95 The importance of reflection and evaluation for progressing toward the elite level 5 Table 3. Descriptive statistics for all self-regulated learning (SRL) subprocesses for high-level performers according to performance progression within a season (N = 89). Less advanced progressors (n = 66) Advanced progressors (n = 23) Effect sizes M SD M SD d Evaluation • 3.26 0.79 3.58 * 0.31 0.47 Planning • 3.46 0.96 3.25 0.75 0.23 Reflection • 3.61 0.64 3.68 0.42 0.11 Speaking up • 3.92 0.52 3.96 0.36 0.09 Effort ♦ 3.47 0.43 3.35 0.35 0.29 Self-efficacy ♦ 3.22 0.42 3.28 0.39 0.16 Note. Means (M) and standard deviation (SD) values for all self-regulated learning (SRL) subprocesses according to performance progression. • meta-cognitive subprocesses were measured using a 5-point Likert scale (range 1 – 5) ♦ motivational subprocesses were measured using a 4-point Likert scale (range 1 – 4) * p < 0.05 (one-tailed) Discussion We investigated training-centered SRL subprocesses in relation to performance levels and performance progression within a season of youth swimmers aged 12-21 years. After controlling for differences in weekly training hours, we found that swimmers in the highlevel performance group scored significantly higher on reflection during training but significantly lower on effort than swimmers in the lower-level performance group (part one). Furthermore, a closer examination of the high-level performance group showed that those demonstrating greater improvement during the season significantly used evaluation processes after training more frequently compared with those evidencing less improvement during the season (part two). To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to investigate this combination of performance variables and SRL measures, providing new insights into the role of training-centered SRL in the development of swim expertise. Our study provides an answer to the key question of whether youth swimmers who are on track to reach the elite level use SRL subprocesses more frequently during their daily training sessions than do those who are not on this track. An important matter while addressing this question is the way performance groups are defined, given that a different classification of performance groups may lead to different outcomes (Swann et al., 2015). It is noteworthy that we defined performance groups according to performance trajectories of international elite swimmers (i.e., the top 50 swimmers worldwide). Therefore, swimmers in the advanced progression group were youth swimmers who were considered to be on track of becoming elite swimmers (i.e., their performances and progression were at the benchmark levels). In other words, these swimmers are considered to have the potential to make it to the top 50 swimmers worldwide. When studying such talented swimmers, traditional null hypothesis testing may be limited due to small sample sizes, which are characteristic for elite sport (Skorski & Hecksteden, 2021). This could lead to insufficient
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw