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