Reflection a good knowledge regarding the use

Reflection of the group presentation

Introduction

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

This assignment intends to deliberate and
reflect on the procedure of creating a presentation as a group as well as a
poster regarding an exercise during one of the rehabilitation stages. The
presentation was regarding an elite striker in football with a grade 2 MCL
injury. The positive and negative features of the procedure will be emphasised
and disputed.

Method

Upon receiving the scenario, the work was split
into 4 sections and the group settled on which part to undertake and find the
applicable research. Communication of the group was done via a messenger
application on our mobile phones, so we could stay in touch regarding any queries
or clarification. 

The PICOS system method, which identifies the
key terms of the research you are looking for, was not used by myself or other
members. The group used key terms in the appropriate search engines to help
find the data that is required. The PICOS system is a method that support in
creating a systematic method in finding the appropriate research when looking
at quantitative data (Cooke et al 2012).

The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP)
was used (see appendix 1) to recognise which material was applicable and of a
high quality. Parkes et al (2001) states that CASP is the method of evaluating
and understanding the research by observing aspects such as validity, results
and how applicable the data is to the persons work. CASP allows the author to
research each study to see that credibility. In my case, I used the CASP tool
for the research regarding the demands of the sport and looking at the
physiological tracking. However, some members did not require CASP as much as
they used books and other forms of research. I coped well with using the CASP
tool due to using the tool for my NMSK3 assignments as well as the EPP
assignment which gave me a good knowledge regarding the use of the tool
effectively. The data was collected by each member individually and each member
started the sections in their own time. There were no meetings during the time
of producing the presentation except near the end to bring the work together
and link the work successfully. The poster was done collectively as a group and
both these documents were presented to the lecturers. One member modelled with
one recording the movements. After the pictures were taken, myself and the
final group member put the pictures into the poster as well the appropriate
coaching points.

Reflection (see table 1)

Communication is a written or verbal form of
speech between people and would need to be altered according to who is being
spoken to for more effective communication (Boyd and Dare 2014). Hawkins (1999)
states that effective communication is the key to groups working efficiently
and prolifically. Communication was both a strength and weakness within out
group. The reason behind this is that communication was done via messenger
application was good to ensure members could ask and receive help when
necessary. Communication this way was quick and ensured communication was
always present. However, some of the communication between team members
regarding the work was not as clear. Some members had to do the exercise
programme and so had to link the exercises in the distinct phases to show a
clear progression. However, due to lack of communication, the exercises did not
link and so required altering. Another weakness regarding communication was
that there were no direct meetings involved through the process apart from in
the last week. This meant that the only form of communication was through
texting and so no physical contact was involved to discuss the presentation.
Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012) state that team meetings are vital as
the group can deliberate any ideas and make decisions regarding any changes in
the process. This would mean that if members were struggling or could take any
extra work, then they could do due to the deliberation.

A weakness to mention is the time management of
some of the group members. Farrell (2017) states that time management is a
vital aspect of group work as it helps to create a process that make best use
of the time that is available to attain the objectives of the group. In my
groups case, there was no clear deadline, rather just an ambiguous timeframe to
complete the assigned slides given. Due to this aspect as well as having no
direct meetings, some members had completed the assigned work whereas some
members had not completed the work in the timeframe. This resulted in less time
for the group to practice the presentation to ensure that the presentation was
within the timeframe given to us. Also, practice ensures that the presentation
runs smoothly. In the end, we could only practice a couple of times due to the
work being completed on the week of the deadline. As Harolds (2012) states, a
presentation should be rehearsed many times in many varieties. These variations
include in front of a mirror, as a group, recording the presentation and then
to have external distractions. The reason for this is anything can happen
during a presentation due to nerves or the audience. By preparing effectively,
we as a group can handle these situations more productively.

Conclusion

Generally, the presentation and poster were of
a good standard and were presented well. Communication was one our strong
points when done through social applications. However, the direct communication
was poor due to lack of meetings as well as time management being a factor to
somewhat rushing the work as the deadline was closer. Upon reflection, it is
evident that the group required direct meetings throughout to ensure each
member was on the same page. Also, clear deadlines should have been given so
more time was available for slight changes as well as rehearsal to further
improve the final presentation. These aspects would have improved the
presentation itself as well as the actual presentation performance. Lastly, in
the future I would use the PICOS system to identify the key terms for better
research results.

Table 1 – Reflection using Gibbs (1998) Model

 
What Happened?

What were your thoughts?

Evaluation

Analyse

Action Plan

During the last week before the deadline, we all met up as a
group to discuss the presentation. All the members should have completed the
work or only needed minor changes to do. However, some members had done
minimal work and were expecting to complete the work close to the deadline.
This left me and another member having to help the other member instead of
rehearsing and improving the final performance.

