Copyright by Peng Zhang 2008

ABSTRACT

Play Practice (Launder 2001) has been proposed as an alternative approach to teaching sport, however it has little empirical support. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of Play Practice compared to Sport, Fitness, and Health Program, SFHP, instruction in teaching young adults four table tennis skills. College students (N=56) in four classes taught by two instructors participated in the study. Each instructor taught one class using Play Practice and one using SFHP instruction for an eleven day unit. A nonequivalent control group qausi-experimental design was used to access the pre and post unit performance of participants using four measures: (a) the forehand drive accuracy, (b) forehand attack, (c) service, and (d) alternation performance. A Pearson-product coefficient correlation revealed five of six significant and moderate correlations among the four dependent measures in pretest scores. A pretest MANOVA confirmed no Group differences (F[4,51]=.91, p>.05) on four dependent measures between Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group, (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test. After the intervention, a 2 Group (PP, CI) x 2 Time (Pre-, Post-) MANOVA with ii

repeated measures assessed pre-to-posttest improvements between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction intervention. A significant Group x Time interaction was found, F (4, 51) = 5.16, p < .01, = .29. Paired sample t-tests indicated pretest to posttest improvements in both groups on the four dependent measures. The only non-significant difference finding was on the alternation test. Results from this study demonstrate the effectiveness of the Play Practice instruction on teaching young adults table tennis skills. The findings suggest that Play Practice is an alternative and effective approach to teaching sport in physical education. Future studies should focus on measuring the effects of Play Practice on learners cognitive and affective learning and continue to explore its effect on teaching other sports and physical activities.

iii

Dedicated to my parents: Yanru Wang and Zhenhua Zhang

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My first thanks go to the United States, the country where I have stayed for four years. When I first arrived on you years ago, I had known that my life would be exceptional, but it has been even more amazing than I expected. I have become more mature, knowledgeable, and independent. I appreciate these changes in my life. To my advisor, Dr. Ward, a magnificent scholar in physical education and a precursor of Play Practice research, thank you for opening the door and efficiently supporting me to figure out numerous problems in the process of the research. I feel very blessed that you raised me up on your shoulders so that I could see further than others doing this research. To Dr. Goodway, I want to thank you for your considerable efforts and advise on this research. The valuable suggestions and edits you provided ensured the dissertation to be tight and professional. Also, your four Thanksgiving meals have been unforgettable and have always made me feel as though I am a part of your family. To Dr. Sutherland, many thanks for your contribution to the dissertation. Your expertise and passions on sport and Play Practice raised the quality of the entire study. To Dr. Robert Hite, my cognate advisor and role model being an excellent v

teacher educator, I enjoyed every moment I had with you in- and outside the class. Thank you for your professional guidance and words. I am very appreciated to receive the feedback from Alan Launder about the study. Your suggestions and encouragement helped me make it happen. My profound gratitude goes to Chuck Shiebler and Jae Westfall who unselfishly supported my current study and work throughout four years. No program manager can compare with the two of you, and I thank you for sharing your sincere love with me. I also want express my great appreciation to Jooryun and Alex, the two teachers who made the study exceptional. I am indebted to Honglu, Mike, Yunsoo, Dawei, Niel, In-soek, Dawei, Irmak, and Curt. Your assistance with data collection and/or data coding is very helpful. To Wenzhe, Angela, Sung Joo, Carla, Amaury, Taka, Beth, Manoel, Paul, Carlos, Jim, Maria, Darlene, and Rob, you will always have a special place in my heart due to your endless encouragement and help over the past few years. I wish you all the best. I want to thank myself who faced all challenges but never gave up when writing this dissertation. I appreciate my courage and efforts that helped accomplish the work for pursing a PhD at OSU. I am proud that I kept singing songs for myself throughout the entire journey. Finally, to my dear parents, your love makes me the luckiest person in the world. You are my all. vi

VITA

August 11, 1979 . Born Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China 2001 Bachelor of Education (Honors): Beijing Sport University Beijing, China Area: Athletic Training 2004 Master of Education: Beijing Sport University Beijing, China Area: Physical Education 2004 present. Graduate Teaching Associate The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

FIELD OF STUDY

Major Field: Education Area of Emphasis: Physical Education Teacher Education Cognate: Teacher Education

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Abstract................................................................................................................ii Dedication ...............................................................................................................iv Acknowledgments....................................................................................................v Vita.........................................................................................................................vii List of Tables ..........................................................................................................xii List of Figures ........................................................................................................xiii Chapters: 1. Introduction.................................................................................................... Statement of the problem....................................................................... Research questions............................................................................. Significance of the study ....................................................................... Limitations ............................................................................................. Delimitations .......................................................................................... Definitions of terms ............................................................................... Page 1 4 6 8 8 9 10

2. Review of Literature ..................................................................................... The problems in teaching sport............................................................. The role of teacher content knowledge...................................... The role of the multiple activity curriculum.. The role of technical only approach...... The role of teacher feedback. The role of the learners motivation and attitude...... Implications .. Curriculum models proposed for the teaching of sports in PE..... The Teaching Games for Understanding.. Background..... viii

13 13 14 19 22 25 26 27 30 31 31

Conceptual rationale of Teaching Games for Understanding.. The model of Teaching Games for Understanding.. Tactical Game Model......... Background.. The conceptual rationale.. The model of Tactical Game Approach... The empirical evidence for the TGFU model and TGM..... A critique of TGFU and TGM..... The Sport Education Model... The conceptual rationale...... The model of Sport Education......... The research of Sport Education..... A critique of Sport Education. Summary. The Play Practice Model...... Background..... Rationale of the Play Practice..... The model of Play Practice. The research of the Play Practice

32 35 38 39 41 43 44 46 48 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 61 64 74

3. Methods............. Pilot study.. Institutional review board permission ... Context of the study....... Research design..... Instrumentation.. The forehand drive accuracy test.................................................. The forehand attack test................................................................ The serve test................................................................................. The alternation test.......................................................................

78 78 82 82 85 87 88 93 95 99

ix

Intervention development...................... The similarities of the treatment and comparison group............... The differences of Play Practice and SFHP instruction ............... Treatment integrity........ Training of study personal..... Data analysis......

104 105 108 113 114 118

4. Results............................................................................................................ Inter-observer Agreement...................................................................... Treatment integrity ................................................................................ The results of dependent measures ....................................................... Results of the first research question............................................ Results of the second research question........................................ Results of the third research question............................................ Results of the fourth research question......................................... Summary ...............................................................................................

120 120 121 121 123 125 132 132 133

5. Discussion...................................................................................................... Pretest scores ......................................................................................... The Non-significant difference on pretest measures...................... Correlations among the dependent measures................................ Time x Group effects and the intervention analysis....................... Competition and game format practice................................. Purposefully modified games................................................ The strength of the study................................................................... The weakness of the study..................................................................... Methodological suggestions for future studies...................................... Implications for teaching sport in physical education....................... Implication for physical education teacher education ..

135 135 136 136 137 139 140 143 146 149 154 157

References .........................................................................................................

159

Appendices. 170 A. IRB Approval.................................................................................... B. Course syllabus................................................................................. C. Class organization............................................................................. D. Forehand drive accuracy test instrument.......................................... E. Forehand attack test instrument........................................................ F. Serve test instrument ........................................................................ G. Alternation test instrument............................................................... H. Lesson plans for Play Practice group............................................... I. Lesson plans for SFHP Instruction group.......................................... J. The multiple ball activity procedure.................................................. 170 172 185 187 189 191 193 195 216 240

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

2.1 Sports and games classifications........................................................................34 2.2 Three Instructional Approaches of Teaching Sport............................................58 2.3 Five Variables Used to Shape the Game.............................................................69 3.1 Characteristics of Participants in the Study........................................................84 3.2 The Statement and Demonstration of the Forehand Accuracy Test...................93 3.3 The Statement and Demonstration of the Attacking Test...................................96 3.4 The Statement and Demonstration of the Serving Test......................................99 3.5 The Example of Alternating Test Data Collection ...........................................102 3.6 Statement and Demonstration of the Alternating Test......................................104 3.7 Course Schedule................................................................................................107 3.8 The treatment procedure...112 3.9 The differences between the treatment and comparison groups...112 3.10 Sample Checklist of Procedural Integrity (Treatment Group) .......................113 3.11 Sample Checklist of Procedural Integrity (Comparison Group).....................114 3.12 Pre-instruction Training Schedule...................................................................115 3.13 Workshop Agenda of Play Practice..................................................................117 3.14 Research Questions, Variables, and Analytic Methods....................................119 4.1 Treatment Integrity Data for Treatment Group..................................................122 4.2 Treatment Integrity Data for Comparison Group...............................................122 4.3 Correlation Data of Pretest Dependent Measures..............................................123 4.4 Pre- and Posttest Raw Scores of Dependent Measures..........124 xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

2.1 The Teaching Games for Understanding model.................................................38 2.2 The Tactical Game Model..................................................................................43 2.3 The Play Practice Model....................................................................................65 3.1 Diagram of the research design of the study......................................................86 3.2 Diagram of the intervention assignment of the study.........................................87 3.3 Table Tennis Skills Tests.....................................................................................88 3.4 The context of the forehand drive accuracy test.................................................91 3.5 The procedure of the attack test..........................................................................94 3.6 The Context of the Serving Test.........................................................................98 3.7 The Procedure of the Alternating Test...............................................................102 3.8 The practice of forehand drive crosscourt in two groups..109 3.9 Half vs. Half Play..110 4.1 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Forehand Drive Accuracy Measures..128 4.2 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Forehand Attack Measures................129 4.3 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Serve Measures..................................130 4.4 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Alternation Measures.........................131

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In the U. S.A. physical education has a close relationship with sport. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the teaching and learning of many forms of institutionalized sport have been a significant component of school education (Metzler, 2005). Sport has often been defined as the instructional core for physical education, with objectives including knowledge, health, fitness, and skills at all grade levels (Siedentop, 1991). Although in recent decades the physical education curriculum has expanded with curricula such as the social development model (Hellison, 1978; 1983) and the health-related model (Corbin & Lindsey, 1999; McKenzie & Sallis, 1996), sport is still the largest portion of school physical education in the U. S. (Holt, Stream, & Bengoechea, 2002; Metzler, 2005; Rink, French, & Tjeerdsma, 1996). In schools, regardless of grade level, students often have the opportunity to learn different types of sport such as basketball, baseball, hockey, and soccer (Holt, et al., 2002; Griffin, Dodds, Placek, & Tremino, 2001; Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond, 1986). Moreover, the significant role of sport in physical education is clearly illustrated in 1

the National Standards for Physical Education which states that physically educated individuals must demonstrate (a) competency in motor skills and movement patterns needed to perform a variety of physical activities, and (b) understanding of movement concepts, principles, strategies, and tactics as they apply to the learning and performance of physical activities (NASPE, 2004). Although sport has played an important role in school physical education, the learning outcomes of playing sport has been described as problematic (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Rink et al., 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1999). The core of the problem has been that children have left school not knowing and how to play the sports they have supposedly learned in physical education (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). Researchers and physical educators have found that many students have neither the knowledge nor the motor competency necessary for effective play after they have learned the sport in physical education (Thorpe et al., 1986; Mitchell, Oslin, & Griffin, 2006). Many researchers have been concerned about the nature of the way sport that was taught in physical education (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997; Mitchell et al., 2006; Thorpe et al., 1986). Bunker and Thorpe (1982) argued that the traditional instructional approach of teaching sport overemphasized the learning of sport techniques, but ignored the learning of tactical knowledge and strategies. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) believed that the instruction of sport should be focused upon cognitive outcomes such as understanding what to do and when to 2

do it in game play situations. Thorpe et al. (1986) claimed that traditional instruction failed to facilitate students to transfer their learning from practice to game play. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) and Thorpe et al. (1986) observed that students frequently were unable to participate in the game due to an inability to use techniques in a game situation. As a result of concerns about poor learning outcomes researchers designed a number of instructional and curriculum models to address the problem (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Griffin et al., 1997; Siedentop, 1994; Siedentop, Hastie, & Van der Mars, 2004). Bunker and Thorpe (1982) created a model of Teaching Games for Understanding to address game appreciation in learning sport. Siedentop (1994) designed the Sport Education Model for the purpose of enriching the experiences of playing sport. Griffin and her colleagues (1997) designed the Tactical Game Model in which the instructor uses games to facilitate students understanding of the sport. These instructional models have been widely cited in the literature (Hastie, 2003; Metzler, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2006; Siedentop, 2002; Wallhead & OSullivan, 2005). A small but growing research base in these models has been produced in the past two and half decades (Alexander & Luckman, 2001, Allison & Thorpe, 1997; Carlson & Hastie, 1997, Chandler & Mitchell, 1990; Hastie & Sharpe, 1999; French, Werner, Rink, Taylor, Hussey, & Jones, 1996; Griffin, Oslin, & Mitchell, 1995, Turner & Martinek, 1995 & 1999; Wallhead & Ntoumanis, 2004). Researchers have 3

typically compared a model to the technical instructional method and examined the effects of these approaches in teaching various sport events (i. e. hockey) across different settings in elementary and secondary physical education. While many studies have examined the effect of the Teaching Games for Understanding, Sport Education, and the Tactical Game Model, no significant results have been found to support the superiority of any new instructional method over the traditional way of teaching sport games (Holt, Ward, & Wallhead, 2006; Rink et al., 1996; Wallhead & OSullivan, 2005). Statement of the Problem Australian physical educator Alan Launder has proposed an alternative instructional approach to teaching youth sport called Play Practice (Launder, 2001). Play Practice provides a theoretical framework for teaching children and youth to play sports. Its initial aim is to facilitate beginners to really enjoy playing sport and to help them become competent enough to go on with an activity if they want after they enter adulthood (Launder, 2001). Launder (2001) conceptualized and presented Play Practice in the book Play Practice: The game approach to teaching and coaching sports. Play Practice emphasizes some characteristics of teaching sport that have not been addressed in either the traditional or more recent instructional approaches (Launder, 2001; Holt et al., 2006). Launder believes that learners needed to be competent players of the techniques and tactics of the sport (what to do and how to do it questions). The instruction of sport must be able to address the sport techniques 4

and tactics necessary for effective play. Launder (2001) emphasizes the critical role of good practice in learning sport and the significant function of game play as motivating participation. By turning effective practice into game play, Play Practice instruction integrates practice and play while providing different practice for learners to develop the sport skills (Launder, 2001). Play practice uses three pedagogical techniques. First, Focusing play helps teachers identify the sport skills essential for effective game play. These skills serve as the objective of teaching the sport and allow the instructor to address the correct and appropriate content of the class. Shaping play ensures the application of the instructional objectives so that learners can eventually gain sport knowledge and skills. It makes certain that learners precisely experience, practice, and work on the objectives beneficial for effective game play. Finally, Enhancing play provides progressions of practice to continuously improve the learning of the skills. By appropriately increasing or decreasing the challenge and difficulty of the play, Play Practice drills purposefully strengthen the learning achievement in a developmental manner. Despite its efficacy, Play Practice has not significantly contributed to the everyday practice of teaching in physical education. Few teachers know of Play Practice and even fewer have applied it to their students. One of the rationales for this situation results from the dearth of empirical research on the instructional model, which potentially impedes the understanding and dissemination of Play Practice. 5

Consequently future research should connect the merits of Play Practice to the unsolved problematic issue of teaching youth sport in physical education. Scholars also need to research the topic and devote time and energy to spread Play Practice to physical educators. The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of Play Practice in teaching young adults table tennis. By comparing the SFHP instruction of teaching table tennis in the setting, this study specifically focused on the learning outcome on the forehand drive, serve, and attack performance after an instructional unit with Play Practice. The following research questions guided this study design and methods. Research Question Research Question 1: Were there significant differences between the Play Practice (PP) and the SFHP Instruction (CI) group on pretest measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test? Hypothesis: There were no significant differences between the Play Practice (PP) and SFHP Instruction (CI) group on pretest measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test.

Research Question 2: Were there significant differences between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group from pretest to posttest on the dependent measures of the: (a) 6

forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test? Hypothesis: There were significant differences between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group from pretest to posttest on the dependent measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test.

Research Question 3: Were there significant group differences between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group on posttest measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test? Hypothesis: There were significant group differences between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group on posttest measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test

Research Question Four Were there significant pre-to-posttest differences within each group (PP, CI) for the dependent measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test?

Hypothesis: There were significant pre-to-posttest differences within each group (PP, CI) for the dependent measures of (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test. Significance of the Study This study contributes to the literature of teaching sport in physical education in three ways. First it validates play practice as an approach to teaching table tennis in physical education by demonstrating its effectiveness compared to a SFHP approach of teaching table tennis. The empirical data provides reliable evidence for examining the effects of Play Practice instruction on teaching sport. Second, the study validates four dependent variables for use in investigating table tennis game play, namely: (a) forehand drive accuracy, (b) forehand attack, (c) forehand serve, and (d) forehand alternation as a measure of the performance of playing table tennis. Third, the study uses a series of Play Practice drills for table tennis that teachers can use in their everyday teaching. Limitations The study has the following limitations: 1. The treatment of the study was only provided at one institute, the Sport, Fitness, and Health Program. Accordingly, the institution characteristics may have affected the research results. 2. Factors of the participants, the mood, clothes worn, and some social cultural characteristics may have influenced the results of performance. 8

3. Factors of the environment of testing may have influenced the participants performance, such as the floor and light of the gym, time of testing, and order of taking the test may have affected performance. 4. Even though both instructors in the study were knowledgeable on the content of the instruction, prior to the study they had little knowledge of Play Practice and one of them had never taught it. Thus teacher effects may have occurred. 5. The experimental design used a comparison group rather than a true control group. In the comparison group the participants received the traditional instructional approach to teaching table tennis. 6. The study had no control of the activities that participants experienced outside of the intervention. But the participants reported that they rarely played table tennis outside of class during time frame of the intervention. 7. The study did not control for the type of feedback to participants but simply allowed the instructors to provide appropriate feedback to the participants. 8. The instructors were not native English Speakers. Their languages may have influenced the delivery of the intervention. 9. The lack of control of participants attendance (i.e. tardiness and absence) may have affected the results of the study. Delimitation The study is delimited to: 1. The researchers expertise of the content of table tennis and Play Practice.

2.

The quality and quantity of the facilities used in the study including the

spacious room of the gym, numerous table tennis paddles, balls, and tables in a good condition. 3. The use of the specific dependent variables and the procedure of testing of

the variables that have been examined in the pilot study and other experiments. 4. Alan Launders agreement and identification of the Play Practice drills of

teaching table tennis applied in this study. 5. The relatively long instructional unit of the course in which the intervention included 12 sessions. 6. Young college-aged adults elected to take a table tennis course in the university. Definition of Terms ALT-PE: Academic learning time in physical education. The duration of time the students are engaged with appropriate materials to their ability, with high rates of success and low rates of error (Siedentop, Tousignant, & Parker, 1982). Content knowledge: Knowledge of facts and concepts of a subject matter and the relationships among them (Grossman, 1990). Conventional approach: a method of teaching sport with an introduction of the sport followed by little practice and normal game play for the rest of the class (Rink, 1992; Turner & Martinek, 1995). Environment: the world surrounding the individual (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). 10

Feedback: Verbal statements provided to a performer regarding ones performance (Rink, 2006). Game: broadly defined as any form of playful competition whose outcome is determined by physical skill, strategy and chance. However, game is usually meant as an authentic competition setting in which rule bound goal driven activities take place (Siedentop, Hastie, & Van der Mars, 2004). Game Sense: the ability to use an understanding of the rules, or strategy of tactics and of oneself to solve the problems posed by the game or by ones opponent (Launder, 2001). Intervention: a procedure, technique or strategy designed to modify an ongoing process and a particular arrangement of environmental events that the researcher manipulates during experimental study to check for effects on the dependent variable (Copper et al., 2007). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: the act of selecting content from ones knowledge base for the purpose of teaching in a specific context (Ward et al., 2006). Pedagogical Knowledge: general knowledge, conceptions, and skills related to teaching (Grossman, 1990). Play: an irreducible form of human behavior that provides meaning in life and is thought to be a creative element in culture (Siedentop, 2003).

11

Practice Trials (Opportunities to Respond): Cumulative record of the number of appropriate, inappropriate, and total trials completed at each object control skill station (Rink, 2006). Skill: in an interactive game is defined as the combination of games sense with technical ability to achieve a specific desired outcome (Launder, 2001). Sport: games that involve combinations of physical skill and strategy. Not all games are sport (e.g., chess, hop scotch), but sport is always a game (Siedentop, 2003). Sport, Fitness, and Health Program (SFHP) instructional approach: the instruction provided by the Sport Fitness and Health Program in the university to teach table tennis. Tactics: behaviors demonstrating when to use and how to use skills (Lee, 2004). Technique: the action of controlling and directing the ball are defined as techniques (Launder, 2001). Transfer of learning: the gain or the loss of a persons proficiency on one task as a result of previous practice or experience on another task (Schimidt & Wrisberg, 2004).

