...)? What equipment was used? What was the design? What did participants do? • Results • What did they find? Did they support their hypothesis?

  3. Purpose • Brief details: • Contextual interference • Practice Pawlata roll until “learned” in 2 directions • One group learns one direction prior to learning the other. One group learns both directions in an intermixed fashion. • Expectations: • “Does the contextual interference (CI) effect transfer to the pawlata roll?” • Non-intermixed (“low CI”) will attain performance of the skill faster than the intermixed (“high CI”). • Intermixed will retain the skill better than the non-intermixed.

  4. Methods • Participants • 16 P.E. students from North Wales with normal vision. • Mean age 22.06 years, range 18-30 years. • None had kayaked before.

  5. Methods • Task • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqyvwC9drZA • Apparatus • 2 Europa Kayaks, 2, spraydecks, 2 flat-blade paddles, 1 pool with constant (4ft) depth.

  6. Methods • Procedure • Participants randomly assigned to conditions • (8 per gp, equal male/female per group) • Four trained in pool at a time (all same condition) • Two would be instructed, while the other two supported. Then they switched. • All did 10 min warm-up, then 10-min basic skills (how to sit etc.). • 4 stages of practice: hip flick; paddle position; assisted roll; unassisted roll.

  7. Methods • Procedure • Lo CI: • Complete all phases in “preferred” direction, then repeat in non-preferred. • Hi CI: • Complete each phase using alternate trials at each direction (clock-wise, then anti-clockwise). • Dependent variable: time taken during unassisted practice to record a successful roll in each direction.

  8. Methods • Procedure • Retention & transfer (learning) • Return 1-week later. Up to three attempts in each direction. Recorded # rolls taken to complete a successful roll in each direction. • Then same for half role in each direction (capsize on same side as that you roll up on).

  9. Results • Acquisition • High CI condition took less time to perform roll in both directions. • Retention and transfer

  10. Answering the questions... • What were the main independent and dependent variables in the study? • Dependent: • Skill Acquisition: Time to complete rolls • Skill retention/transfer: # rolls until success. • Independent: • Practice condition (high/low contextual interference)

  11. Answering the questions... • What was/were the relationship(s) of interest in the study? • Does the CI effect generalize to the Pawlata roll?

  12. Answering the questions... • What were the main hypotheses in the study (if any)? Did the researchers support their hypotheses? • That High CI would lead to longer acquisition times • Not supported • That High CI would lead to better retention/transfer performance • supported

  13. Answering the questions... • How good is the external validity of the study? (use the guiding questions) • To what places/settings/people/times are they generalizing? • All people? Outside pool? Age? Length of practice? Non-PE students/people? Learning just in pairs? No individual instruction? Other kayak or other complex skills? Number of skills practiced? • These are all potential “moderators” of the effect...discuss to evaluate EV • Sampling by convenience, maybe with coercion (kinesiology students for course credit) • Key question: • Does the role of contextual interference in learning, found for the values of these variables within this study, likely differ for values of these variables not used in the study? • E.g. Location variable: Study value = pool. Does the role of CI differ when the skills are practiced in a stream (i.e. in a more natural environment)? • E.g. Person type variable: Study value = young adult PE student. Does the effect differ when non PE students are tested (not as quick learners)? • This is brief – you should go into more detail, of course. In each case, an argument about the necessary conditions for the effect to work can be made.

  14. Answering the questions... • How good is the construct validity of the study? (use the guiding questions) • Constructs: • Skill acquisition • Time to complete a roll in each direction • (Face validity? Content?) • Pretty crude • Could have been improved – form measures. • What if you succeed early – less practice? Seems odd. • However, results were unexpected, but probably not a result of this crudeness… • Unless…if you practice one way for a long time, and then try it the other way, what happens?

  15. Answering the questions... • How good is the construct validity of the study? (use the guiding questions) • Constructs: • Retention & transfer. • (Face validity? Content?) • Similarly crude. • But the crudeness would be likely to result in less reliable findings, and the fact that the findings were significant suggests the methods were refined enough. • 1 week delay? Pretty good.

  16. Answering the questions... • How good is the construct validity of the study? (use the guiding questions) • Constructs: • Contextual interference • High (random) vs. low (blocked) • Usually several skills (three of four) – here two. • Length of practice/number of learning episodes.

  17. Answering the questions... • How good is the internal validity of the study? (use the guiding questions) • Design RXHCIOAOROT RXLCIOA OR OT • Use of random assignment and two groups suggests only social threats (and 1 or 2 others) may remain. • But random assignment was of only 8 people per group. • Not enough to ensure it worked. Some kind of pretest would have been nice. • Unlikely that mortality played a part – no drop outs reported • All tested in similar conditions. But could have talked between training and testing. • Experimenter bias? Coach was one of the authors. • Internal validity not terrible. But could be capitalizing on chance here. Would like to see retest.

More Related