The present paper compares and contrasts the submitted answers to similar test questions between three different students. The three answer sets will be referred to as “my answer,” “Inman answer,” and “Soelyn answer” for clarity and ease of reference. Each of the tests is seven questions long and each question is in an extended essay format. For extended essay questions, the primary answer components can generally be categorized into three areas: content, organization, and stylistic aspects. A complete comparison and contrast of the three essay answers therefore involves serial examination of each of these areas to determine what is similar between the various answers and what is different. To facilitate the organization of this paper, each question or question type will first be reproduced, followed by a discussion of the content, organization, and stylistic aspects, respectively, of each of the three test answers. In this manner, the primary similarities and differences between the three answers will become apparent. This paper will conclude with a summary of the overall differences between the answering approaches used in the three answer sets.
Question No. 1: Discuss the forces operating on the barbell and the body in barbell training. Discuss the concept of leverage/moment arm and its relationship to the forces encountered when performing the squat.
The first component of an effective answer to this question is specific content. All three answer sets provide content that supports an answer to a question if it had been phrased –“ identify” the forces operating on the barbell or “define” the concept of leverage/moment arm. However, the question asks for the student to “discuss” both these forces and the concept of leverage/moment arm and it is within this aspect that the three answers are significantly different. In particular, my answer provides the forces involved and the leverage/moment arm concept with single sentence support for how the various forces relate to each other within the barbell, body, and in particular, during a squat. The Inman test also provides the same force definitions, but then follows up with paragraphs of details as to how these forces work within barbells and the body. These paragraphs of details are further supported with graphs and mathematical relationships that characterize in additional detail the inter-relationship between the various forces. The effective use of figures to support and explain the relationships demonstrates the full depth of understanding of the topic and conveys a sophisticated level of knowledge. From the point of view of content, the Soleyn answer falls between these two extremes. Within the introductory paragraphs of the two question parts, the Soleyn answer has provided all the basic definitions. This introductory material is followed up by two to three paragraphs of supporting information for each specific piece of content. Further, the Soleyn answer provides additional pertinent information, for example the idea that moment arms can be viewed in two ways during the squat. Although not as comprehensive mathematically as the Inman answer, the Soleyn answer demonstrates a verbally expressed level of comprehension of the subject matter that is of similar complexity to the Inman answer.
The second characteristic of the answers are their organization. The Inman answer utilizes an overall organization of introductory paragraph, multiple supporting paragraphs, and a conclusion paragraph. Numbered headings, bullet points and use of italics all contribute to the ability to easily follow the discussion from point to point. Additionally, within paragraphs, there is a common pattern of introductory sentence, supporting sentences, and a conclusion/transition sentence. Again, this level of organization provides the ability to follow and understand the provided information. The Soleyn answer takes a similar approach to overall and internal organization; however, it uses less visual and more heading based cue to the reader of the content and is lacking an effective conclusion. In contrast, my answer lacks both an effective introduction and conclusion. There are also issues with my answer’s internal paragraph structures, as my answer spreads information that should be within one paragraph between paragraphs (i.e., the gravity discussion), which undermines the function of the paragraphs within the answer. There is an attempt to use single word headings, but the possible organizational effect is weakened by the way the headings are done, as will be discussed in the next essay component section. The use of more overall organization, internal paragraph organization, and visual organization cues could have strengthened my answer.
The final component of an essay question answer is the stylistic components. Both the Inman answer and the Soleyn answer use good grammar, are free of spelling and punctuation errors, and use the vocabulary in a way that reflects understanding. Although my answer is free of spelling errors, there are issues with the other stylistic components. For example, there are several sentence fragments and at least one run-on sentence (“The term “level” . . . ) within the answer. The sentence fragments, produced by the non-repetition of the word in an attempt to use headings, are stylistic issues. There is also unnecessary sentence structure repetition within my answer. All of these stylistic issues impact the ability of the essay to effectively express the level of knowledge on the topic and more attention to these types of details is possible place of improvement.
Question 2: In detail sufficient to satisfy a physical therapist, explain why correctly performed presses are safe and beneficial for the shoulders.
Although requesting slightly different content (presses vs. squats), the approach to content needed to effectively answer this question is the same between the three test answers. Reflecting the request by the test question to detail the answer to the level of a physical therapist, all the test answers utilize extensive amounts of medical terminology. This is a significant problem to a reader of the answers and requires careful approach by the student. The Inman answer handled this issue by utilizing illustrations that provided orientation in space to the various body parts discussed. This answer also spent a significant amount of discussion describing the relationship in space between the various parts involved and summarizing with their function within the movement. This was then linked back to the danger to these structures if the movement is done improperly. This provided substantial support for the final conclusion that the movement was actually safe and that conclusion is a key component to a full, believable answer. Convincing the reader is the ultimate test within this question and Inman succeeded. Similarly, the Soleyn answer spent paragraphs describing and discussing first the movement and then the muscles and bones involved in the squat. A link to the physical problems avoided is stated at various steps within the answer. By the end of the various sections, a convincing argument had been made. My answer did not provide the content basis for the conclusion requested. A basic issue was the presentation of highly technical terminology without sufficient explanation of the various relationships. Many sentences with line after line of medical terminology was difficult to follow. A possible solution would be the use of diagrams or figures. A second issue with the content of my answer is that an answer to a question that was not asked, namely, “How do you use shoulder presses to rehabilitate shoulders?” was included. This additional information only served to muddy the discussion that had gone previously as the parallels between the performance of the press by a healthy shoulder and the effect on one that is being rehabilitated was not clear. Thus, a significant portion of the answer provided did not support an answer to the question posed.
The problems with organization within my answer are a central issue for this question, as this kind of question requires the use of a persuasive format. This involves the use of supporting points to the question of whether the movement is safe rather than listings of medical terminology to describe what is happening. Some over-arching connection back to safety would have strengthened my answer. Without the association with the point of the question, my answer did not reward the reader for reading through all the terminology to get to a particular point. So not only could my answer have better presented the technical material content, it failed to convince the reader of the safety of the movement because the supporting points were not clearly organized toward the final point of the answer, why doing it in this way is safe. This is reflective of the weakness of the organization of my argument, which used a conclusive statement of it’s been done forever, do it right, and it is safe. Rather, the organization of the answer should describe each component of the safe way to do it and make a clear and convincing link between these precautions or approaches and the resulting anatomically-based safety. Both the Inman and the Soleyn answers do a good job of building a case on this central point and providing the essential convincing links between technique and safeness.
Finally, stylistic issues within my answer undermine its effectiveness. These issues are merely stylistic, but they do have impact. For example, the use of “let us examine” to open a persuasive essay is not effective and comes across as condescending. The use of second person (“you”) when describing the movements is not as objective as third person would be and therefore undermines the persuasive power of my answer. Attention to these details in combination with correction of the content and organizational issues described above would strengthen my answer.
Question 3: Discuss the changing nature of communication in the coaching of barbell exercise, from the earliest phases of the teaching method of an exercise through the work sets.
Similarly to the first question, my answer does contain the basic content to answer the question as compared to the Inman and Soleyn answer. But also similarly to the first question, the quality of the discussion is not as high with my answer. Both Inman and Soleyn use more concrete examples when discussing the cues and provide better guidance as to when one cue would be preferred over another. There is more discussion of the relationship between the athlete and the coach and how this is reflected in the communication used. In sum, there is a depth in the details provided that goes beyond mere statements to statements with useful supports. Also, the inclusion of personal observations within Inman’s answer is a nice addition to the answer as it lends credibility and interest.
It is within the organization component that my answer has particular difficulties. A temporal organization of how coaching and cues work, as used by Inman and Soleyn, might have been more effective. Also, both Inman and Soleyn use introductory material to provide a useful background before launching into the cue discussion, which provides significant support to the impression that their essays are “discussions” and not just groups of definitions. Inman again does a very good job with visual organization (bullets, italics, headers) and remembering to include a conclusion, for Soleyn neglects this aspect of the answer again. A concerted effort toward more overall essay organization using visual organizational tools would make my answer clearer and more understandable.
My answer has stylistic difficulties that have been seen in my previous answers. The use of fragments returns as a problem in this essay. The point of view of the essay jumps from third to first person (“we would . . .”). There is the use of an informal exclamation point which is not really appropriate in this type of writing. Combined with the content and organizational issues, the overall effect is not as strong as it could have been with more attention to detail, particularly an effort to provide supporting facts and observations that move the essay from a recitation of facts to supported, factual discussion.
Question 4: What is the relationship between angle and segment length in the measurement of a moment arm? Give an example of the application of this concept in the weight room.
Although taken to different degrees, both the Inman and Soleyn have more mathematics within their answers to this question than what is within my answer. This is a further example of how particular details can show the depth of understanding. Inman’s use of figures is particularly effective as answering the question requires presenting a comparison of varying angles, something that is effectively communicated visually. Some sort of visual would have been a good addition to my answer in relation to the two different lifters or the angles involved in the low bar back squat and the front squat. The weight room example of a clean by Soleyn is particularly effective for its high quality and depth of details. Using a lifting move other than a squat or press allows the communication of further knowledge about the relationships between the various angles and segments lengths than what had already been communicated within the previous test answers. Thus, effective selection of what is included in an essay can also be used by a student to reflect their wider than average knowledge base.
Organizationally, the Inman answer and the Soleyn answer use visual constructions to help guide the reader. Inman’s organization relies on the figures heavily, but this is appropriate given the topic of the question. Soleyn uses italicized headers to break the discussion into understandable segments. My answer does use a series of definitions of angles at the beginning to help organize the content but further organizational techniques, such as clearly delineating the example within the weight room from the other discussion could have helped the answer be clearer. Stylistic issues that could use attention are found in my answer such as shift in point of view from third to first person (“the instant our hips and knees unlock” is first person) and some comma use issues.
Question 5: A 17-year-old boy, 5’11”, 155 pounds walks into your gym as a prospective member. He wants to gain weight. Describe the program you would have him follow, your reasoning behind this decision, and the details of his first week in the gym. Question 6 : A 55-year-old female walks into your gym as a prospective member. She is overweight, completely detrained, with no history of strength training, and has no history of significant health problems. Describe the program you would have her follow, your reasoning behind this decision, and the details of her first week in the gym. Question 7 : In mid-May, a 20-year-old collegiate football player walks into your gym as a prospective member for the summer. He is 6’1”, weighs 215, plays at a junior college, says he squats 585, benches 355, and cleans 225. You have him until August 15. Describe the program you would have him follow, the reasoning behind this decision, and the details of how you would set him up on that program.
These three questions are grouped together because the approach to answer them effectively is in essence identical. This grouping also acknowledges the general situation that my answer, the Inman answer, and the Soleyn answer all provide the details that distinguish these various potential clients from each other in a way that is appropriate for the amount of facts given within the question. This illustrates an essentially equivalent superficial understanding of how the various clients’ needs differ and how selections between programs and adaptions to base programs could be done to address the different situations. However, it remains that in the discussion of the programs overall to support the selections made for the clients the three test answers differ in important ways. In particular, there are differences in the three components of an extended essay answer: content, organization, and stylistic aspects.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the Inman and Soleyn answers for these three questions and my answer is the writing style used to respond to the question. My answer uses a highly informal style of writing to express the considerations and concerns that are faced by a coach or trainer when developing a program for a new client. This contrasts significantly with the more clinical style used by both Inman and Soleyn. There are several benefits of using a more clinical style when responding to questions of this type. A more clinical style implies that the trainer is using objective considerations based on the general training philosophy for putting the client plan together, rather than reacting emotionally. Expressing the reasons for the choices in a more objective style increases the credibility of the response. Next, because of the highly scientific basis for the strength-building philosophy being taught, expressing and relying upon these bases for client program design fully during planning for a client reflects a full understanding of the underlying science behind the program. Finally, this approach is more appropriate in a test setting for questions of this type as it acts as further proof of understanding of the program even through specific applications, the ultimate goal of the training. Taking an informal approach to questions of this type undermines this basic goal of the test within training program.
The present paper provides a comprehensive review of a test consisting of seven extended-answer essay questions as responded to by three students. It compares and contrasts the different approaches taken by the three students to the test questions. In doing so, there is a focus on three aspects of the answers to the questions – the answers’ content, the answers’ organization, and the answers’ stylistic aspects. To summarize the different approaches to content, in almost all instances, within all three students the very basic answers to the questions can be found. However, as each question asks for discussion, rather than just identification or definition of the topics, there lies a clear difference between my answer and those of Inman and Soleyn. In each case, Inman and Soleyn provided significantly more supporting discussion, clarification, and expansion of the concepts sought in their answers than my answer did. As a wide breadth of supporting material for each of the concepts asked about in the question is available, my answer could have provided more details behind the concepts and techniques. By doing so it would more effectively communicate my level of understanding of these components of the training system. Similarly, my answer did not take full advantage of organizational techniques within the essay overall and within the paragraphs of the essay that could have been used to better express my understanding of the training system. My answer could also have used visual organizational techniques such as headers more effectively. Finally, there are stylistic aspects of my answer that could be improved upon such as eliminating sentence fragments, staying consistent in my viewpoint (third, second, or first), and taking a more clinical and methodical approach even when discussing client strategies. By adopting these changes in approach, my answers will better reflect the full breadth of my understanding of the subject matter being taught.
References
My Answers. (2013). Starting Strength Test Answers [pdf]. Brooklyn, NY.
Inman, Mia. (2012). Starting Strength Test Answers [pdf]. Wichita Falls, KA.
Soleyn, Nicholas. (2012). Starting Strength Test Answers [pdf]. Wichita Falls, KA.
