Tag Archive: learning

1. How to coach different learning styles

   26th February 2015 3:10 pm 2 Comments

   Following from Monday’s blog about coaching blind people who are visual learners. We can look in more depth at different learning styles.

   The 3 learning styles

   

   Kinesthetic learning?

   If you are to believe the coaching and teaching manuals, then you might categorise people into having 3 different learning styles:

   Auditory: responds to sounds and descriptions

   Visual: responds to visual images and demonstrations

   Kinesthetic: learns by feeling and doing and experience.

   I have yet to see the research behind this (Please contribute or reference if you can find it) despite it being quoted in lots of texts.

   The more I look, the less I find that there is any evidence at all behind the so -called 3 learning styles. 

   It makes sense that people learn differently, and as a coach I always try to use all 3. But, as I have worked with people who are blind, deaf and have learning difficulties, I have to adapt to one style more heavily with those individuals.

   One of the hardest agility sessions I had to coach was with a deaf, dyslexic person and a blind person. I had to keep switching cues and demonstrations, and body position continually.

   Using Cues

   Working on the agility technique recently with different athletes has highlighted the need for different cues. I have yet to find the “Magic Pill” that works on everyone. The athletic ready position was adopted by the blind players using an audio cue “pounce”.

   Some of the sighted rugby players needed to practice jumping, and then see how it would aid avoiding contact in application (Kinesthetic).

   Hockey and netball girls were a mixed bunch, with some getting it, others not. Time is a factor in this, but I think setting out what I want to achieve with more of a “Chalk and Talk” delivery is necessary.

   I find that some high achieving girls are less likely to “have a go” in case they can’t get it straight away. I have to factor that into my coaching. (The ability to try something new and make mistakes is not always encouraged or rewarded.)

    Same sweet different wrapper

   One of the joys (and frustrations) of coaching is finding out how to transfer the knowledge and theory of what you want to achieve into the athlete.

   It is not as simple as saying “Just do it“, instead, experimenting with a variety of cues and teaching methods will hopefully allow you to get a better working relationship with your athletes, and then better results.

   Here is an example of me guiding athletes through some exercises to develop spatial awareness

   If you would like to host one of our coaching courses then we will be happy to arrange.

2. Using RPE to predict 1RMs- Harrison Evans

   1st April 2010 8:44 am 1 Comment

   How to use RPE to predict your strength

   Much of the strength related exercise prescription advice delivered by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) prescribe intensity relative to an individual’s maximal strength (1-RM)

   This is subsequently used in gymnasiums and clinical environments. For example, an imposed demand of 40% 1-RM may be adequate for a strength related cardiac rehabilitation programme, and a few reps at 90% of 1-RM may be used to increase explosive power in athletes.

   However, it’s not always safe to perform an initial 1-RM test (in many clinical settings) and may be time-consuming (when working with a large group of athletes).

    Problems with predictions over actual results

     Various prediction equations have subsequently been developed, but not without large and potentially dangerous error. My investigation used perceived exertion (a perception of how hard we feel we are working) to predict 1-RM. 

   I used 20 healthy students (yes, healthy students do exist) a relatively small sample but large enough to examine validity in this case. I tested their maximal strength for upper body (biceps curl) and lower body (leg extension) exercises.

   I then calculated 20%, 40% and 60% of individual 1-RM and asked individuals to perform two repetitions at each intensity for each exercise. For these tests the subjects were blindfolded and the load intensities were delivered in a random order to eradicate any predetermined judgments about the load.

   After two reps at each intensity, subjects were required to state an RPE  ranging from 6 (no exertion) to 20 (maximal exertion). From this, the RPE values at the three submaximal intensities were plotted and regression analysis conducted to extrapolate to 20 (theoretical maximum on the scale).

   Without getting bogged down in the statistics, there was no significant difference between the actual 1-RM and the predicted 1-RM, and the correlations between actual and predicted 1-RM were strong. 

   What does this actually mean?
   

   Findings show that it is plausible to use an index of how hard we feel we are working to predict our maximal strength in both upper and lower body exercises.

   It’s easy to criticise this on a number of levels:

   • Sample population used
   • Sample size
   • Exercises performed
   • Errors in statistical tests
   • Applicability to sports-related settings 

   amongst others. I don’t profess this study to be revolutionary or add immediate gain to the fitness industry, nor is it possible to use this as a standardised prediction protocol in its bare form.

   It is however novel in its methods, something that has never been done before, providing a base for which others can validate with different populations and muscle groups.

   Using just two submaximal repetitions makes this an extremely quick and low-risk method for predicting strength.

   I welcome all feedback, questions and criticisms, without these I can’t improve my future studies. So if you’re a coach, teacher, athlete or fellow student I need you, lets start some hot debate about why this is good or simply not good enough for you. Bring it on! 

   Harrison Evans is studying for his Msc at Exeter University. His research can be seen here