800 007 970 (Gratuito para españa)
658 598 996
·WhatsApp·

12 abr 2012

A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

/
Enviado por
/
Comentarios0
/
Etiquetas
The study examined the effectiveness of two teaching modules of Style E Tactical (SET) and Style H Tactical (SHT) on school boys’ in acquiring speed and accuracy in executing general hockey skill, declarative and procedural knowledge as well as ball control, decision making and skill execution in 3 versus 3 hockey game play.
Autor(es):Sanmuga Nathan K. Jeganathan
Entidades(es):Sultan Idris Education University Of Malaysia
Congreso: congreso de la asociación internacional de escuelas superiores de educación física (AIESEP)
Úbeda A Coruña, 26-29 de Octubre de 2010
ISBN: 9788461499465
Palabras claves:Speed and accuracy, declarative and procedural knowledge, ball control. decision making, skill execution in game plays

A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Abstract

The study examined the effectiveness of two teaching modules of Style E Tactical (SET) and Style H Tactical (SHT) on school boys’ in acquiring speed and accuracy in executing general hockey skill, declarative and procedural knowledge as well as ball control, decision making and skill execution in 3 versus 3 hockey game play. The research employed factorial balanced design of 2x3 pre/post and using n = 225 boys (aged 12-13 year old) randomly selected The samples were then divided equally into groups of High Skilled Boys (HSB), Medium Skilled Boys (MSB) and Low skilled Boys (LSB) using Henry Freidel Field Hockey Test. The findings indicated the two models were effective for all skill groups on speed and accuracy, declarative knowledge, ball control, decision making and skill execution in 3 versus 3 hockey game plays except for procedural knowledge. SET module was most effective for all skills group compared to SHT in speed and accuracy executing hockey skills. Whereas SHT module was most effective for almost all skills group compared to SET in declarative knowledge as well as ball control, decision making and skill execution in 3 versus 3 game play. Conclusion, effective teaching modules suitable to teach different skills group in hockey and more research to be carried out to test these teaching modules in future.

Introduction

Developing teaching models that incorporated teachers centered behavioral model and students centered constructive model could serve as an alternative instructional design on improving game performances and interest among students in participating in Physical Education class. In particular combination of Spectrum of Mosston and Ashworth Teaching styles that consists teaching styles from teachers centered to student centered styles (Mosston & Ashworth, 2002) and tactical model of TGFU (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986), the students centered learning model can serve as alternative model in improving components of game performance as well as promoting students interest in Physical education.

Effective and sustainable teaching models in teaching games are valuable constitutes for students growth and developments too (Pangrazi & Casteni, 2007; Rink, French & Tjeedsma, 1996). Effective teaching modules not only attract students’ interest and upgrade game components performances, but to some extent could solve problems arising problems in sports and games such as the concern for low participation, low fitness level, poor health, lack of motivation among students as well as poor national team performance. It also helps to answer questions asked about the way in which games are taught in schools that lack of drive (Biren & Rattingan, 2006; Capel & Piotrowski, 2000; Chase et al., 2007). Physical education lesson approach using game situations through TGFU model are capable of improving students’ games performances, fitness level throughout their life (Corbin, 2002; Dodds, Griffin & Placek, 2001; Holt, Stran & Bengoechea, 2002; Oslin, Mitchell & Griffin, 1998).

As noted by Turner and Martinek (1999) teaching via mini Effectiveness teaching mg modules 4 game situations can improve player’s ability to acquire skills such as ball control and skill execution and able to make tactical decisions based on declarative and procedural knowledge (Turner & Martinek, 1999). In addition, employing repertoire of multiteaching styles from the Mosston’s spectrum of teaching styles together tactical model of TGFU will not only motivate student’s but encourage them to make right game play decision, as well as think creatively and critically in solving game performance problems (Mosston & Ashworth, 2002; White, 1998).

TGFU model which emphasizes on ‘what to do’ and ‘how’ to apply tactics and skills in game situations can serve strong theoretical base on improving students interest in game learning and teaching (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986). There is no one best way to teach students of various abilities in Physical Education and sports. Students need a variety of teaching styles and learning methods to better match their skills and cognitive styles of learning. The instructional model which is a comprehensive and coherent plan for teaching includes link theories of teaching and learning that teachers should promote in gymnasium (Cothran, Kulina & Ward, 2000 & Metzler, 2000).

Theoretical Framework

As noted by Byra (2000), Physical Educationists around the world have embraced the Mosston and Ashworth Spectrum of Teaching styles as a theory and framework in teaching Physical Education. Mosston’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles are divided into the reproductive and productive aspects of teaching styles. The reproductive or teachercentered styles which include the command (A), practice (B), reciprocal (C), self-check (D) and inclusion (E) teaching styles. While the productive cluster or learner-centered styles include guided discovery (F), convergent discovery (G), divergent production (H), individual programmes learner design (I), learner-initiated (J), and self-teaching (K), (Byra, 2000; Mosston & Ashworth, 2002).

Teaching behavior in the Spectrum of Teaching styles as a “chain of decision making”, The anatomy of styles categorizes decision making before (pre impact), during (impact) or following (post impact) the interaction between the teacher and learner. The teaching style identifies, who makes the decision, whether it is teacher or learner (Buck, Lund, Harrison & Cook, 2007). Whereas TGFU model proposed by Bunker and Thorpe (1986), has the right variables to upgrade games performance (Buck et al., 2007; Mandigo & Holt, 2002; Turner & Martinek, 1999).

TGFU contain many attributes of constructivism, a cognitive learning theory that allows learners to make new learning from previous knowledge in attempt to foster understanding-not just the simple recall of memorized facts or the execution of static skills. The use of tactical problem in situated game forms and the emphasis on cognitive learning before motor performance are strongly based on constructivist learning theories (McCahan et al., 2003; Metzler, 2000). TGFU is a cyclical approach which places skill learning within its game content and allows students to see relevance of the skills to game situations, in order to gain an understanding on how to play the game and suggested better model. This approach is contrast to traditional linear approaches, which focus on technical development before applying these techniques to game situation (Hopper, 2002; Martin & Gaskin, 2004). Performance in these games involves both conscious and unconscious technique selection, cue perception, and skill development and student centered (Kirk & McPhail, 2002; McCahan, 2003; Martin & Gaskin, 2004).

Grehaigne, Godbout and Bouthier (2001) noted TGFU suits game playing principle of choosing the right course of action and the right movement and performed that course of action efficiently and consistently throughout the match. TGFU exposes students with game like experiences early on is done through introducing mini game, which also include a description of basic rules and other constraints. The introduction is followed by showing how tactics are used during offensive and defensive play. Game decisions (what to do) are the introduced, followed by skill execution (how to do).

Even though TGFU model were effective in a game decision making, upgrading declarative and procedural game knowledge but there was not much evidence to show TGFU efficiency at skill execution in the game situation (Holt et al., 2002). Students vary in skills and thinking levels and there are early and late bloomers. Proper integration of various teaching and learning instructions with training principles can be used as effective tools in upgrading students’ games performance. Games performance basically needs skill, fitness as well as cognitive decision making ability especially in executing skills and tactics in a game play. Highly-skilled students and early bloomers have superior neuromuscular abilities, eye-leg coordination and high cognition readiness and therefore, they need higher level training instructions compared to students who are low-skilled and late bloomers (Wrisberg, 1993).

These various skill level students need research-based games teaching modules to upgrade their games performance (Rink, French & Graham, 1996; Rink, 2002). TGFU and Spectrum of Teaching Styles (Mosston & Ashworth, 2002) could be utilized as instruction of teaching model to improve the students’ games performance as well as to sustain their game performance. While, experimental research findings on using style E and H respectively from Mosston Spectrum of Teaching Style showed that there were significant improvements in skill execution in various sports and games (Harison, Fullingham, Buck & Pellet,1995; Boyce, 1992; Golberger & Gurney 1986; Goldberger & Howarth, 1993).

However, research findings also indicated there were no improvement in throwing, catching and hitting ball using style E and volleyball performance using style B (Byra & Jenkins, 2000; Harison et al., 1995). Another findings by X-Cai (1998) and Chatoupis and Emmanuel (2003) indicated students not really interested using style E.. TGFU findings showed that it was effective in field hockey (Turner, 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1999), tennis (Crespo, Reid & Mileyo, 2000), basketball and hockey (Light & Fawns, 2003), basketball (Nevett, Rovengo, Babiarz, McGaughty, 2001), especially in game components like ball control, decision making on tactical elements of the games, as well as in upgrading declarative and procedurals knowledge (French, Werner, Taylor, Hussy, Jones, 1996; Tuner & Martinek, 1996). However, findings in TGFU also indicated that in skill execution (dribbling, goal scoring, tackling) in field hockey, there were not much significant improvements.

However, there are not many research have incorporated TGFU and B, E and H styles respectively as both of this models and styles have their strength in upgrading game performance, to sustain as well as to encourage their interest. Up to date little work has been undertaken to incorporate TGFU with style B, E and H respectively, as form of teaching as well as training instructions within physical education games curriculum as to investigate student’s game performance and their interest on using these training instructions. But there are not many researches incorporating these teaching styles with TGFU. Nevett et al. (2001) and Hopper (2002) as well as Rink (2002) support those physical educationists should work to integrate many other approaches such as the motor learning theory, technical or tactical.

Completa la información

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº16.

¡Consíguelo aquí!

Purpose

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of using SET and SHT teaching module on High Skilled Boys (HSB), Medium Skilled Boys (MSB), and Low Skilled Boys (LSB) in acquiring speed and accuracy general hockey skill, declarative and procedural knowledge, as well as ball control, decision making (on dribbling, passing, tackling and shooting) and skill execution (on dribbling, passing, tackling and shooting) in 3 versus 3 field hockey game performance. These teaching module were based of Style E (inclusion) and Style H (Divergent Discover) respectively from Mosstons’ teaching styles and incorporated with tactical model of TGFU and were labeled as Style E tactical (SET) and Style H tactical (SHT).

The specific questions that guided this study were: (a) Are SET and SHT teaching modules effective in speed and accuracy executing general hockey skill for High Skilled Boys (HSB), Medium Skilled Boys (MSB) and Low Skilled Boys ( LSB) at posttest I ?, (b) Are SET and SHT teaching modules effective in acquiring declarative and procedural knowledge for High Skilled Boys (HSB), Medium Skilled Boys (MSB) and Low Skilled Boys (LSB) at posttest I ? (c) Are SET and SHT teaching modules effective in ball control, decision making (on dribbling, passing, tackling and shooting) and skill execution (on dribbling, passing, tackling and shooting) in 3 versus 3 game performance for High Skilled Boys (HSB), Medium Skilled Boys (MSB) and Low Skilled Boys ( LSB) at posttest I ?

Methods

This Quasi Experimental study using 2x3 balanced factorial design was carried out over a period of 15 weeks during Physical and Health Education classes. The study employed balanced factorial between subject design to determine the immediate effect of two teaching modules on boys with different skill levels in acquiring speed and accuracy general hockey skills, knowledge (declarative and procedural) as well as ball control, decision making and skill execution in 3 versus 3 field hockey game situation..

Participants

The sample consists of n = 150 secondary school boys (12-13 years old) were selected randomly and distributed equally n = 75 boys per group for each of two teaching modules. The n= 75 boys in each teaching module were further ranked based on skill test and divided n=25 per group of High Skilled Boys (HSB), Medium Skilled Boys (MSB) and Low Skilled Boys (LSB) for each teaching module based on their performance in speed and accuracy in executing hockey skills using Hendry Freidel Field Hockey Test. As for ball control, decision making and skill execution in 3 versus 3 game each skilled g in two teaching modules utilized 12 boys for per skilled groups (total n =72 boys for six skill groups in two teaching modules).

Teaching Modules Intervention These teaching modules of SET and SHT were made of components teaching styles E and H incorporated with tactical model of TGFU respectively as shown in Figure 1a and Figure 1b. The Style E Tactical is made of inclusion style (E) with tactical elements of TGFU, whereas the Style H Tactical (SHT) is made of divergent discovery style (H) with tactical elements of TGFU. The E and H styles used different teaching approaches in carrying out the daily teaching unit. The selected styles of E and H divided into three section, the pre impact set (before lesson), impact set (during lesson) and post impact set (at the end of lesson). Style E is a teacher centered, teacher arranges tactical tasks at different difficulties levels using mini game situations and students choose learning tasks according to their abilities.

While, Style H was student centered and they make the decision to solve the tactical problem given by their teacher divergently using mini game situations. The content of SET and SHT teaching modules based on scoring strategy, preventing scoring strategy and restarting play strategy using mini games with tactical approach of TGFU. Furthermore, six steps in teaching TGFU were used, (1) game form, (2) game appreciation, (3) tactical awareness, (4) making appropriate decisions, (5) skill execution and finally, (6) performance is based the whole process (Griffin & Patton, 2005).

These three teaching modules uses mini games situations as main activities to improve student’s tactical strategy, physical conditioning as well as to improve the skill components of the game. The implementation of each teaching units (micro cycle) were further strengthen based sports training principle and motor learning principle (Bompa, 1999; Fitts & Posner, 1967). The teaching and learning outcomes of the three modules in field hockey based on tactical model of TGFU (Table 1) Running Head: Effectiveness teaching Modules

Table 1a. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Figure 1a. SET Teaching Module

Table 1b. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Figure1b. SHT Teaching Module The SET teaching module, at impact set the teacher prepares the lesson based on different difficulty levels to cater for students with high skill level, medium skill level and low skill level by adjusting (i). Size of hockey field size, (ii). Number of players, (iii). Time allocation for each game play, (iv). Size of hockey goal mouth, (v). Guarding goal post with hockey keeper and without keeper. As for SHT teaching module, the teacher prepares the training lesson using tactical problem questions, so that students will solve the tactical problem in the game play at the impact set. At the post impact set, as usual there will be a feedback session. These two teaching module were conducted by two qualified physical education teachers, and 40 minutes were given for each lesson.

Table 1 Teaching and Learning Outcomes based on Tactical Model of TGFU

Table 1. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Instrumentation and Testing Procedures

Henry Freidel Field Hockey Test (H.F.F.H.T) adapted from Turner and Martinek (1999) was used to measure general field hockey tests in speed and accuracy of executing hockey skill to stratify the boys in this research accordingly into three skills group (HSB, MSB and LSB). This test incorporated the skills of ball control, dribbling, tackling, evading an opponent and shooting. The reliability using H.F.E.H.T in Malaysian environment was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha at .81 for speed of execution and .72 for accuracy of executing skill using pilot test results. The Hockey Knowledge test was selected from the previous test by Messick (1987), with 15 declarative and 15 procedural knowledge items from the hockey curriculum.

These questions were piloted among Malaysian school students (12-13 year-old) and the reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha at .52 for 15 declarative questions and .54 for another 15 procedurals knowledge. Game Play Observational Instrument tool by Tuner and Martinek (1999) was used to measure quality decision making (dribbling, passing, tackling and shooting), ball control and motor skill execution (dribbling, passing, tackling and shooting) in a 3 versus 3 game play situations. The dependent variables of decision making, ball control and skill execution were coded 1 for successfully and 0 for unsuccessful decision making, ball control and skill execution The immediate effect of these teaching module were evaluated on speed and accuracy executing general hockey skills, acquiring of declarative and procedural knowledge as well as ball control, decision making (dribbling, tackling, passing and scoring) and skill execution (dribbling, tackling, passing and scoring) in 3 versus 3 performance.

Henry Freidel Field Hockey Test (H.F.F.H.T) adapted from Turner and Martinek (1999) was used to measure general field hockey tests in speed and accuracy of executing hockey skill. This test incorporated the skills of ball control, dribbling, tackling, evading an opponent and shooting. The reliability using H.F.E.H.T in Malaysian environment was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha at .81 for speed of execution and .72 for accuracy of executing skill using pilot test results. The game performances of ball control decision making and skill execution were evaluated of players on the ball by using Game Observation Instrument suggested by Turner and Martinek (1999). The dependent variables of ball control, decision making, and skill execution were coded 1 for successfully and 0 for unsuccessful ball control skill, decision making (dribbling, tackling, passing and scoring) as well as skill execution (dribbling, tackling, passing and scoring).

A teacher with hockey playing experience was trained to code all the dependent variables using game play observational instrument by watching all the video tape of 3 versus 3 game play situations. As for inter coder reliability, based on the 18 players featured in three game situations of 3 versus 3 the agreements between the coder and researcher were 78.2% for ball control, 85.7% for decision making and 87.0 % for skill execution

Data Collection

The SET and SHT teaching module used 12 units or lessons in six weeks of physical education class. The pretest was conducted at the first week before teaching intervention and posttest I was conducted at the eight week of research period immediately after teaching intervention to determine the effectiveness’ of teaching modules

Data analysis

The dependent groups for general hockey skill variables for speed score represented in time and accuracy was a total score out of nine marks. The dependent group of knowledge variables, declarative and procedural knowledge were based on a total score on the 30 multiple questions. Next, the dependent variables for 3 versus 3 game play for ball control, decision making (passing, dribbling, tackling and scoring) and skill execution (passing, dribbling, tackling and scoring) players with the ball were calculated with total marks based on correct responses for each dependent variable of game play.

The effect of the SET and SHT teaching modules according skills level (HSB, MSB and LSB) in speed and accuracy executing general skill, declarative and procedural knowledge as well as ball control, decision making and execution skill in 3 versus 3 game at posttest I were analyzed using two way ANCOVA with pair wise comparison and mean score were used to determine the most effective teaching module. Pretest score on speed and accuracy executing general skill, declarative and procedural knowledge as well as ball control, decision making and execution skill in 3 versus 3 games was used as covariates.

Results and discussions

All the hypotheses testing with alpha set at 0.05. Speed and Accuracy executing hockey general skills

For speed of executing general hockey there was significant difference among teaching modules SET and SHT among skill groups, F(5,143)= 7.39,p= 0.01, d = .21. The effects size of d .21 indicated lower effect size. Pair wise comparison with confidence interval adjusted to Sidak indicated following results for speed of executing hockey general skill SET (HSB) significantly better compared with SET (MSB), p= .01, SET(HSB) significantly than SET(LSB), p = .013, SET(HSB) significantly better than SHT (LSB) p =.001, SHT (HSB)significantly better than SHT(MSB) p =.001. Based on mean score as table 2 and figure 2, SET module indicated better teaching module for LSB, HSB based on speed (time) of executing skill, whereas SHT module indicated better for MSB group.

Table 2 Speed of executing general hockey skills

Table 2. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Figures 2. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Figure 2. Speed of executing general hockey skills

For accuracy of executing general hockey there was significant difference among teaching modules SET and SHT among skill groups, F(5,143)= 3.99,p= 0.02, d = .122. The effects size of d .122 indicated lower effect size. Pair wise comparison with confidence interval adjusted to Sidak indicated following results for accuracy of executing hockey general skill SET (HSB) significantly better compared with SHT (MSB) p =.04, SET(HSB) significantly better compared with SHT (LSB) p =.028 and SHT(MSB) significantly compared with SET (HSB) with p =.02. Based on mean score as table 3 and figure 3, SET module indicated better teaching module for LSB, MSB, and HSB on accuracy executing skill.

Table 3. Accuracy executing hockey skills

Table 3. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Figure 3. Accuracy executing hockey skills

Figure 3. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Declarative and Procedural Knowledge For acquisition of declarative knowledge there was significant difference among teaching modules SET and SHT among skill groups, F(5,143)= 2.26,p= 0.052, d = .122. But there was no significant difference among skill groups of using pair wise comparison with confidence interval adjusted to Sidak. Based on mean score as in table .4, SHT module seems to be the better teaching model for HSB, MSB and LSB for declarative knowledge

Table 4.Acquisition of declarative knowledge

Table 4. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

As for acquisition of procedural knowledge findings indicated there was no significant difference among teaching modules SET and SHT among different skill groups Ball Control in 3 versus 3 Games Play For ball control there was significant difference among teaching modules SET and SHT among skill groups, F(5,65)=4.21, p = .002. The effects size of d .244 indicated lower effect size.

Based on mean score results SHT teaching modules seemed to most effective for HSB and LSB for ball control. Pair wise comparison with confidence interval adjusted to Sidak indicated following results for ball control there were significant difference between SET ( HSB) than SHT (HSB), p = 0.34. SET (MSB) than SHT (LSB), p = 0.06, SET (MSB) compared to SHT (HSB), p = 0.04, SET (MSB) compared to SHT (LSB), p =0.01, SET (LSB) compared to SHT (HSB) p = 0.04. Based on mean score as table 5 and figure 4, SHT module indicated better teaching module for LSB, MSB, and HSB on ball control.

Table 5 Ball Control in 3 versus 3 mini games

Table 5. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Figure 4. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Figure 4. Ball Control in 3 versus 3 mini games

Decision making in 3 versus 3 games play

For decision making there was significant difference among teaching modules SET and SHT among skill groups, F(5,65)=2.92, p = .019. The effects size of d .183 indicated lower effect size. Based on mean score results SHT teaching modules seemed to most effective for HSB for decision making. Pair wise comparison with confidence interval adjusted to Sidak indicated following results for decision making for SET (HSB) compared to SET (LSB), p =.013, SET (HSB) compared to SET (LSB), p = .004, SET (HSB) compared to SHT (HSB), p =.041, SET(MSB) compared to SET(MSB), p = .013, SET(MSB) compared to SHT(HSB) p =.002, SET(LSB) compared to SHT(HSB) p = 0.01 Based on mean score as table 6 and figure 5, SHT module indicated better teaching module for HSB, MSB, while SET seems to be better teaching module for LSB on decision making

Table 6 Decision making in 3 versus 3 mini games

Table 6. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Figure 5. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Skill Execution in 3 versus 3 games play

As for skills execution in 3 versus 3 game play there was significant difference among teaching modules SET and SHT among skill groups, F(5,65)=4.17, p = .002. The effects size of d .243 indicated lower effect size. . Pair wise comparison with confidence interval adjusted to Sidak indicated following results for skill execution there were significant difference between SET ( MSB) with SHT (HSB), p =.03, SET(MKR) with SHT(MKT), p = .09. Based on mean score as table 7 and figure 6, SHT module indicated better teaching module for HSB, MSB, and LSB for executing skills in 3 versus 3 games play.

Table 7 Skill execution in 3 versus 3 mini games

Table 7. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Figure 6. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Figure 6. Skill execution in 3 versus 3 games play

Important results indicated that for speed and accuracy general hockey skill, SET module seems to be most effective module across many skill groups. Whereas for declarative knowledge, ball control, decision making and skill execution, the SHT module seems to be most effective across skill groups. Table.8 shows the summary of effectiveness teaching module across varying skill groups.

Table 8 Summary of Effectiveness Teaching Modules across skills group

Table 8. A study on effectiveness of SET and SHT Teaching Modules in acquiring general skills, knowledge and game play among Students of Varying Skill Levels in hockey

Contenido disponible en el CD Colección Congresos nº 16

 

Discussion

Speed and Accuracy Executing Hockey Skills

The SET module proved to be most effective teaching module across almost all skill groups for speed (except MSB- SHT) and accuracy executing general hockey. As speed and accuracy proven to be an important element in scoring goal in hockey game (Aziz, Chia & Teh, 2000; Wassmer & Mookerjee, 2002). The contributing factor that enable SET teaching module to perform significantly, mainly due to the organization of mini games activities conduct according to their ability level by the teacher. Organization the according activities based on abilities level by teacher a behavioral approach using bstyle E and mini games activities through TGFU, a student centered and constructivism approach contributed the speed and accuracy performance.

Secondly the mini game activities were conducted and periodized based on volume and intensity based on sports training principle (Thompson, 2000; Shepherd, 2007). This effectiveness of style E in the SET module in upgrading speed and accuracy of executing skills almost all the skill groups were parallel to the findings of style B ( Harison et al., 1995) and Boyce (1992). The findings of style E showed that the boys in various skill groups benefited from the teaching module by improving in speed and accuracy of executing skills when compared to the earlier finding of style E by Goldberger and Gurney (1986), which only benefited the low skill boys.. The achievement of SET teaching module benefited almost all skill groups in speed and accuracy in this research was parallel with previous research (Gemser, Visscher & Mulden, 2004; Hebert, Landin & Solmonet, 1996; Nevett et al., 2001).

Declarative and Procedural Hockey Knowledge.

The SHT teaching module showed significant improvements in player’s declarative knowledge at posttest I. The main reason could be the usage of style H using divergent discovery with the tactical model TGFU. Furthermore, the boys understood the game form and rules of the game as suggested by TGFU model. These findings in declarative knowledge were parallel with previous findings of Denis (1993) and Tuner (1996). In particular, student centered learning, such as Style H and TGFU, are inclined to constructivism theory of teaching (Metzler, 2005).

But in contrast, the boys at all skill level did not improve significantly in procedural knowledge at posttest I, using teaching module SET and SHT, probably due to lack of understanding “how to do it” (as suggested in teaching steps of TGFU). This finding of procedural knowledge parallels with the findings Holt et al. (2002) and Turner and Martinek (1999).

Ball control, decision making and skill execution

These findings show that the SHT teaching module effective at the posttest I for ball control, decision making and executing skills in 3 versus 3 mini game situations for almost all skill groups (except Decision making SET for LSD). One of the reasons for this improved performance was the mini games activities (as suggested by TGFU model). The game assists the players to control the ball, improve tactical decision and improve how they execute hockey skills in 3 versus 3 game plays. This finding supports that the TGFU model is an important model for learning and training motor skill (Bunker & Thorpe, 1996) and Light (2003). The SHT teaching module encouraged the boys to use hockey knowledge in making tactical decision, ball control and executing skill in game plays. This finding was parallel with the motor learning theory that suggests that there is relationship between motor performances and knowledge acquisition (Denis, 1993; Anderson, 1976).

Furthermore, the boys were taught “what to do” and “how to do” in SHT module as the fourth steps in teaching the TGFU model encourage them to control the ball, make decision and execute skills (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986; Hot et al., 2002).. This encouraged the HSB to performed better in ball control, decision making and skill execution in 3 versus 3 game plays. The present findings on decision making improvement were parallel with previous findings in soccer and hockey (Harvey, 2003; Light & Fawns, 2003) and badminton (French et al., 1999). Similarly, improved ball control was parallel with field hockey findings by Turner and Martinek (1999). The HSB performed better than the other skill groups on measures of ball control, decision making and skill execution in 3 versus 3 mini game situations. In conclusion, the effective teaching modules across the skill groups for various game components such as speed and accuracy, declarative knowledge as well as ball control, decision making and skill execution can be utilized by teachers in their daily physical education classes especially in teaching games. Future research should incorporate many more teaching styles with TGFU as teaching style represent the art of teaching and TGFU represent the science of teaching in line with the nation of pedagogy

References

Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language memory and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Aziz, A. R., Chia, M., & Teh, K. C. (2000). The relationship between maximal oxygen uptake and repeated sprint performance indices in field hockey and soccer players. Journal Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 40 (3), 195-2000.

Biren, G., & Rattingan, P. (2006). Moving and Learning in Physical Education: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Analysis of Videotaped Lesson an Exercise Physiology Perspective. JOPERD, Vol. 77(2), 20-22.

Bompa, T. (1999). Periodization: Theory and methodology of training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Boyce, B. A. (1992). The effects of three styles of teaching on university students’ motor performance. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 18, 389-401.

Buck, M. M., Lund, J.M., Harison, J.M., Cook, C.B. (2007). Instructional Strategies for Secondary School Physical Education: Mc Graw Hill

Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1986). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary Schools. The Bulletin of Physical Education, 5-8.

Byra, M. (2000). A Review of Spectrum Research: The Contributions of Two Eras. QUEST. National Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education, 52, 229- 245.

Byra, M., & Jenkins, J. (2000). Matching instructional tasks to learner ability: the inclusion style of teaching. Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 71(3), 27-30.

Capel, S., & Piotrowski, S. (2000). Approaches to teaching games: Issues in physical education. London: Rutledge Palmer.

Chase, M., Vealey, R., Galli, N., Evers, J., Klug, J. & Reichert, K. (2007). What’s in it for me?. An Intervention to Increase Physical Activity Among Adolescents in Physical Education. JOPERD, Vol. 78(1), 34-38.

Chatoupis, C., & Emmanuel, C. (2003). Teaching physical education with the Inclusion style: The case of a Greek elementary school. Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74(8), 33-38.

Crespo, M., Reid, M. M., & Mileyo, D. (2004). Tennis: Applied examples of a game-based teaching approach. Strategies, 17(4), 27-31.

Corbin, C.B. (2002). Physical activity for everyone: What every physical educator know about promoting life long physical activity. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 21, 128-144.

Denis, G. (1993). Human Skills: Ideas, Concepts and Models. Handbook Research in Sports Psychology. New York. Macmillan Publishing Company.

Dodds, P., Griffin, L. L., & Pacek, J.H. (2001). Selected review of the literature on development of learners” domain-specific knowledge. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 20, 301- 313.

Fitts, P.M., & Posner, M.I. (1967). Human Performance. Belmont, CA; Brooks and Cole Publishing.

French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K., & Jones, J. (1996). The effects of a 6 week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 15, 439-463.

Gemser, M. T., Visscher, C., Lemmink, K., & Mulder,T. W. (2004). Relation between multidimensional performance characteristics and level of performance in talented youth field hockey players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(11-12), 1053-1063. Taylor & Francis

Grehaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, P. (2001). The teaching and learning of decision making in team sports. QUEST. National Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education, 53, 59-75.

Goldberger, M., & Gerney. (1986). Teaching strategies and instructional formats in physical education: Total teaching or ideology. The British Journal of Physical Education, 24(1), 5-9.

Goldberger, M., & Howarth, K. (1993). The national curriculum in physical education and the spectrum of teaching styles. The British Journal of Physical Education, 24(1), 23-26.

Griffin, L. L., & Patton, K. (2005). Two decades of teaching games for understanding: Looking at the past, present and future dalam Griffin, L.L., & Butler, J.I. (2005). Teaching games for understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics

Harison, J. M., Fellingham, G. W., Buck, M. M., & Pellet, T.L. (1995). Effects of practice and command styles on rate of change in volleyball performance and self – efficacy of high, medium, and low skilled learners. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 14, 328-339.

Harvey, S. (2003). A study of U19 college soccer players improved in game performance using the game performance assessment instrument. proceedings of the 2nd international conference: Teaching sport and physical education for understanding. University of Melbourne, Australia.11-14 December 2003.

Hebert, E. P., Landin, D., & Solmon, M. A (1996). Practice schedule effects on the performance and learning of low and high skilled students: An applied study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 67(1): 52-58.

Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B., & Bengoechea, E. G. (2002). Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 21, 162-176.

Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(7), 44-48.

Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated Learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching Physical Education. 21, 177-192.

Light, R. & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGFU. QUEST. National Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education, 55, 161-176.

McCahan, B., Croteau, S., Liard, L., Ballard, E., Mitchell, C., Murphy, L. & Butler, J. (2003). Constructivist Approach to Major’s Club: Helping P.E.T.E. Students Transition to Professionals. Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport: An International Perspective. National Association for Sport and Physical Education

Mandigo, J. L., & Holt, N. L. (2002). The inclusion of optimal challenge in teaching games for understanding. Brock University, Department of Physical Education: 1- 23.

Martin, A.J., & Gaskin, C.J. (2004). An Integrated Physical Education Model. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand Te Kotuku Rerenge, 37, 61-69.

Messick, J. N. (1987) dalam McGhee, R., & Barrow, A. (1987). Field hockey: Questions for physical education activities test Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Metzler, M. (2005). Implications of models-based instruction for research on teaching: A focus on teaching games for understanding dalam Griffin, L.L., & Butler. J.I . (2005). Teaching games for understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics

Metzler, M. (2000). Instructional Models in Physical Education. Allyn & Bacon Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education. (5th Ed). New York: Benjamin Cummings.

Nevett, M., Rovegno, I., Babiarz, M., & McCaughtry, N. (2001). Changes in basic tactics and motor skills in an invasion type game after a 12-lesson unit of instruction. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 20, 352-369.

Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Griffin, L. L. (1998). The game performance assessment instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 17, 231-243.

Pangrazi, R.P. & Casten, C. (2007). Dynamic Physical Education for Elementary School Children. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings Rink, J. E. (2002). Teaching physical education for learning. (4th Ed). New York: McGraw Hill.

Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Graham, C. (1996). Implications for practice and research. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 15, 490-502.

Rink, J.E., French., & Tjeerdsma (1996). Foundation for the learning and instruction of sport and games. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 15, 399-417.

Shepherd, J. (2007). Sports Training: The Complete Guide. Buffalo, New York: Firefly Books Ltd

Thompson, P. J. (2000). Advanced Coaching TheoryLevel III. International Amateur Athletic Federation. Monaca Cedex.

Turner, A. (1996). Teaching for understanding: Myth or reality?. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 46-48.

Turner, A., & Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge, and play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 3-21.

Wassmer, D. J., & Mookerjee, S. A. (2002). Descriptive Profile of Elie U.S. Women’s Collegiate Field Hockey Players. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 42(2), 165-171

White, P.T. (1998). Perceptions of physical education majors and faculty members regarding the extent of use of Mosston’s; Mosstons and Ashworth’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles. Upblished doctora1 dissertation, University of Montreal.

Wrisberg, C., A (1993), in Singer R., N., Murphy, M. & Tennant, L. K. (1993). Handbook of research on sport psychology: A project of the international society of sport psychology. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

X-Cai, S. (1998). Student enjoyment of physical education class in three teaching style environments. Education Chula Vista, 118(3), 412-420.

Responder

Otras colaboraciones