Technology
has evolved throughout time in the strength and conditioning field and has made
several strides in the last couple of years. The readings from this week made
me think about how technology has been used for teaching and how it connects to
coaching. One of the biggest points I took away is that technology itself does
not automatically create a better learning opportunity. Fullan and Langworthy
(2014) explain that deep learning occurs when students are able to create,
apply, and use the knowledge gained in real world situations. As a strength and
conditioning coach at Jacksonville State University, this idea directly connects
to how we work with student athletes. We can collect data, use testing numbers,
track their body weight, and monitor overall performance, but the technology
can only make an impact if the athletes can understand what the information we
gather means and how to apply it. The goal is not for athletes to just see their numbers on a screen, but for them to know how those numbers are connect to their
training, recovery, and overall performance.
Hobbs
(2011) helped me think more about the impact digital and media literacy can
have on athletes and everyone else who uses social media. Athletes today are exposed
to many different types of danger from social media. They are exposed to different
types of training videos, potential influencers, and online programs. Some of
the information that is found can be beneficial, but a lot of times it can be
misleading and not appropriate for them. This should lead coaches to help athletes
become better at evaluating what they see online and not assume everything they
see will help them. Becoming more digital literate helps with knowing when to
question information, judging whether it is credible, and using information responsible.
This also applies to any other field or setting because anyone who is constantly
sorting through digital information needs to be able to decide what is useful
and beneficial.
Bloom’s
Taxonomy also connects well to my field of strength and conditioning because athletes
are exposed to different levels of learning just like students in classrooms.
Huitt (2011) explains that Bloom’s Taxonomy moves from lower levels of
thinking, such as remembering and understanding. Then to higher levels such as analyzing,
evaluating, applying, and creating. Athletes will start to remember the
technique and understand the reasons behind the exposures they are exposed to. Over
time they will be able to apply what they learned, review their own progress, evaluate
their daily habits, and take ownership of their overall development and progress.
Kuhn (2008) also explains that technology can help create a more balanced
approach when it is used intentionally. In the strength and conditioning field
that means technology can be used to guide you and your decisions.
A common
theme across these articles is that successful learning typically depends on
the intentionality behind the implementation. Rodgers’ (1963) discusses theories
that connect with the field of coaching because not everyone adopts and adapts
to new ideas and technologies at the same rate. Some coaches and athletes are eager
or early adopters who are excited to try out new ideas, methods, and tools
right after discovering them. Others fall into the group that needs more time, knowledge,
and conformation in order to be fully invested in new technologies and methods.
This article reminded me that there is more to coaching than designing programs
and improving performance. It is also about teaching athletes how to think critically
during physical activity and process information efficiently. As a strength and
conditioning coach I want my athletes to become more athletic, faster, and
stronger, but I also want them to become better learners who can make the right
decisions outside of the weight room.
Fullan,
M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep
learning. Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf
Hobbs, R.
(2011). Empowering learners with digital and media literacy. Knowledge
Quest, 39(5), 12–17.
Huitt, W.
(2011). Bloom et al.’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational
Psychology Interactive. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf
Kuhn, M.
S. (2008). Connecting depth and balance in class. Learning & Leading
with Technology, 36(1), 18–21.
Rogers, E.
M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2),
69–75. https://archives.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment