Online Coaching & Testing

The tickets were thought of as a way for people to purchase a package of video reviews. Instead on buying one offs as they go they could opt for purchasing a set amount which for purpose of this discussion we called tickets. These tickets could then be exchanged by them for reviews as they saw fit.

The idea was floated about being able to use tickets for reviews or in a larger quanity for testing but after more thought I really want testing to stand on its own. Something to be taken seriously as a goal and an achievment.

My concern, that led to a ticket idea for testing, was that if someone is testing for level eg 0.5 there will be three or four sub levels for each of the seven elements. Which could represent months of work. I'm thinking it would be much better for the trainee to submit each sub level as he completes it. Rather than wait for everything to be done and submit it as a package.

Otherwise we could be putting people in a situation where they feel they are wasting a lot of their time.

However, there is no need to use tickets for this to work, or multiple retests. 

What I meant by multiple retests is if there are say 40 videos to pass level .5 they could retest 20 of them with in x time after submission. If anything this would make them more serious, because they have to pass 50% the first time.

In general. certainly we want people to make serious submissions, but we also need a way that they can feel confident they are doing the work to standard, and that if they submit 9 months worth of videos, they won't get rolled back to month one.

Of course we could use the one-off evals for that, but then trainees are in the position of being double charged for the early tests.

Makes sense. I was just meaning separate tickets for testing versus video review. We are asking them to video quite a bit.

Business wise you want people to succeed and feel like they can do so. Balancing that with serious quality is the fine line.

Ok to recap

Separate tracks

A: Full online coaching

B: Single shot coaching

     1) perhaps offer 'ticket' packages

C: Level testing (eacn 0.5 step on the chart)

     1a)  Single submission of all 40+ videos at once

vs.

     1b) Submissions of each element as complete / testing fee paid up front for full level

      2) retesting parameters - one retest per submitted video?

I'm honestly not sure either way on this, after thinking myself. I think the trick is in how we guide people along the way, and how we handle retesting to avoid the pitfalls of group submission.

From there we can make various bundles, with the courses without etc if we wish to.

- Passing level .5 would require 42 videos.  

- My gut instinct is that the allowing individual submissions is that we are opening ourselves to a major logistical nightmare.  Record keeping will be greatly magnified when multiple records per element per student need to be kept rather than simply recording a pass or fail; along with brief notes.

- Nic, however has a point that the customer wants to feel validated.

- Cory, might the app 'Chicken Dinner' be the way to go with organizing submitted videos and relevant notes all in a single location that is then accessible via the calendar function?

Coach,

The primary problem with Chicken Dinner is that it only runs on the iPad. 

- Seems that we will need something similiar in the online coaching to organize everything.

- In our initial conversation, I seem to remember your mentioning that they could enter their information in their smart phone and than have it uploaded to the website?

Coach Sommer said:

- Seems that we will need something similiar in the online coaching to organize everything.

 

- In our initial conversation, I seem to remember your mentioning that they could enter their information in their smart phone and than have it uploaded to the website?

We would be able to do that still, however, at the time I was unaware that the application only ran on iPads and not all iOS devices.

I will drop Ron a note requesting clarification on whether it is iPad specific only or can be used on all iOS devices.

Coach Sommer said:

I will drop Ron a note requesting clarification on whether it is iPad specific only or can be used on all iOS devices.

Currently the Apple store only lists it as for iPad. It won't even show up on iPhones.

Makes sense to only be on iPad for the intended audience.

How big of a job is it to port to iPhone? How much bigger to port to android?

Seeing as this is a key relationship for Coach to build, maybe we could work with them and create a win/win situation?

If feasible, that could work well I do not know what kind of workload would be involved in that though. Could be quite a bit. Even just OSX compatible would work for me personally on the viewing side.

This type of program has potential for many applications in teaching. If it could be made universal and have a desktop Coaching review version for example it could be very big. Not our program I know, just muttering about it.

Cole Dano said:

Makes sense to only be on iPad for the intended audience.

 

How big of a job is it to port to iPhone? How much bigger to port to android?