12

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter contains four sections. Initially the chapter begins with an introduction of a problem that exists in teaching sports in physical education. The second section reviews the curricular solutions that have been created to address the problem. The third section presents Play Practice, a new teaching method of sports. Finally, the chapter with an analysis of a pilot study which examined the effects of Play Practice in teaching learners playing table tennis games. The Problems in Teaching Sport There is compelling evidence that shows that learners are not proficient in activities that have been taught to them (Thorpe & Bunker, 1982; Thorpe et al., 1986; Launder, 2001; Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2004; Siedentop, Hastie, & Van der Mars, 2004; Ward, 2006). As a consequence of poor proficiency, it is not difficult to understand that students leave school with little knowledge of sport, poor

13

performance, and negative feelings about sport (Launder, 2001; Siedentop, et al., 2004; Thorpe & Bunker, 1982; Thorpe et al., 1986; Solmon, 2003). Teaching students sport in physical education setting is a complex process which is influenced by a variety of factors. A review of current literature of teaching physical education suggests that the factors influencing the problem can be categorized in following five factors (a) teacher content knowledge, (b) multiple activity curriculum, (c) technical only instruction, (d) teacher feedback and (e) learner motivations and attitude towards playing sport. The Role of Teacher Content Knowledge The significant role of content knowledge as an important influence in the teaching of physical education has become one of the central explanatory mechanisms for teaching effectiveness research (Ayvazo, 2007; Siedentop, 2002; 2003; Ward, 2007). There is agreement that teachers without adequate content knowledge do not efficiently affect learners achievement of playing sports (Ayvazo, 2007; Metzler, 2005; Revogno, 1995; Rink, 2006; Siedentop, 2002, 2003; Siedentop & Eldar, 1989; Siedentop & Tannehille, 2000; Ward, 2007). A clear understanding of the nature of a sport improves the teachers flexibility in teaching sport skills (Chen & Ennis, 1995) and content knowledge also influences teachers instructional goals (Metzler, 2005; Siedentop, 2002). On the other hand, a lack of content knowledge has been shown to impact the implementation of different instructional models such

14

as Sport Education (Wallhead & Ntoumanis, 2004) and Teaching Games for Understanding (Griffin, Oslin, Mitchell, 1997). Scholars have repeatedly suggested that effective teachers in physical education need to be competent in the subject matter taught to students (Avayzo, 2007; Chen & Ennis, 1995; Metzler, 2005; Schempp, Manross, Tan, & Fincher, 1998; Ward, Ayvazo, & Stuhr, 2006). Ayvazo (2007) systematically investigated two elementary teachers delivering two instructional units identified as strong and weak and who aimed to teach two different sports. Based on the measurement of a series of variables about teacher behaviors such as instructional cues and task modification, Ayvazo (2007) concluded that more depth content knowledge and mature pedagogical content knowledge were consistently found in strong instructional units. Meanwhile it is critical for teachers to acquire proficient content knowledge of the sport so that they could develop solid pedagogical content knowledge, to improve teaching different types of sports (Ayvazo, 2007). Metzler (2005) highlighted the close connection between a teachers content knowledge and the effects of teaching sport while discussing different instructional models in physical education. He stressed the necessity of content knowledge in various teaching strategies, and clear but narrow instructional goals in effective teaching sports and other physical activities. According to Metzlers description, a teacher can never have too much content knowledge to teach sports and physical

15

activities and developing such content is a lifelong process for teachers in the success of teaching physical education (p.74). Hastie and Vlaisavljevic (1999) reported that teachers viewed as content experts hold learners accountable for their performance and presented more learning tasks with variation. These teachers also frequently refined the learning tasks according to learners performance and development which enhanced the learning outcome of the subject matter. Hastie and Vlaisavljevic (1999) found that content expert teachers extended learning tasks fully understanding the class ecology in their teaching. Ward et al. (2006) argued that physical education teachers not only should learn content knowledge through experiences (such as playing and observing) but also must develop their content knowledge. Ward et al. (2006) provided a comprehensive definition of content knowledge in which the knowledge was divided into four domains: knowledge of the rules and etiquette, technique and tactics, skill discrimination, and progressions of a sport or physical activity. Content progression is the planned sequence of learning tasks and practice drills in lesson plans, and reflects the teachers belief and understanding of how and when to move students fro one task to the next task, drill, or section (Rink, 1985). Content progression was the central role of teaching (Revogno, 1995). Teacher content knowledge directly determined the appropriateness of content progression because teachers should decide how to gradually introduce the content while 16

planning the lesson (Metzler, 2005). Content progression meant the planned sequence of learning tasks and practice drills in lesson plans and reflects the teachers belief and understanding of how and when to move students from one task to the next task, drill, or section (Rink, 1985). Researchers have shown that providing appropriate progression for learners was helpful in the skills studied in physical education (French, Rink, Rikard, Mays, Lynn, & Werner, 1991; Rink, 1985). Rink (1997) suggested that content progression includes five learning tasks: (1). Informing: the initial task in a ne w skill progression (2). Refining: a task that promotes improved quality of performance (3). Extending: a task that is slightly more complex or difficult than the preceding task (4). Applying: a task to be performed to a stated performance criterion, or performed against an opponent or standard. (5). Repeating: any previous task that is repeated for review or increased proficiency. Hebert (1995) compared the effects of three content progression strategies: part training, simplification, and criterion on teaching college tennis classes. The results of the study indicated that students in two content progression conditions: part training and simplification demonstrated higher scores on self-efficacy, and 17

motivation scores hypothesized as mechanisms underlying the benefits of progressions. Students practiced in the simplification condition also had higher post-test scores and performed better during game play. The improvement of students performance demonstrates the essential function of content progression in teaching sports. French et al. (1991) established a relationship between different types of task extension and student achievement by producing an experimental study. In this study 53 students from a private school who were randomly assigned to three practice groups and received three interventions: no-progression instruction, instruction with a fixed progression, and no instruction. Two volleyball techniques were selected as the dependent variables for measures of achievement. The results of the study demonstrated the similar conclusion that was produced in Heberts (1995) study that practicing more simple variations of the task resulted in greater change from pretest to posttest. The finding also suggested that some types of extension might be more beneficial to student learning. Rovegno (1995) reported that the typical decisions that teachers made on content progression included two steps: (a) first presenting information about the biomechanical characteristics of body position of a technique and (b) organizing students to play games. Rovegnos (1995) study tied the teachers previous experiences of learning and playing volleyball to their decisions on teaching children the sport and found that the teachers content knowledge was consistent to their 18

pedagogical content knowledge, which was reflected, in this case, on their decision of content progression. Doutis (1997) emphasized the significance of task selection and content progression as central to physical education teachers content and pedagogical content knowledge. The author found that teachers with a full understanding of content chose mostly different tasks to teach similar content when they have students in different grade levels. Content also helped teachers effectively vary the task characteristis by arranging the content to fit individual needs and thus improving the quality of performance (Doutis, 1997). The Role of the Multiple-Activity Curriculum The multiple activity curriculum affects the effect of teaching sport in school physical education (Launder, 2001; Metzler, 2005; Siedentop, 2003; Taylor & Chiogioji, 1987; Ward, 1999). For instance, the multiple activity curriculum has been described as a situation in which teachers taught learners a wide variety of activities in short instructional units typically ranging from five to eight days on each (Siedentop, 2003). Metzler (2005) noted that the multiple activity curriculum determined the content coverage of instructional units which dramatically influenced the process and product of the physical education class. The inevitable result of using multiple activity curriculum to teach sports was a deficiency of mastery and understanding of the subject matter (Metzler, 2005; Siedentop, 2003). On the surface, learners seem to have a great opportunity to participate in a variety of sport events in 19

multiple activity curriculum. In reality, however the learning achievements fall far shot of expectation on the effective teaching of sports in physical education. Siedentop, Hastie, & Van Der Mars (2004) describe multiple activity curriculum as providing learners with a one inch deep and ten miles wide learning experience. They were critical that most learners were neither able to have time to understand the rules and strategies of the sport, nor were students able to gain the skills to play the game before the curriculum content was changed. With the limited time available for the learning, learners could only scratch the surface of the subject matter content, but never entered the over-learned level, which was the phase becoming fluent in most academic subject matter areas (Brophy & Good, 1986). According to Siedentop et al. (2004), the Sport Education Model was partially designed to avoid the disadvantageous condition of multiple activity curriculum by teaching sport seasons with the instructional unit at least three times longer (i. e. 20 22 classes) than the traditional one (p.5). Interestingly, the psychomotor outcomes are not the only domains suffering in the multiple activity curriculum. Taylor and Chiogioji (1987) noted that in the multiple activity curriculum, many important learning goals, other than the mastery of psychomotor skills were also very difficult to attain. The frequent change in the multiple activity curriculum deprive students of the opportunities to explore benefits of participation in playing sports such as fitness, self-esteem, and social skill development. Based on the analysis from Siedentop et al. (2004) and Thorpe et al. 20

(1986), the short instructional units for learning playing sports has been viewed as the core reason that prohibited teachers in providing sufficient practice time necessary for learning in the multiple-activity curriculum (Siedentop, 2003). Launder (2001) noted that short instructional units produced by multiple activity curriculum strongly limited the engaged time for understanding the content such as the sport rules and tactical strategies that were critical for effective play. More important, the unavailability of enough practice time on the sport techniques impaired the possibility to be competent and efficient while performing the sport skill. He claimed, it is vital that children practice persistently if they are to make progress and the practice shall be purposefully designed with positive environment (Launder, 2001, p. 71). Agreeing with Launders point, Wein (2001) stressed that it was a common phenomenon that learners especially children usually lack readiness to the new motor skills or conceptual awareness when they practice sports. This kind of unprepared condition could easily result in a high failure rate of successful performance and a high dropout rate in participation. In the multiple-activity curriculum, students must move from drills to drills very quickly so that they can accomplish the learning tasks of each instructional unit. Learners, especially young and those with low skilled, simply are not prepared to digest the content being taught.

21

The empirical evidence from teacher effectiveness studies highlights the importance of successful trials as a result of extended engagement in activity. For instance, Silverman (1985) investigated the relationship of student time engagement and practice trials to their achievement on a surviving swimming skill. The results verified the assumption that practice trial variable could effectively predict the learning achievement. Silverman (1985) found that the appropriate level of the task practice seemed to be a more potent variable relating to achievement. Similarly, Buck, Harrison, & Bryces (1991) analyzed the connection of trials of psychomotor skills and learning achievement in a college volleyball class. The results of their study enhanced the findings in Silvermans (1985) study in which the total correct trials were correlated with student achievement. In summary, scholars have argued that fewer activities covered in greater depth led to better learning outcomes than did more activities with shorter instructional units (Ward et al., 1999; Wein, 2001). The Role of Technical Only Approach The technical only teaching approach also results in poor performance of students learning sports in physical education (Allison & Thorpe, 1997; Bunker et al., 1986; Griffin et al., 1997; Holt, Ward, & Wallhead, 2006; Launder, 2001; Mitchell & Oslin, 1999; Mitchell et al., 2006; Rink et al., 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1995). Rink et al. (1996) defined the traditional approach as an instructional method that includes introduction and drills of techniques in very simple conditions followed by game play. Using volleyball as an example, traditionally volleyball 22

would be taught in a combination of simple introduction and exercise of techniques such as serve, set, and spike and a long unit of game play for the rest of the class. Based on Bunker and Thorpes (1982) statement the traditional approach to games teaching was technical focusing on teaching skills in answering the question How is this skill performed? Yet researchers criticized that even though skill execution was critical to game performance, deciding what to do in game situations was just as important as the execution of the skill (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986). Researchers also indicated that students who learned the sport with technical instructional are frequently unable to make appropriate decisions so that effective play and participation of the sport are often lacking in physical education course (Bunker, Thorpe, & Almond, 1984; Bunker & Thorpe, 1986; Mitchell, Oslin, & Griffin, 1997; Mitchell et al., 2006). Decision-making connected to the question what to do, which involves functions such as selective attentions, perception, and anticipation is critical toe effective performance. Ye the technical only teaching approach ignored the importance of making right decisions in effective game play, focusing solely on the technique achievement, which led to the poor performance of playing sports. Illustrating this outcome, Romar (1994) examined a middle school teacher who taught a basketball unit with the primary goal for students to participate in a well-played game. However at the end of the unit games were poorly played and the teacher was disappointed with the students learning achievement. Later Romar 23

(1994) reflected that the teacher had little experience in or knowledge of the tactical aspects of basketball based on the pre-unit interviews and assessments. Through an analysis of instructional tasks, it was revealed that all practice tasks in the unit had a technique focus and no practice task had a tactical focus component. Researchers also contended that technical approach did not facilitate learners to effectively transfer their learning (Bunker et al., 1986 & Griffin et al., 1997). The failure of many students who could do a technique in a practice situation but could not use it in a game supported the argument that teaching techniques did not function well (Mitchell & Oslin, 1999; Turner & Martinek, 1995). Transfer of learning is focused on the learning transformation from one sport to another which can be called learning transfer between sports. It Is about the maintenance of the knowledge and interpretation of the knowledge occurred in the learning process (Thorpe & Bunker, 1982; Griffin et al., 1997). For example, learners can carry on some knowledge from learning tennis and apply it to the learning of table tennis. In the teaching sport games research, the topic of learning transfer between sports is mainly focused on the cognitive domain of learning. Researchers have proposed that changes in cognitive aspect of game performance, particularly decision-making abilities, were easily affected (French & Thomas, 1987; McPherson, 1994; Mitchell & Oslin, 1999). A good example was provided in a study transfer of tactical understanding from badminton to pickleball among 21 ninth grade students (Mitchell & Oslin, 1999). Mitchell and Oslin (1999) 24

examined the transfer of tactical knowledge within the net/wall sport category by delivering a five-day instructional intervention focused on tactical awareness. The study produced some empirical data in which the learners tactical understanding improved during badminton instruction and extended in pickleball instruction. The Role of Teacher Feedback Feedback has been shown to be necessary for motor skill learning in physical education (Godbout, Brunelle, & Tousignant, 1987; Salter & Graham, 1985; Silverman, Tyson, & Krampitz, 1992). The appropriateness of feedback was highly related to a teachers content knowledge (Cavallini, 2006; Cohen, 2007; Shulman, 1986, Ward et al., 2006). If teachers do not know the content knowledge being taught in the class, they will struggle to provide appropriate feedback to learners. Moreover, without enough content knowledge, a teacher is unable to detect the errors in observing a learners performance (Siedentop, 1991) and consequently unable to evaluate the developmental level of learners motor skills (Cohen, 2007). For example in teaching tennis, it would be difficult for teachers to identify the error of hitting the ball with elbow dropped while serving if they were unknown about the critical element of the serve in tennis, reach high to hit (Brown, 2004). Failing to diagnose the errors in student performance, teachers could hardly select appropriate content knowledge to improve students performance during practice and learning, such as pedagogical content knowledge in physical education (Ayvazo, 2007;

25

Ayvazo, Ward, Cohen, Sturh, Zhang, 2006). In summary, the learning achievements of playing sports ought to rely heavily on the type and content of the feedback provided by the instructor. The Role of the Learners Motivation and Attitude Attitudes influence peoples lives. Attitudes towards physical education and sports must be important factors determining if individuals choose to engage in the activity (Solmon, 2003). Attitudes can be positive or negative. Students with a positive attitude about the content in physical education are more likely to attend to the teaching and devote efforts, and ultimately achieve more than do students who bring negative attitudes to the subject matter. Ennis (1996) showed that high school students who were interviewed in her study rarely perceived the value of learning physical activities and sports in their school. They did not know the reason why they had to learn physical education and why physical education should be required in the school curriculum. With the evidence provided by different researchers, it was not difficult to understand the poor performance of learning sports when students viewed physical education as trivial subjects. Under this condition, teachers should use different strategies to motivate students and change their negative attitude towards physical education and sports. Research has demonstrated that an individuals motivation varies according to changes in perceptions of competence and people tended to feel more competent if 26

they were motivated (Deci, 1996; Duda, 1992; Woods, 2007). Competent sport performance in students thus results from appropriate motivation from teachers (Duda, 1992; Woods, 2007). Teachers did need to provide effective instruction to enhance students learning so that they can achieve success and motivation while playing sport games. Launder (2001) highlighted the claim that efficient instruction of teaching sports and physical activities ought to provide plenty of practice, which can produce a high successful rate. Learners are motivated if they achieve a successful performance, and will continue to challenge and improve their play. This phenomenon is called success does indeed breed success (Launder, 2001). Another indicator of motivation is the enjoyment of participation. Teachers should create a positive and enjoyable learning environment so that students can feel motivated through participation of the activities. Research showed that poor performance of playing sports was related to enjoyment (Duda, 1992 & Woods, 2007). For example, students who experienced the blocked and repetitive drills tend to feel bored and tedious toward the learning process. Moreover, it has been found that students who undergo the same practice without any modification in the same sports and activities semester after semester could lead to negative experiences of playing sports (Carlson & Hastie, 1997). Implications The first part of this chapter identified five explanations as to why sport is often taught poorly in school settings: (a) teacher content knowledge, (b) multiple activity 27

curricula, (c) technique-only instruction, (d) poor teacher feedback, and (e) lack of learner attitude and motivation. These five explanations significantly impacted the learning outcomes of playing sports and must serve as the assumptions for any curriculum and instruction designed to enhance learners performance. Because of the strong influence content knowledge has on teaching sport, increasing teacher content knowledge ought to be the most important goal in improving students poor sport/game performance. Reflecting on pre-service teachers and their CK, Siedentop (2002) argued that teacher education programs must address the issue of increasing teachers content knowledge. Similarly, in-service teachers must be assisted in acquiring more content knowledge through professional development activities (Siedentop 2007; Ward, 2007). The removal of the multiple activity curriculum from school physical education, ought to be a second goal of efforts to improve instruction. In the process of teaching sports in physical education, educators must avoid the one-inch-deep but ten-miles-wide effects (Siedentop et al, 2004) that often occurred in this curriculum (Taylor & Chiogioji 1987). Longer instructional units are necessary for students to master the techniques and tactics of a sport. Focusing on the technique-only approach has been shown to be problematic, and in the case of a curriculum focused on teaching sports, especially ball game sport, must add tactical knowledge to the instruction. Lees (2004) study provided

strong empirical evidence on the effects of teaching tactical strategies in learning 28

sports. Young learners not only significantly improved their game performance on playing tag rugby but also transferred the learning achievement from practice to game scrimmage through tactic focused instruction. In addition, several papers and books from researchers such as Bunker and Thorpe (1982), Mitchell et al., (2006), and Siedentop et al., (2004), have argued that making appropriate decisions related to the game play should be an essential component of teaching sports. Students must gain relevant knowledge of tactics and rules of a sport so that they can understand what they need to do and what they need to avoid in the game situation. As Siedentop et al. (2004) noted competence is more than performing isolated technique and anticipation and movement are what tactics are all about (p. 121). Appropriate teacher feedback is the fourth goal of improvements in the teaching of sports, and is closely connected to the content knowledge recommendation (Cavallini, 2006; Cohen, 2007; Ward et al., 2006). The provision of feedback is ties to the level of a teachers content knowledge (Cohen, 2007). Appropriate teacher feedback can offer learners information about their performance so that they understand what they have learned and still need to improve (Cohen, 2007; Siedentop & Tannehille, 2000). When learning new motor skills, providing specific and corrective feedback serves as an essential factor of an effective instructional approach (Cohen, 2007; Robinson, 2007; Stroot, 1990). Finally, a learners motivation and attitude ought to be another emphasis of the teaching of sport. A good learning attitude and appropriate motivation are essential 29

for the success of teaching sport games no matter what curriculum is implemented. In a literature review of the Teaching Games for Understanding and the Tactical Game Models, Oslin and Mitchell (2005) reviewed game-centered approaches with traditional instruction and indicated that what makes tactical approach superior to the technical model is (a) children are motivated by games (b) games promote development of decision making, and (c) the transfer of learning from one sport to others. In addition, Wallhead and OSullivan (2005) in their review concluded that the structure and components of Sport Education Model promoted learners personal and social development by assigning students responsibility, which motivates every participant to become an enthusiastic sport person. Curriculum Models Proposed for the Teaching of Sports in Physical Education Three curricular approaches have been proposed as alternatives to traditional multiple-activity and technique-focused approaches to sport: the Teaching Games for Understanding or TGfU (Bucker & Thorpe, 1982; Bunker, Thorpe, & Almond, 1986), the Tactical Game Model or TGM (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997), and Sport Education (Siedentop, Hastie, Van der Mars, 2004). Researchers and physical educators have widely investigated and discussed these curricular approaches in the field of teaching physical education (Dyson, Griffin, & Hastie, 2004; Oslin & Mitchell, 2005; Wallhead & O Sullivan, 2005).

