Citation

Di Paola P. Int. J. Aquatic Res. Educ. 2018; 11(2): e7.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Bowling Green State University)

DOI

10.25035/ijare.11.02.07

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Many swimming and lifesaving programmes, although well-structured on paper, lack proper skills assessment and verification, which in turn might lead to poor skills acquisition and development, to a false sense of safety and over confidence in the water that can be extremely dangerous. For example: a swimming teacher is moving up some swimmers based on the criteria outlined in the syllabus of the programme in use in their facility, but to what extent have the swimmers met the criteria? Have they actually met the criteria or are there any flaws in the assessment process? Are they consistent and comfortable in their performance and would they be in difficulty under stress? Are the criteria fit for purpose?

Normally there are two types of assessment in swimming:

a) Continuous (a.k.a., formative) assessment

b) Summative assessment (typically at the end of a term)

The latter tends to give us only a snapshot of what the swimmer was somehow able to perform at a particular moment in time, but the single performance outcome measure does not allow us to know if motor learning really has occurred. Continuous (or formative) assessment, on the other hand, might be misleading in that we see or we think we have seen a swimmer achieve certain outcomes, perhaps only once, and we might make assumptions on their motor learning without monitoring the capability to repeat that skill and/or to retain it over a period of time.

In assessing as well as in teaching we tend to use a number of descriptors that tell us and the swimmer how the skill should look as opposed to how it should feel (e.g., tracing a "figure of 8" for sculling as opposed to feeling the constant pressure of the water on the palm of the hand). This is a big limitation as feel for the water and proprioception are of paramount importance in aquatic activities

Language: en