Abstract
It is imperative that university assessments have high levels of academic rigour, it is also important that they are ecologically valid and prepare students for employment in the relevant sectors post study. As such, within a practical based subject like strength and conditioning, academic staff have designed assessments to reflect industry relevant activities such as athlete testing, data interpretation and communicating relevant information to the athlete. To improve this process, it is important to act upon feedback from key stakeholders in the assessment process, such as the external athletes involved in this specific assessment. The purpose of this analysis was to obtain feedback from the athletes the students worked with in the assessment process with a view to improving future iterations. Following the assessment all athletes involved completed a short interview and filled out a questionnaire which contained fixed response and open-ended questions on their opinions and experiences of the assessment. All athletes who participated stated they would be willing to be involved in future years, all athletes also stated that the assessment was very industry relevant and commended its inclusion within the programme. Areas for improvement were identified, athletes felt that the assessor should be less present to facilitate more organic interactions between the students being assessed and the athlete. The assessment was perceived as a positive experience for external athletes involved, who all believed the process mirrored experiences from their athletic careers. For future assessments staff should devise strategies to be less visible to allow more natural interactions between students and athletes.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 100535 |
Number of pages | 6 |
Journal | Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education |
Volume | 36 |
Early online date | 9 Jan 2025 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 9 Jan 2025 |
Keywords
- Experiential learning
- Leaner engagement
- Peer feedback
- Theory practice gap