WEA Analysis Tyler Duffett, Jackson Maberry, William Steinmetz AOP 57102/5/14

 WEA summary

This is an analysis of the climbing groups presentation and will cover 3 sustains and 3 improvement in each section along with a summary of how the group thought they performed. Preparation: Three things that the group can sustain, Scheduling for group work, made good use of time accomplished large amounts of work, research materials were comprehensive and added to our knowledge. Threes improves for preparation, more practice runs, improved slides for flow, and better focused questions about the take away. Planning our presentation was hard to convey climbing grades as being part of qualitative activity like rock climbing. Adding an educational component that connected with our topic was difficult but was accomplished.

Execution: sustains were speaking clearly, transitions between speakers, answered audiences questions. Three improvements, set up tables closer surrounding the speaker, slide format made it hard to read slides, and chorography. Execution was the scary part but the group pulled through and stuck to the topic.

Audience engagement: Three sustains, stayed focused on topic and audience, involved audience early in presentation, and engaged audience with educational component. Three improves, Involve audience through out presentation, structure initiative questions to create audience engagement, and wait for people to answer questions. Audience engagement is tricky when discussing a topic I thing our group had the audience engaged about half of the time.

Facilitation / Skills: Group gained experience in presenting educational material, teaching aspects, professional association membership and contribution of conference content.

Overall WEA Conference: WEA conference was fun and when it was our groups turn after taking in some other presentations the pressure was on and we made it through our presentation and after, talking to some of the audience many said it was good, and were receptive to students teaching.

Group assessment: Duff was great at speaking and presenting the introduction and history with confidence because duff is truly interested and engaged in the group topic and outcome, Duff gets full points. Jack also presented with confidence and in-depth knowledge of climbing grades with a coaching perspective on how to teach climbing, Jack gets full points. William pulled through and stayed on the material while presenting even though tunnel vision was setting in, and connected the presentation objectives to a educational concept of risk management by contrasting commonalities and differences in climbing grades around the world, William gets full points.

Making the Grade

The grading systems in climbing and their significance

to climbers and educators

History of Route Grading

Benesch Scale- Created by Austrian Fritz Benesch in 1894. Descending scale of VII (easiest) to I (Hardest) . 0,00 added later.

Welzenbach Scale- 1924 Willo Welzenbach compressed and flipped version of Benesch Scale. Adopted by UIAA in 1947 and was renamed the UIAA Scale in 1967.

(Welzenbach Scale Demonstration)

History continued….

Yosemite Decimal System- Formed by Sierra Club in the 1930’s to rate hiking and climbing routes. Climbing section (class 5 decimal system) formed in 1950’s by the Angeles Chapter at Tahquitz Rock in California. This system is accepted as the standard in North and South America.

Bouldering- The Gill “B” System using subjective B1,B2, & B3 ratings in the 1950’s was later replaced by the open ended Hueco V scale.

Rating Systems of Climbing•UK Grading System

•The UIAA System

•The Yosemite Decimal System

•The Australian System

•Scandinavian, French, South African, and Bouldering

UK SystemMade up of two sub-grades: Adjective and Technical

Adjective: Describes overall difficulty, exposure, and availability of protection. Listed as Moderate (M), Very Difficult (VD), Hard Very Difficult HVD), Mild Severe (MS), Severe (S), Hard Severe (HS), Mild Very Severe (MVS), Very Severe (VS), Hard Very Severe (HVS) and Extremely Severe. The Extremely Severe grade is also broken down into 10 further sub grades  from E1 to E10. 

Technical: Describes hardest move of climb (crux) and will give multiple ratings for multi pitch climbs. Listed as 4a-7b with 4a ratings starting with severe (S) climbs.

The UIAA System•UIAA is short for Union Internationale des Associations d’Alpinisme . •Mostly used in Austria and Germany.•Uses single figure to describe climb difficulty.•1-10 open ended rating system with 1 being easiest and 10 the hardest

+/- ratings added for extra detail to route difficulty.

Yosemite Decimal System•Class 1-4: Used to describe different walking difficulties with class 4 being where roped belays begin to be used. •Class 5: Considered to be rock climbs. Thin, exposed climbing, involving technical moves and protective hardware. Broken down into decimal system, 5.0-5.15c, where after 5.9 letters and + also describe the routes difficulty. PG13,R, and X are added to describe protection on the route.•Class 6: Shear and flat wall considered impossible to climb without aid climbing methods and techniques.

The Australian System•Used by Australia and New Zealand.•Uses single number to rate routes. •As the route difficulty increases the number increases •4=easiest to 36=hardest•Rating also based upon the level of protection on the route.

Variations in grade ratings from one system to the next…

Evolution of Difficulty UIAA: I-VII evolved to I-XII YDS: 5.0-5.9 evolved to 5.0-5.15c B system to V system- constantly increasing Addition of +/- ratings due to increasing range of routes

available. Addition of PG13,R, & X to YDS. Move from summary of experience to explanation of

difficulty.

Climbing’s Paradox Climbing is a qualitative experience Grades are quantitative

Expectations and Attitudes Grades determine our expectations Self imposed limits Risk management

Now What?

Using Climbing grades to view risks

Commonalities of risk between grading systems. Differences of risks between grading systems. Contrast in rock climbing of what is perceived vs real risks.

Viewing Risks Cont. Commonalities

Most climbing grades have had to become open ended. Length of routes. Protection needed. Technical difficulty. Most bouldering grades do not consider danger or risk involved.

Differences Alpine grades discuss commitment level. Remoteness of location UK system is base on first accent using traditional climbing methods.

Viewing Risks Cont. Real risks

Frequency of participation. quality of instruction. Assumption and acceptance of risk by climber.

Perceived Fear of falling. Distrust in gear. Sure of abilities. perceptions of grades in different climbing areas.

Ewert and Hollenhorst 1989: A conceptual model Revised

Discussion questions

SourcesColey, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2013). High:advanced multi pitch climbing. Akreative. Retrieved from

http://people.bath.ac.uk/dac33/high/17AppendixGrades.htm

Heywood, I. (2006). Climbing monsters: Excess and restraint in contemporary rock climbing. Leisure Studies, 25(4), Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02614360500333911

Sherman, J. (1994). Stone crusade: A historical guide to bouldering in america. American Alpine Club Press. Retrieved from http://www.ask.com/wiki/John_Gill_(climber)?qsrc=3044

Slanger , E., & Rudestam, K. E. (1997). Motivation and disinhibition in high risk sports: Sensation seeking and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(3), 355-374. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656697921930

Thurston, G. (2008, Jan. 14). Rock climbing grades explained.Mountain Days, Retrieved from http://www.mountaindays.net/articles/item/rock_climbing_grades_explained/

Ewert, A. & Hollenhorst, S. (1989). Testing the adventure model: Empirical support for a model of risk recreation participation. (page 136)