Upon hearing this, I was extremely frustrated and disappointed
as I was prepared to start rehearsing and improving the performance. Due to
living a further distance than some of the members, it was more annoying as I
had to stay longer than expected which meant more traffic to get home. I had
completed mine within the timeframe whereas some others didn’t. I did
understand partially as there was a lot of work to balance with the NMSK3
practical as well as assignments. However, I felt that even with the
workload, the slides should have been completed as everyone had a good amount
of time and the work was shared equally. Another aspect that frustrated me
was that a member said they were struggling on a certain aspect but had not
mentioned before. This meant they couldn’t complete the work but did not
communicate to get the right support. After a while, I realised that there
was no point in venting frustration and to help get the work done so we had a
good presentation for the day.

To resolve this, the members who had completed the work assisted
the other members if necessary and ensured that we stayed behind in
university for lengthy periods to complete the work. We also rehearsed a few
times which wasn’t enough but with the time it was the best we could do.
Also, we ensured that if any help was needed when at home, to mention them
immediately so someone could help them with the work. In the end, the work
was completed to a good standard but could have been better.

The reason behind this happening are two-fold. The first being
that although communication overall was good, the communication between some
members was poor which led to the work being done at a later stage. The other
reason is that there were no direct meetings involved until the last week
which meant we only saw each other’s work in that last week. Had we arranged
more meetings, these issues may have been resolved earlier on.

It is extremely clear to me now that the best way to avoid this
type of problem is to have weekly/bi-weekly meetings so that the presentation
can be discussed. This helps dramatically as this will help to iron out any
issues people have or any changes that need to be made to the plan. If we had
direct meetings, then the issue of members struggling with work would have
been discussed a lot earlier which would have meant that the work would have
been completed earlier. This would have given more time to rehearse and
practice the presentation. Having meetings would also have meant setting
objectives in accordance to how the group is doing. This would encourage
members as there is a clear goal to aim for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendices

 

Appendix 1 – CASP

Author

Type of study

Aim of study

Sample

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Key Points

Conclusion

Dellal et al (2012)

Control trial

Compare the technical and physical aspects of a football game
between elite players when playing on a 4 vs 4 pitch and an 11 a side pitch

40 International football players (no goalkeepers). Average age
– 25.3. Played in their normal position (defender, midfielder, striker)

Inclusion criteria: Had to be elite international football
players. Had to partake in both studies (4v4 and 11 v 11) which in total
lasted 4 weeks.
Exclusion criteria: No goalkeepers were allowed in the study. No
injured players could take part.

The same players were used throughout, so the games could be
compared effectively. This is because each player could be compared on both
sides which would increase the validity. Many elite players were used which
increases generalisability to the population of elite players. Not applicable
to any other level of footballer (sub-elite and amateur). There were no
ethical issues as the players identity was confidential and informed consent
was given before players participated. Also, the study was performed in
accordance to the Declaration of Helsinki which makes the study more credible
and trustworthy. The reliability was high as the players followed a
standardised procedure such as having 20 minutes warm up and only consume the
drinks during the recovery period. The bias was reduced by having different
researchers observing the players.
 

There was a difference between SSG (small sided games) and 11 v
11 games.
 
More distance was covered in the SSG as well as more sprinting
and high intensity running.
 
11 v 11 had more successful passes
 
SSG could affect team performance on bigger sided games due to
the size of the pitch. Only short passes could be performed whereas in 11 v
11, there are long passes as well.
 
 
 
 

Cometti et al (2001)

Control Trial

Compare the isokinetic strength (leg power) and anaerobic power
(vertical jump, sprint and kicking power) of division 1, division 2 and
amateur French football players.

95 French Football players – 29 Division 1, 34 Division 2, 32
Amateur.
 
Division 1 (average age – 26.1) had 10 defenders, 12 midfielders
and 7 attackers
 
Division 2 (average age – 23.2) had 14 defenders, 12 midfielders
and 8 attackers
 
Amateur (average age – 25.8) had 13 defenders, 12 midfielders and
7 attackers

Inclusion – Had to play either in Division 1, 2 or at a regional
standard as an amateur. Players had to be from France.
 
Exclusion – No goalkeepers were allowed. Only outfield players.
Only players who play in a league as an amateur can play. A=No injured
players could take part.

There was a large sample for each category which makes it
generalisable for the wider population. It is more applicable to football
player in France as the study only has French players. However, the ages vary
with the D1 and Amateur players being of the same age but D2 being
significantly younger. This makes the data less comparable as players can be
affected by their age and experience.
All the tests done on the players were done one month before the
of the season which makes the results valid as all data was collected at the
same period of the season. Furthermore, the same machines and methods were
used to observe the players strength and power which makes the data easily
replicable thus more reliable. There were no ethical issues as the study was
approved by the ethics committee and participants were given informed
consent. Also, all players identity was confidential.