 

Seeing as this is a key relationship for Coach to build, maybe we could work with them and create a win/win situation?

It really depends on how they wrote the program. Making an android program from an iOS one is about like a yoga teacher trying to lecture on marine biology: companies hire completely different teams for these sorts of things. 

The biggest help will be for Coach to get us in contact to see what possibilities we have. 

Nic - Now that you've started doing some work with George, has it given any insights into how you think the Level Testing should be organised?

I have a couple of thoughts.

A. Submit vidoes by fundamental movement. So all of the video's for FL at once (PE/IM) all of the PL at once etc.

B. Submit each PE level at once. All PE1/IM1 once passed do all of PE2/IM2. That method maintains balance of all movements but risks people feeling held back maybe, even if they don't get ranking they know they are progressing if they can do each movement on it's own. For testing we want balance though..

Actually I like the frustration and stress associated with people running into unforeseen obstacles.  I do this with my own athletes on a continual basis.  It develops character, a deeper understanding of the training involved and creates a sense of accomplishment and "ownership" once they eventually succeed.

I can't disagree Coach, certainly have used that myself, and went through it as well, it's training reality. I need realise that what we are doing here is no different.

For this conversation, does that mean you prefer that trainees submit all videos at once and take their chances?

I think that their submitting an entire .5 level at once is the only way to ensure that they are doing all of the iM simultaneously.  With this particular population I consider the iM to be of primary importance.

IM will be the stumbling block agreed. For the purpse of review do we do all of .5 at once or we do break that up into the 3 PE/IM groups that compose it. Pass that then you submit the next, pass that then the next. This would make sure the progression is taking place as intended and lessen the amount of videos they would need to film at one time. The .5 and 1, 1.5 etc are just the benchmarks for when level rank is granted. Smaller goals leading to the larger benchmark goals..

The obstacles are good, I avoid robbing them of self discovery. The learning is much more profound and remembered when the trainee has the a-hah moment and is not instruced to the point that all self exploration is robbed of them.

No argument on the need to focus on iM.

But sorry Coach I'm not sure I follow why submitting all videos for a .5 increment at once ensures this more than submitting each sub-step upon completion?

Not saying we should do it that way, just trying to understand your reasoning.

Cole Dano said:

No argument on the need to focus on iM.

 

But sorry Coach I'm not sure I follow why submitting all videos for a .5 increment at once ensures this more than submitting each sub-step upon completion?

 

Not saying we should do it that way, just trying to understand your reasoning.

From a logistics perspective I see it being far better to have the OLC view the whole .5 increment at once and giving a pass/fail rather than trying to keep track of what he's seen already.

I don't really see that as a problem. You're still going to have 42 elements that need to be checked and listed as pass/fail so we can tell them what they passed and failed. So either way you're having to keep tabs on everything. Doing all of PE1/IM1, then all of PE2/IM2 actually makes that a bit easier. Creates steps for both OLC and trainee while keeping everything as a group for overall balance.

Nic, I think that's a good point, and an improvement on submitting videos in single PE/iM pairs.

I'd been thinking of that myself, but got caught in one snag. Every element won't have as many steps to level. It's not a major snag, but would have to be taken into account. For example in F1- SLS where would you ask for PE1 to be submitted?

As you said, we need to keep track of all 42 sub steps anyway, doesn't matter that much when.

However, I'm still curious to know why Coach thinks the full submission at once option is better for insuring compliance?

- It could be broken into all the PE1 & Pe1>iM etc.  

- My concern is that if you allow them to select what they want to submit (e.g. FL/PE1-3 etc), then they will focus on what they want to train and avoid the PE & iM elements that they do poorly.

- Requiring all of something across the board (either all of a .5 level or all the PE1s etc) does not give them this option.

Oh I think either way the PE must be shown along with the IM. To me they are a pair and only having one is not an option. I do think the all "PE1's" concept provides for better total body balance training. Those wishing to specialize can just use the video form review service if they want that checked and can move on as they won't be interested in overall level testing anyways.