International Journal of Sports Science
p-ISSN: 2169-8759 e-ISSN: 2169-8791
2013; 3(6): 198-203
doi:10.5923/j.sports.20130306.03
Jairo Antônio da Paixão
Department of Sports, Federal University of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, 35400-000, Brazil
Correspondence to: Jairo Antônio da Paixão, Department of Sports, Federal University of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, 35400-000, Brazil.
| Email: | ![]() |
Copyright © 2012 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Aspects related to the performance of professional radical sport instructors are herein analyzed regarding three detected educational levels: those who graduated in Physical Education, those whose diplomas are in other fields, and those who are high school graduates. By exploring available literature and considering the educational levels of these professionals, it was possible to verify discrepancies regarding the procedures adopted by these instructors in conducting the activities that constitute radical sports, sometimes creating situations vulnerable to risk. In connection with this, there is a need for the institutions responsible for these sports to standardize the requirements for the education and performance of radical sport instructors in Brazil.
Keywords: Radical sports, Professional education, Instructors
Cite this paper: Jairo Antônio da Paixão, Training and Professional Performance of Radical Sport Instructors, International Journal of Sports Science, Vol. 3 No. 6, 2013, pp. 198-203. doi: 10.5923/j.sports.20130306.03.
![]() | (1) |
![]() | (2) |
As such, the sample size was:
Where: N = population size; n = sample size; d = margin of error; z(k) = desired degree of confidence (using a confidence degree of 95%, which is equal to p = 0.05)Selection of the instructors to define the sample – 147 instructors – was done in a probabilistic manner, using the simplified stratigraphic sampling technique[2]. This technique involves specifying how many elements for each sample need to be considered for each level. This option was done to assure representation in the results obtained. In this way, the modals offered by the firms were considered as layers and the instructors as units directly associated with these layers. A sample was selected from each firm that was proportional to the size of its population. After defining a period of six months (from January to July of 2010) for the collection of the data, the sampling group came up with a total of 109 instructors responsible for different modalities of radical sports. In terms of educational level, it was possible to detect 86 who had university level education (37 with Physical Education diplomas and 49 with diplomas from different courses, such as law, administration, civil forestry engineering, mechatronics, agronomy, tourism, physical therapy, computer science, humanities and psychology). The other 23 instructors had completed high school and were self-employed workers from various segments of the work force. The radical sports instructors were all male whose average age was 31±1.9 years old. Although women do participate in radical sports, they were not included in the sample of this study. The participant’s average teaching experience was 7.2±3.9 years. The standard deviation considered significant was <0.05%.The criteria for inclusion were: instructors belonging to radical sports federations and the signing of a Consent Form indicating they were participating of their own will and that all terms had been clarified[Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido (TCLE)]. Criteria for the exclusion of instructors were: the candidates did not belong to radical sports federations in the State of Minas or they did not show interest in participating in the investigation. With the goal of establishing a comparative analysis of the aspects related to working as a radical sport instructor, having as a reference the three educational levels of the study’s participants, only the results from the alternatives marked by the participants as being relevant were considered. According to the 3-point Likert type intensity scale[7] employed in the survey, the participant attributed the number (1) as the most important, according to his perception of the question. The statistical analyses were performed using descriptive analysis.
|
|
|
|