There was a significant difference in leg strength between D1,
D2 and Amateur. D1 had the highest power with D2 and Amateur being similar.
 
In 10M sprint, D1 was significantly faster with D2 and AM having
similar times.
 
In 30M sprint, there was no significant difference but D1 was
fastest.
 
In the vertical jumps, there was no significant difference, but
Amateur was highest.

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

·        
Boyd,C. and Dare,J. (2014) Communication skills for nurses. 1st
edition. John Wiley & Sons

·        
Cooke, A., Smith, D., Booth, A.
(2012) Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10) pp.
1435-1443

·        
Cometti, G.,Maffiuletti ,
N.A.,Pousson , M., Chatard, J.C.,Maffulli , N. (2001) Isokinetic strength and
anaerobic power of elite, subelite and amateur French soccer players. International Journal of Sports Medicine,
22(1) pp. 45-51

·        
Dellal, A., Owen, A., Wong, D.P.,
Krustrup, P., van Exsel, M., Mallo, J. (2012) Technical and physical demands of
small vs. large sided games in relation to playing position in elite soccer. Human Movement Science, 31(4), pp.
957-969 ?

·        
Farrell, M. (2017) Time Management.
Journal of Library Administration,
57(2), pp. 215-222

·        
Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and
learning methods. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development

·        
Harolds, J. (2012) Tips for Giving
a Memorable Presentation Part V Stage Fright and Rehearsing a Presentation. Clinical Nuclear Medicine, 37(11), pp.
1094-1096

·        
Hawkins, K. (1999) Perceived
communication skill needs for work groups. Communication
research reports, 16(2), pp. 167-174

·        
Kauffeld, S. and Lehmann-Willenbrock,N.
(2012) Meetings Matter. Small group
research, 43(2), pp. 130-158

·        
Parkes, J., Hyde, C., Deeks, J.,
Milne, R. (2001) Teaching critical appraisal skills in health care settings. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
(3)

·        
Simon, C. (2014) Preparing and
giving presentation. InnovAiT, 7(1)
pp.55-61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCHOOL OF HEALTH STUDIES   

 

 
 
 
 

    Student Assignment – Self-Assessment
   MARKING
CRITERIA – LEVEL
5

 

Ó UGMC-SOHS

 

 
 

·        
You are required to
complete this form & submit it with your assignment.

·        
This form provides an
opportunity for you to reflect upon the work you are submitting for assessment.

·        
This is an important
key skill that will contribute to your development as a reflective &
evaluative practitioner.

·        
Completion of the
form will assist lecturers in providing feedback, which is appropriate to your
individual needs. 

·        
This form will not be
viewed until the script has been marked. 

·        
The final mark
awarded is not negotiable.

 

UoB/Candidate NUMBER:
16003636

Intake:
Year
2

1st Submission
or
Supplementary

Module Code:
PAR5007-B
 

Module
Title:
REHABILITATION IN SPORT

Academic Style

Comments: (i.e. What did you do well, not so well etc.)
I
used the assignment brief to ensure the correct information was being used. I
checked the spelling and grammar through the assignment whilst making sure
that the correct language was used to talk about the reflection. I ensured
there were paragraphs and titles through the assignment to break up the work
better.
I
also used journals to back up key points such as communication and time
management.

·        
Presentation
·        
Spelling/Grammar
·        
Professional/Appropriate language
·        
Structure/organisation
·        
Coherence/Expression

Learning Outcomes & Application

Comments:
I
looked at the assignment guidelines throughout, so the correct information
was mentioned. I used the CASP tool to ensure the articles were appraised
correctly. PICOS however, was mentioned but not used in the presentation
process.

·        
Relevant
content
·        
Specific
guidelines/ criteria adhered to
·        
Accuracy
·        
Application of knowledge
·        
Reflection
·        
Key issues

Relevant
Analysis & Argument

Comments:
In
the first draft, the assignment did use reflection language, but the word
count was too high. On reading this, I removed some word and also used a
table to talk more in depth regarding the reflection

Evidence of:
·        
Analysis
·        
Discussion
·        
Reflection
·        
Understanding
·        
Argument

Relevant Investigation & standard of referencing

Comments:
I
ensured that I used CASP wherever possible for the journals I used. I also
ensured the references are done to a high standard as well as the appendix
and tables. I used academic literature where possible.

·        
Reading/ investigation of sources
·        
use
of academic literature/research
·        
Use of Harvard referencing system

What changes have you made
to your paper now you have reviewed the marking criteria?
A table was created with the
reflection included to reduce the word count dramatically. Any aspects that
were irrelevant were removed as well.