Shir Prekis Amir, Ronnie Lidor, Sharona T. Levy E79 Figure 2. Final screen of the Sportions digital version. Iteration 3 – Main Study The research questions were the following. RQ1: Performance: To what degree, if any, does using the Sportions application affect the consistency of performance of one of the fitness exercises they had coded? RQ2: Learning: How does learning with the sportions application improve conceptual understanding of the [check what exactly that questionnaire tests for]? RQ3: Process of learning: What characterizes the learners' process of learning with the Sportions application? RQ4: Design: How can we design support for cognitive and motor learning of fitness exercises? The study included 34 first-year physical education students. A G*Power analysis (Faul et al., 2007) confirmed that this sample size was sufficient to detect medium effect sizes (f = .25) with power = .80 and α = .05, ensuring adequate sensitivity for meaningful group comparisons and reducing the risk of Type II errors. Participants were assigned to either traditional instruction or the Sportions intervention. Data sources included pre- and post-intervention conceptual questionnaires assessing motor understanding (e.g., active joints and relationships between movements), biomechanical performance measures, post-intervention satisfaction questionnaires (5-point Likert scale), interviews, and screen recordings. Data analysis is still ongoing. Preliminary data show no statistically significant differences between groups or between pretest and posttest overall. However, one conceptual item revealed a meaningful shift in the intervention group: participants changed their posttest responses to reflect joint actions highlighted in the Sportions animation, indicating an influence on how they conceptualized the movement. Also Participants reported high satisfaction with the experience (M = 3.72, SD = .66).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk0MjAwOQ==