Individualized training model for junior trampoline competitors

PhD, Associate Professor E.V. Bronsky1
PhD, Associate Professor V.I. Lebedeva1
1Pavlodar State Pedagogical Institute, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan

Keywords: physical and theoretical education, junior trampoline gymnastics, individualized training model

Background. Studies by V.K. Bal’sevich and L.I. Lubysheva (2003, 2006) emphasized benefits of the modern individualized training technologies for practical education systems and recommend them being given a top priority by developers of the national school physical education and sport curricula [1-3]. These promising training technologies, however, are still largely underestimated by many versatile-coordination-intensive sport disciplines [4]. We have analyzed potential of such technologies, in our prior studies, for the initiatives to improve the school physical education models [5-7].

The study topic is particularly important for the national trampoline gymnastics in view of the fact that gymnasts normally start trainings since 6-7 years of age to develop the highest skills by 18-22 years of age. Junior trampoline gymnasts may qualify for the adult competitions since 11 years of age as provided by the rules of the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG).

It should be mentioned that the mental control standards (‘psychograms’ tested versus the requirements to the mental control skills) in the modern elite trampoline gymnastics are rather specific and multisided for the reason that it is a versatile-coordination-intensive sport discipline with extreme difficulty and risk levels – that require the execution being perfectly paced, spaced, timed and strength-controlled. This is the reason why developers of the competitive longevity prioritizing training models and coaches are always looking for the most efficient and effective training models and tools. To meet this demand, we have made an attempt to develop and test benefits of a new individualized theoretical and practical training model for youth trampoline gymnastics.

Objective of the study was to develop and test benefits of a new individualized theoretical and practical training model for youth trampoline gymnastics.

Methods and structure of the study. The model testing experiment was run in 2015-17 at Children and Youth Sport School #4 in Pavlodar town. Sampled for the experiment were junior (9-10 year-old) trampoline gymnasts having 2-year training records split up into Experimental (EG, n=14) and Reference (RG, n=16) Groups; with the RG trained in the traditional system and the EG trained by the author as required by the new individualized training model, with the physical trainings designed on a circuit basis. Every physical quality and skill in both of the groups was tested by the pre-experimental physical fitness tests, and the athletes were duly informed on the test results to spur up their motivations. Individual theoretical and practical progress was tested by monthly checks and all-round tests scheduled as follows: primary (pre-experimental) tests in September 2015, progress tests in May 2016 and final (post-experimental) tests in May 2017.

The experimental training model gives, in compliance with the new education paradigm, a high priority to the coach-athlete dialogue and cooperation to individualize to the highest possible degree the theoretical and practical training process; form the personality-sensitive values system for the well-informed practical competence and skills building purposes; and to effectively prevent the age-specific potential alienation of the junior trainees from the theoretical and practical training process. A special emphasis in this context was made on the theoretical studies and discussions to help the trainees develop due commitment to physical progress and trampoline gymnastic techniques mastering elements; plus master classes (two times a month for 2015-16) from the leading national athletes qualified for the RK national team. The sport-specific physical qualities and skills of the sample were rated by 11 tests [8].

Results and discussion. The pre-experimental tests in September 2015 found insignificant (p>0.05) intergroup differences in the sample, with the test data dominated by the mean rates of 3.0 points on a 5-point scale, with the only exclusion for the flexibility rating Tests 8, 9 and 10 that yielded 4.1 and 4.15 average group points. The both groups were rated lowest by Test 11 (time-stamping ten jumps), with the average time estimated at 14.61s (and rated by 1.0 point) in the both groups.

The progress tests in May 2016 showed progress of both groups in the physical qualities and skills, with the EG tested with significant (p<0.05) advantage over the RG, with the only exclusion for the flexibility rating Tests 8-10 that rated the intergroup differences meaningless (p>0.05). The final tests in May 2017 showed further significant progress of the EG vs. RG: see Table 1.

Table 1. EG versus RG final test data with significance rates

 

Tests

EG, n=14

RG, n=16

p

М

S

М

S

1

Зх10m shuttle sprint, s

8,28

0,29

8, 51

0,31

<0,01

2

Hanging lifts of straight legs, reps

28,9

3,47

23,3

4,7

< 0,05

3

Prone push-ups, reps

29,8

5,66

24,1

3,3

< 0,05

4

Pull-ups, reps

11,0

3,49

6,6

2,4

< 0,01

5

30-second up-and-down bench (30cm high) jumps, reps

33,5

3,68

26,3

3,7

< 0,01

6

Standing long jump, cm

168,2

9,15

160,1

8,15

< 0,01

7

Torso lifts with hands on the head and hips fixed, reps

30,5

6,94

24,3

7,4

< 0,01

8

Pons, points

4,73

0,48

4,70

0,50

> 0,05

9

Standing leans forward, points

4,73

0,44

4,65

0,51

> 0,05

10

Splits, points

4,63

0,44

4,60

0,46

> 0,05

11

Time-stamping 10 trampoline jumps, s

15,83

0,48

14,2

0,57

< 0,01

The post-experimental tests showed EG progress in every test rated by 4.63 to 5.0 points i.e. high and excellent; versus the RG progress rated by 2.8 to 4.6 points, with the only exclusion for the flexibility rating tests 8-10 (high rates) and shuttle sprint test 1 (average rates). The EG progress was rated significantly (p<0.05-0.01) higher than the RG one in eight tests out of eleven, with particularly high advantage in the leg- and dorsal-muscle speed-strength rating jumping tests 5-7. It should be noted that these physical qualities are particularly important for the technical progress in trampoline gymnastics, and they were tested by combined test 11 (time-stamping ten trampoline jumps).