30

The Teaching Games for Understanding, TGFU The following section provides an overview of the literature of three instruction approaches, which contain brief background and history, conceptual rationale, instructional model, research results, and critiques to the model. Background. The TGFU instruction is the oldest proposal of sport-approached instruction. It originated from faculty at Loughborough University in England during the early 1960s (Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond, 1986). Bunker and Thorpe (1982) formally conceptualized the idea of the TGFU. They initially brought up the TGFU as a game approach in their paper: A Model for the Teaching of Games in the Secondary Schools (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). In this paper, Bunker and Thorpe (1982) posited that students learning outcome in playing sports was problematic, in that students demonstrated three negative characteristics: (a) a large percentage achieved little success in their game play performance, (b) the majority knew very little about games, and (c) many displayed poor decision-making capacities. These learning outcome features were also later identified in the U.S. and have evoked wide debates about the appropriate instructional goals of teaching games in both England and the U. S (French et al., 1996; Griffin, et al., 1997; McMorris, 1998; Rink et al., 1996; Turner, 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1995, 1999; Nevett, 2001). After identifying the problematic issues of students poor performance in playing sports, Bunker and his colleagues reflected on the connection between teaching and learning occurring in physical education classes and attributed the 31

problem to the traditional approach of teaching sports, usually described as technical instruction (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Bunker et al., 1986; Metzler, 2005; Rink et al., 1996). Several researchers (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Bunker et al., 1986) were critical of the traditional focus on teaching techniques in highly structured lessons, which usually resulted in unsatisfactory learning results of playing sports (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Turner & Martinek, 1995). The proponents of the TGFU believed that teachers ought to meliorate the students learning through changing their instructional approach (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Thorpe et al., 1986). Conceptual rationale of the TGFU. Two rationales have been proposed for the TGFU model: the decision-making and transfer of learning. The first rationale for Bunker and Thorpes belief in Teaching Games for Understanding derived from the consideration that children must be able to make decisions if they want to become competent players (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). Making decisions has been viewed as the tactical component of playing sport, associated with the cognitive learning domain (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982, Maulden & Redfern, 1981; Griffin et al., 1997; Turner & Martinek, 1999; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002). Several examples provided by the physical educators help people make sense of the necessity for making right decisions while playing sports. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) proposed that, in invasion games, it is necessary for players to consider creating or denying space. Teachers need to know when and where to deliver the techniques of the sport, such as dribbling or passing in soccer, 32

so that they can attend more advantages of scoring. Students need to make decisions on how to support teammates play to keep the maneuverability and offensive position of play (Lee, 2004). In addition to these situations, decision-making must also take place to select strategies and techniques to deal with the game scenario in order to anticipate the opponents play. These analyses showed that the ideal competency of playing sports must be a combination of making appropriate decisions and executing skillful ability to perform the techniques. Researchers found that the ability to make appropriate decisions differentiated experienced players from novice players (Maulden & Redfern, 1981). Expert players develop their cognitive understanding of the game play of a sport throughout the process of practice and game play (Siedentop, 2003). Players must be able to make correct and reasonable decisions throughout the game play, thus the TGFU was designed to facilitate learners understanding of tactical complexities of the game, which is an important component of game play (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982, Oslin & Mitchell, 2005; Siedentop et al., 2004; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002). In addition, Bunker and Thorpe (1982) argued that decision-making can be transferred from one sport to similar others. The effective transfer of learning relies on the assumption of similarity of tactical problems among similar sports. Bunker, Thorpe and Almond (1994) first organized the common sports in the physical

33

education curriculum and classified them into four categories: net/wall, invasion, skill/field, and target sports (Bunker et al., 1986).

Net/wall sports Net Badminton Tennis Table tennis Pickleball Volleyball Wall Racquetball

Invasion sports Basketball Netball Team handball Water polo Soccer Hockey Lacrosse Rugby

Strike / field sports Baseball Softball Rounders Cricket Kickball

Target sports Golf Croquet Bowling Lawn bowing Pool Billiards Snooker

Table 2.1: Sports and Games Classifications Note. Adopted from Reflecting on themes: A games classification, by R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond, 1986, Rethinking games teaching (Loughborough University), 71-72.

Table 2.1 illustrates different sports organized for the purpose to foster transfer of learning. Based on the classification of the sports, researchers have defined the transfer of learning as the gain or the loss of a persons proficiency on one task as a result of previous practice or experience on another task (Schimidt & Wrisberg, 2004). The definition stresses the reality of the generalization of tactical strategies between similar sports. For instance, a passing strategy defined in the 2v1 offensive situation while playing soccer can be transplanted to basketball or ice hockey. In this 34

example, even though players use different techniques (i.e. kick the soccer ball and throw the basket ball), they all try to accomplish the same strategy to pass the ball to a teammate for the offensive play. Empirical research available for transfer of learning produced positive results in supporting the rationale of transfer of learning emphasized in Teaching Games for Understanding. Mitchell and Oslin (1999) examined learning related to making tactical decisions and found that high school students were able to transfer their decision-making from badminton to pickle ball game play after making obvious improvement on badminton game play. Martin (2004) taught sixth grade learners two invasion games, Ultimate Frisbee and Team Handball, and studied the transfer of decision-making from one to another. The data collected on decision-making demonstrated the same outcome, that students transferred their knowledge and ability to make appropriate decisions from Frisbee to Team Handball. All these findings supported the Bunker, Thorpe and Almond assumption, in which sports in the same category shared the concept of creating space for the purpose of setting up the attack or scoring. The Model of Teaching Games for Understanding. Bunker and Thorpe created a model that presented the key ideas of Teaching Games for Understanding (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). The TGFU model includes six procedures, which show step-by-step how teachers help the learner master sport performance or skills. Unlike the traditional approach of teaching sports, the Teaching Games for Understanding 35

model presents games first to learners and aims to enhance the understanding of the sport before the introduction of techniques. Bunker and Thorpe specified the instructional units in the following six steps (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982): Step one - The Game: the class instruction unit begins with various games modified to facilitate learning, while the formal adult version of a sport game still presents a long-term goal of teaching. Learners are able to know the sport in an authentic context at the beginning stage of learning. Step two - Game Appreciation: learners need to know the rules of sports and be aware of how the rules shape the sports game play. It is necessary for learners to understand the relationship between the sports rules and the game play format so that they can appreciate the play. Step three - Tactical Awareness: after some involvement with game play and awareness of sport rules and concepts, learners need to consider general principles across all sport game play that constructs the basic tactics of playing sports. Step four - Decision-making: learners need to figure out what to do and how to do it during actual game play. Based on the awareness of tactics of a given sport, learners are able to choose appropriate responses toward the what-to-do situation. Step five - Skill Execution: this should be the product of required performance seen in the context of the learner. Skill execution is always seen in the context of the learner and the game.

36

Step six - Performance: this is the final observed outcome of the previous two steps (Decision-Making and Skill Execution) measured against criteria that are independent of the learner. According to Bunker and Thorpe (1982), this is the point at which students are classified as good or poor players of the sport. One of the most manifest features of the model is that the TGfU model places understanding the sport as the primary goal of teaching sports in physical education. By following the model, students are supposed to achieve three outcomes: game appreciation, tactical awareness, and making appropriate decisions before getting involved in learning and practicing techniques. The emphasis on game appreciation and decision-making highlights the key issues of the TGfU model: that effective sports instruction must be able to facilitate students understanding of game format and sport procedure (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). This understanding priority feature influences the development of other instructional approaches such as Tactical Game Model (Griffin et al., 1997) and Sport Education (Siedentop, 1994; Siedentop et al., 2004).

37

(1) Game

(6) Performance

(2) Game Appreciation

Learner

(3) Tactical Awareness

(4) Making Appropriate Decisions

(5) Skill Execution

Figure 2.1: The Teaching Games for Understanding model (from Bunker & Thorpe, 1982).

Tactical Game Model TGM After the TGFU instruction was introduced, three American scholars, Griffin, Mitchell, and Oslin created another game approach based on its framework, called the Tactical Game Approach or TGM (Griffin et al., 1997). The TGM has been widely accepted in school physical education (Metzler, 2005).

38

Background. The Tactical Game Model was developed approximately fifteen years later and has been viewed as a modified version of the TGFU (Griffin et al., 1997; Metzler, 2005; Oslin & Mitchell, 2005). The proponents of the TGM agree that the primary objectives to teaching sports in physical education are importing knowledge of the rules of the game, demonstrating tactics of the sport, and training students to make appropriate decisions. Instruction must emphasize that tactical awareness so that players are able to understand what to play and how to play in game situation (Holt et al., 2002; Metzler, 2005). Except for the similarity on the emphasis of tactical learning, the TGM is also a student-centered approach of teaching sport games (Kirk & MacPhail, 2002) because the instruction model begins and ends with the learners (Griffin et al., 1997). During teaching the teachers role is more a facilitator. For example, the TGM requires that teachers must question students after the first part of the teaching and foster students to be aware of the tactical problem. In both instructional approaches, learners always study in a problem-solving context. Even though the Tactical Game Model is more similar than different from the TGFU model, there are two important differences. First, the TGM includes more concrete and practical content and pedagogy of teaching sports. The TGM develops tactical knowledge of the sport into multiple levels (Mitchell et al., 2006). Learners start their learning from solving basic and simple tactical problem but gradually move to more complex ones. In contrast, the TGFU only brought up the concept of 39

tactical awareness in general and did not map out the content specifically (i. e. tactical strategies). As a result, the TGM is more explicit for teachers to use. Not only is the content more concrete in the TGM, but also the pedagogy is clearly developed. The TGM requires teachers to instruct in a game practice game procedure (Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2006). Specifically, learners start their learning from a modified game in which they need to be aware of and solve a tactical problem. Then they will practice techniques, followed by a game play to continue solving the tactical problem of the sport. This explicit and detailed development of pedagogy is beneficial for teachers to implement the instructional approach to the class and help people differ it from the TGFU. Second, the TGM contains the practice and instruction of techniques, which result in a manifest improvement in tactical instructional approaches. The designers of the TGFU (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond, 1986) believed that the goal of teaching sports in physical education is to understand rather than perform them. They argued that learning techniques is not necessary for effective game play of sports since learners can still achieve good games without skills/techniques (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Thorpe et al., 1986). Yet according to Mitchell et al. (2006) techniques are essential components of every lesson. The inclusion of techniques indicates that the TGM is not a pure tactical only

40

instruction but a (tactical and technical) integrate approach (Allison & Thorpe, 1997; French et al., 1996; Holt et al., 2002; Rink et al., 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1995, 1999). The conceptual rationale of the TGM. The conceptual rationale of the TGM includes two aspects: motivation and game centered instruction. By using the Game-Practice-Game procedure during teaching, the TGM highlights the status of game in appropriately introducing tactical knowledge and attracting participants to get involved in learning. The TGM gives prominence to a game format of teaching in order to effectively motivate learning. Mitchell et al. (2006) found a lack of interest and excitement in traditional instructional approach focused on technique learning and stated that Tactical Game Model provides an excited alternative through which students can learn to play games (p. 9). Skilled learners feel bored with the tedium of isolated practice with techniques. For less skilled learners, the game play probably only means some aimless organization of some techniques (Mitchell et al., 2006). The effect of motivation is reflected in two aspects. At the beginning of the class, the TGM uses a modified game to encourage students participation and appreciation of the sport and its cognitive component of play (Griffin, et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2006). Then the result of tactical awareness serves as the motivation of learning techniques. The realization of the difference between what to play how to 41

play raises the need to improve the technical performance of a sport. Students realize that only having the knowledge of what to do does not directly lead to a successful doing or winning. A game centered model means that games play a primary and central role in teaching sports. The TGM defines that games can be centered conditions other than ultimate outcomes of physical education lessons and ought to be used to address the effects of teaching sports. Traditionally, games are only introduced when students accomplish the learning of techniques (Holt et al., 2002; Rink et al., 1996). The instruction always follows this inevitable and pre-determined procedure to introduce the sport an approach which makes games look like an accessory attachment to techniques (Turner & Martinek, 1999). By contrast, the emphasis of the game format used in the TGM (and the TGFU) guides teachers to re-consider the function and meaning of game play in learning sports. Playing a game is not only a product of learning sports, but also a vehicle for addressing the learning goal. Later, the game-centered instructional format significantly influenced the structure of many other teaching approaches such as Tactical Game Model (Griffin et al., 1997; Oslin & Mitchell, 2004), Sport Education (Siedentop, 1994; Siedentop et al., 2004) and Play Practice (Launder, 2001). The model of Tactical Game Approach. The model of Tactical Game Approach is similar with the TGFU. In this model, three components modified from the six instructional steps are used to introduce the sport content (See Figure 2. 2). The key 42

features of the TGM can be summarized as three sections: (a) using small-sided game to present a specific tactical problem which sets up a learning environment to explore learners tactical awareness, (b) using questions to provoke critical thinking of solutions to the problem, (c) then the practice of techniques aimed to contribute to the solution of the tactical problem. A good example can be found in a tennis instruction scenario: The instruction of a tennis class may start from a half court game in which students are expected to realize that (a) they need to drop the ball short (in front of the net) and long (close to baseline) to move the opponent and (b) they shall practice their strokes so that they can gain some control of the ball (Mitchell et al., 2006).

Game form

Tactical awareness

Technique execution

Figure 2.2. The Tactical Game Model (from Teaching sport concepts and skills, Mitchell et al., 2006).

43

Teachers use small-sided games to explore the tactical awareness so that students can appreciate the game play of the sport. Then the gap between knowing the sport strategies (what to do) and performing them (how to do) inspires the learners desire to practice the techniques of the sport. The empirical evidence for the TGFU model and TGM. The TGfU and TGM have attracted many researchers attentions (Allison & Thorpe, 1997; Chandler & Mitchell, 1990; Mitchell, French, Werner, Rink, Taylor, Hussey, & Jones, 1996; Griffin & Oslin, 1995; Turner & Martinek, 1995 & 1999). These two game approaches have been discussed interchangeably in the literature. Due to the similarities between the TGFU and TGM, researchers have often reviewed both approaches together and most times these two approaches are emerged into one (Holt, et al., 2006; Rink et al., 1996; Harvey, 2006). Research on tactical approaches is focused on the comparison between the effects of technical and tactical approaches in teaching sports. The research covers a wide range of settings. Researchers operated their research in different teaching conditions, including elementary, secondary, and college PE course across different sports, such as badminton, basketball, hockey, soccer, tennis, and volleyball (Allison & Thorpe, 1997; Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 1997; Turner & Martiniek, 1995, 1999). Three domains of learning achievement (psychomotor, cognitive, and affective) were measured but the study primarily concentrated on psychomotor and cognitive learning outcomes (Turner & Martinek, 1995, 1999; French et al., 1996). 44

A series of studies have compared the two approaches on teaching sport while most of them (French et al., 1996a; French et al., 1996b; McPherson & Thomas, 1989; Turner & Martinek, 1995) have indicated that there was no significant difference on improving students technique performance. An exception of the research results came from Turner and Martineks (1999) study in which the TGFU approach better prepared students for effective performance in passing, shooting, and dribbling in game play than the technique instruction. Taken collectively, the results of the research on the TGFU and the TGM tend to support the judgment that these approaches have not been shown to be superior to the traditional way to teaching sport techniques (Holt et al., 2006; Rink et al., 1996; Silverman, 1997). From the perspective of cognitive learning outcome of sport, many studies produced positive results on the assessment of declarative and procedural knowledge (Allison & Thorpe, 1997; McPherson, 1994). It has been reported in these studies that learners in the tactical group scored higher on the assessment of knowing rules, skills, and players positions and that they were able to make better decisions during game play even though they still had poor skill executions. However, the opposite result emerged from some studies suggests researchers that it is difficult to confirm that the TGM and TGFU are superior methods for improving the cognitive learning. For instance, French and her colleagues (1996a & 1996b) used a paper pencil test and found out that students significantly improved the score on badminton rules and skill concepts in tactical and technical instructional conditions. In addition, the data 45

collected through the point interview also demonstrated that students did not significantly make better decisions among three different teaching conditions (technical, tactical, and combined). Same results were also found in studies from Griffin et al., (1995), Lawton (1989), and Turner & Martinek (1992). Considering that the studies revealed no significant differences learning results on cognitive achievement, researchers still cannot confirm that the TGFU is a better way to improve students knowledge and cognition achievement (Holt et al., 2006; Rink et al., 1996). A Critique of TGFU and TGM First, the TFGU and the TGM are difficult for teachers to master because of their demand for content knowledge, which is connected to the use of critical questions to provoke the tactical awareness and the alignment of technique and tactics in teaching the sport. Both the TFGU model and the TGM ask teachers to question learners after the introduction of modified games (Mitchell et al., 2006). Teachers must be able to effectively facilitate them to identify the tactical problems and find the solutions after the first game play. The quality of the questions is critical to ensure the instructional goals such as problem solving and tactical awareness (Dyson, Griffin, & Hastie, 2004). Teachers have to know the tactics well so that they can appropriately question the students. Accordingly, the content and the timing of

46

questions provided to the students must be closely related to the content knowledge level of the teacher, variable which significantly determines the success of the teaching. Second, the TGFU and TGM Approach use the traditional way to address techniques, which potentially weakens the learning achievement of playing sports. Kirk and McPhail (2002) pointed out that neither approach has shown a difference from the traditional approach while introducing the techniques. Techniques in both methods have been taught by using drills common to the technical approach (Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell, et al., 2006). For instance, a typical drill for the volleyball practice of forearm passing in level one lesson two (Mitchell et al., 2006) can be Forearm pass triad, every player performs two or three trials before rotate Focus on medium body posture and pointing the belly button to the target (p.214). Another drill of tennis practice of backhand ground stroke at lesson eight, (tactical) level one: describes Crosscourt and line practice one player feeds to other players forehand in the corner of the baseline and other player hits crosscourt switch roles and repeat task hitting down the line (p 304). From these two examples, we can see that the techniques are presented in a decontextualized way. The setup of the practice shows a clearly decontextualized condition. There seems to be no difference between the TGFU and

47

traditional approach while introducing techniques. Yet it is clear that, in order to foster the transfer of learning, learners need to know and practice the techniques in a game context. The final critique of the TGM comes from the presentation of the game play at beginning of the instruction aimed to address the tactical problems. The success of addressing the tactical issue by using game play relies on an assumption that players must be able to focus on the tactics. However, without the mastery of the techniques necessary for delivery of tactics, learners, especially low skilled learners, can hardly concentrate on what to play but think about how to play it. Using ice-hockey as an example it is difficult to address the tactics about what to play without a degree of fluency in the techniques of skating on the ice and waving the hockey club. The same issue can occur in playing tennis: when teaching children a basic strategy in net sport (i. e. space creation), what really happens in a students mind is the decision about how to contact the ball so that they can get it across the net. Rink et al. (1996) stated that it is always necessary to introduce the techniques first so that teachers can develop childrens tactics. Children could not focus on more than one issue when they are at preoperational stage of learning. The Sport Education Model Sport Education is a PE curriculum model which connects the sport culture to sport taught in physical education (Siedentop, 1994). The ultimate goal of the Sport Education is to cultivate competent, literate, and enthusiastic sport persons so they 48

can participate in the sports and enhance the sport culture (Siedentop, Hastie, & van der Mars, 2004, p. 15). Siedentop (1994) created the Sport Education curriculum model based on his research interest in play education and defining the content knowledge in physical education (Wallhead & OSullivan, 2005). Siedentop believed that cultures of playing (i.e., sports) could bring collaborative social life to children and youth, a life-enhancing outcome for physically active, playful human beings, and a strong justification for physical education as a legitimate school subject (Siedentop, 1968). Conceptual rationale of the Sport Education Model. The Sport Education was created to enrich the experience of playing sports (Siedentop, 1994, 1998; Siedentop et al., 2004; Wallhead & O Sullivan, 2005; Hastie, 2003). Sport Education extends beyond the technical content of playing sports by emphasizing affiliation, formal competition, record keeping, festivity, and culminating events, al of which multiply the learning experiences of sports (Siedentop et al., 2004; Wallhead & OSullivan, 2005). While participating in the Sport Education, students have opportunities to experience the instruction (e.g., as a coach), organization (e.g., as captain or referee), and culture (e.g., culminating and festivity) of the sports so that they can become a competent, enthusiastic and literate sport person (Siedentop, 1998). Sport Education was designed to provide longer instructional units to avoid the negative effects of the multiple activity curriculum. The seasonal schedule included in the Sport Education model specifically aims to develop the learners knowledge 49

and sport competency. Proponents of the Sport Education (Hastie, 1996, 2000; Siedentop, 1998; Siedentop et al., 2004) believed that the fewer activities taught in great depth included in longer instruction were significant in student achievement of playing sports. Students have more time and chances to learn techniques, tactics, and rules, and different roles of playing sport so that they can become competent game players. Siedentop (1987) posited that the practice drills and activities students were experiencing within traditional physical education were decontextualized and the search of contextuality created the Sport Education (Wallhead & OSullivan, 2005). The seasonal schedule values the practice and competition and organization and progresses the learning in a developmental way. Siedentop (1994) defined competent players as those who have sufficient skills to participate in games satisfactorily and being able to understand execute strategies appropriate to the complexity of the game being played. The model of Sport Education. The Sport Education model extends special meaning to playing sports, and it addresses deficiencies existed in the traditional approach. (1) Seasonal schedule of participating in sports. The Sport Education requires longer sport education units than are typical in the traditional instructional units in physical education (Siedentop et al., 2004). The longer unit of the Sport Education model encompasses both practice and 50

competition that are also viewed as pre-season and season. Learners have longer time to know and exercise the sport so that they can accumulate plentiful experiences of teaching sports. (2) Affiliation keeps players in same team for an entire season. Sport Education requires that learners to build up membership and keep it through the season. The benefit of using the Sport Education is that learners are more likely to know each other well and work together toward common goals. For example, team members can compete for a final tournament championship or a year-long All-Sports Trophy (Siedentop et al., 2004), with the important dimension of group identity and membership enhancing their collective competitive spirit.. (3) Formal competition including varied formats Playing formal competition is the essential component of Sport Education. For example, two common competitions are round-robin tournaments and league schedules (Siedentop et al., 2004). In the Sport Education practice, learners have advance notice of upcoming competition, while beginning the practice from the standpoint of various informal competition. (4) A culminating event to each season highlights the ultimate goal of learning sport, which is to play toward the championship. Siedentop et al. (2004) pointed out that culminating event is a nature facet of competitive sport since it is natural for players to identify the best team and players of a sport season. The culminating event must be the eventual goal of any forms of 51

seasonal competitions and the objective of all participants. The culminating event ought to be festive and successful for all teams as well the team who finally achieves the championship. (5) Complete score keeping helps feedback and facilitates learning. A complete score helps ensure learners to understand the degree to which they have improved or not during practice (Siedentop et al., 2004) For example, a longer distance in long jump or short time in swimming reflected in the score informs learners that they have improved their performance in that sport. Then these learners can set up new objectives to achieve an even longer or faster distance or speed in the sport. (6) All players celebrate the participation and contribution through festival events. Festivity is another nature of sport and can be seen in everywhere such as Olympic Games and soccers World Cup. Siedentop et al. (2004) stated Sport Education provides excitement and meaning for participants and adds an important social element to the experience. Through the festival activities in the Sport Education instruction, learners value their participation and a variety of splendid experiences throughout the participation such as fair play and performance. The aggregate of these six components efficiently creates an authentic learning environment of playing sports so that learners are able to understand what the sport is and how to play, compete, and organize the competition. 52

Research the Sport Education In a recent literature review of Sport Education, Wallhead and OSullivan (2005) concluded that the Sport Education enhanced the affective learning achievement of playing sports. In the Sport Education students increased the level of interaction and cooperation with peers through participation in different roles such as coaches, players, and referees (Grant, 1992). The interaction and cooperation were recorded and evaluated as positive and accurate communication (Hastie & Sharpe, 1999). Teachers agreed with the research evidence and supported the belief that Sport Education remarkably enhanced students personal and social skills (Alexander & Luckman, 2001). Such positive experiences are more likely to lead students to feel enjoyment and perceived efforts from participation of Sport Education (Wallhead & Ntoumanis, 2004). In summary, Sport Education is a powerful instruction model for changing students social behaviors and for helping them become enthusiastic and sport-minded human beings (Carlson & Hastie, 1997). On the other hand, Wallhead and OSullivan (2005) stated that there was no convincing evidence supporting the assumption that the Sport Education facilitates content learning and performance of sports. The issue of how to improve students achievement of skills and knowledge of sports was also viewed as one of the biggest concerns that physical education teachers had during teaching in Sport Education (Alexander, Taggart, & Medland, 1993). 53

No difference has been found in cognitive understanding of games (Ormond, DeMarco, Smith, & Fischer, 1995) or perceived competence (Wallhead & Ntoumanis, 2004) using the Sport Education. Researchers pointed out that the Sport Education might be not be effective in creating psychomotor learning achievement (ODonovan, 2003; Alexander & Luckman, 2001; Strikewerda-Brown & Taggart, 2001). Yet, as stated, several studies have demonstrated that the Sport Education instruction can effectively increase the social engagement (Hastie, 2000) and tasks (Bennett & Hastie, 1997), A critique of sport education. The Sport Education model is effective on building up learners social skills but can but has not been able to demonstrate enhance learners psychomotor and cognitive achievement such as the declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge of a sport (Wallhead & OSullivan, 2005). Wallhead and Ntoumanis (2004) concluded that the Sport Education over-emphasized students affective outcome. The deficiency of the teaching sport techniques and tactics retorts one of the primary goals of Sport Education which should be to develop "competent performers" (Siedentop, 1994, p. 4). Learners might lack access to appropriate practice trials as a result the influence of too many roles learners often have to take on (i. e. the coach, referee, equipment manager, and score keeper). The lack of practice may contribute to low learning achievement in performing sport skills. The instruction heavily relies on peer teaching (Wallhead & OSullivan, 54

2005) which contribute the learning outcome of individual learning. The coachs performance, on the other hand, influences the learning outcome of the whole team. In Sport Education, the student who plays as a coach has to work as a teacher and probably needs to (a) present the task appropriately, (b) provide feedback, and (c) organize the practice, among other tasks. In addition, the student must have enough content knowledge of the sport to play a teaching role well. Summary After a review of the literature of teaching sports in physical education, three models have been proposed as a solutions to the problematic way sports are taught in the curriculum of the Sport Education (Siedentop, 1994, 1998; Siedentop et al., 2004), Teaching Games for Understanding (Bunker Thorpe, 1982; Thorpe et al., 1986) and Tactical Game Model (Griffin et al., 1997; Oslin & Mitchell, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2006). Little research suggests that the TGFU and TGM are superior to other instructional approaches especially the traditional one focused on techniques (Holt et al., 2002; Holt et al., 2006; Silverman 1997; Rink et al., 1996). Many questions remain for future research, such as appropriate alignment of teaching techniques and tactics (Holt et al., 2002; Mitchell et al., 2006) the measurement of students learning and performance on game play (Turner & Martinek 1995); and the effects of students learning on the affective dimension of learning (Rink et al., 1996).

55

In addition, research in Sport Education instruction demonstrates some evidence of gains on improving learners social skills and psychomotor skills (Wallhead & OSullivan, 2005). But in general the results of research of Sport Education is controversial. More studies are required to examine the effects of the model, especially the learning in psychomotor domain. Meanwhile, the lack of cogent evidence to support the benefits of the Sport Education, the TGFU and TGM suggests that scholars and physical educators and teachers should modify and improve these strategies for a better result of teaching sports. Alternatively they can investigate other different instructional approach which might offer a better learning result for students, such as Play Practice (Launder, 2001). The rules of a sport shape its game play, (i.e. primary and secondary rules) and students need to know the rules of the sport and connect the rules to the procedure or format of game play (Turner & Martinek, 1995; Siedentop, 2003). Students need to know what to do (Oslin & Mitechell, 2005; Turner & Martinek, 1995) and what not to do in game play. Play Practice Alan Launder, an internationally known physical educator in Australia, provided an alternative way to teach youth sports, called Play Practice (Launder, 2001). Play Practice challenges physical education teachers thinking about how sport should be taught to youth and changes the traditional way to practice sport so that youth can become competent and knowledgeable sport-minded human beings 56

(Launder, 2001). The process of conceptualizing the theory and rationale of Play Practice reflects the authors caring and understanding of young learners, the content (sport events), and their relationship from a pedagogical perspective. Background. Play Practice is an innovative instructional strategy of teaching youth sports and was formally introduced in 2001 (Holt et al., 2006; Launder, 2001). After thirty years of experience teaching and coaching sport in different settings, Alan Launder implemented and investigated various instructional strategies of teaching sports. Based on the format and the characteristics of these strategies, Launder (2001) recognized that instructional methods used to teach sports could be classified into three approaches (See Table 2. 2). Illustrated in the book, Play Practice, The Game Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sports, Launder (2001) analyzed each instructional approach and described the characteristics and some problematic issues relating to each approach.

57

Names Lets have a full game Approach

Features Full game without instruction

Problems Low individual participation which causes the improvement of techniques and tactics

Minor games Approach

Sports modified on rules A lack of meaningful or space. purposes of the game play (or mindless games) that prevents players from the game appreciation.

Coaching Approach

Highly structured drills emphasized on the technical abilities

Drills are often not aligned with the real game, which leads to a difficulty of transfer of learning. This is a time consuming instruction.

Table 2.2: Three Instructional Approaches of Teaching Sport Note: adopted from Play Practice, The Game Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sport, Launder (2001).

First, in the Lets have full game approach, the class is divided into two groups and the teacher immediately introduces the whole class to the full adult game format of the sport. For example, a soccer class in the Lets have full game approach would include two teams and one ball played on a full sized soccer field. 58

The teacher seldom introduces techniques, tactics, and basic rules of the sport but learners spend the majority of the class time in full sized soccer game play. Launder argued that the Lets have fun game approach results in a situation in which many players especially less skilled learners would inevitably have low participation due to the dominance of their high-skilled counterparts. Consequently, the lack of participation in the sport tends to keep these low skilled players from developing growth and improvement of the sport. Second, in the Minor games approach, the instructor often selected some modified games and introduced them to the class. For example, soccer dodgeball is an example of a minor game that has been commonly used in school physical education programs (Launder, 2001). In this minor game several players form a circle and try to hit the players who stand in the middle of the circle by kicking the soccer ball. Launder criticized that soccer dodgeball game negatively influenced learners achievement because: (a) there is no alignment between the minor game and formal soccer game; (b) the participation is always uneven (i.e. low skilled players has few opportunities to practice), and (c) the combination of a large number of players and a complex situation results in a low success rate of performing the skill (Launder, 2001). Launder (2001) claimed that most minor games share similar characteristics as the soccer dodgeball game and a lack of purpose limits the value of structured game play experiences.

59

The third method is called Coaching approach, which mainly addresses the technical development of the sport. In this approach, the instructor must devote considerable time to technical practice. Take soccer for an example. Soccer techniques such as kicking, passing, and dribbling ought to be the essential component of the class and occupy most of the content throughout the course. Yet a large number of drills used to develop these techniques are always isolated practices that disconnect the practice context from the game play one. Indeed, the most strongly argued weakness of the coaching approach was the lack of alignment. Launder (2001) stated coaching approach easily teaches a stereotyped response to situations that in the real game demand flexible responses (p.27). In addition, the large amount of time spent on developing players technical ability makes the coaching approach unrealistic and impractical in school physical education. According to Launders (2001) reflection, three approaches were problematic and contributed to the learners poor performance in playing sport. He believed that these instructional approaches cannot effectively facilitate learners to learn the sport skill, and that teachers must apply a better approach to improve student performance. In 2001 Launder, based on his refection of teaching and understanding of the learner and sport, brought up a different instructional approach called Play Practice which aims to increase the quality of teaching sports in school physical education settings (Launder, 2001). Play Practice focuses on skill and the use of play 60

in practice (Launder, 2001). Through providing challenging learning situations such as games and competitions, Play Practice tends to facilitate youth and beginners to (a) gain competency and knowledge of playing sports, (b) really enjoy learning and playing sports no matter the what skill level they have, and (c) continue participation of sports after they finish their school. Rationale of the Play Practice. Play Practice addresses the development of sport skill, which consists of technical abilities and decision-making. Launder (2001) first differentiates the concept skill from technique stating that although differences, these two different concepts have been interchangeably in the field. In the textbook of Play Practice, Launder suggests, in many sports, skill is based on a combination of technical ability and effective decision making (p. 34). The player needs to know what to do and how to do in game play situation. Launder (2001) analyzed that the challenge players have to face every moment in game play always requires the player to perform not only techniques but also decision-making simultaneously. The instruction of sport must concentrate on teaching the alignment of techniques and tactics because improving the performance of game play serves as the ultimate purpose of teaching sports in physical education, (Holt et al., 2006; NASPE, 2005). Moreover, Launder specifically underscores the relationship between the technique and tactic of a skilled performance (Launder, 2001). He states that the relationship between techniques and tactics are not separated but intertwined. 61

According to Launders conceptualization, the ultimate performance of sport must represent two aspects of the skill: the players tactical ability to understand the rules or/and strategies, and the technical ability to demonstrate this understanding. Although players generally do not have balanced combination of tactic and technique, these two different abilities must be taught simultaneously. The united relationship between technique and tactic in sport skill performance serves as the main rationale of Play Practice instruction. In addition, Alan Launder (2001) highly values the function of play in effective teaching of sports and requires physical educators to present instructional tasks in a playing format. He asks the instructor to turn practice into play while using Play Practice to teach sport. Turning practice into play contains two benefits: motivation and transfer of training (Launder, 2001). Motivation refers to the fact that learners shall have the chance to enjoy the practice if it is presented in a game situation. To achieve transfer of learning indicates the instructor must purposefully design such playful practice so that the playfully formed practice can positively influence or even maximize the learning of the skill. The following discussion elaborates the connection between Play Practice and the two benefits. The motivation feature of Play Practice mainly results from the enjoyable experience of play and perceived achievement on learning the skill. Play Practice converts the practice condition from the tedious and dry exercise to the challenging and interesting game play, which releases joy of sport to players. The playful 62

learning environment created by Play Practice instruction functions on attracting learners attention and interests of participation and providing every child the opportunity to participate in enjoyable and challenging sporting activities, which can encourage the adherence of playing the sport. Additionally, learners perceive their achievement and feel the enjoyment if they conquer the challenge and difficulty of the sport. Launder states in his book that the sport educator must motivate, encourage, and even insist youngsters make a determined effort to master a task without ever putting them at risk or creating a situation that might alienate them and drive them away from sport(p.47). Learners must be able to improve their performance through the learning process and realize the improvement so that they are motivated by their success. Play Practice requires the instructor to developmentally introduce the sport skill in which learners have more opportunities to increase the successful rate. Besides the motivation, transfer of training also significantly influences the use of game play in teaching sport. Launder in his book highly values the transfer of training and indicates that both the minor game approach and the coaching approach have failed to address the transfer of training in teaching sport (Launder, 2001). Launder stresses this viewpoint by using the concept of alignment to describe the similarities between practice and practice and real sport competitions. He claims that learners are more likely to improve their skills if maximum alignment exists between a practice and the game because of the useful transfer between them. As a 63

result, Play Practice avoids using mindless modified games and dead-end drills in the teaching of games. Play Practice tends to maximize the learning outcome transferred from practice to practice and from practice to the real sport competition. Model. Play and competition are two fundamental features of the Play Practice Model, which requires instructors to turn practice into play during teaching sport. The aim of turning practice into play is to encourage effective participation of sport in which learners always experience appropriate challenges and enjoyment while learning sports. Literature supports the significance of effective participation, which has been viewed as an essential factor in learning sports skills and other physical activities in physical education, such studies as on Academic Learning Time Physical Education (Metzler, 1979 & Sidentop, 1983) and practice trials (Silverman, 1985). After years of teaching and coaching sports, Launder found out that the most useful way to positively influence effective participation in teaching sport comes from well defined game play and competition. According to Launders understanding of teaching sport, the instructor must motivate and encourage learners to make a determined effort to master an instructional task even without creating a situation that might alienate them or drive them away from the sport (p. 47). Launder insists that game play and competition are able to create the learning environment.

64

In chapter six of the textbook of Play Practice, Launder (2001) conceptualizes that Play Practice model is composed of thee playing procedures: focusing play, shaping play, and enhancing play.

Focusing Play

Shaping Play

Enhancing Play

Figure 2.3. The Play Practice Model. The drill starts from focusing play and goes through shaping play and ends at enhancing play.

Focusing play serves as the first step of the Play Practice instruction and refers that each drill designed from the Play Practice must be able to facilitate the learning of one or more than two skills of the sport (Launder, 2001). Focusing play plays a critical role in Play Practice model because it ensures Play Practice drills to be meaningful exercises rather than mindless games or competition. These playful drills aim to strengthen the learning achievement of sport skills. An excellent example of focusing play is the 3v2 practical soccer game in which three players participate as attackers with other two players take the role of defenders (Holt et al., 2006). The 3v2 game tends to directly create an overload condition in which players, especially those played as attackers have opportunities to 65

learn the appropriate tactical responses on offensive strategies (Holt et al., 2006). In this case the strategies must be the focus of the learning and game play. Another example can be a half court forehand tennis game in which payers can only use forehand to return the shot in a side (half) of the tennis court. The meeting point of the game is to develop the tennis skill of the forehand down the line hit. A good example in table tennis is the Snowmans table tennis game which is used in this study. Without allowing footwork (snowman has no feet), the modified game explores the awareness of ball placement on the table and inquires the relationship between the players standing position and the landing of shots. In summary, focusing play is the first step of instruction and influences the effects of the Play Practice Model. Meanwhile, focusing play serves as the foundation of the second step of Play Practice, shaping play. Shaping play serves as the core factor of the Play Practice Model and determines the success of the instruction. The task of shaping play is to ensure that the Play Practice drill addresses one or more specific skills necessary for the effective game play (Launder, 2001). In other words, shaping play controls if the game or competition used in teaching sport can bridge the skills identified from focusing play to the learner. Ideally, through shaping play, the drills defined must be able to create an environment to guarantee that during the play and competition players can learn or review skills, which contributes to the development of sport competency. This is the main function of shaping play in Play Practice Model. 66

Shaping is a process of modification so that the instructor can modify the game in different ways in order to attend the instructional goal. For instance, for the objective of shaping a practice of the forehand down the line skill in playing table tennis, the instructor can set up a half table game to limit the player to hit the ball crosscourt. In addition, the instructor can change the scoring and define that winning a shot by using forehand drive can receive two points. The instructor can also put a target down the line on the other side of the table and award the player if he or she hits the ball on the target and even organize a competition around this objective. From this example, it is easy to conclude that the instructor is able to effectively shape the play by modifying the rules of the sport. Launder (2001) is a strong supporter of shaping play by modifying sport rules. He clearly states sport educators must be prepared to modify any rule where necessary to make a play practice simpler and more enjoyable (p. 60). Moreover, according to Launders conceptualization, the instructor shall modify the secondary rather than the primary rules of the sport so that the game would not become a fundamentally different sport. Launder values shaping play through working on the secondary rule because he believes that the game shall be shaped without the sport changing its critical characters (Launder, 2001). The example provided in the book is that, in soccer, players can use a kick to replace throw in to continue to game if the ball goes out of the sideline. This change can potentially benefit learners on three issues. First, the replacement can save some time on picking up and throwing. 67

Second, the replacement can make the game easier since it is more difficult to control a high ball than receive a low ball kicked on the ground. In addition, more kick ins rather than throw ins can definitely increase the practice trials on kicking, an essential soccer technique. However, returning to the discussion of the primary rules, Launder warns that players cannot be permitted to hand-touch the ball since the change of handball rules will alter the sport to another one which can not contribute to the learning of soccer. Even though Launder provides evidence to support the modification of secondary rules of the sport, soccer is the only complete example of modified sport in which eighteen different skill competitions and small-sided games are progressively developed in a sequence (Launder, 2001, p. 21). He did not specifically demonstrate the procedure about how to systematically shape a sport into a series of game play. However, Launder (2001) mentioned five variables that the instructor can manipulate for achieving desired outcomes: scoring, equipment, the number of players, the playing area, and the limitation of techniques (See table 2. 3). The following part of the chapter provides a brief description of the five variables.

68

Variables Score Equipment Playing Area The Number of Players

Suggestion in application Adding scores on the skill focused Modifying the Equipment to make the game easier Decrease the playing area to simplify the game Uneven ratio of team members to address tactical awareness

Limitation of techniques

Controlling the use of some techniques to address learning

Table 2.3: Five Variables Used to Shape the Game Note: Five variables are the score, equipment, playing area, the number of playing, and limitation of techniques.

