virginia tech - a comparison of the effects two ......ing about new insights concerning approaches...
Post on 27-Jan-2021
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF TWO TEACHING STYLES
ON TUMBLING SKILL ACQUiSITION OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
by
Paulette Walker Johnson
Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
APPROVED:
MaYgaret L. Driscoll, Chairman
Karl Sctiwaab
Lawrence Perlmuter
May, 1982
Blacksburg, Virginia
Robert Foutz
Judith Beale
-
DEDICATION
The dedication of this study is shared by the following 11very
special 11 people:
To my dear parents, Elsie and Robert Walker, for their love,
encouragement, and years of sacrificing fer their children. I love
you both and deeply appreciate everything you have done for me.
To my brother, Wayne \~alker, for believing in me and giving me
. a reason to always do my best. Thank you 111 ittl e brother. 11
And especially to my wonderful husband and 11fri end, 11 T .A. for
enduring months of being sorely neglected. It was T.A.1 s untiring
love, patience, understanding and support that helped to make this
dream come true.
ii
-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge with gratitude the following
individuals who provided encouragement, motivation, advice, support
and assistance in the completion of the doctoral program in general
and this study in particular:
Dr. Margaret Driscoll, for her role as chairman, teacher and
friend. Dr. Driscoll patiently and diligently directed me through my
graduate studies as well as this dissertation. Thank you Dr. 11011 for
contributing so much to my personal, professional and educational
growth.
Dr. Karl Schwaab, Dr. Robert Foutz. Dr. Judith Beale and Dr.
Lawrence Perlmuter each willingly gave both time and support to this
study. Their patient understanding and time-consuming appraisals of
my work proved to be most helpful.
I am especially grateful to my colleagues and friends, Kat and
Pete Bennett. It was their encouragement that kept me going through
difficult times.
Appreciation is extended to Elizabeth Wood and Harold Hutcherson
for the assistance they so freely gave during the testing phase of
this study. I would a.lso like to thank Beth Burch for the hours she
spent typing; Dr. James Hunter for his cooperation; and Dr. Laverne
Young for being a true friend.
iii
-
Table of Contents
DEDICATION ...
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter
I.
II.
III.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE.
Statement of the Problem.
Justification ..•..
Statement of the Hypothesis
Limitations
Assumptions
Definition of Terms
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.
Research on the Spectrum of Teaching Styles . . . . . . . . • . . . . .
Research on Motor Skill Learning •••
Research on the Effects of Feedback
Research Comparing Teacher Centered and Student Centered Styles of Teaching •...
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Subjects ..
Experimental Period
Experimental Treatments
iv
Page
ii
iii
vii
1
3
3
4
4
5
5
8
8
12
15
19
22
22
23
23
-
IV.
V.
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A.
B. C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Instructional Procedures
Evaluation Instrument
Testing Procedures .
Design of the Study
Statistical Procedures
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Statistical Analysis
Discussion .....
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Conclusions
Recorrmendations
..........................
SPECTRUM OF TEACHING STYLES
RECIPROCAL STYLE TASK CARDS
BACKGROUND DATA FORM ...
TREATMENT GROUP SCHEDULES
COMMAND TREATMENT LESSON PLANS
RECIPROCAL TREATMENT LESSON PLANS
TUMBLING SKILLS TEST ... . . TUMBLING TEST SCORE SHEETS .
PANELISTS ......
V
Page
24
25
27
29
31
32
32
65
69
69
71
72
74
80
81
84
94
98
101
118
135
138
151
-
J.
K.
L.
VITA .
ABSTRACT
INTERRATER RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS
DIAGRAM OF TESTING PROCEDURES
DATA ON RATERS ....... .
vi
Page
153
155
157
159
-
LIST OF TABL!:S
Table Page
l. Group Means for Pretreatment Scores on Twelve Skills for Groups I and II . 33
2. ANOVA Summary Table of Headstand Pre-treatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . . 35
3. ANOVA Summary Table of Forward Roll Pretreatment Scores for Groups I and II . . 36
4. ANOVA Summary Table of Forward Roll Without Hands Pretreatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . . . . . . . 37
5. ANOVA Summary Table of Handstand Pre-treatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . . . 38
6. ANOVA Summary Table of Backward Roll Pretreatment Scores for Groups I and II . . 39
7. ANOVA Summary Table of Dive Roll Pretreatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . 40
8. ANOVA Summary Table of Chest Roll Pretreatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . 41
9. ANOVA Summary Table of Cartwheel Pre-treatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . . . . 42
l O. ANOVA Summary Table of Back Extension Pretreatment Scores for Groups I and II . . 43
11. ANOVA Summary Table of Limbre Pre-treatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . 44
12. ANOVA Summary Table of Back Halkover Pretreatment Scores for Groups I and II . . 45
13. ANOVA Summary Table of Roundoff Pre-treatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . . 46
14. Group Means of Posttreatment Scores on Twelve Tumbling Stunts for Groups I and II . . . 47
vii
-
Table Page
15. ANOVA Summary Table of Headstand Post-treatment Scores for Groups I and II 49
16. ANOVA Summary Table of Fon•1ard Roll Posttreatment Scores for Groups I and I I . . . . . 50
17. ANOVA Summary Table of Fonvard Roll Without Hands Posttreatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . 51
18. ANOVA Summary Table of Handstand Post-treatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . . 52
19. ANOVA Summary Table of Backward Roll Posttreatment Scores for Groups I and II . . 53
20. ANOVA Summary Table of Dive Roll Post-treatment Scores for Groups I and II . . 54
21. ANOVA Summary Table of Chest Roll Post~ treatment Scores for Groups I and II . . . 55
22. ANOVA Summary Table of Cartwheel Post-treatment Scores for Groups I and TI . . . . . . 56
23. ANOVA Summary Table of Back Extension Posttreatment Scores for Groups I and I I . . . 57
24. ANOVA Summary Table of Limbre Post-treatment Scores for Groups I and TI . . . 58
25. ANOVA Summary Table of Back Walkover Post-treatment Scores for Groups I and II . . 59
26. ANOVA Summary Table of Roundoff Post-treatment Scores for Groups I and II . 60
27. Comparison of Group Mean Scores on Pretreatment and Posttreatment Tumbling Tests for Groups I and II . . . . . 61
28. ANOVA Summary Table of Post~reatment Mean Scores for Groups I and II . . . . 63
29. Mean and Standard Deviation Scores on Tumbling Skill Tests for Command and Reciprocal Groups . . . 64
viii
-
Chapter I
introduction and Purpose
Decisions that confront educators are often varied, complex and
far reaching in importance, but none outweighs in significance those
decisions governing selection of an effective teaching method. Vari-
ous approaches to instruction have received criticism from several
sources. As a result of complaints and criticisms lodged against
instructional methodology, educators have sought to improve methods
by which they can effectively facilitate learninq (Hoffman, 1971;
Robinson, 1970; Silberman, 1970).
In the area of physical education, the outcome of one educator's
desire to improve teaching methodology was the emergence of a spectrum
of teaching styles. Developed by Mosston (1972), the spectrum of
teaching styles is a model that offers educators a range of alter-
native teaching methods. According to Mosston (1972) each teaching
style on the spectrum has a unique approach to the teaching-learning
process, and each style is built upon the axiom that teaching behavior
is a chain of decision making. In each teaching style decisions con-
cerning the teaching-learning process are separated into three stages:
pre-impact or planning decisions; impact or execution decisions; and
post-impact or assessment decisions. The actual structure of each
teaching method on the spectrum is determined by who, the teacher or
the learner, makes which decisions.
l
-
2
Teaching methods at one end of the spectrum are characterized by
complete teacher decision making during each stage. Hoffman (1971)
and Hellison (1973) maintain that such methods have a long history of
use in physical education. At the other end of the spectrum, the
teaching methods are characterized by complete learner decision making
during each stage. Instructional strategies associated with these
methods have been referred to as individualized instruction. Accord-
ing to Mosston (1972), decision making progressively shifts along the
spectrum from the teacher to the learner to fonn seven distinct teach-
ing styles.
Regardless of the teaching style, it is apparent that the value of
a style lies in its ability to facilitate learning. Mosston (1972)
postulates that the value of each style on his spectrum can be evalu-
ated by the extent of its contribution to four developmental channels:
physical development, emotional development, social development, and
intellectual development.
A number of physical educators have chosen to use teaching styles
which are learner centered while others are comfortable utilizing teach-
ing styles which are teacher centered. Although present educational
trends tend to stress the basic concept of individualized attention
and student involvement, the large size of most physical education ac-
tivity classes seem to encourage the more teacher centered styles of
teaching (Hoffman, 1971). According to Mosstonrs (1972) assessment,
the teaching styles on his spectrum characterized by complete teacher
decision making contribute less to the four developmental channels
-
3
than those characterized by complete learner decision making.
The purpose of this study therefore was to compare two of Mosston•s
(1972) teaching styles and their effect on learning along the physical
developmental channel. Specifically, this study investigated the
effects of the command and reciprocal teaching styles, as conceptua-
lized by Mosston (1972), on the acquisition of twelve tumbling skills
by college level students.
Statement of the Problem
The problem under investigation was to compare the effects of
command and reciprocal teaching styles on the acquisition of tumbling
skills. The specific question addressed in this study was: Does the
command style, in comparison to the reciprocal style, more effectively
facilitate the learning of tumbling skills?
The problem of selecting the most effective teaching style for
teaching motor skills is not, a new one. Valid concerns for student
betterment have been raised by dedicated physical educators for a
number of years. However, a satisfactory resolvement still remains.
This study is one effort toward a satisfactory resolvement.
Justification
Although innovative approaches to education appear to have sig-
nificant implications for motor skill instruction, the justification
for the present study is substantiated in the need to evaluate the
merits of these approaches. There is also a need for answers toques-
tions concerning the extent of effectiveness found in innovative
-
4
approaches to motor skill instruction.
A number of physical educators have suggested there is a need for
research that focuses directly on the teaching-learning environment
(Anderson, 1975; Siedentop, 1976; Locke, 1977). These educators postu-
late that increased infonnation on teaching and learning can be helpful
in the future preparation of physical education teachers. In support
of more research in the area of teaching methodology, Milton (1973)
states: 11It is research that can guide us out of the overgrown
thicket of dogma which surrounds current ideas about instruction and
1earning 11 (p. ix). This study should contribute, therefore, to bring-
ing about new insights concerning approaches to the teaching of tumb-
ling skills at the college level.
Statement of the Hypothesis
The null hypothesis with respect to the purpose of this study was:
There will be no significant difference between the mean tumbling
skill test scores achieved by the two experimental treatment groups.
Limitations
This study was limited to the following:
l. The subjects were 28 female and 23 male undergraduate students
enrolled in two sections of G.E. 165--Fundamentals of Physical Educa-
tion, Fall semester, 1981, at Virginia State University, Petersburg,
Virginia.
2. Treatments were administered in two fifty-minute sessions per
week for a period of six weeks.
-
5
3. The investigator was the regular classroom teacher assigned
to both sections of G.E. 165--Fundamentals of Physical Education.
4. The test used to measure tumbling skill acquisition was a
modification of a skill test used by Jarvis (1967).
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made with regard to the purpose of this study:
1. It was assumed that the subjects did not participate outside
of class in activities similar to those being taught and tested in
this study.
2. It was assumed that the subjects performed to the best of
their abilities on the skill tests.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of clarification, the following terms are defined
as they relate to this study:
Spectrum of Teaching Styles. This is a theoretical model of seven
teaching styles developed by Mosston (1972). For more specific in-
formation about each teaching style in the spectrum, consult Appen-
dix A.
Command Teaching Style. This is the first teaching style on Moss-
ton's (1972) spectrum. It is the teachinq style in which the teacher
is the central dominant figure. Command style instruction assumes
that learning takes place under a series of directions given by the
classroom teacher.
-
6
Reciprocal Teachina Stvle. This is the third teaching style on
Mosston's (1972) spectrum. In this style, the classroom teacher
determines and designs specific tasks in the content to be learned.
The tasks are then presented to the students in the form of task
cards (see Appendix B). Following the teacher's explanation and
demonstration of a task, the students form dyads. One member of a
dyad (the doer) performs the task, while the remaining member (the
teacher-partner) offers feedback based on criteria established and
outlined by the teacher.
Teacher-partner. The member of a reciprocal teaching style dyad
who offered feedback to the doer. The teacher-partner was required
to watch the performance of a partner, compare the performance to
specific criteria, draw conclusions about the quality of the perfor-
mance, and communicate the information back to the partner who per-
formed the task (Mosston, 1972).
Doer. The member of a reciprocal teaching style dyad who was --performing a task (Mosston, 1972).
Feedback. This term was defined as the information a doer received
from a teacher-partner during the reciprocal teachinq process (Mosston,
1972).
Teacher-centered Teaching Style. This includes any pedagogical
strategy in which the teacher instructed the same skills to all stu-
dents at the same time, by the same method, and required all students
to practice in the same way, at the same pace, and for the same length
of time (Siedentop, 1976).
-
7
Student-centered- Teaching Style. This included any pedagogical
strategy which provided opportunities for students to progress at
their own rate as they acquired various skills (Siedentop, 1976).
-
Chapter II
Review of Related Literature
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of corranand
and reciprocal teaching styles on the tumbling skill acquisition of
college students. The literature found to be pertinent to this study
was reviewed in the following areas:
1. Research on the spectrum of teaching styles.
2. Research on motor skill learning.
3. Research on the effects of feedback on motor skill learning.
4. Research comparing teacher-centered and student-centered
styles of teaching.
Research on the Spectrum of Teaching Styles
Teaching styles included in Mosston's (1972) spectrum have been
investigated in several studies utilizing a variety of motor skills.
Mariani (1970), using two groups of male college students, found the
task teaching style superior to the command teaching style in the
teaching of the backhand tennis stroke, but found no significant
difference between the two styles in the teaching of the forehand
stroke. Two treatment groups were given 6 weeks of tennis instruc-
tion. One group was instructed by the task method and the other group
was instructed by the command method. Both groups met for 1 hour of
tennis instruction twice a week for a total of 12 hours. Subjects in
both groups were given a tennis skills test at the beginning and at
8
-
9
the end of the course. Mariani (1970) administered a posttest sixty
days later to measure the subjects• retention of forehand and backhand
tennis achievement. Both groups showed significant improvement from
the beginning of the tennis course to the end; however, the group in-
structed by the task method reported retention that was significantly
greater at the .01 level than did the command instructed group.
Dougherty (1970) studied the effects of corrnnand, task and indi-
vidual program styles on the development of physical fitness and motor
skill. Six classes of male college students served as subjects for
his investigation. Dougherty randomly assigned two classes to each of
the three teaching styles. The classes were instructed using their
respective teaching styles during their bi-weekly meetings for a period
of fourteen weeks. A five item fitness test and a test on movement
skills were administered to all subjects during the 1st, 7th, and 14th
week of the treatment period. Interaction analysis observations were
also made on the subjects during the 2nd, 6th, and 12th weeks of the
treatment period. In general, no significant differences were found
between the three teaching styles. However, the interaction analysis
observations revealed that the task and individual program styles de-
veloped student independence and allowed for more teacher attention
than did the command style. Dougherty concluded by suggesting that
the choice of a teaching style should depend on factors such as per-
sonality, time, and objectives and goals sought.
Boschee (1972) also compared the effects of command, task and
individual program styles of teaching. Unlike Dougherty (1970),
-
10
Boschee used fifth grade students as his subjects. In the Boschee
study. 221 subjects were divided into six treatment groups. The sub-
jects were evaluated on acquisition of specific skills in alley soccer,
a game knowledge test on alley soccer, and personal and social adjust-
ment. Each of the six treatment groups participated in 25 minutes of
activity, three times weekly, for a period of 8 weeks. Boschee re-
ported that the styles of teaching he compared were not significantly
different from one another in terms of overall improvement between the
pre- and post-battery of alley soccer skill tests, nor in terms of
personal and social adjustment.
Another study comparing spectrum teaching styles was conducted
by Bryant (1974). Bryant studied the effects of the practice and
reciprocal teaching styles using fifth and sixth grade males as sub-
jects. He trained two groups of the subjects, one group to each
teaching style, for a period of 9 weeks. The groups were compared in
three areas: (1) ability to perform seven vaults to evaluate skill
development; {2) a tumbling task to evaluate cooperation between the
subjects; and (3) knowledge of gymnastics. Bryant reported no sig-
nificant difference between the groups on motor skill development or
the cooperation they exhibited. He did note a significant difference
in knowledge gained in favor of the practice teaching style.
Jacoby (1975) investigated the effects of command, reciprocal and
individual program styles of teaching on knowledge,skill and attitude
in the area of softball. The population included three sequentially
taught intact classes of ten to thirteen year olds in each of six
-
11
schools in Ohio. Student-teachers from Ohio University and their
cooperating teachers instructed the classes. At the end of five
weeks, tests on knowledge of softball, skiil in pitching, accuracy
in throwing, and attitude towards physical education were adminis-
tered. A posttest only research design was utilized. Jacoby reported
no significant differences between the teaching styles he investi-
gated as measured by the subjects' sport skill, knowledge and atti-
tude.
Gerney (1979) researched the effects of the practice style and
the reciprocal style on skill acquisition and social development of
fifth grade students. Skill acquisition was measured by the Skinner
Hockey Task and social development was measured by an adaptation of
Interaction Analysis. Gerney randomly assigned 16 males and 16 fe-
males to each of two treatment groups. Subjects in each group were
instructed during their regular physical education period in the
teaching style to which they were assigned. A pre- post test proce-
dure was utilized. Results revealed no significant difference between
the two teaching styles with regard to skill acquisition.; however,
the reciprocal treatment group proved significantly superior to the
practice style group in the area of social development as defined by
Gerney.
Virgilio (1979) tested command and reciprocal teaching strategies
to determine their effect on cognitive, affective, and psychomotor
behavior in beginning archery. The subjects were forty-six fifth
-
12
grade pupils. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups
and the groups to one of two treatments. Subjects were instructed by
each teaching style for a period of six weeks, meeting three times per
week for thirty minutes each session. The results of the study indi-
cated there were no significant differences between the teaching
styles in developing archery knowledge, archery skill, or self-concept.
Experimental studies previously conducted which compared teaching
styles on Mosston's (1972) spectrum tend to provide little evidence
that one style is more effective than another with regard to motor
skill acquisition. While these studies fail to make a favorable case
for the efficiency of any specific teaching style over another, they
do reveal the inconclusive nature of much of the evidence obtained.
Research on Motor Skill Learning
Scholars representing diverse professional backgrounds have made
contributions to the body of knowledge concerning the nature of motor
skill learning. Lawther (1968), for example, included the following
among his principles of motor learning: a) skill teaching should
begin at whatever level the student has already attained and proceed
from that point; and b) the skill assignments must be neither too
easy nor too difficult.
The importance of reinforcement in promoting motor skill learning
has been the focus of a number of experiments conducted by Skinner
{1969). Skinner's theory of operant conditioning requires i:hat rein-
forcement be given to a subject for a general response in the direc-
tion of a desired response. According to Skinner, the learner, instead
-
13
of achieving a desired skill by trial and error, should be guided
toward the correct response through constant reinforcement.
Robb (1972) has identified three phases of skill learning she
considers important to optimal motor skill perfonnance: 1) plan for-
mation or the executive plan, 2) practice, and 3) automatic execution.
In the first phase the learner gets a broad picture of the skill.
According to Robb, this should be followed by objectives, goals, and
a proper demonstration of the task. The second phase consists of
meaningful practice with appropriate feedback. The final phase of
learning is an automatic execution of the first two phases. Robb
stresses the importance of instructors being aware of all three phases
and what effect the phases have on the learner's perfonnance.
Gentile (1972) maintained that in motor skill learning, the ap-
propriate teaching strategy should be matched with the nature of the
skill. Gentile found that characteristics of motor learning directly
influence stragegies employed by the teacher. For example, a teacher
may use one strategy to facilitate motor skill acquisition in gymnas-
tics and use a completely different strategy when teaching soccer.
According to Gentile, the nature of a teacher's behavior is very much
detennined by the type of skill to be learned.
Based on their findings in the area of learning and perfonnance
of motor skills, Singer and Gaines (1975) suggested two major cate-
gories of variables that may generally be thought of as affecting the
status of the learner: (1) personal, and (2) environmental and in-
structional influences. With regard to the personal variable, Singer
-
14
and Gaines argue that body build, early childhood experiences, and
specific skill practice all have a high correlation with success in
motor skill learning. Other critical qualities of success in motor
skill learning noted by the authors inc1ude personality, heredity and
environment, sensory abilities, intelligence, attitudes, emotions, and
aspirations.
Singer (1975) refers to any task a learner is confronted with as
that learner's display. He indicated that the teacher is external to
the learner's display, but serves as a potential display manipulator.
The teacher, according to Singer, has the potential to make the display
easier to master for the learner by manipulating the display in one or
all of the following ways: (1) change the atmosphere to enhance
variety and cut down on boredom; (2) offer visual cues, especially
during early stages of skill learning; (3) motivate, reinforce and
direct behavior through the use of visual feedback; and (4) adapt
displays to artificial situations or simulated equipment.
In a discussion of the effects of anxiety and tension on motor
skill learning, Singer (1975) argues that moderate stress, anxiety,
and tension are necessary factors for optimal motor skill perfonnance.
However, he further notes that too much of these factors tend to
impede learning and performance of motor skills. Singer also main-
tains that desirable arousal conditions are different from task to
task and from learner to learner.
The literature reviewed in the area of motor skill learning pro-
vided theory and opinion. The review did not, however, result in any
-
15
conclusive findings with regard to the relationship between motor
skill learning and styles of teaching.
Research on the Effect of Feedback on
Motor Skill Learning
The reciprocal teaching style investigated in the present study
is structured in a manner which provides for immediate feedback and
knowledge of results. Therefore, a review of literature in this area
seemed warranted.
Bilodeau and Bilodeau (1961) reported that feedback is one of the
strongest and most important variables controlling performance and
learning. This finding was supported by Robb (1968) when she found
that the key to effective learning of a specific movement pattern was
practice, coupled with feedback information. Robb also suggested that
concurrent visual feedback was the most important variable for learn-
ing the movement response. Thompson (1969) also garnered support for
Bilodeau and Bilodeau's (1961) assertion when he reported that immedi-
ate feedback through the use of a graph check sequence method of
teaching golf, facilitated the learning of selected golf skills.
Penman (1969) reported results that conflict with those of Bilo-
deau and Bilodeau, 1961; Robb, 1968; and Thompson, 1969. Penman
studied the relative effectiveness of teaching beginning tumbling with
and without feedback in the form of an instant replay videotape re-
corder. The subjects in his study were 130 college freshmen. Groups
of 25 students were randomly assigned as the control and experimental
groups. These groups were taught in the same room, with the same
-
16
instructor, and at the same hour of the day. Both groups were taught
the same content; however, the experimental group had use of an instant
replay videotape recorder. The study lasted for 12 weeks or 24 in-
struction periods of approximately 35 minutes each. The posttest only
design Penman employed, required that each student made three passes
on a tumbling mat executing the tumbling stunts learned. The perfor-
mances were evaluated by a four-man jury. Results revealed there was
no benefit in providing feedback in the form of an instant replay
videotape recorder to teach beginning tumbling skills to Washington
State University freshmen students. A slight difference in mean per-
formance scores was noted in favor of the control group but that dif-
ference was not significant.
Meyers (1972) reported results similar to those of Penman (1969).
Meyers compared four methods of feedback in programmed instruction
for teaching archery. The subjects were 100 male high school freshmen.
Each subject was randomly assigned to a treatment group. The methods
of feedback used were: (1) basic program with no teacher assistance;
(2) basic program with verbal feedback; (3) basic program with video
feedback; and (4) basic program with verbal and video feedback. The
AAHPER Archery Skills Test was administered before and after a three-
week practice period. The results indicated no significant differences
among the improvement scores of the groups.
Sinclair (1972) investigated the effect of immediate visual feed-
back upon the learning of a selected track and field skill. His sub-
jects were 78 seventh grade boys. The subjects were randomly assigned
to three treatment groups and were administered treatment for six
-
17
class sessions. One group was designated the control group and re-
ceived conventional instruction. The second group (EGl) received
videotape-no replay treatment. The third group (EG2) received com-
plete visual feedback of performance to complement the conventional
verbal analysis and correction. Experimental group one (EGl)
was videotaped but visual feedback was withheld from the instruc-
tional process. Although no significant differences were found between
group performances, Sinclair reported that the group which received
the videotape-with replay treatment, realized quicker progress between
sessions 2 and 6 than did the group taught in the conventional manner.
Leah's (1973) findings lend no support to Meyer's (1972) or Sin-
clair1s (1972) study. Leah studied the effects of instant vid~otape
feedback in learning target archery. Ninety female volunteers from
Glassboro State College served as subjects. The subjects formed three
beginning archery classes that met twice a week for seven weeks. The
subjects were assigned at random to three treatment groups. One group
received standard lecture and demonstration, another group received
standard lecture and demonstration with videotape feedback immediately
following their performance. A third group received standard lecture
and demonstration with feedback after every other class period. Leah
used the Modified Chicago Round as his pre- and posttest measure.
His findings indicated all three methods increased skill level and
form however, the videotape immediate feedback group showed the high-
est gains.
Tobey (1974) studied feedback in order to determine what type of
-
18
feedback actually occurs in physical education activity classes. He
described feedback to be mostly verbal, directed toward a single student
and often non-specific. He also indicated that patterns of feedback
varied with the teacher, the age of the learner, and the skills being
taught.
Fuey, Sandargas, and Bushell (1975) investigated two types of
feedback in the teaching of two swimming skills to handicapped children.
The types of feedback they studied were non-task specific praise and
task specific praise plus correction. The subjects were grouped in
pairs, and each member of a pair received the alternate type of feed-
back for the same skill. In all cases, the researchers noted faster
and more complete acquisition resulted from task specific praise plus
correction.
Catano (1975) used sixty volunteer undergraduates from St. Mary's
University as subjects when he investigated the relation of improved
perfonnance through verbal praise to source of praise. The three
sources of praise used in the study were: (1) peer praise, (2) experi-
menter praise, (3) control condition or no praise. The results indi-
cated that the use of verbal praise can improve perfonnance in a
mirror tracing task when it is administered by a source of authority.
Newell and Chew (1975) found, in a study involving visual feed-
back and positioning. movements, that visual distance infonnation seems
more useful than location infonnation. They concluded that the more
visual feedback a subject is given, the more accurate his perfonnance
will be.
-
19
Feedback has received attention from researchers concerned with
variables that can affect learning. There is, however, conflict among
the literature with regard to the impact feedback has on the learning
of a motor task. In general, the literature reviewed in the area of
feedback suggested that feedback can be valuable in the learning of a
motor task. However, the literature clearly suggests that feedback
must be immediate and specific to the skills involved in order to be
of any significant value to the learner. The literature also points
out that visual feedback has a greater effect on motor achievement
than verbal feedback.
Research Comparing Teacher-centered and
Student-centered Teaching Styles
Studies investigating teaching methods in physical education have
generally compared a teacher-centered style of teaching with a student-
centered style. Keller (1963), for example, used secondary school
males in a comparison of teaching styles. In Keller's study, the
student-centered style was described as a program consisting of one
instructional class and two laboratory periods. During the laboratory
periods, the student was expected to achieve specific goals without
teacher assistance. The teacher was available for advice and guidance
during the laboratory periods in Keller's teacher-centered style.
Keller reported no significant difference between the two methods
with respect to physical fitness or skill development.
Schlott (1970) also compared a teacher-centered and a student-
centered style of teaching physical education. Schlott's teacher-
-
20
centered style consisted of explanation and demonstration by the
teacher and practice of the skills by the students. After the skills
of a particular activity were presented and practiced, they were used
in lead up games. The student-centered style in Schlott's study was
defined in terms of a problem-solving technique. The teacher, in the
student-centered style, conducted class activity by verbally struc-
turing problems to which each student was expected to react on an
individual basis. Students were engaged in self-testing situations
during the second half of the problem-solving lesson. Schlott reported
no difference between the two methods with regard to acquisition of
field hockey skills for college females.
In a study which utilized female college freshmen as subjects,
Croom (1971) compared a teacher-centered style of instruction with a
movement exploration style in non-major, physical education skills
classes. In Cream's movement exploration style, students were en-
couraged to self-discover the best means of moving their bodies to
accomplish certain goals. Croom described her teacher-centered teach-
ing style as being traditional in nature, characterized by explanation,
demonstration, and execution. Considering the results of the Scott
Motor Ability test, Croom concluded that the teacher-centered style she
employed was more effective in improving general motor ability than
was the movement exploration style.
Slooten and Kneer (1976) conducted a study which compared handball
knowledge and skill of students taught by three different teaching
styles. How each student was to learn, to practice, and to be evaluated
-
21
were the variables for determining the different styles of teaching.
Two of the tested styles were teacher-centered, differing only with
respect to the students' ability to contract for the grade of their
choice. The third style was student-centered and was described as an
independent study which permitted students to set their own goals as
well as contract for the grade of their choice. Slooten and Kneer
found no significant differences in either knowledge or skill acqui-
sition between the three classes of freshmen male students when taught
by the different methods.
Thaxton and others (1977) reported that the student-centered group
they studied was significantly better when compared to the teacher-
centered group in selected skills of gymnastics and tumbling. The
researchers used fourth grade girls for a period of four weeks to
compare the effectiveness of a teacher-centered, explanation, demon-
stration, execution style of teaching and a student-centered, self-
directed style.
Empirical research reviewed in the area of styles of teaching
physical education activities has provided varied results. Some results
lend support to the contention that no one style of teaching is more
effective than another while other results support the antithesis of
that contention.
-
Chapter III
Methods and Procedures
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of command
and reciprocal teaching styles on the acquisition of twelve tumbling
skills by college level students. Procedures used in the collection
and treatment of the data for this study will be described under the
following headings: 1) subjects; 2) experimental period; 3) experi-
mental treatments; 4) instructional procedures; 5) evaluation instru-
ment; 6) testing procedures; 7) design of the study; and 8) statistical
procedures.
Subjects
The subjects for this study were fifty-one coeds from Virginia
State University in Petersburg, Virginia. These students were enrolled
in two sections of G.E. 165--Fundamentals of Physical Education during
the Fall semester of the 1981-82 academic year. G.E. 165--Fundamentals
of Physical Education is an elective course that offers one academic
credit. The subjects were assigned to either one or the other sections
of the class according to their choice during pre-registration or
registration for the Fall semester. Permission to use the students as
subjects and to conduct the research was granted by Dr. James E. Hunter,
Chairman of the Department of Health, Physical Education and Recrea-
tion at Virginia State University.
22
-
23
A background data form, constructed by the investigator (see
Appendix C), was completed by the students in both class sections prior
to the experimental period. The information gathered from the form
aided the investigator in determining how each student rated himself
or herself as a tumbler and the amount of tumbling instruction each
subject had previously encountered. Students who had previously re-
ceived tumbling instruction and who indicated a rating of very good
or excellent were eliminated from the study.
Experimental Period
The study was conducted during the F_a 11 semester of the 1981-82
academic year. The experimental period consisted of twelve, fifty-
minute class meetings over a period of six weeks. Treatments were
administered during regularly scheduled class meetings for both class
sections of G.E. 165--Fundamentals of Physical Education. Section
one met on Mondays and Wednesdays at 8:00 a.m. and section two met
on Mondays and Wednesdays at 9:00 a.m. Both classes were conducted
in the East Wing of Daniel Gymnasium. The experimental period fol-
lowed the schedule outlined and included as Appendix o.
Experimental Treatments
The experimental groups used in this study were two intact physi-
cal education activity classes. Popham and Sirotnik (1973), in sup-
port of intact groups, pointed out the following consideration:
Disregarding the fact that often the only available source for the appropriate student sample will be found in school classrooms, there is a decided advantage in using realistic school situations to investigate relationships between
-
24
educational variables. Typically, an investigator wishes to generalize research findings to real school situations, so his research is frequently (but not always) most genera-lizable when the investigation is conducted in the milieu of an authentic school environment. (p. 204)
The use of intact classes precluded the random assignment of
subjects to the two treatment groups. Therefore, the investigator
designated the class section which met at 8:00 a.m. as treatment group
one and the section which met at 9:00 a.m. as treatment group two.
Following the designation of class sections to groups, either the
command or the reciprocal treatment was randomly assigned to a group
by the toss of a coin. Group one subjects (8:00 a.m.) were assigned
the command style treatment and group two subjects -(9:00 a.m.) were
~signed the reciprocal style treatment.
Students in both treatment .groups were instructed during their
regular class period, in the teaching style to which they were as-
signed. The content for implementing the two teaching styles was
specified in twelve daily lesson plans for each group. The lesson
plans contained time allotments for each segment of a lesson, as well
as, exact procedures to be followed for preparation, warm-up, skill
instruction and skill application (see Appendices E and F).
Instructional Procedures
Both experimental classes of G.E. 165--Fundamentals of Physical
Education were taught by the investigator utilizing the exact proce-
dures specified in the daily lesson plans. The investigator was also
the regular classroom teacher assigned to those sections by the
department chairman at Virginia State University. In support of
-
25
regular personnel conducting research in education, Campbell and
Stanley (1963) advocate the following:
... An alternative model is for the idea for classroom research to originate with teachers and other school personnel, with designs to test these ideas worked out cooperatively with specialists in research methodology, and then for the bulk of the experimentation to be carried out by the idea producers themselves. (p. 21)
Both classes included in the study met two times for fifty minutes
per class meeting prior to the experimental period. The subjects had
no knowledge of the experimental nature of the classes. The instruc-
tional procedures during the two class meetings prior to the experi-
mental period followed the outline below:
1st Meeting: Course orientation including a discussion of teacher
and student expectations, course requirements and classroom procedures.
2nd Meeting: Review of course orientation; completion of back-
ground data form; description of procedures to following during pre-
testing.
The two initial class meetings for both sections were not in-
cluded in the experimental period in an effort to allow class enroll-
ments to stabilize. Instruction after the two initial meetings fol-
lowed the schedule outlined in Appendix D.
Evaluation Instrument
The tumbling skills test used in this study was devised by the
investigator (see Appendix G). It is a modification of the rating
scale used by Jarvis (1967) in a study of self-instructive materials
and motor skills.
-
26
The test utilized two gymnastic judges to rate twelve tumbling
stunts on a 0-5 point scale. A subject was given one point for each
component of a skill that was performed correctly. The subjects in
this study could receive a maximum of two points for each component of
a skill they correctly performed, as the two judges• ratings were
combined. Therefore, the highest score possible for each student was
the total of the five segments times two or ten points. Subjects
were allowed one attempt to perform each stunt according to the pre-
determined criteria. The judges independently scored videotaped per-
formances of the students using the point criteria designated for each
stunt on separate score sheets (see AppendixH ).
Face validity was claimed for each of the twelve items contained
in the tumbling skills test used in this study. For example, the
headstand was a test that measured one's ability to stand on one's
head. As a result, no statistical analysis using a criterion measure
was employed to establish validity for the twelve test items. The
performance criterion was reviewed by a panel made up of one gymnastic
instructor and three collegiate gymnasts (see Appendix I). After
minor adjustments and revisions, the panel agreed that the skills test
would measure what it purported to measure.
Reliability of the tumbling skills test was determined by ad-
ministering the test to fourteen college students enrolled in Gymnas-
tics and Tumbling class during the Spring quarter, 1981 at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Each student was videotaped while performing the twelve tumbling
-
27
stunts included in this study. Two collegiate gymnasts not involved
with the complete study, rated the performances of the students using
criteria identical to that \'lhich was used in the completed study.
The Pearson Product-Moment correlation technique was utilized in
establishing an interrater reliability coefficient of +.82 for the
test-retest scores of the tumbling skills test. Interrater reliabil-
ity coefficients were also calculated for each of the twelve stunts
included in the completed investigation utilizing the same correla-
tion technique. The reliability estimates calculated on the two
raters I scores used in the completed study, ranged from a pas ft i ve
.58 to a positive .96 (see Appendix J).
Testing Procedures
The pretest was administered to the subjects in both treatment
groups during the two class meetings that immediately preceded the
experimental period. The pretests were administered to determine
initial homogeneity of skill level between the two groups. A posttest
was administered to both groups during the two class meetings imme-
diately following the experimental period. The posttests were ad-
ministered to determine the tumbling skills acquisition of the
subjects in each group. Subjects absent during either the pre- or
posttesting session were eliminated from the study.
Both pre- and posttesting sessions were supervised by the inves-
tigator with the assistance of two physical education instructors,
two video equipment operators and three physical education major stu-
dents. The instructors assisted the investigator by making sure all
-
28
subjects understood and followed the testing procedures. The two video
equipment operators assembled and operated all of the video taping
equipment. The three students assisted by spotting and demonstrating
the stunts during the testing sessions.
Stunt performances by all subjects during the pre- and posttesting
sessions were recorded on videotapes. Two portable television cameras
and two videotape recorders were utilized. The sessions were video-
taped in order to permit the judges to rate the subjects' performances
in each group without having any knowledge of the group's experimental
treatment.
All subjects were tested during the time allotted for testing.
The subjects in each group were alphabetically assigned a number. The
subjects were then separated into two columns according to odd or even
numbers. Subjects in the column with even numbers were instructed to
assemble adjacent to camera one. Subjects in the column with odd
numbers assembled adjacent to camera two. All subjects simultaneously
observed a demonstration of each stunt before being allowed to at-
tempt it during the pretests, but were not provided with demonstra-
tions during the posttests. Following each demonstration, subjects
in numerical order according to columns were given one attempt to
perform the stunt. A diagram of the testing procedures is included
as Appendix K.
Two physical education teachers with experience in teaching and
coaching gymnastics served as raters for both the pretest and the
posttest (see Appendix L). Both raters participated in a rating
-
29
practice session held one week prior to the administration of the pre-
tests. During the practice session, each rater was given an oppor-
tunity to discuss the performance criteria established by the investi-
gator for each stunt. Details with regard to testing and scoring
procedures were delineated, but details relative to experimental
treatments were withheld. The rating practice was administered col-
lectively to the judges and consisted of a videotape replay of fourteen
students performing the twelve stunts included in the skills test·
for the completed study. The videotape used in the rating practice
session was recorded during a pilot study of the evaluation instru-
ment in the Spring, 1981. Stop action of the camera enabled analysis
of specific faults, and a discussion of the raters' opinions of the
quality of the performances. The raters viewed the performances in the
same order and at the same time. Each rater was given separate copies
of score sheets on which to independently rate the performances.
The raters followed the same procedures used in the rati.ng prac-
tice session when they rated the pre- and posttest performances for
the completed study. The only exception was that each rater was
instructed not to confer with one another with regard to scoring the
subjects.
Study Design
The following diagram illustrates the design employed in this
study:
-
30
Group N Pretest
I
Command Style
II
Reciprocal Style
25
26
Definition of Symbols:
OTsT1
OTsT l
N = number of subjects
TST = Tumbling Skills Test
c = command style treatment
r = reciprocal style treatment
Treatment Pos ttes t
0rsr 2
OrsT2
The command and reciprocal styles of instruction were randomly
assigned by the toss of a coin and they were the independent variables
indicated by Xe and Xr in the diagram. The dependent variable was
the tumbling skill test scores on the posttest. The equivalence of
two treatment groups was checked by using the Analysis of Variance
statistics on the pretest scores. Observations on the pretest are
indicated in the above diagram by OTST and observations on the post-1
test are indicated by OTsT2. The broken line refers to the non-random
assignment of subjects to treatment groups.
Kerlinger (1973) refers to the design used in this study as a
"compromise design" and points out that even though the design lacked
the assurance provided by randomization, if treatment equivalence is
-
31
established, one can proceed with the study without violating the
equivalence assumption (p. 341).
Statistical Procedures
Raw data were obtained from the pretest and posttest scores on
the tumbling skills test for subjects in both treatment groups. An
initial analysis of pretest scores utilizing the Analysis of Variance
statistics was conducted to ascertain if there were differences in
tumbling skill level between the two groups before they were sub-
jected to the experimental treatments. To gain differential values
among the groups, Analyses of Variance were calculated on the twelve
stunts included in the study for each treatment group. The .05 level
was utilized to determine significance for all statistical analyses
conducted in this study. Analysis of Variance summary tables were
established to indicate the effects of command and reciprocal teaching
styles on the acquisition of each of the twelve tumbling skills.
Tables were also established to indicate pretreatment and post-
treatment group mean scores on the twelve tumbling skills.
-
Chapter IV
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of command
and reciprocal teaching styles on the acquisition of twelve tumbling
skills by college students. This chapter contains the statistical
analysis and discussion of the results of the investigation.
The data were obtained from fifty-one college students enrolled
at Virginia State University, Petersburg, Virginia. Two intact
classes were randomly assigned a treatment number and were subjected
to different types of treatment as follows:
Group I------------------ Command style treatment
Group II----------------- Reciprocal style treatment
Statistical Analysis
Since the two treatment groups were composed of intact classes
predetermined by patterns of registration rather than being assigned
at random, it was necessary to test for homogeneity among the groups.
The mean pretreatment scores on each tumbling skill for both groups are
presented in Table 1. According to pretreatment mean scores, both
treatment groups were similar in tumbling skill level. As seen in
Table 1, the command treatment group (Group I) reported mean scores
slightly higher than the reciprocal treatment group (Group II) in
eight of the twelve tumbling skills. The preliminary analysis for
homogeneity consisted of twelve one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAS)
32
-
33
Table ·1
Group Means for Pretreatment Scores on Twelve Skills
for Groups I and II
Skills
Headstand
Forward Roll
Forward Roll Without Hands
Handstand
Backward Roll
Dive Roll
Chest Roll
Cartwheel
Back Extension
Limbre
Back Walkover
Roundoff
Total Mean Score
Group I (Command)
1. 76
5.92
1.36
1.80
5.16
1.12
.32
1. 76
0
.24
0
.48
1. 66
Note: Means are reported as points out of a total of 10.
Group II (Reciprocal)
1.46
5. 15
.96
1.53
4.46
.76
.34
1.53
0
0
. 15
.53
1.40
-
34
comparing pretreatment scores of the two groups of subjects on the
twelve tumbling skills previously listed in Table 1.
The results of the preliminary analyses showed no significant
differences in pretreatment performance scores of the two groups.
Specifically, the two treatment groups appeared to be initially homo-
geneous in all twelve tumbling skills. Summary ANOVAS of the pre-
liminary analyses are displayed in Tables 2 through 13. The F ratios
given in Tables 2 through 13 were not significant at the .05 level,
thereby indicating no significant performance differences on either of
the twelve skills between the two groups before treatments were ad-
ministered.
Because homogeneity was established for the twelve tumbling
skills, one-way classification ANOVAS were utilized in analyzing the
posttreatment mean performance scores for each group. The mean post-
treatment performance scores on all twelve skills for both groups are
shown in Table 14. As shown in Table 14, the command treatment group
reported mean scores slightly higher than the reciprocal treatment
group on nine of the twelve tumbling skills. This investigator noted
that-the roundoff was the only tumbling skill in which the corrrrnand
treatment reported a lower mean score than the reciprocal treatment
group on both pretreatment and posttreatments.
Posttreatment tumbling skill tests results of the treatment groups
were compared with pretreatment results to determine if learning had
occurred during the experimental treatment period. This comparison
revealed similar mean gain scores between the two groups.
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
35
Table 2
ANOVA Summary Table of Headstand Pretreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
1.13 1 1.13
267.03 49 5.44
268. 16 50
* F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .2077
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
36
Table 3
ANOVA Summary Table of Forward Roll Pretreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
7.48 1 7.48
121 . 23 49 2.47
128. 71 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* 3.02
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
37
Table 4
ANOVA Summary Table of Forward Roll Without Hands
Pretreatment Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
2.02 1 2.02
82.73 49 1.68
84.75 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
1.20*
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
38
Table 5
ANOVA Summary Table of Handstand Pretreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
.87 l .87
380.47 49 7.76
381.34 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .112
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
.Total
*
39
Table 6
ANOVA Summary Table of Backward Roll Pretreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
6.21 1 6.21
359.83 49 7.34
366.04 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .846
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
40
Table 7
ANOVA Summary Table of Dive Roll Pretreatment
Scored for Groups I and II
ss df MS
1.57 1 1.57
129.26 49 2.63
130.83 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .596
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
41
Table 8
ANOVA Summary Table of Chest Roll Pretreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
• 01 1 • 01
99.33 49 2.02
99.34 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .004
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
42
Table 9
ANOVA Summary Table of Cartwheel Pretreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
.62 l .62
327.03 49 6.67
327.65 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .092
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
43
Table 10
ANOVA Summary Table of Back Extension Pretreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
0 1 0
0 49 0
0 50
*F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* 0
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
44
Table 11
ANOVA Summary Table of Limbre Pretreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
.735 1 .735
34.560 49 .705
35.295 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* 1.04
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
45
Table 12
ANOVA Summary Table of Back Walkover Pretreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
.302 1 .302
15.385 49 .313
15. 687 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .964
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
46
Table 13
ANOVA Summary Table of Roundoff Pretreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
.04 l .04
76. 71 50 1.56
76.75 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04
F
* .025
-
47
Table 14
Group Means of Posttreatment Scores on Twelve Tumbling
Stunts for Groups I and II
Skills
Headstand
Forward Roll
Forward Roll Without Hands
Handstand
Backward Roll
Dive Roll
Chest Roll
Cartwheel
Back Extension
Limbre
Back Walkover (
Roundoff
Total Mean Score
Group I (Conunand)
5.04
7.52
5.56
6.60
6.80
3.44
4.60
5.52
2.08
3.48
3.32
4.28
4.85
Note: Means are reported as points out of a total of 10.
Group II (Reciprocal)
4.69
8.11
5.19
6.19
6. 61
3.11
3. 61
6.53
1.80
2.34
2.19
5.69
4.67
-
48
Presented in Tables 15 through 26 are the results of the one-way
analysis of variance concerning group differences in mean scores for
the twelve tumbling skills. The F ratios given in Tables 15 through
26 were not statistically significant, thereby indicating no signifi-
cant performance differences in the twelve tumbling skills between
the command treatment group and the reciprocal treatment group. A
difference between the two treatment groups would have been signifi-
cant at the .05 level if the F ratio for an analysis of variance on
either of the tumbling skills had exceeded 4.04. Since neither group
performed significantly better on the tumbling tests than did the
other, the null hypothesis was not rejected, indicating that the skill
acquisition of college students taught by the reciprocal style would
probably not be different from the performance of college st~dents
taught by the command style.
An illustration of group means and mean gains for the pretreatment
and posttreatment scores for both groups on the tumbling tests-is located
in Table 27. This table indicates there were mean score improvements
by both treatment groups on the tumbling test from the pretreatment to
the posttreatment. As seen in Table 27, the command treatment group
progressed from a mean score of 1.66 before experimental treatment was
administered to a mean score of 4.85 after experimental treatment
was administered. The reciprocal treatment group progressed similarly,
from a mean score of 1.40 before treatment to 4.67 after treatment.
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
49
Table 15
ANOVA Summary Table of Headstand Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
1.54 l 1.54
552.50 50 11. 27
554.04 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .1366
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
50
Table 16
ANOVA Summary Table of Forward Roll Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df i~S
4.52 1 4.52
168. 90 49 3.44
173.42 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* 1.31
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
51
Table 17
ANOVA Summary Table of Forward Roll Without haTids
Posttreatment Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
1. 73 1 1.73
206.20 49 4.20
207.93 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* • 411
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
52
Table 18
ANOVA Summary Table of Handstand Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
2.12 1 2. 12
202.04 49 4.12
204.16 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* . 514
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
53
Table 19
ANOVA Summary Table of Backward Roll Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
.43 1 . 43
1410.16 49 28.77
1410.59 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04
F
* .0149
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
54
Table 20
ANOVA Summary Table of Dive Roll Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
1.34 1 1.34
336.82 6.87
338 .16 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .1950
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
55
Table 21
ANOVA Summary Table of Chest Roll Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
12.35 l 12. 35
676.16 49 13.79
688. 51 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .895
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
56
Table 22
ANOVA Summary Table of Cartwheel Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
13. 22 1 13.22
656. 71 49 13.40
669.93 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .986
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
57
Table 23
ANOVA Summary Table of Back Extension Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
.95 1 .95
563.88 49 11. 50
564.83 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
* .0826
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
*
58
Table 24
ANOVA Sununary Table of Limbre Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
16.38 l 16.38
881.13 49 17. 98
897. 51 50
F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
. 911 o*
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
59
Table 25
ANOVA Summary Table of Back Walkover Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
16. 21 l 16. 21
483.48 49 9.86
499.69 50
* F for P of .05 = 4.04.
F
1.64 *
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
60
Table 26
ANOVA Summary Table of Roundoff Posttreatment
Scores for Groups I and II
ss df MS
25.42 25.42
329.58 49 6.72
355.00 50
*F for P of .05 = 4.04
F
3.78*
-
61
Table 27
Comparison of Group Mean Scores on Pretreatment and Posttreatment Tumbling Tests for Groups I and II
Pretreatment Posttreatment
Group I (Command) l.66 4.85
Group II (Recriprocal) 1.40 4.67
Note: Means are reported as points out of a total of 10.
Mean Gain
3. 19
3.27
-
62
If the posttreatment mean performance scores significantly dif-
fered between the two treatment groups, it would have been evident
that the two teaching styles under investigation had a differential
effect on tumbling skill acquisition. In order to determine if such
a difference existed, a one-way Analysis of Variance was conducted
on the posttreatment mean performance scores of both groups. The
one-way ANOVA summary table for posttreatment mean scores is shown in
Table 28. The lack of significance of the F ratio in Table 28 sug-
gests that both teaching styles were equally effective in oromoting
tumbling skill acquisition.
The command treatment proved to be an effective instructional
style (Pre !i_ = 1.66, Post !i = 4.85, p < .05). This group recorded slightly higher mean scores on the pretest and on the posttest than
did the reciprocal treatment group. The mean differences between the
two groups were not statistically significant.
The reciprocal treatment group developed the tumbling skills
equally well when compared with the command treatment group. This
finding indicates that reciprocal teaching is also an effective in-
structional style (PreM= 1.40, Post!i= 4.67, p < .05).
The subjects in the command and reciprocal treatment groups im-
proved on the tumbling skill tests from pretreatment to posttreat-
ment with mean gain scores of 3.19 and 3.27, respectively. According
to pretreatment mean scores of 1.66 and 1.40, both groups were similar
in tumbling skill level. The groups were also similar in terms of
variability. Mean and standard deviation scores indicating these
findings are presented in Table 29.
-
Source of Variance
Between
Within
Total
63
Table 28
ANOVA Summary Table of Posttreatment Mean Scores
for Groups I and II
ss df MS
. 06 l .06
117. 49 49 2.39
117. 55 50
*F for P of .05 = 4.04
F
.0251*
-
Group
Command
Reci proca 1
64
Table 29
Mean and Standard Deviation Scores on Tumbling
Skill Tests for Command and Reciprocal Groups
Pretreatment Posttreatment
N
25
26
M
1. 66
1.40
SD
. 73
.83
N
25
26
M
4.85
4.67
SD
1.58
1.50
-
65
Discussion
The results of this investigation, which failed to reject the
null hypothesis of no difference between the command and the recipro-
cal styles of teaching, support earlier findings in some respects
but not in others. This discussion will focus on previous studies
and will point out how the completed investigation supports or con-
tradicts the results reported in earlier studies.
The results of the completed investigation are consistent with
earlier studies which compared styles of teaching on Mosston's (1972)
spectrum with only one exception. Mariani· (1970) found the task
teaching style superior to the command teaching style when he taught
the backhand tennis stroke to his subjects. There are a number of
similarities between the Mariani study and the completed investigation.
The task teaching style used in the Mariani study was similar to the
reciprocal style used in the completed investigation. Mariani also
used college age students as his subjects and conducted his experi-
ment for a period of six weeks. In spite of the structural similari-
ties, findings of the completed investigation garner no support for
the earlier findings of Mariani.
The results of other studies comparing teaching styles on the
spectrum are consistent with the findings of the completed investiga-
tion. The only other spectrum study reviewed which utilized college
students as subjects was conducted by Dougherty (1970). Dougherty
found no significant differences in physical fitness and motor skill
performance between three groups of male college freshmen when he
-
66
investigated command, task, and individual program teaching styles.
Boschee (1972), Bryant (1974), Jacoby (1975), Gerney (1979), and
Virgilio (1979) also reported non-significant differences between
spectrum teaching styles when they used various motor skills as de-
pendent variables. The results of the completed investigation, coupled
with the findings of earlier studies on Mosston1 s (1972) spectrum of
teaching styles, tend to suggest that while all the styles investi-
gated facilitate motor skill acquisition, evidence to reach a strong
and valid conclusion regarding superiority of either style remains
lacking.
Several earlier studies compared a teacher-centered method of
teaching with a student-centered method (Keller, 1963; Schlott, 1970;
Croom, 1971; Slooten and Kneer, 1976; Thaxton and others, 1977). The
teacher-centered method as described in these studies was similar to
the command style treatment used in the completed investigation.
The student-centered methods were similar to the reciprocal style
treatment to the extent that students were encouraged to learn skills
with little or no assistance from the classroom teacher. Three of
these studies reported findings consistent with the results of the
completed investigation, while two seem to be in conflict.
Slooten and Kneer 0976) found no significant differences in
skill acquisition between the three classes of male students when
taught by two teacher-centered methods and one student-centered method.
The findings of Slooten and Kneer supported the earlier findings of
Schlott (1970) and Keller (1963) who also studied the differential
-
67
effects of teacher-centered and student-centered teaching methods on
motor skill acquisition. The resuits of the above three studies were
consistent with the findings of the completed investigation.
The two studies which reported conflicting and contradictory
findings were conducted by Croom (1971) and Thaxton and others (1977).
These researchers reported evidence to support the superiority of
either a teacher-centered or a student-centered teaching method they
investigated. Croom (1971) found a teacher-centered method she de-
scribed as being characterized by explanation, demonstration and execu-
tion more effective in teaching physical skills than the student-
centered method of self-discovery she employed. Thaxton and others
(1971) reported results that were the antithesis of what Croom (1971)
found.
The literature reviewed in the area of motor skill learning tended
to suggest that motor skills are more readily learned through teaching
methods that consider the differences in abilities and interests of
the learner. If this suggestion is accepted, then it would seem likely
that the reciprocal teaching style would be better suited than the
command teaching style for the improvement of skill learning. No
evidence to support that suggestion was found in the completed inves-
tigation.
The research previously reviewed in the area of feedback suggested
two important considerations with regard to its impact on motor skill
learning: 1) feedback should be given immediately following the com-
pletion of a task; and 2) feedback should be specific to the skill
-
68
involved. Although the reciprocal teaching style used by Bryant
(1974), Jacoby (1975), Gerney (1979) and this investigator provided
for immediate feedback and specific skill corrections, none of these
studies reported evidence of those factors having a statistically
significant effect on performance scores. This observation does not
support the position taken by Fuey, Saudergas, and Bushell (1975),
Catano (1975), Newell and Chew (1975), Thompson (1969), and Robb
(1968) who contend that motor skill acquisition is significantly en-
hanced when feedback, praise and correction is used.
-
Chapter V
Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations
Summary
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of
command and reciprocal teaching styles on the tumbling skill acquisi-
tion of college students in beginning tumbling. Fifty-one coeds from
Virginia State University in Petersburg, Virginia served as subjects.
Each subject completed a background data form prior to the study.
Only those subjects who perceived themselves as poor or fair tumblers
and who indicated little or no prior tumbling instruction were included
in the investigation. The subjects were assigned to one of two
treab1ient groups by their choice during registration or pre-
registration for the Fall semester of the 1981-82 academic year. The
groups were then assigned one of two treatments (command or reciprocal)
by the toss of a coin.
Subjects were pretested during the two class periods immediately
preceding the first week of the experimental period and posttested the
two class periods that immediately followed the sixth week of the ex-
perimental period. Subjects were instructed in each group for a period
of six weeks meeting twice a week for fifty minutes each session
during the Fall semester, 1981. Instruction was given under condi-
tions appropriate to each of the teaching styles investigated.
The evaluation instrument used to assess the tumbling skill
acquisition of the subjects was a modification of a rating scale used
69
-
70
by Jarvis (1967), designed by the investigator specifically for this
study. The test utilized two gymnastic judges to rate twelve tumbling
skills on a 0-5 point scale. The raters independently scored video-
taped performances of the stunts using performance criteria set up for
each stunt on separate score sheets. Reliability coefficients between
the two raters' scores were computed. These interrater correlations
ranged from +.58 to +.96.
The subjects in the command treatment group (Group I) learned the
tumbling skills by following commands and directions given solely by
the classroom teacher. Each skill was taught using a 311 x 511 card
which contained specific performance criteria. After a skill was ex-
plained and demonstrated by the teacher, the entire group was allowed
to execute the skill.
The reciprocal treatment group (Group II) learned the tumbling
skills in dyads. One student in a dyad served as doer, while the
other performed the role of teacher-partner. After a skill was exe-
cuted by the doer and evaluated by the teacher-partner, the roles were
exchanged. Students worked in different dyads each week of the experi-
mental period. Each member of a dyad was supplied one task card for
each of the twelve tumbling skills. Each task card contained the exact
performance criteria for each skill used by the classroom teacher to
instruct the command treatment group.
One-way classification analysis of variance were utilized to
determine initial homogeneity among the two treatment groups. The
same statistics were also used to determine which teaching style was
-
71
more effective in promoting tumbling skill acquisition. The .05 level
of significance was utilized to determine acceptance or rejection of
the null hypothesis. Mean and standard deviation tables, group pre-
and posttreatment mean score tables, and analysis of variance summary
tables were used to present the analysis of data.
The findings of this investigation revealed the following:
1. no significant difference was found between the command treat-
ment group and the reciprocal treatment group with regard to initial
homogeneity.
2. both treatment groups showed significant improvement in tumb-
ling skill level based on a comparison of pretreatment and posttreatment
mean performance scores.
3. no significant difference was found between the command
treatment group and the reciprocal treatment group in mean tumbling
performance scores as a result of the experimental treatments.
Conclusions
Within the limitations imposed by the design and procedures of
this investigation, the following conclusions were reached:
1. Both command and reciprocal teaching styles promote tumbling
skill acquisition of college age students in beginning
tumbling.
2. Neither teaching style used in this investigation is more
effective than the other in promoting tumbling skill
acquisition for college students over a six week instruc-
tional period.
-
72
On the basis of the findings and conclusions reported in this
study, it is apparent that college level students are capable of teaching
each other beginning tumbling skills. The nonsignificant difference
between treatment group performances tends to suggest that practitioners
could utilize the reciprocal style equally effectively as the command
style while at the same time furthering each student's ability to learn
in alternative modes.
Although no significant differences were found between the two treat-
ment groups, the investigator observed and received feedback with regard
to how much the students "enjoyed" the reciprocal process. This observa-
tion suggests the possibility that the subjects in the reciprocal treat-
ment group achieved positive affective results beyond tumbling skill
acquisition.
Recommendations
As a result of this investigation, the following recommendations for
future research are offered:
1. Further studies should be conducted which investigate the ef-
fects of the reciprocal teaching style on college age students who are
experienced tumblers. Such studies should incorporate advanced tumbling
skills as measurement criteria. It might be found that teaching tumbling
utilizing the reciprocal style can effectively facilitate advanced skill
learning.
2. Further studies, similar in design to the completed investiga-
tion, should be conducted which include the subject's gender as a variable.
-
73
Tumbling coaches and instructors tend to group students according to their
gender for instruction. Perhaps an optimal teaching style exists between
instructors and students of the same gender.
3. Follow-up studies should be conducted utilizing a larger sample
of subjects for data analysis. It is not atypical for one physical edu-
cator to be expected to instruct students far exceeding the number used
in this investigation within a given period of time. It is possible that
a study which utilizes a larger sample might reveal significant results
with regard to the superiority of a teaching style which allows students
to teach themselves.
4. Further studies should be conducted to compare the effects of
additional teaching styles identified by Mosston (1972) on tumbling skill
acquisition of college age students. At the time of this writing, only
two completed studies were found which investigated styles on Mosston's
spectrum with college age students as subjects. Neither of these
top related