The new individualized theoretical and practical training model for youth trampoline gymnastics was found beneficial in many aspects and verified by the technical and competitive progress of the EG in the municipal tournament where the EG trainees won the top places and Kazakhstan national competitions where the EG trainees won the first and third places in the individual and simultaneous trampoline events.

Conclusion. The new individualized theoretical and practical training model for youth trampoline gymnastics was found beneficial in many aspects, particularly in the physical trainings, as verified by the progress tests and competitive successes of the Experimental Group versus the Reference Group trained as required by the traditional model. The pre- versus post-experimental progress test data of the EG versus RG showed meaningful (р<0.05-0.01) leadership of the EG in 8 tests out of 11. The model was found to help mobilize the individual resources for progress in the theoretical and practical trainings to improve the competitive performance – more efficiently and effectively than the traditional training system.

References

  1. Bal'sevich V.K., Lubysheva L.I. Sportivno-orientirovannoe fizicheskoe vospitanie, obrazovatelnye i sotsialnye aspekty [Sport-centered physical education, educational and social aspects]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2003, no. 3, pp. 19–22.
  2. Bal'sevich V.K. Sportivny vektor fizicheskogo vospitaniya v rossiyskoy shkole [Sports vector of physical education at Russian school]. Moscow: Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury i sporta publ., 2006, 112 p.
  3. Bronsky E.V. Otsenka ozdorovitelnoy effektivnosti lichnostno-orientirovannykh urokov fizicheskoy kultury shkolnikov [Evaluation of health effectiveness of individualized school physical education lessons]. Vestnik PGU, Pavlodar, 2007, no. 3, pp. 19-27.
  4. Bronsky E.V. Lichnostno-orientirovannoy podkhod v povyishenii ozdorovitelnoy effektivnosti urokov fizicheskoy kultury [Individualized approach to improve health effectiveness of physical education lessons]. Fizicheskaya kultura, sport i turizm. Integratsionnye protsessy nauki i praktiki [Physical education, sports and tourism. Integration processes of science and practice]. Proc. II International Scientific Symposium. vol. 1, April 24-25 2014. Orel, 2014, pp. 30-34.
  5. Bronsky E.V. Povyshenie ozdorovitelnoy effektivnosti urokov fizicheskoy kultury shkolnikov posredstvom ikh lichnostno-orientirovannoy obrazovatelnoy napravlennosti [Individualized educational orientation of physical education lessons to improve their health effectiveness]. PhD diss. abstract. Almaty, 2008,29 p.
  6. Lubysheva L.I. Sportivnoe obrazovanie shkolnikov: novye vektory i perspektivy razvitiya [School sports education: new vectors and development prospects]. Innovative educational technologies in physical education and health improvement system. St. Petersburg: NIIFK publ., 2006, pp. 139–143.
  7. Lukmanova N.B., Yadovina Yu V. Lichnostno-orientirovanny podkhod kak komponent psikhologo-pedagogicheskogo soprovozhdeniya sportivnoy trenirovki yunykh gimnastok [Individualized approach as a component of psychological and educational follow-up of sports training in youth women's gymnastics]. Shkola XXI veka: tendentsii i perspektivy [School of the XXI century: trends and prospects]. Proc. III intern. res.-pract. conf.. Cheboksary: Interaktiv plyus publ., 2015, pp. 71–72.

Corresponding author: Evena_salto@mail.ru

Abstract

The study analyzes the design and benefits of an individualized theoretical and practical training model for junior (9-10 year-old) trampoline gymnasts having 2-year training records. The sample was split up into Experimental (EG, n=14) and Reference (RG, n=16) Groups for the model testing purposes. The model was intended to mobilize and cultivate progress motivations in the following aspects: individual physical qualities; physical fitness with an emphasis on the technical skills; gymnastics-styled execution etc. The study showed the individualized motivations-cultivating theoretical and practical training model being beneficial as verified by the pre- versus post-experimental progress test data of the EG versus RG, with the EG tested with significant (р<0.05-0.01) progress in the technical execution rated by 4.63 to 5,0 points (i.e. high and excellent) in 8 tests out of 11. The model was found to help mobilize the individual resources for progress in the theoretical and practical trainings to improve the competitive performance – more efficiently and effectively than the traditional training system.