Scoring serves as a strong factor to manipulate the game. Siedentop et al. (2004) points out that the scoring influences the use of certain techniques and tactics. Because the reality is that young players always desire to win, the instructor can take advantage of that fact and help them to develop their skills by changing scoring. Though there can be a variety of ways to operate the factor, one of the most useful methods is to award more points to the target behavior. For example, if the instructional focus of a teaching unit is to develop the tennis forehand ground-stroke, the instructor can change the game and explain that the player will receive two points if a rally is scored by a forehand drive. Manipulating the score in 69

such a way can be utilized within all kinds of sports from volleyball, basketball, and soccer. However, the instructor shall notice that he or she must avoid setting up too many focuses while modifying the score of the game. Meanwhile the techniques and tactics must be clearly presented as the focus of the class and aligned to the content. Equipment is a common variable used to modify the game format in physical education. A general principle of manipulating equipment for youth learners is to make the game play easier. The instructor can achieve this principle in two ways. The first method is to change the size and quality of the object in the game. Apparently, the regulation basketball and soccer ball are designed for adult game play but are inappropriate for youth players. Children can hardly score a point by playing with a full-sized basketball because it is difficult for them to perform techniques such as shooting, catching, and dribbling. Using smaller and softer balls can effectively fit childrens body and physical abilities. Second, modifying the net and target of the game play can significantly change the game play. For instance, the instructor may lower the net when teaching badminton, tennis, table tennis, and volleyball to encourage the attack performance as well as increasing the height of the net to develop the defense performance. For sports without the net, appropriately modifying the goalies role can ensure the same effects. Decreasing the height of basketball hoops or using wider soccer goal may result in better scores and more successful rate of the performance (Clumpner, 2003). 70

The importance of modifying the playing area shall not surprise any physical educators due to its commonality in everyday teaching. Every sport requires a piece of space. Playing the same sport in different areas creates different meanings and effects. For instance, playing sport in smaller areas allows players more chances to move to the object or spot in game play. Launder (2001) mentions that short-court volleyball can help (a) keep the ball in rally as long as possible and (b) keep the ball off the ground and in the air at any cost (p.130). This small spaced game play reduces the requirement of footwork and solid agility that a professional volleyball player has to commend. In order to develop the skill of creating space in playing table tennis, the primary researcher of the study sets up a series of games such as half vs. half game (crosscourt), half vs. half game (down the line), and half vs. complete game, and full table game. Through limiting the playing area, these modified games aim to address the skill. Launder (2001) points out that varying and modifying the number of players are significant factors for learning sport. Launders opinion results from the investigation of the formal competition of sport. For example, in a real sport competition, players frequently meet situations in which either attackers or defenders holds the numerical and tactical advantages, such as three players against two players or five attackers against one defenders (p. 58). Intentionally creating these instant moments plays a critical role on teaching not only techniques but also tactics in attack and defense. Launder (2001) suggests instructors develop game play 71

that includes these numerous benefits so that players can understand how to appropriately play (i.e. break down defensive cover in basketball) when overcoming the challenging situation. Limiting the use of some technique is closely connected to the effects of the modified game used in Play Practice. The objective of limiting some techniques in game play situation is to harness the learning and practice of other techniques. Take teaching tennis as an example. At the beginning of the instruction after students learn the forehand ground-stroke, the instructor should set up a game that will only allow the use of the forehand but avoid using backhand play. The reason for the limitation of backhand strokes results from two perspectives. First, limiting the use of backhand can encourage learners to spend more time on the practice of the forehand ground-stroke which shall be the focus of learning at that moment. Second, the limitation of the backhand ground-stroke can ensure longer rallies which can bring fun and interests to the play. Without the limitation, the learners are less likely to develop the technique that they just learned and the game play would become less meaningful and valuable in terms of developing the competency of playing sport. Enhancing play is the third procedure of the Play Practice model. Launder (2001) emphasizes this procedure by stating that it is necessary for the instructor to enhance players performance so that they thoroughly learned the content and master the competency of the sport. For the purpose of becoming a skillful player of the sport, the learner needs numerous perfect practical drills to strengthen the learning of 72

techniques and tactics (Launder, 2001). Similar to the situation of multiple activity curriculum instruction (Siedentop, 2003), simply introducing a couple of modified games to children cannot effectively transform them from novice to competent players. According to Launders opinion, a progressive sequence of Play Practice drills can enhance the learners game play performance. The general goal of enhancing play is to continuously provide appropriate challenges along with the improvement of learning achievement. The process of enhancing play is closed to the issue of content progression in teaching physical education (French et al., 1991; Rink, 1985). But Play Practice addresses both the technique and tactic of the sport. For example, Launder (2001) demonstrates a progression of games with different attacker/defender ratios for enhancing the learning of attacking strategies. He suggests that, in the sequence of 3v2, 4 v 3, and 3 v 3 games, players must first understand the fundamental concept of attack through 3v2 game followed by a more complicated, 4 v 3 game in which they know more advanced attacking strategies. Then through using even numbered game players, players will learn how to create the advantageous attacking scenario in an equal numbered playing situation which is essential in the formal competition. Furthermore, according to the learning achievement, the instructor can select 4 v 4 game to further increase the complexity of the game play. In summary, Play Practice model is an alternative way to teach sport. The fundamental goal of Play Practice is to maximize the learning achievement of 73

playing sport through appropriate game play and competitions. As what Launder (2001) conceptualizes in the book, the play is the tool to create challenging learning situations (p. xi). Play Practice instruction must start from focusing play in which the instructor identify sport skills as the learning objectives. The instructor embeds the objectives to game play through a process of shaping the game. In order to make the Play Practice drills not only interesting but also meaning in terms of maximizing learning, Launder (2001) suggests the instructor consider five critical variables to manipulate the game: scoring, equipment, playing area, the number of players, and limitation of techniques. In addition, enhancing play serves as the last component of the Play Practice model and aims to strengthen the learning by providing plenty of progressive and challenging Play Practice drills. When using Play Practice, the instructor should be able to consider the learners need and determine if the game shaped in a certain way will bridge the focus of play to the learner. The research of the Play Practice. The research on Play Practice is very limited. After Launder formally brought up the new method of teaching sport in his book Play Practice: the game approach to teaching and coaching sports (Launder, 2001), only two relative papers have been published in the public journals (Holt, Ward, & Wallhead, 2006; Launder & Piltz, 2006). One of them is a theoretical article in which the authors mainly conceptualize the origination and the key principles of the Play Practice model (Launder & Piltz, 2006). Based on the content in Launders book (Launder, 2001), the article provides an analysis of the foundation 74

and rationale of the Play Practice (i.e. motivation and transfer of learning, p.49) and a clarification of three concepts related to effective play: the technique, game sense, and skill in playing sport (p. 50 -52). In addition, the authors at the end of the article address the essential procedures of the Play Practice: focusing play, shaping play, and enhancing play (Launder & Piltz, 2006). Launder and Piltzs article indicates the significance of the Playing Practice in teaching youth sport. Through a comprehensive overview of the model, physical education teachers and other readers suppose to easily understand the history, rationale, and key factors of Play Practice. However, the analysis and emphasis of the feature and benefits of the Play Practice Model only came from the authors conceptualization. There was no empirical evidence to support the authors demonstration and comments towards the Play Practice model. A lack of empirical data actually asks for researchers to run more studies to examine the effects of the Play Practice model. In another paper, Holt et al. (2006) used a multiple treatment single subject design to study the effects of the Play Practice in teaching youth sport. Specifically, they investigated the transfer of learning from closely aligned practices to game play and sequence effects of play practices on performance in playing soccer. Two modified games: 2v1 and 3v2 games were designed and served as the playful practice of the instructional objective. Meanwhile, a small-sided 4v4 game play was selected as the dependent measurement. The findings of the study indicated that the 75

instruction via Play Practice was more successful for high skilled participants than it was for low-skilled ones, especially on the transfer from practice to game play. In addition, although there was no sequence effect that appeared, one of the modified games, the 3v2 demonstrated more beneficial on the transfer of learning the skill. In Holt et als (2006) study, the procedure and conclusion suggested two issues that were quite meaningful and useful for further studies of Play Practice. First, Holt and his colleagues found out that low skill students had different learning achievement from high skilled students. In the study the low skilled students could not demonstrate significant improvements in game play compared to the high-skilled ones. This result failed to support what Launder (2001) stated in the textbook that the aim of the Play Practice was to facilitate all beginners to master the skills that effective play of sport games required. Theoretically, based on the description from Alan Launder, low skilled players should achieve as much as what high skilled did, or at least receive enough competencies to participate in playing after being taught with the instruction of Play Practice. There can be many reasons causing this result so it is necessary for researchers to continue to examine the effects of Play Practice with different levels of skills to set up a more convincing relationship between the Play Practice and student learning. In addition, Holt and his colleagues did not select the formal game play to evaluate the game play performance (Holt et al, 2006). A 4 v 4 modified game instead of an 11v11normal game was operated to measure the participants skill 76

performance of playing soccer. The rationale for the authors to use the modified game might result from the consideration of reliability of measurement. The situation of 4v4 game is much simpler than the environment of 11v11 game in which more factors may influence the on-going process of the play. For example, within a limited period of time in game play during the class, some students may not have the chance to access the ball. Inevitably, 4v4 game play is better to supply more consistent opportunities for researchers to capture the target behavior demonstrated from the participants. Although the ultimate goal of teaching students playing in physical education is to have them play the real games (Launder, 2001), from the perspective of research, modifying the game play format to ensure reliable measures shall be considered in futures studies.

77

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

This study examined the effects of teaching table tennis using two instructional conditions (Play Practice and SFHP instruction) from pre-to-post test. The chapter is organized into the following sections: (a) a pilot study, (b) institutional review board permission, (c) context of the study, (d) research design, (e) instrumentation, (f) intervention development, (g) treatment integrity, (h) training of study personal, and (i) data analysis. Pilot study A pilot study was conducted in the spring quarter 2007 for the purpose of examining the measurement of table tennis skills (dependent variables) and the effects and application of Play Practice drills to teach table tennis (independent variables). Before the pilot study was conducted, the Human Subject Review Board approved all procedures and instruments included in the study (protocol number: 2007E0086). 78

Participants were college students who registered for two table tennis courses in a comprehensive university in the midwest of the U.S. Thirty-six students completed the course and participated in the pilot study. The class time was forty-eight minutes per session, with twenty sessions in total. The instructional goals of the course were to learn basic tactics and techniques of playing table tennis. The author of this dissertation, a doctoral candidate in the Sport and Exercise Education program, ran the study and taught both classes enrolled in the pilot study. Four table tennis skills, the forehand drive accuracy, ball placement, serve placement, and attack performance were selected as the dependent variables in the pilot study through which the researcher measured the participants table tennis game performance. Among these variables, the ball placement, serve placement, and early attack performance were tested in a game play situation while the forehand drive accuracy test was produced in a controlled setting. In addition, eight trained observers used the live coding method to record participants performance on the four variables at the pretest and posttest. A quasi-experimental design was used to demonstrate the effects of the intervention. The design included a pretest and posttest, which occurred before and after the intervention. Two intact classes included in the same course were randomly assigned as the treatment and comparison group in the study. However the participants in each group were not randomly assigned. The treatment group

79

received the intervention of the Play Practice instruction while the comparison group followed the traditional instruction of table tennis. A series of Play Practice drills specific to table tennis, such as modified games, challenges, and competitions, were taught in the Play Practice condition. The objective of the intervention was to teach three table tennis skills which served as the focus of those drills. These three table tennis skills were: (a) keeping the ball in rallies, (b) varying the ball placement in rallies, and (c) attacking the ball in the early stage of the rally. Every Play Practice game or exercise was designed and selected to facilitate the learners ability to improve one or two of these skills. The instructor of the pilot study delivered all instructional drills throughout the intervention. It is important to note that there was a pre-intervention in which five sessions were set up for learners to know the basic techniques of table tennis. The instructors introduced the forehand drive, backhand drive, and flat serve after an introduction of the course and syllabus held at the first session. The exercise and drills used in pre-intervention did not connect to Play Practice. The MANOVA results showed that for the four dependent variables, there was no significant statistical difference found in Group X time effect, F[3, 35] = .609, p > .05. However, participants in the treatment group significantly increased the scores of forehand drive accuracy, ball placement, and early attack performance from pretest to posttest (p < .01). Even though the results of the study suggested that the Play Practice condition was not different from the traditional instruction in teaching 80

three table tennis skills, the significant improvement participants achieved from pre to posttest in the treatment group showed the effectiveness of the Play Practice. The pilot study included following limitations that were connected to the results. First, the small sample size increased the difficulty for the intervention to demonstrate significant differences. Only 18 participants (n<20) in each group completed the entire process of the intervention and measurement. The small same size limited the comparison of sample means. In order to find significant differences between two groups, one group must achieve a measurable larger improvement in a small sample study. Second, there was a large standard deviation in the pilot study in both the pre and posttest scores. The large standard deviation could have partially resulted from the small sample size. A larger sample size was more likely to make the data normally distributed and control the variation of the data. In addition, the large standard deviation found in the pilot data might have been related to the precision and number of trials in the measurement of the variables. More detailed measurement is beneficial in order to the control for the standard deviation of the data. These limitations from the pilot study resulted in the following recommendations for the present study: (1) The limitation of the sample size suggests the future study add more participants to each group. 81

(2) The new study should use videotape to record the participants performance during the pre- and posttest. The benefit of videotaping the performance is that more precise data can be collected for the data analysis. (3) The researcher should modify the dependent variables to ensure that the measurement is precise enough to differentiate the participants improvement and should include more trials (opportunities) for players to demonstrate their skill performance. Institutional Review Board Permission Permission for the study was first obtained from the Sport Fitness, and Health Program (SFHP). The Institutional Review Board granted permission for the study as a category one exemption (i. e. research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among regular and special education instructional strategies). The approval number was 2007E0706 (See Appendix A). Finally, all participants evaluated in the study signed a consent letter prior to the commencing the study. Context of the Study In this section the setting and participants in the study are described. Setting. Physical activity courses in a midwestern universitys basic instruction program were chosen as the setting of this study. The program was a university-wide physical activity program in a large midwestern university. The mission of the program is to enhance the health and quality of life of university students through the promotion of an active lifestyle (Sport, Fitness, and Health Program Instructional handbook, 2007, p.3). The beginning table tennis course was chosen as 82

the context of the study. The objectives of this course were to have students demonstrate (a) the appropriate level of competence in the following skills: grip and racket control, forehand and backhand drives, serves, and blocking; and (b) the knowledge of the basic tactics and strategies to play singles games, and (c) to apply the basic strategies covered in singles games. The study occurred during the winter quarter of 2008 for a duration of ten weeks between January and March. Students met twice weekly for forty-eight minutes per session for a total of 18 sessions (see the two syllabi for the treatment and SFHP classes in Appendix B). It is important to note that all classes enrolled in the study followed the same course schedule even though the particular content of the course was slightly different from the Play Practice to SFHP instruction. All classes were conducted in a multi-purpose physical activity room where 10 formal table tennis tables were used for the class. The organization of the room is shown in Appendix C. The brand of the tables was TIGA Stiga Expert Roller ST82201. Participants. Fifty six students (Female= 10, Males= 46) from four intact classes enrolled in Table Tennis I were selected as participants in the study. A statistical description of the participants is demonstrated in Table 3.1. All students reported they were novice table tennis players and none had received any formal teaching and training of table tennis, neither at schools or clubs. The common experience related to table tennis was recreational play with families and friends at home. 83

Treatment Groups Class 1 Participants Gender 13 F=3, M=10 Class 2 18 F=1, M=17

Comparison Groups Class 3 11 F=3, M=8 Class 4 14 F=3, M=11

Table 3.1: Characteristics of Participants in the Study Note F=Female, M=Female

Mr. Ping and Ms. Pong (pseudonyms) participated in the study as teachers and taught all table tennis classes involved in the experiment. Mr. Ping was an experienced table tennis player who learned and practiced it for three years when he was an undergraduate student in the college. He knew the content of the sport and had a solid understanding of basic table tennis techniques. Mr. Ping had taught table tennis during his student teaching practicum, and also taught table tennis in college while pursuing his PhD. Mr. Ping typically receives Student Evaluation Index scores of 4.5 out of 5 in teaching this class. Ms. Pong was an experienced PE teacher and taught in a public middle school in South Korea for four years. She had a strong background in playing racket sports such as table tennis and tennis. Ms. Pong received three -years of formal training in table tennis when she was a teenager and played tennis in high school as well as 84

college. She was the Junior National Champion for tennis in Korea and represented her country in the Junior Wimbledon Grand Slam tennis competition in 1998. Ms. Pong served as a qualified Teaching Assistant and worked as a first year Master student. At the time of this study, she had taught several activity classes, including tennis, yoga, and badminton. She had high SEI scores in her classes (5.0 on tennis and 4.9 on Yoga) that ranked above the average of the university (4.0). Prior to the study, Ms. Pong had never formally taught table tennis but her background on the subject matter and teaching performance had established a foundation of highly qualified instruction. Research Design This study utilized a non-equivalent control group experimental design due to the unavailability of random assignment of subjects to groups (Thomas & Nelson, 1990). The non-equivalent control group experimental design is structured like a pretest-posttest randomized experiment, but it lacks the key feature of the true experimental design-- random assignment. The research design of the study is expressed in Figure 3.1. Non-equivalent experimental design ensures a fairly strong control of internal validity of the research (Thomas & Nelson, 1990). The use of a comparison group directly controls the internal invalidity of History, Maturation, Testing, Instrumentation, and Regression (Gliem, 2005). At the same time, the introduction of the pre-test controlled the selection and mortality. 85

N N

O O

X X

O O

---------------------------------N N O O O O

N= No Randomization O= Test X= Treatment

Figure 3.1: Diagram of the research design of the study

Despite this control interaction between selection and maturation still exists and can threaten the internal validity of a study. Selection-maturation interaction is specifically relevant to the non-equivalent group designs and can only be controlled by randomization of subjects (Thomas & Nelson, 1990). This means that the result of no significant differences on the pretest does not indicate that different groups do not differ on other characteristics that are not measured. Each instructor taught two classes in each condition: Play Practice instruction and SFHP instruction. Having each instructor teach two classes offered the benefit

86

of decreasing the potential influence of teacher effects. The Play Practice condition was randomly assigned to one of the two groups for each teacher (see Figure 3. 2).

Group 1 (n=x) Mr. Ping Group 2 (n=x)

PP Intervention Mr. Ping Comparison

Group 3 Mr. Pong Group 4

(n=x)

Comparison Ms. Pong

(n=x)

PP Intervention

Figure 3.2: Diagram of the intervention assignment of the study

Instrumentation The primary dependent variables of the study were four table tennis skills: forehand drive, forehand attacking, forehand serve, and forehand alternation. Four assessments were selected to measure the performance of these table tennis skills: (a) the forehand drive accuracy test, (b) the forehand attack test, (c) the serve test, and (d) the alternation test (See Figure 3.3). The following part of the chapter provided 87

an introduction of these four tests. Each test included a rationale of the variable followed by a description of the assessment procedure, which contained the information such as the test personal and equipment. A diagram was added to illustrate the test environment. At the end, the test description provided a checklist that the test administrator followed in the process of the assessment.

Table Tennis Skill 1. Forehand drive 2. Forehand attack 3. Forehand serve 4. Forehand alternation

Test Forehand drive accuracy test The third ball attack test Serving test Alternation skill test

Figure 3.3 Table Tennis Skills Tests

The Forehand Drive Accuracy Test The forehand drive accuracy test was a table tennis skill assessment of the forehand drive and operated as the first measurement in the pretest and posttest of the study. 88

The rationale of the forehand drive accuracy test. The forehand drive accuracy test aimed to measure the ability to control the ball in playing table tennis. Controlling the ball is critical in racket sport (Launder, 2001) and plays a significant role in effective game play of table tennis (Seemiller & Holowchak, 1997). Regardless of the level of table tennis competitions, players need to be able to control the drive and hit the ball on the table so that they can start and keep a game play. From the perspective of practice, a well developed controlling ability can decrease the times missing the shot in rallies so that players are able to have more practice trials within a limited time to develop their overall skill level of playing table tennis. The table tennis courses utilized in this study established controlling the ball as one of the instructional objectives because of its significance in playing table tennis. The forehand drive accuracy test was chosen to examine the participants ability to control the ball. Table tennis game play requires players to be able to control the ball with both forehand and backhand but this study only tested participants forehand control ability. The primary reason of testing the forehand resulted from the researchers teaching experiences in which most players, especially beginners, picked up the technique of backhand drive easily but tended to learn the forehand drive more slowly. Especially when using the shaking hands grip (see Appendix B), beginners often automatically block the ball with the backhand drive and were less likely to use the forehand. The researcher believes that it is more challenging for the 89

instructor to develop beginners control ability on their forehand. Consequently the result of teaching forehand drive on control ability really examined the effectiveness of Play Practice on teaching table tennis. The description of the forehand drive accuracy test. The procedure of the forehand drive accuracy test began with the test administrator, who delivered a table tennis ball 30 times in a four second interval. A beeper was set up to send a signal to the test administrator every four seconds. Then the participant needed to keep hitting the ball crosscourt toward a target 16 inches square located on the other side of the table (see the dot line in Figure 3.4). All participants had 30 effective trials. The maximum score of the test outcome was 30/30 and the minimum number was 0/30. The forehand drive accuracy test controlled the following variables in order to provide equal opportunities to all participants. Firstly the four second interval limited the timing variation of the trials in the test so that every shot (trial) that came to the participant was equal and regular in terms of the time. Moreover, the pilot study confirmed that the 4 second interval was appropriate for the player to take the test. Besides controlling the timing variation of the shot, the defined effective zone restricted the landing of each shot (trial) throughout the test. It was necessary for the test administrator to deliver the shot to the effective zone so that the administrator was able to ensure that the thirty trials for all participants landed on a specific area. The effective zone was a 16-inch square marked on the right corner of the table. If 90

the administrator landed the shot outside the zone, the participant had an extra opportunity to make up the trial until the total number of correctly administrated trials went to thirty. The instrument for recording the forehand drive accuracy test is attached in Appendix D.

Evaluators

Target: 14 inches squared

Effective Zone

Player Beeper

Balls

Figure 3.4: The context of the forehand drive accuracy test

The strict control of the timing and location of the trials provided the reliability and validity of the test. Using a test-retest method, the primary researcher randomly selected a group of undergraduate students (N=20) and had them consecutively take the forehand drive accuracy test twice within three days and found out that the test-retest correlation = .707. The validity of the forehand drive accuracy test 91

resulted from a calculation of skill levels and their performance of their performance on forehand drive accuracy test. The primary researcher and a table tennis instructor blocked the twenty students skill levels in three categories: low, middle, and high. Then the researcher correlated the skill level to the performance by using a Spearman Correlation. The results were r = .697. Table 3.2 shows what the test administrator had to say and do during the test.

Procedure 1

Statement and Demonstration The test administrator assigned students into groups with two participants on each and numerated every group from 1-10. The test administrator informs the class: Find a table and play a best five competition with your peer. 21 points per set. Come to the test right away when you listen to the number of your group and continue the game play when you finish the test. When one of group members is taking the test, the other one helps collecting the balls

The test administrator announced following statement: In this test you will hit the ball to the target using your forehand. You will have 30 trials in a row, at a 4 second intervals.

The test administrator demonstrates four trials.

Table 3.2: The Statement and Demonstration of the Forehand Accuracy Test

92

The Forehand Attack Test The forehand attack test was the assessment of the performance of forehand attack in a rally situation. The rationale of the forehand attack test. Actively attacking the ball plays as an important role in table tennis games. Especially if the player wants to win the game, the player shall always find opportunities to attack the ball rather than driving it in a slow and easy way. The reason is because the cooperative shot is less likely to threaten but more likely to set up for the opponent to have a good play. When the course goal of table tennis is to effectively play games, the instruction ought to include attacking performance as a compulsory component of the learning. In this study the attacking test was chosen to measure the performance of attacking the ball in table tennis. The description of the attacking performance. The attack test used the following procedures. When the test began, the player served to the test administrator who was responsible for returning it to the players forehand side. Then the player ought to attack the ball crosscourt and let the ball bounce to the attacking zone, which was defined by a line 10 feet far from the table (See Figure 3.5). The result of the attack was recorded in one of three outcomes (see Appendix E). (1) In: the ball was landed on the table and bounced to the effective zone. It represented a successful attack. 93

(2) Out: the ball was landed on the table but not to the target zone. (3) Missing: the ball did not land on the table (i.e., hit the net, played out, or a missed shot).

Player

Step 1

Attacking Zone Test Administrator

ES
Step 3

Step 2

Step 1: Player serves to the feeder. Step 2: Feeder returns to ES. Step 3: Player attacks the ball to the zone.

Figure 3.5: The procedure of the attack test.

Each type of the outcome was converted to a specific score for the performance evaluation. Every In was equal to two points and the Out meant one point. Every Missing received a zero accordingly. Since every participant equally had 20 effective trials on this test, the maximum score of the attacking test that a participant could 94

achieve is 40 which represent 20 Ins from the test. The minimum number of the attacking test was 0, which indicated that the player missed all the attacking opportunities. In addition, the effective trial was defined as the situation when the test administrator successfully returned it to the effective zone with an easy drive. If the administrator failed to produce an effective trial, the participant had to have a redo of the trial until the effective one was produced. The pilot study tested and showed the reliability of the forehand attack test that the test-retest correlation of 20 college students performance on this variable was r = 0.91, p < .05. The correlation of the skill level to the performance indicated the validity of the forehand attack performance was r =.89, p < .05. The Serve Test The serve test was the third assessment of the study. Participants were asked to serve the ball to the specific targets in a randomized order. The rationale of the serve test. The serve is the first shot of a rally but is more than merely putting the ball into play. The literature indicated that players would be more likely to control the flow of play if they are skillful on the serve and should also be able to place the ball down the line and crosscourt for greatest benefits (Seemiller & Holowchak, 1997). Due to its importance, in this study the researcher investigated the participants competency of serving in the serving test.

95

Procedure Statement and Demonstration 1 The teacher announced the following statement: The name of the assessment is called attacking test. When the test starts, you need to serve to me slow and high and I will send it back to your on your forehand side. Then you hit the ball crosscourt with power and strength and try to let it bounce to the zone marked on the floor. If the ball comes to you does not land on the effective square located on the right corner of the table, you will redo the trial. You will have 20 trials in this assessment. 2 The teacher finds another test administrator from the other test and demonstrates the procedure of the test twice. 3 The teacher assigned students into groups with two participants on each and numerated every group from 1-10. The test administrator informed the class: Find a table and play a best five competition with your peer. 21 points per set. Come to the test right away when you listen to the number of your group and continue the game play when you finish the test. When one of group members is taking the test, the other one helps collecting the balls

Table 3.3: The Statement and Demonstration of the Attacking Test

96

Description of the serving test. The serving test required participants to serve the ball to two targets at two corners of the table (see Figure 3.6). It evaluates if the participant can successfully serve the ball to the particular area in a randomly alternative order. Every participant had twenty trials in the serving test. The maximum number of the trial was 20 and minimum number of the trials was 0. The data of each participant in the serve test could be 12 out of 20 or 7 out of 20 etc. The coding procedure of the serve test was similar with the forehand drive accuracy test. The performance on each trial was only coded as one of two outcomes: on the target and off the target. The off of the target situation meant missing the serve, coming to the net (1 point), and outside the table (0 points). In addition, the let caused a redo in this situation (see Appendix F for the instrument). The pilot study showed the reliability of the serve test that the test-retest correlation was r = 0.83 p < .05. The correlation of the skill level to the performance indicated the validity of serve performance was r =.56, p < .05.

97

Beeper

Participant

Figure 3.6: The Context of the Serving Test

98

Procedure Statement and Demonstration 1 The test administrator announced following statement: This is a serving placement test which will be delivered to one participant a time. There are two targets on the two corners of the table marked A and B. When the test starts, try to land your serve to the target. You will serve the ball twenty times in a row according to a specific order and you only can use your forehand on this test. The Order is ABAABABBBABAABAABBAB(printed in a card). 2 3 The test administrator demonstrates the first four trials (ABAA). The test administrator assigned students into groups with two participants on each and had them play games.

Table 3.4: The Statement and Demonstration of the Serving Test

In Table 3.4 the primary researcher indicated what the test administrator announced during the serve test. The test administrator strictly followed the serving test procedure illustrated in Table 3.3 and demonstrated the same content to both treatment and comparison group. The Alternation Test The alternation test was the second measurement of the table tennis skill. Participants were expected to vary the landing of their shot in a rally situation during the assessment. The rationale of the alternation test. The main purpose of the alternating test was to measure players performance on creating space, which served as the main 99

goal of playing racket sports (Mitchell & Oslin, 1999). Creating space means that when playing a table tennis game the player puts the opponent out of position so that the opponent receives pressure on the defense to cover the whole table. The player obtains the benefit by creating space because under the pressure of covering the space, the opponent is more likely to make mistakes on the return but less likely to attack the players shot as well. Especially when facing a higher skilled player who usually has a balanced forehand and backhand drive, the player must actively create space to pressure the opponent and set up opportunities for the attack. This study identified creating space as driving the ball side to side on the table. When the player alternately hits the ball to the left and right part of the table, he or she is creating the space. The left and right side of table was differentiated by the centerline marked on the table which evenly divides the table into two parts (See A and B demonstrated in Figure 3.7). In the alternating test, the researcher measured how many times the player hits to ball alternating to the left and right parts of the table in 20 trials. Description of the alternating test. The alternation test called for the participant to start a rally with the test administrator and hit the ball to the two sides of the table in a continuous motion. For the consideration of the influence and variation of forehand and backhand drives, the alternation test only examined the forehand drive alternation so that the participant was only allowed to use his or her forehand drive to accomplish the ball (the technique was introduced prior to the testing session). As 100

a result, the procedure of the test was that the participant alternatively hit the ball down the line and crosscourt while the test administrator returned the shot to the forehand side of the player. Figure 3.5 illustrates the procedure of alternating test. In Figure 3.5 the blue dotted line indicated the shots from the administrator and the black straight line indicated the shots from the participant. The test defined an effective zone on right corner of the table where was located on the participants side. The effective zone aimed to provide consistent trials to the participant in rallies. Accordingly the shot was only counted as an effective trial when the test administrator landed the ball in the zone. Participants were informed that they did not have to hit the ball if the shot did not land on the defined area in the table. Every players equally received 20 correct trials on this test and the measurement of the performance was focused on how many times the participant was able to keep hitting the ball in a left to right alternation within 20 trials. The maximum number of the test was 20 out of 20 which means that the player kept landing the ball from side to side. If the participants performance was 0 out of 20, this result indicated that no left to right alternation took place within the 20 trials. When coding the performance in the alternation test, every shot had to be marked as one of the three situations: the left, right, or end shot. (End meant that the player failed to land the ball on the table and the rally was dead.) Each participant equally had 20 trials in the observation. See the instrumentation of the alternating 101

test in appendix G. It is necessary to note that the coding of the alternating performance must start from the second shot that he or she had in a rally since the serve did not count as a trial. See Table 3.5 for an example.

Test Administrator

Participant

Figure 3.7: The Procedure of the Alternating Test

Rally 1 2 3

Serve A A A

2nd shot B B A

3rd shot A B A

4th Trials Demonstration shot F 3 2(A-B, B-A) F 3 1(A-B) F 3 0 Total: 9 3

Table 3.5: The Example of Alternating Test Data Collection 102

The example in Table 3.5 indicated that the player performed nine trials and alternated the shot three times. The player should continue the rallies until the number of trials became 20. Then the total number in the demonstration column would be the final score of the participant on the alternating test. The maximum number of the score was 20 while the minimum was 0. In Table 3.6 the content showed how the test administrator announced the test procedure to all the classes in a standardized manner. Inter-Observer Agreement of the data collection. Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2007) recommended 90% as the standard of high interobserver agreement. The IOA recording was calculated on all skill test measurements (both pretest and posttest). The primary researcher coded all of the skill performance from videotape analysis and live coding. A trained independent observer operated the IOA who was established by one out of four trained graduate students in the area of physical education who had prior experience in the administration and coding of the skill performance of table tennis in the pilot study. The primary researcher and the trained independent rater did not have any role in the table tennis skill intervention.

103

Procedure Statement and Demonstration 1 The test administrator announced following statement: In this test please use your forehand to keep a rally with me. However, if the ball comes to your backhand side, stop the rally and we will start a new one. We will stop after 20 forehand shots. 2 3 The test administrators demonstrate six trials. The test administrator assigned students into groups with two participants on each and had them play games. Table 3.6: Statement and Demonstration of the Alternating Test

Intervention Development The intervention of the study was an instructional unit of table tennis that included nineteen 48-minute lessons. In the treatment group, the instructors used Play Practice to teach the instructional unit while the comparison group was taught by the SFHP method. Both Play Practice and SFHP instruction respectively contained a series of specific but different practical drills and game play to enhance the learning of table tennis skills defined in this study. The primary researcher provided detailed descriptions of the content and procedures of Play Practice instructions in a complete lesson plan based on the Play Practice textbook (Launder, 2001). The two instructors wrote the lesson plan for the SFHP instruction used in the comparison group based on their knowledge and teaching experiences (see Appendix H and I for two lesson plans).

104

The similarities of the treatment and comparison group The time frame of the intervention was consistent for both conditions. The instructional unit was composed of nineteen lessons, which ensured that the length of teaching was identical in the treatment and comparison groups. According to the need of the measurement, the complete instructional unit was divided into four sections: pre-intervention, pretest, intervention, and posttest. Since all classes enrolled in both groups took place in every Monday and Wednesday throughout the quarter, the treatment and comparison groups experienced the four sections at the same pace (see Table 3.7). The second similarity of the treatment and comparison group was the instruction that existed in the pre-intervention section. Pre-intervention refers to the first three lessons prior to the pretest implementation (see Table 3.2). Within these three sessions, all classes received the same instruction in order to accomplish two tasks: introduction and test preparation. Firstly, the teacher used the first session to recruit participants to the study in both the treatment group and comparison group. Participants who wanted to be enrolled in the study were required to sign the consent form mandated by the IRB. Secondly, after the recruitment session, the instructor used two consecutive sessions (lesson # 2 & 3) to introduce all participants in both groups to four basic table tennis techniques: backhand drive, flat service, forehand drive, and lateral two-step footwork (Seemiller & Holowchak, 1997). The purpose of introducing these four basic elements was to help every 105

participant, especially beginners, to understand the concepts and movements of the techniques (e.g. forehand serve) so that everyone was able to participate in the pretest. All the classes followed the same instructional procedure and a detailed description of the pre-intervention was provided in the lesson plans (See Appendix H and I). For providing equally effective instruction in the treatment and comparison group, four classes used identical facilities during the instruction. For example, all classes were held at a multiple-purpose gym and students practiced at the same table tennis tables with the same paddles and balls. All equipment and facilities were identical in both the treatment and compassion group.

106

Phase Introduction

Session 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pretest

Intervention Groups Introduction of the Syllabus Grip & Backhand Forehand & Serve Game Play & Pretest Game Play & Pretest Holiday No class! Ball Placement 1

Intervention 8 Ball Placement 2

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Posttest II 17 18 19

Ball Placement 3 Ball Placement 4 Ball Placement 5 Attack Performance 1 Attack Performance 2 Serve Placement & Attack Performance 3 Serve Placement & Attack Performance 4 Comprehensive Performance Comprehensive Performance Game Play-Posttest Game Play-Posttest

Comparison Groups Introduction of the Syllabus Backhand & Serve Forehand & Footwork Game Play Game Play Holiday No class! Forehand Drive: down-the-line and Crosscourt (1) Forehand Drive: down-the-line and Crosscourt (2) Serve Advanced (1) Serve Advanced (2) Tournament 1 Tournament 2 Tournament 3 Tournament 4 Tournament 5 Tournament 6 Tournament 7 Game Play Posttest Game Play Posttest

Table 3.7: Course Schedule

107

The differences of Play Practice and SFHP instruction The fundamental difference between the comparison and treatment groups was that the Play Practice instruction presented all practice in a game or competition situation while the instructor taught the comparison group by using the traditional drills. In this study, traditional drills referred to two types of drills: (a) the practice and exercise that the Sport, Fitness, and Health Program contained in the table tennis course and (b) the drills the instructors learned from and experienced in their undergraduate program. For example, when teaching the forehand drive crosscourt shot, participants in the comparison group had an exercise of 10 minutes forehand rally. During the practice, participants were required to hit the ball crosscourt in rallies for a period of time (e.g. 10 minutes). Contrary to the traditional method, participants in the treatment group played a target game to develop their forehand crosscourt skill. In the target game, two targets (12-inch squared spots) were located on two diagonally opposite corners of the table. Players tried to hit the spot to score a point during the game play. The modification of the scoring was such that players were allowed to score only by using the forehand drive (See figure 3.8). In the instruction of Play Practice, all practice and drills were converted to either a game or a competition situation.

108

SFHP Instruction: 10 min rally Player A

Play Practice: target game Player A

Player B

Player B

Figure 3.8: The practice of forehand drive crosscourt in two groups

The second difference came with the format of game play. In the comparison group, participants played the formal game after the introduction and practice of the specific techniques. Formal games mean the competition used at the professional level. When playing the formal games, participants only needed to follow the formal table tennis rules and there were no changes or modifications of the rules and procedure. A common example of the formal game play is the table tennis tournament in which participants were scheduled to play regular games with each other. On the other hand, the treatment group did not contain the formal game but applied modified games to teaching. Modified games consisted of formal competition with changed rules or procedures. These changes aim to facilitate the understanding and improvement of table tennis skills. Modified games reflected one 109

of the Play Practice procedures, shaping play (Launder, 2001, p59). For example, on the first day of intervention, participants played a game called the Half vs Half Game in which players were allowed to use only a half side of the table (diagonally half /half, see Figure 3.9). For the purpose of practicing the forehand, use of the backhand was not allowed in the game. As a result, the primary researcher changed two rules of the game play: a player lost a point if (a) the ball bounced on the left side of the table (using the center line to differentiate the landing of the ball), and / or if (b) he or she returned the ball with a backhand.

Player A

Player B

Figure 3.9: Half vs. Half Play

In order to determine if the activities developed for the Play Practice condition were appropriate, they were examined by Alan Launder. Alan Launder agreed with 110

the appropriateness and accuracy of the instructional drills and modified games used in the study, such as the half and complete table game, three shots game, and snowman game (see Appendix H for the details). After he examined the practice drills and modified games Alan Launders opinion indicated the validity of the Play Practice instruction used in the treatment group. Besides the differences in the format of practice drills and game play, the treatment group was differentiated from the comparison group in instructional procedures. In the comparison group, the instruction started with building up techniques and ended at the tournament game play. In line with the definition of SFHP instruction (Rink, 1992; Turner & Martinek, 1999) the instructional unit was divided into two parts: technique practice and tournament. The ratio of the technique practice and game play within eleven lessons was 5:6. However, in the treatment group, the instruction processed in three steps. The teaching began with the learning of ball placement and then serving placement. Finally, the instruction focused on the practice of attack performance. Table 3.8 demonstrates the procedures of the treatment and comparison groups.

111

Lesson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Treatment Group Ball Placement 1 Ball Placement 2 Ball Placement 3 Ball Placement 4 Ball Placement 5 Serve Placement 1 Serve Placement 2 Attack Performance 1 Attack Performance 2 Attack Performance 3 Attack Performance 4

Comparison Group Forehand Down the Line Forehand Crosscourt Forehand Combined Advanced Serve 1 Advanced Serve 2 Tournament 1 Tournament 2 Tournament 3 Tournament 4 Tournament 5 Tournament 6

Table 3.8: The treatment procedure

In summary, the differences between treatment and comparison conditions can be found in three aspects. See Table 3.9.

Group Treatment Play Practice

Practice

Game play

Instruction procedure A combination of the technique practice and modified game play A separation of Technique practice + formal game play

Drills in a game or Modified game competition play situation Dry drill exercise Formal game play

Comparison SFHP

Table 3.9: The differences between the treatment and comparison groups 112

Treatment Integrity The purpose of treatment integrity was to ensure that the comparison group and play practice group sessions were conducted as described in the lesson plans. The primary researcher of the study collected integrity data by attending classes and observed the on-going instruction. The specific days of checking procedural integrity were each lesson from the first to the last session of the intervention. In order to precisely check the integrity of every session, the primary researcher created a notebook containing a daily checklist to code the extent to which the teacher delivered the teaching content that he or she was supposed to teach in a specific day. Table 3.10 and 3.11 demonstrates two examples of the checklist of procedural integrity in the treatment and comparison groups.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Criterion The teacher presented the warm-up activity: Touching dead balls. The warm up activity lasted 3 minutes. The teacher verbally and physically presented the 1-minute in maximum activity. The teacher assigned 5 trials for students to play. Students accomplished the five trials of the activity. The teacher introduced multiple ball exercise to the class. The teacher had student practice for 20 trials x 4 times. Students accomplished the amount of practice. The teacher assigned students the half vs complete game. The teacher ended up the class with a review of the class. Overall: _____

Table 3.10: Sample Checklist of Procedural Integrity (Treatment Group) 113

Class No.: 9:30 /1:30 Class session: 9 Class date: 2008. Instructor: Mr. Ping/Ms. Pong Class objectives: ______________ Criterion Check 1 The teacher presented the warm-up activity: Play by your self. 2 The warm up activity lasted 3 minutes. 3 The teacher verbally and physically reviewed the forehand backspin serve and topspin. 4 The teacher verbally and physically presented the backhand flat and backspin serve. 5 The teacher kept students practicing the combination of forehand backspin and topspin serve for five minutes. 6 The teacher kept students practicing the backhand flat serve and backspin serve for 5 minutes. 7 Students accomplished the serve drills. 8 The teacher had student play formal game (round robin) for 25 minutes. 9 Students accomplished the 25 minutes game play. 10 The teacher ended up the class with a review of the class. Overall: _____

Table 3.11: Sample Checklist of Procedural Integrity (Comparison Group)

Training of Study Personal The primary researcher designed the lesson plans and interventional drills. He had a strong background in table tennis, and experience in teaching in college physical education settings. In the previous two years the primary researchers, faculty member, and Alan Launder had conducted a series of practice drills based on Play Practice instruction and had instructed several times in the same situation. The primary researcher trained two instructors (Ms. Pong & Mr. Ping) who taught all 114

intervention and comparison groups. The training was composed of two phases, pre-instruction training and within-instruction training. The pre-instruction training was over one week prior to the start of the intervention (See details in Table 3.12).

Procedure Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Tasks Providing PP materials Workshop of the study Observing

Purposes Understanding Understanding Practice

Date 2 hours 2 hours 1 hours

Table 3.12: Pre-instruction Training Schedule

At the beginning of winter quarter, the primary researcher immediately started training the instructors. The instructors were given time and opportunities to read an introduction about the Play Practice instructional model and the lesson plans that they would use in their teaching in the winter quarter. Both instructors received a textbook of Play Practice (Launder, 2001) from the primary researcher who, at the same time, provided them a summary of the Play Practice instruction so that they could efficiently study the material. After finishing the first step of training, the instructors listened to an overview of what Play Practice was and why it was introduced to the field. They were asked to identify the critical features of practice 115

drills: modified drills that were designed in the lesson plans based on the Play Practice theory. At the beginning of January in 2008, the primary researcher held a two-hour workshop in which he talked to Mr. Ping and Ms. Pong about the study that they would be participating in for the following quarter (See the agenda of the workshop in Table 3.13). The focus of the workshop was on the basic knowledge of Play Practice and its connection to this study. Instructors were expected to (a) deeply understand the Play Practice theory and clarify the questions that they might have relevant to it; and (b) demonstrate their understanding of the content of Play Practice theory and its application in table tennis instruction. Teachers and the researcher discussed the topics together. At the end of the workshop, instructors were required to take a quiz that was made up of 15 multiple choices questions and provided by the primary researcher. Consequently all instructors passed the quiz with more than 90% correct (need to indicate the specific data here after the workshop will be manipulated).

116

Time 30 minutes 30 minutes

Agenda 1. An overview of Play Practice 2. A discussion of the differences between Play Practice with other instructional approaches

50 minutes 10 minutes

3. A discussion of the drills included in lesson plans 4. A quiz of the content of Play Practice

Table 3.13: Workshop Agenda of Play Practice

Following the study of Play Practice in the workshop, Mr. Ping and Ms. Pong attended the primary researchers teaching and watched how the primary researcher presented the progressions and games and set up the learning context (e.g. equipment and place). Observation was a critical step in the training since it is noted that the best way for novice teachers to know how to teach a subject is to observe the effective teachers teaching (Siedentop, 1994). In this step, the primary researcher modeled Play Practice instruction and help instructors make sense of the progressions. When the instructors started teaching in the winter quarter, the primary researcher continued the training, which occurred prior to the instruction of every class. The objective of the within-instruction training was to ensure that the instructor knew exactly what to teach and how to teach it by using Play Practice instruction on that class. During the autumn quarter and the winter break of the 117

school, instructors were required to study the lesson plans that they would implement in winter. It assumed that they would make sense of the content of each single lesson. However, by considering the fact that it was going to be the first time that the instructors used Play Practice to teach table tennis and the reality of the multiple drills and different types of modified games contained in the lesson plans, it was necessary for the primary researcher to track and emphasize the teaching prior to the delivery of it. Data analysis This study focused on four research questions that can be found in Table 3.14. MANOVA, ANOVA, and paired sample t-tests were used to analyze these data and answered the four research questions.

118

Research Questions Were there significant differences between the Play Practice (PP) and SFHP Instruction (CI) group on pretest measures of (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test?
Were there significant pretest to posttest differences between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group on dependent measures of

Depend Variable Methods of Analysis Forehand Drive Pearson-product Accuracy coefficient Forehand Attack One-Way MANOVA Serve Alternation

(a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test? Were there significant group differences between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group on posttest measures of (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test? Were there significant pre-to-posttest differences within each group (PP, CI) for the dependent measures of (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test?

Forehand Drive Accuracy Forehand Attack Serve Alternation

2 Group (PP, CI) X 2 Time (Pre-, Post) MANOVA with repeated measure 2 Group (PP, CI) X 2 Time (Pre-, Post) ANOVA One-Way MANOVA

Forehand Drive Accuracy Forehand Attack Serve Alternation

Forehand Drive Accuracy Forehand Attack Serve Alternation

Paired Sample t-test.

Table 3.14: Research Questions, Variables, and Analytic Methods

119

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Chapter four presents the results of an 11-lesson Play Practice and a SFHP approach on teaching college students table tennis skills. The chapter begins from a report of Inter-observer Agreement (IOA) describing the level of congruity in the coding procedure for the four table tennis skill tests. Next, treatment integrity is reported to indicate the extent to which the delivery of the intervention followed the lesson plan. Last, the results of all dependent measurements are reported. Inter-observer Agreement Inter-observer agreement (IOA) was conducted on 78 % of the dependent measures. Overall IOA for all dependent measures was 95.6 %. The IOA for the forehand drive accuracy test was 96.7% (range, 83.3-100%). For the attacking test, the IOA was 94.1% (range, 85-100%). The IOA for serving and alternation test was respectively 95.0 % (range, 85-100%) and 97.6% (range, 85-100%). The IOA show that every dependent measure had more than 85 % agreement (Cooper, et al., 2007) with the range from 88.3% to 100% on data collection. 120

Treatment Integrity Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 display the treatment integrity of the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group. In Play Practice group, the overall treatment integrity level was 93.6%, which was averaged by the 92.7% from the first class, and 94.5% from the second class. Mr. Ping and Ms. Pong respectively taught class one and two. In the SFHP Instruction group, the treatment integrity score was 96.9% which combined the score of the third class (96.4%) and fourth class (97.3%). The results of the integrity checks showed that the teaching in each instructional group was aligned with the pre-determined lesson plans and instructional objectives. The adjustment of the schedule mainly resulted from the unaccomplished amount of exercise due to the limited time available for the activity and game. In some classes the activity and game play lasted longer than what was scheduled so the instructor had to change the trials and sets of the exercise and game play. Overall the data show that the instruction in Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group followed the intervention goals and procedures.

The Results of Dependent Measurements Research Question One: Were there significant differences between the Play Practice (PP) and SFHP Instruction (SI) group on pretest measures of (a) forehand drive accuracy test (FDA), (b) forehand attack test (FAT), (c) serve test (SER), and (d) alternation test (ALT)? 121

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6

Session 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mean

Percentage Agreement % Class 1 Class 2 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 100 100 100 90 90 90 90 90 100 90 90 100 100 100 100 92.7% 94.5%

Table 4.1: Treatment Integrity Data for Treatment Group

Week 1 2 3 4 5 6

Session 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mean

Percentage of Agreement (%) Class 3 Class 4 100 90 90 100 100 90 90 100 90 90 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96.4% 97.3%

Table 4.2: Treatment Integrity Data for Comparison Group

122

Results of Question One: Before the comparison of the pretest scores between Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group, a Pearson-product coefficient correlation was conducted to compute the degree and direction of relationship of the four dependent measures (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007). Table 4.3 reports the six correlation relationships existed among four dependent variables on pretest dependent measurements.

FDA Pearson-product coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N FAT Pearson-product coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N SER Pearson-product coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N ALT Pearson-product coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N

FDA 1.00 60.00

FAT .31(*) .02 59.00 1.00 59.00

SER .31(*) .01 60.00 .21 .12 59.00 1.00 60.00

ALT .41(**) .00 57.00 .30(*) .03 56.00 .36(**) .01 57.00 1.00 57.00

Table 4.3: Correlation Data of Pretest Dependent Measures

The results of the Pearson-product coefficient revealed five significant positive linear correlations with non-significant correlation between forehand attack and serve test, r (62)= .18, p > .05. The results of Pearson-product coefficient indicate that five of the six dependent measures were correlated with each other. As there 123

were significant correlations among the four dependent measures, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was selected to investigate the group differences among the dependent measures. Table 4.4 displays the descriptive statistics for the pretest and posttest scores on the four dependent measures (FDA, FAT, SER, & ALT). The descriptive statistics contain the sample size, mean, and standard deviation in the two instructional groups (PP, SI).

Pretest Variable Forehand drive accuracy test Forehand attack test Serving test Group PP SI Total PP SI Total PP SI Total PP SI Total N 31 25 56 31 25 56 31 25 56 31 25 56 Mean 15.45 13.84 14.73 13.87 15.04 14.39 6.65 7.04 6.82 14.94 15.00 14.96 SD 4.74 4.30 4.58 6.34 6.67 6.46 4.06 3.32 3.72 4.66 3.55 4.16

Alternation test

Posttest Mean SD 17.74 4.64 16.76 4.17 17.30 4.42 23.42 5.99 20.64 5.84 22.18 6.04 12.00 3.99 9.28 3.97 10.79 4.18 17.52 2.36 15.88 2.51 16.79 2.54

Table 4.4: Pre- and Posttest Raw Scores of the Pretest of Dependent Measures

A MANOVA was conducted to examine potential pretest group differences in the four dependent measures, (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack 124

test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test. The main effect for group, F (4, 51) = .91, p > .05, = .47, revealed that the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction groups were statistically similar at the pretest. Accordingly, as there was a non-significant group effect in the MANOVA test, the univariate tables were not examined. The findings from MANOVA table support the hypothesis of the first research question in which the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction groups were equal on pretest measures of the (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test.

Research Question Two: Were there significant pretest to posttest differences between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group on dependent measures of the (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test? Results of Question Two: A 2 Group (PP, SI) x 2 Time (Pre-, Post-) MANOVA with repeated measures on last factor was conducted on (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test. A non-significant group main effect was found, F [4, 51] = 5.34, p > .05, = .04indicating that irregardless of time, the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction groups were statistically similar. Second, there was a significant Time main effect which showed that groups (PP, SI) significantly improved their performances from pretest to posttest, F (4, 51) = 40.64, p < .001, 125

= .76. Third, the results reported a significant Group x Time interaction indicating one group was significantly better than the other group from pretest to posttest, F [4, 51] = 5.16, p < .01, = .29. As the MANOVA findings had a significant Time main effect and a significant Group x Time interaction, the primary researcher examined the univariate ANOVA tests on each of the four dependent measures, (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test. On the forehand drive accuracy test, there was a significant Time main effect F [1, 54] = 13.51, p < .01, = .20showing that groups significantly improved the performance on forehand drive accuracy from pretest to posttest. However, a non-significant Group x Time interaction was found on this variable indicating no group was significantly better than the other one from pretest to posttest,F [1, 54] = .20, p > .05, = .004. Figure 4.1 presents the pretest and posttest changes on this dependent measure between Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group. On the forehand attack test, the Time main effect was significant,F [1, 54] = 122.87, p < .001, = .70revealing groups significantly improved pre-to-posttest performances on the forehand attack measures. Moreover, there was a significant Group x Time interaction,F [1, 54] = 8.35, p < .01, = .13. Play Practice had a significantly better improvement from pretest to posttest on forehand attack performance than the SFHP Instruction group. Figure 4.2 displays the improvements of two groups from pretest to posttest on forehand attack measures. 126

Similar results were also found in the serve test. There was a significant Time main effect,F [1, 54] = 79.00, p < .01, = .59showing groups improved significantly on the serve from pretest to posttest. Additionally, a significant Group x Time interaction was uncovered in the univariate results showing that the Play Practice group had significantly more improvement from pretest to posttest than the SFHP Instruction group for the serve (See figure 4.3). Finally, on the alternation test, the Time main effect was also significant,F [1, 54] = 13.04, p < .01, = .20revealing that group significantly improved from pretest to posttest. However, a non-significant Group x Time interaction was reported in the univariate tests. One group was not significantly better than the other one on the alternation test from pretest to posttest,F [154] = 3.15, p > .05, = .06. Figure 4.4 demonstrates the pre-to-post improvement on alternation test. In summary, there were significant improvements overall for each of the four dependent measures, (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test. There was also a significant multivariate Group x Time interaction. However, only the forehand attack test and the serve test had a significant Group x Time univariate interaction with the Play Practice group being better than the SFHP group from pretest to posttest.

127

Group
18.00

Play Practice Conventional

17.00

16.00

15.00

14.00

13.00

Pretest

Posttest

Figure 4.1: Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Forehand Drive Accuracy Measures

128

Group Play Practice

22.50

Conventional

20.00

17.50

15.00

12.50

Pretest

Posttest

Figure 4.2: Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Forehand Attack Measures

129

Group
12.00

Play Practice
11.00

Conventional
10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

Pretest

Posttest

Figure 4.3: Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Serve Measures

130

Group
18.00

Play Practice Conventional

17.00

16.00

15.00

Pretest

Posttest

Figure 4.4: Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Alternation Measures

131

Research Question Three: Were there significant group differences between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group on posttest measures of (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test? Result of Question Three: A MANOVA by group (PP & SI) was conducted on four posttest dependent measures (FDA, FAT, SER, & ALT). A non-significant group effect was found, F (4, 51) = 2.36, p > .05, = .07. The multivariate finding shows that the posttest scores did not differ between the two instructional groups (PP, SI) for the four.

Research Question Four: Were there significant pre-to-posttest differences within each group (PP, SI) for the dependent measures of: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test? Results of Question Four: Eight paired sample t-tests were used to compare the pre-to-posttest differences of the four dependent measures. A Bonferoni adjustment of the alpha was calculated at .0.00625. For the first variable, the Play Practice groupt (30) =-2.35, p>.00625 and the SFHP Instruction groupt (24) = -2.87, p>.00625showed a non-significant pretest to posttest difference on improvement on forehand drive accuracy test. On forehand attack test, a significant pre-to-posttest difference was found for the Play 132

Practice group,t (30) =-9.35, p<.00625and the SFHP Instruction groupt (24) =-6.65, p<.00625. The results of the serve test was in line with the previous two variables, the Play Practice groupt (30) =-8.13, p<.00625and SFHP Instruction group (24) =-4.60, p<.00625 t displayed a significant pre-to-posttest differences in serving. In the alternation test the paired sample t-tests showed that the Play Practice group significantly improved from pretest to posttest, t (30) =-3.39, p<.00625 but , the SFHP Instruction group did not,t (24) =-1.77, p>.00625. Summary This study revealed five of six significant correlations of a medium level among the four table tennis forehand skills at the pretest. A pretest MANOVA confirmed no Group differences on the four dependent measures between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group, suggesting the groups were statistically similar prior to the table tennis intervention. There was a significant Time main effect showing that groups (PP, SI) significantly improved their performances from pretest to posttest on all dependent measures. A 2 Group (PP, SI) x 2 Time (Pre-, Post-) MANOVA with repeated measures revealed a significant Group x Time interaction indicating the Play Practice group significantly improved their table tennis skills more than the SFHP Instruction group from pretest to posttest. However ANOVAs showed that only the forehand attack test and the serve test had a significant Group x Time univariate interaction. Paired sample t-tests indicated pretest to posttest

133

improvements in both groups on all four dependent measures except for the only non-significant difference was present in the SFHP Instruction group on the alternation test.

134

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Chapter five presents a discussion regarding the results of the study. The first part of the discussion is focused on the pretest results of the dependent measures and the relationship among these measures. The discussion then focuses on the analysis of the Group x Time effects of the intervention. This section includes the rationale for the correlation among dependent variables and the reasons for the Group x Time interaction on the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction. Next, the chapter discusses the strength and weaknesses of the study including several methodological suggestions for future studies. The chapter ends with a discussion of the implications of Play Practice instruction in teaching sport in physical education. Pretest Results The pretest results demonstrate that two groups, the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction, were similar on the four table tennis skill tests. The MANOVA indicated that a non-significant difference was found between groups when the four variables 135

were considered together. Thus, students who were enrolled in the two instructional groups had similar skill levels on the four table tennis tests before they participated in the intervention. The Non-significant Difference on Pretest Measures The non-significant differences in the pre-test for all dependent measures were not surprising since participants had similar backgrounds in playing table tennis. The primary researcher distributed informal surveys to participants at the first session of the course and asked them to self-report if they had received table tennis instruction before. No participants in either the Play Practice or SFHP Instruction group reported that they had received table tennis training or instruction from schools or clubs, although some of them had sometimes played recreationally. Because the four classes chosen for the study were all introductory table tennis courses, students who registered for the course are typically beginners with little or no experience in the activity. As the syllabus notes, There are no prerequisites for this course, and the instruction addresses the basic skills on table tennis techniques and tactics (See the course syllabi in Appendix B and C). In summary, the pretest results on the dependent measures support the participants self-reports and the course description, and indicate that two groups were similar on forehand table tennis skill levels. Correlations Among the Dependent Measures The Pearson-product coefficient analysis found that a significant linear correlation existed among the dependent measures. For example, the forehand drive 136

accuracy test interacted with the three other measures: (a) the forehand attack test, (b) the serve test, and (c) the alternation test. Similar results were found on the alternation test which also correlated with the rest of the dependent measures, such as with the forehand attack test, and with the serve test. The only non-significant correlation occurred between the forehand attack test and the serve test. All relationships ranged from low to medium correlated levels. The four dependent measures chosen for the study examined the different forehand skills of playing table tennis: forehand drive, serve, attack, and alternation. Launder (2001) claimed that identifying the critical skills for effective play should be the first step of using Play Practice to teach sport. Because of the complexity of sports, game play always requires distinct skills. The low to medium correlations among the four dependent measures demonstrate the differences among the skills. Time x Group Effects and the Intervention Analysis Overall, Play Practice produced better learning outcomes than did the SFHP instruction on (a) the forehand drive accuracy test, (b) the forehand attack test, (c) the serve test, and (d) the alternation test. These results are very important findings since it is the first time that a quasi-experimental study with high quality instructions demonstrates significant improvement on learning sport skills in the game teaching literature since 1980s. The findings in this study are different from many previous Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) studies that have compared TGfU and similar approaches to other instructional approaches (Gabriele & Maxwell, 1995; 137

Griffin, Oslin, & Mitchell, 1995; French et al., 1996a & 1996 b; Turner, 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1992, 1999). These studies turned out non-significant differences on technique execution. This has left the TGfU movement without a validation for what Bunker and Thorpe (1982) argued as the rationale of TGfU-- The argument that teaching tactics in game situations could improve students play performance was not evident from the multiple studies in the literature (Holt et al., 2002; McMorris, 1998; Mitchell & Oslin, 1995; Rink et al., 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1999). In this study, Play Practice instruction did demonstrate performance improvements on table tennis forehand skills and the improvements were more significant than were improvements in the SFHP Instruction group. One of the biggest factors associated with the intervention should result from the Play Practice progressions chosen for the intervention. The primary researcher, using the Play Practice model (see chapter two), designed a series of practices with modified games. The modified games and practices shared two pedagogical characteristics, competition and game format practice and purposefully modified games that differentiated Play Practice instruction from SFHP teaching and other instructional approaches such as TGfU and TGM (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997). These characteristics are directly related to the results of the current study.

138

Competition and Game Format Practice The first characteristic means that Play Practice instruction presented all learning tasks in a competition- or game-like format which trained participants to either compete in exercise or play modified games every session in the intervention. While the activities used in two groups aimed to develop the forehand drive skill, they were presented in two different formats. For example, on the first session of the intervention participants in the Play Practice group competed by hitting multiple balls followed by a target game and half vs half game using only forehand returns (see detailed description on Appendix H). At the same time, the comparison group used forehand down the line and forehand crosscourt during two traditional exercises, plus a normal table tennis game play (see Appendix I). These game-like progressions made the Play Practice instruction special and may influence the learning outcomes measured in the study. Alan Launder (2001) emphasized the significance of using game and competition during the practice noting that it is necessary for teachers to have young players play games and compete when teaching them techniques and tactics by Play Practice. The literature on teacher effectiveness supports the significance of using competition and games in teaching sport in physical education (Hastie & Saunders, 1990, 1991, &1992; Lund, 1992; Silverman, Kulinna, & Krull, 1995), and indicates that competition helps hold students accountable for their learning. Accountability is correlated with the learning outcomes. For instance, Lunds research (1992) found that more 139

achievement was produced when the instructional task included an individual or group challenge as part of the task demands, and when the teacher took time after each short practice to assess performance through public reporting and recognition. The effect of competition-like progressions for more learning outcomes of sport skills may also be associated with the quality of the participation. Launder (2001) claimed that the competition-format practice might motivate participants to strive for their best by presenting the learning tasks in a game or competition format. The different format might increase the quality of every practice trial in the exercise. Although no data were collected for examining the differences about levels of participants efforts on Play Practice progressions and SFHP drills, the primary researcher observed that the participation level of the practice in Play Practice group was more intense. Students were always focus on the exercises and strived for getting higher scores on the progressions. Future studies should measure learners motivation levels with the Play Practice instruction and investigate if there is any difference on the motivation level between the Play Practice and other instructional approaches. Purposefully Modified Games The second characteristic of Play Practice is that every game that was modified had a specific purpose for skill development. Every game that the participants played with Play Practice instruction included a clear goal for a skill such as forehand attack or alternation. However, this characteristic did not exist in the SFHP 140

instruction. Participants in the SFHP Instruction group played the typical games which did not have a specific goal except for playing in general (Launder, 2001; Rink, 1992). A good example can be found in the lessons on the third day of the intervention (see Appendix H). The Play Practice group played a modified game, the half versus complete game, which aimed to develop forehand down-the-line and forehand crosscourt shot. In contrast, the SFHP Instruction group was assigned a normal game without any changes in the rules or procedures. Participants simply practiced everything they had learned in general (see the lesson plan of the SFHP Instruction in Appendix I). Comparing the normal games used in the SFHP Instruction group with Play Practice games suggests that a focus of learning specific skills through modified games may indeed result in a significant increase of learning sport skills. Playing games should be purposeful (Launder, 2001), especially if the instructor wants to use games to improve learning. From a pedagogical perspective, the biggest problem with typical games is that students cannot focus on the skill that they need to work on. For instance, in a lesson with the instructional goal of mastering the forehand drive crosscourt and down-the-line shot, the primary research found that some participants used their backhand to hit the ball all the time during the normal game play. However, in the Play Practice group, the instructor assigned a half versus half game which mandated that players return every shot with their forehand, using only half of the table. By controlling the learning ecology, the 141

instructor created response opportunities on the forehand skill, helping students to develop their forehand throughout the game time. This analysis of the games indicated that a clear purpose of learning skills for a modified game does influence students learning. With one or more specific purposes on each learning task, the instructors turned every game play into purposeful practice to help learners improve the performance. Without a specific purpose, however, normal game play may not focus on the skill that the teacher intended to improve. The findings of the study support the argument that modified games must have one or two specific purposes to address the learning of sport techniques or/and tactics. Modified games must ensure that the games create many opportunities for learners to work on the techniques or/and tactics. Participants in the Play Practice group gained more significant improvement than did the cohort in SFHP Instruction group. Practice trials and ALT-PE were examined to predict the learning achievement (Buck, Harrison, & Bryce, 1991; Silverman, 1985) but it is unknown if Play Practice can produce more practice trials or academic learning time than other instructional approaches in teaching sport. Because this study was not a process-product study (Graham, 1983; Metzler, 1989; Siedentop, 1982), future research should investigate the specific amount of academic learning time and count the practice trials that a learner spends engaging in Play Practice progressions and modified games, while

142

exploring the process-product relationship between the time spent on these progressions and games and the ultimate learning achievement. The Strengths of the Study This study implemented high quality teaching in both the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction groups. The results of paired sample t-tests indicated the quality by showing significant pre-to-posttest improvement on the four dependent measures in Play Practice and the SFHP Instruction group. The high quality instruction in both groups should result from two connected factors: teacher expertise and appropriate content development. First, the two instructors expertise on teaching and the subject content should contribute to the delivery of the Play Practice instruction. Mr. Ping and Ms. Pong were viewed as effective teachers based on their teaching records and the primary researchers observation. They provided good instruction throughout the intervention. For instance, both instructors demonstrated clear task presentations on their SFHP instruction. During the task presentation, they addressed correct critical elements of the techniques and physically demonstrated them to the class. Their presentations and demonstrations are associated with the accurate content. Treatment integrity data shows that they delivered the lesson plans as instructed (see Table 4. 2). In addition, the primary researcher did not find any feedback that contained the inaccurate content relating to the table tennis techniques and tactics although the study did not record their feedback. 143

In terms of Play Practice teaching, a good example for indicating the instructors expertise is based partly on their quickness and success in learning Play Practice materials. The primary researcher found that both teachers easily understood the rationale and structure of Play Practice progressions in the workshop (they answered more than 95 percent correctly on Play Practice instruction quiz in the first round). In addition, both teachers made suggestions for the Play Practice progressions during the intervention, and provided many thoughtful reflections on using Play Practice progressions to the future classes. The researcher believes that the teachers performance on learning and teaching in SFHP and Play Practice should be associated with their well developed content knowledge on the subject matter. The literature of teaching sport shows that significant learning occurs with expert teachers regardless of the instructional approaches (French et al., 1996a & 1996b; Rink et al., 1996). There is no doubt that teachers do make a difference and that effective teachers with well defined content knowledge lead to better learning achievement in physical education (Rink, 2004; Siedentop, 1992; Ward, 1999). The second critical feature of the high quality teaching should be the developmentally appropriate content. Both the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group presented the learning tasks in a developmental way although they used different progressions and games. By following what Alan Launder emphasized about the content structure in teaching sport, Play Practicing should continually and 144

gradually increase the complexity of practice (Launder, 2001, p.76). Take the practice of forehand alternation as an example. In having students alternate the shots from side to side, the sequence of the exercises was forehand crosscourt, forehand down the line, and forehand crosscourt plus down-the-line. In this example, the instructors taught down-the-line exercises after crosscourt practices because the former skill is slightly more difficult than the later one in the actual learning scenario. With the same reason, the two single-line skills had to be learned before the combined one. SFHP Instruction provided progressions also in a developmental way, although the amount and procedure of the progressions were different from those in Play Practice. For example, in lesson number nine of the SFHP Instruction, students practiced the flat serve and then the spin serve because the spin serve was viewed as an advanced serve skill (Seemiller & Holowchak, 1997). It is better for learners to start begin with elementary skill and then go to an advanced one. Research showed the connection between the participants improvement and high quality teaching featured content that was developmentally appropriate (French, Rink, Rikard, Mays, Lynn, & Werner, 1991; Rink, 1985). Several researchers in physical education teacher education have claimed that simpler practice conditions should be introduced early in practice to aid in development of prerequisite skills necessary for more difficult versions of the task (Rink, 1985; French et al., 1991; Metzler, 2005).The findings of current study are in line with the literature and 145

strengthen the relationship between developmentally appropriate content structure and students learning in teaching physical education. The third strength of the study is that the instructional unit of Play Practice is easy for teachers to use in the secondary physical education curriculum. In the real world, a typical teaching unit of sport at secondary schools contains ten classes in two weeks with 45 minutes on each. The length of the unit and duration of the class are very similar with the condition of the Play Practice instructional unit implemented in this study. The similarities should allow secondary school PE teachers to apply the whole packet of the instruction to their classes. So the content and structure of the Play Practice instruction used in the study is practical for everyday teaching. Weaknesses of the Study This study is the first experimental study examining the effects of Play Practice instruction on teaching sport. The study has several weaknesses including (a) experimental design, (b) decision making measures in game play, (c) the specific effects of progressions, and (d) teacher feedback. The Experimental Design The current study used a non-equivalent control group experimental design. There was no random selection of the participants and no random assignment to experimental groups (Thomas & Nelson, 1990). The lack of random selection is related to the external validity issues (Glim, 2005). It determines that the results of 146

the current study can be generalized to only the student population who participated in the study. The results cannot be directly transferred to other teaching contexts although researchers or teachers can use them to hypothesize and predict similar results on teaching to a similar population, such as high schools students. Future researchers should use random selection on future studies and compare the results. Repeated studies on Play Practice will also be helpful for showing the external validity of the intervention. Except for the shortcoming of random selection, no random assignment of the participants influenced the internal validity of the study (Glim, 2005). Although the pretest measures showed non-significant differences between two groups, the lack of the random assignment may cause the outcomes of the intervention to interfere with the difference brought by the participants themselves (Stanley, 1966). Since it is impossible to administer the random assignment in the current study, the primary researcher decreased its impact by randomly assigning the two approaches (Play Practice and SFHP instruction) to four classes (see the results in chapter three). Corresponding to this weakness, future studies should use a true experimental design to examine the effects of a Play Practice intervention. Decision Making Measures in Game Play The four dependent variables used in the study did not measure the ultimate performance of game play which should consist of techniques and tactics together (Launder, 2001). As Launder suggested, skill is based on a combination of 147

technical ability and effective decision making( Launder, 2001, p. 34). Actually, all dependent measures focused on the four scenarios of forehand technique execution rather than the decision making performance or a combination of both (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Holt et al., 2002; Griffin, et al., 1997; Launder, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2006; Rink, 1996). The dependent measures did not test the tactical part of the skill performance of playing table tennis although the instruction, by following the Play Practice Model, did address several basic strategies of playing table tennis games such as creating space. An examination of learning tactics would enrich the results of the study and provide additional evidence as to the effects of Play Practice instruction on the dimension of cognitive achievement (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; Launder, 2001). Specific suggestions are provided later in the chapter. The Specific Effects of Progressions The results of the current study did not demonstrate the effect of each individuals drill on teaching the table tennis skills selected for effective game play because all Play Practice progressions were examined as an instructional package. Both Play Practice and the SFHP group included many instructional tasks within the 11-lesson teaching unit, and all of them were scheduled in a specific sequence (see Appendix H & I). For reflective researchers and teachers, many questions would be raised when implementing these progressions. For example, is every drill equally crucial to successful learning of the forehand skill? Can changes in the order of the 148

progressions affect the eventual learning outcomes? Can the progressions designed for learning the attack performance help developing the forehand serve skill? The current study cannot provide answers to these questions. Teacher Feedback Teachers feedback has been valued as an important process variable that may affact the students learning outcome with different results (Graham, 1983; Lee, Keh, Magill, 1993; Rink, 1985; Silverman, 1992). Feedback can be a key component that leads to students learning of fundamental motor skills (Cohen, 2007) and sport techniques (Lee et al., 1994). However, in this study, the amount of feedback for each instructional group was not recorded so it is unclear that all groups received a similar amount of feedback. A control of teacher feedback would make the effects of the intervention clearer and stronger and increase the validity of the study. Methodological Suggestions for Future Studies

Play Practice is a relatively new instructional approach to teaching sport and does not have many empirical studies to examine its effects on students learning achievements (Holt et al., 2006; Launder, 2001). This study serves as a precursor for this research line of inquiry and provides several suggestions for future studies. These suggestions come from the process and product of the current study and focus on the methodological part of the research which is critical to any research that will

149

be produced in the future. Specifically, the suggestions focus on the dependent measures, intervention construction, research design, and teaching subjects. Suggestions for Dependent Measures Future studies investigating the effects of teaching table tennis forehand skills and using the dependent variables provided in this study, should modify the forehand drive accuracy test and the alternation test. It would be better to combine the two tests into a new one in which the participant drives the ball fed by a test administrator to two targets by using the forehand. There are two reasons for this proposed modification. First, these two variables did not show significant pre-to-posttest improvement on the Play Practice instruction over the SFHP instruction. If the same results were produced, the researcher would have more evidence by which to judge the effects of the intervention on learning the skill. Second, combining the two tests will take less time which is crucial for the success of running the pre- and posttest. After doing the study, the primary researcher realized that assessment is very time consuming and needs abundant resources. The current study required on four sessions for testing which counted for 20 percent of the instructional unit. Such a heavy time commitment is not practical for many studies as well for the real world of teaching.

Except for the measures of skill execution, future studies should explore learning in the cognitive dimension, such as measuring declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge of a sport (Thomas & Thomas, 1994; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; 150

Metzler, 2005; Rink et al., 1996). For measuring the declarative knowledge such as game rules and terminology, researchers can administer a cognitive test before and after the intervention as has been shown in the TGfU literature (French et al., 1996a, 1996b; Turner & Martinek, 1999). Multiple choice questions may be delivered to examine the learning of content knowledge after the Play Practice instruction. For evaluation of the procedural knowledge, researchers should use technology such as Dartfish software to play video vignettes of professional table tennis game play, and have participants identify the strategies used in specific rallies. In addition, a good measure of the procedure knowledge called point interview has been used in the similar studies (French et al., 1996a, 1996b; MacMorris, 1998; Mcpherson, 1991, 1992). The point interview method has demonstrated solid test validity and the primary researcher recommends the method for the future studies.

Since Play Practice brings up the concept of skill to combine teaching techniques and tactics together in a game context, some researchers may want to measure the skill in game play. However, the primary researcher does not recommend them doing this but rather supports evaluating techniques and tactics separately in a practice setting. The reason is because first the poor performance can result from either inappropriate decision making or incorrect skill execution. It is difficult to differentiate decision making from technique performance and record it objectively. Second, because researchers can not replicate the same situation each time in game play, the reliability of the measures is problematic. MacMorris (1998) 151

and Rink et al. (1996) claimed that one of the biggest challenges for examining the effects of teaching sport lies in the difficulty of selecting a reliable, objective, and ecologically correct dependent measures of learning. As a result, while this study demonstrated that it is possible to combine techniques and tactics and teach them simultaneously, the futures data-based research of instructional approaches should testify to the techniques and tactics of the sport respectively to ensure the validity of the measurement. Suggestions for Intervention Construction For future studies of teaching table tennis in a similar educational environment, the first suggestion regarding the intervention construction is to teach no more than three skills in a 11-lesson instructional unit. In the current study, forehand serve, attack, and alternation were selected as the instructional objectives of the course. During the process of teaching, both instructors felt a bit rushed in covering these skills from class to class. The results of the study also demonstrated that the multiple instructional goals included in the instruction might negatively impact the teaching effectiveness. For example, the forehand alternation test did not show a significant Group x Time interaction. The experiences of implementing the intervention indicated that fewer skills selected for the teaching would result in more improvement of student learning.

The second suggestion relating to the intervention construction is that future researchers should test the sequence effect of the instruction (Holt et al., 2006). 152

Implementing the same progressions in a different order may produce different learning results. A good example showing the sequence effect comes from a teaching soccer study in a secondary physical education setting (Holt et al., 2006). This study found that the 3 v 2 practice produced greater results than did 2 v 1 practice on improving students performance. The current study did not evaluate the influence of different sequences of the progressions but apparently the progressions had varied effects on different skills based on the findings of the ANOVA of four dependent measures. A most appropriate research method to study the sequence effect should be single subject design (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Holt et al. (2006) showed that a multiple treatment single subject design could be used to assess the effects of two to three Play Practice progressions and their sequence on the learning. Suggestions for the Research Design Future researchers should also consider using a follow up as part of the instructional design to examine the long term impact of Play Practice instruction in learning sport skills. Researchers in both sport education and motor development have criticized the lack of examining the long term effect of the intervention (French et al., 1996a, 1996b; Goodway & Branta, 2003; Robinson, 2007). McMorris (1998) in a review of TFfU studies concluded, the design of TGFU research is generally straightforward.and researchers pre- and posttested participants using a skill test . and compared the changes (p. 68). Without an assessment of the extent to 153

which the learning achievement was retained, researchers can not know if the instruction has any long term effects on students learning. Implications for Teaching Sport in Physical Education The first implication is to strengthen teachers content knowledge for successfully using Play Practice. Content knowledge is the foundation for successfully using Play Practice. Teachers must be aware of the need for solid content knowledge when they use Play Practice to teach sport. The ultimate goal of Play Practice is to teach learners the basic competencies to effectively play sport games. However, Play Practice does not directly identify the specific skills used for effective play for a particular sport, but rather provides a framework to guide teachers to discern those skills by themselves. Before Play Practice teaching begins, and for its benefits to emerge, teachers must already be knowledgeable in areas such as techniques, tactics, rules, and game play procedures of the sport so that they can select the critical sport skills from effective game play. If teachers lack sufficient subject matter knowledge, teaching in the Play Practice mode will be quite challenging. The requirement of strong content knowledge in using Play Practice negotiates the important role of pre-existing subject matter knowledge for effective teaching. Shulman (1987) identified that subject matter content knowledge is one of three knowledge categories of content knowledge in teaching. Teachers should have a deep understanding of content knowledge to master pedagogical content knowledge. 154

Ennis (1994) concluded that physical education teachers must have subject matter knowledge for providing appropriate tasks and explicit information. She also stated that with subject matter knowledge, teachers could create a learning environment, which encourages learners to develop their psychomotor skills. Content knowledge helps physical education teachers develop, plan, and present the teaching tasks in a manner that promotes learning (Rink, 1985). Teaching all kinds of sports is a commonplace in the U.S. school system. The requirement of depth and breadth of content knowledge may be the priority issue for PETE programs if they decide that their teachers should teach sport games with Play Practice instruction. Teachers have to be skillful in pedagogy. Play Practice calls for teachers to skillfully present the tasks in a competition and game format. Play Practice also asks teachers to present the instructional objectives in an appropriate way as any instructional approaches require for effective teaching (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Rink, 1996, Siedentop et al., 2004). The requirement demands a higher level of pedagogical knowledge because teachers need to demonstrate the learning tasks precisely, and to make the learning environment interesting and competitive. For effective Play Practice instruction, teachers need to know why some games are modified in a certain way. Without clear purposes, modifications can rarely or never lead to optimal learning outcomes. The second implication is associated with the fact that games can be modified to address both techniques and tactics. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) recommended that 155

simplified, modified, and generic versions of games could be used to teach the main tactics required by the sport. They believed that instruction of TGfU could effectively teach children how to play games and also improve childrens game play performance although the belief mainly came from their teaching experiences. After learning and researching Play Practice instruction, the primary researcher found that modified games could have multiple functions. He not only agreed with Bunker and Thorpes beliefs about the benefits of modified games on teaching tactics but also determined that modified games can and should be used to effectively develop techniques, because effective play requires competence in both good technique execution and in decision making (Launder, 2001; Siedentop et al., 2004). In addition, teachers must ensure that the modified game addresses the learning objective, which is always to develop the sport skills. A good example is the snowman game which aims to teach the forehand alternation skill and the strategy of creating space. In this game, the players were not allowed to move their feet during the rally, with forced foot movement costing a point (see Appendix H). Originally this game was developed to address the significance of footwork in table tennis game play. It was supposed to let students feel the difficulty of hitting the different shots without moving before introducing the technique of two step footwork in table tennis (Seemiller & Holowchak, 1997). However, the pilot study indicated that this stationary exercise could be a great drill for teaching the strategies of creating

156

space and alternation. Students automatically drove the ball to the two side lines on the table to force their opponents to move. It is important to revisit and retest previous levels of performance, to take learners back to a point where they feel comfortable. This technique can happen early in a session or at any time that the group reaches a sticking point at the next level. In addition, the use of normal game play has been an essential feature of SFHP teaching and criticized from different perspectives such as the shortcoming of teaching transfer of learning and teaching tactical awareness (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Rink, 1992, Siedentop et al., 2004, Turner & Martinek, 1999). Besides these weaknesses, the primary researcher found that normal game play participation can not effectively facilitate the learning of specific skill. Implication for Physical Education Teacher Education The results of the study suggest physical educators adding Play Practice instruction to the physical education teacher education curriculum. Physical education teacher education programs should include Play Practice as the content of the method course so that they can prosper the pedagogical approaches of sports and help teacher candidates master more approaches teaching sport. Right now the typical instructional approaches used in the secondary physical education method course are TGFU (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982; Mitchell, Griffin, & Oslin, 1997) and Sport Education (Siedentop, 2004). Play Practice has not been widely accepted by the Physical education teacher education programs and introduced to the pre-service 157

teachers. An inclusion of Play Practice to the secondary method course may contribute to enhance teacher candidates competencies of teaching sport and eventually improve the teaching effects of sport in secondary schools.

158

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alexander, K. & Luckman, J. (2001). Australian teachers perceptions and uses of the sport education curriculum model, European Physical Education Review, 7, 243267. Alexander, K., Taggart, A., & Medland, A. (1993). Sport education in physical education: try before you buy, Australian Council for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation National Journal, 40, 1623. Allison, S. & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus a games for understanding approach. British Journal of Physical Education, 28(3), 9-13. Ayvazo, S. (2007). Exploring the pedagogical content knowledge of effective teachers in physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the Ohio State University, Ohio. Ayvazo, S., Ward, P., Cohen, R., Stuhr, P., & Zhang, P. (2006). Enhancing undergraduate physical education students content knowledge toward developing pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the Physical Education Teacher Education Conference, Long Beach, CA. Bennet, G. & Hastie, P. (1997). A sport education curriculum model for a collegiate physical activity course, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 68, 3944. Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Brown, J. (2004). Tennis steps to success (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Buck, M., Harrison, J. M., & Bryce, G. R. (1991). An Analysis of Learning Trials and Their Relationship to Achievement in Volleyball. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10(2), 134-152. 159

Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school. Bulletin of Physical Education, 10, 9-16. