Analysing Performance

Overview

In this lesson, students use recorded video clips and simple analysis tools to evaluate how well chosen movement strategies worked. Working in pairs, they identify strengths, explain weaknesses, and propose improvements they can test next.

Learning intentions

• Students will analyze movement outcomes by linking what they see to the strategies used.
• Students will evaluate the effectiveness of tactics/strategies in a specific movement scenario.
• Students will suggest improvements supported by evidence from video.
• Students will use teamwork routines to provide constructive feedback.

Success criteria

• I can identify at least 1 strength and explain why it helped the outcome.
• I can identify at least 1 weakness and describe what strategy caused it.
• I can suggest at least two specific improvements to try next time.
• I can justify my suggestions using what I observed in the video (e.g. spacing, timing, effort, object/people relationships).

Curriculum links

• AC9HP8M02: design and demonstrate how movement strategies can be manipulated to improve movement outcomes (evaluate and suggest changes based on results).
• AC9HP8M07: propose and evaluate movement strategies and skills most effective in different movement situations (justify improvements).
• AC9HP8M03: demonstrate and explain how effort, space, time, objects and people can be manipulated to improve movement outcomes (use concepts when critiquing).
• AC9HP8M09: practise leadership, collaboration and group decision-making processes (peer feedback roles and respectful communication).

Lesson structure (45 minutes total)

1. 0–5 min · Hook (highlight reel). Teacher shows a short highlight reel (or fast montage) and asks: “What strategy do you think the athlete used at the moment they succeeded?” Students share quick observations with a partner.

2. 5–10 min · Lesson focus & success criteria. Teacher reiterates: WALT analyze and evaluate movement outcomes based on strategies used; show the feedback checklist and a simple “Because I saw… / The strategy might be…” sentence frame. Students preview the criteria they will use in pairs.

3. 10–20 min · Video analysis setup (teacher modelling). Teacher demonstrates on one student clip: pause, rewind, and label key moments (e.g. first move, contact/release, transition, scoring/finish) using the class “Strategy → Outcome → Why” template. Students follow along with finger-pointing/gesture cues while listening.

4. 20–33 min · Pair critique (evidence-based feedback). Students work in pairs using either tablet/laptop or a printed still-frame set. Each pair completes:

• Strength: “The athlete succeeded because…”
• Weakness: “The outcome was limited by…”
• Improvements: at least two “Next time I will…” changes linked to effort/space/time/objects/people. Students must use evidence phrases like “In the video at (time/moment)…” and refer to the strategy used.

5. 33–40 min · Strategy share-out (whole-class calibration). Teacher calls for 2–3 pairs to share one strength and one improvement suggestion. Teacher asks probing questions: “What change in strategy are you proposing?” “How might that affect the outcome?” Students listen for accuracy and justification.

6. 40–45 min · Quick exit ticket. Students submit a short written response: “One improvement I would test next is… because I observed…” Teacher collects to inform Lesson 3.

Resources

• Edited highlight reel (offline video file or teacher-prepared montage)
• Student video clips from Lesson 1 (device or shared folder)
• Device per pair (tablet/laptop) or printed still-frame packet per group
• Video analysis checklist/worksheet (“Strength–Weakness–Two Improvements”)
• Sentence starters for feedback (e.g. “Because I saw…”, “Next time we will…”)
• Timer and note-taking sheet
• Markers/whiteboard or projector for teacher demo
• Peer feedback roles cards (Coach A / Coach B)

Assessment

• Formative: teacher circulates during pair critique, checking for evidence-based statements (not just opinions).
• Formative: review one or two pair worksheets for whether improvements are specific and justified.
• Summative-lite (exit ticket): checks success criteria—strengths, weaknesses, and at least two improvement suggestions.

Differentiation

• Support for students needing extra help:
• Provide a step-by-step guide for video analysis (pause → identify strategy → link to outcome → suggest change).
• Use partially completed templates and a word bank (space, timing, effort, positioning, lead, follow, release, intercept, support).
• Provide peer support by assigning one “Coach” with stronger analysis to work with a partner.
• Support for EAL/SEN:
• Allow verbal dictation into the worksheet (teacher or student scribe as needed).
• Offer simplified sentence starters and icons (★ strength, ⚠ weakness, → improvement).
• Extension for strong performers:
• Require “predicted result” justification: what outcome will likely change and why.
• Encourage comparing two strategies within the same clip and selecting the more effective one.
• Managing diversity:
• Rotate partners mid-lesson if some pairs finish quickly or struggle with collaboration.

Extension (optional)

• Advanced learners present a short case study:
• Students research a professional athlete and present how they manipulate movement strategies (space/time/effort/object/people relationships) to create scoring or successful outcomes.
• Include one specific example where a strategic change improves performance and relate it back to the class video criteria.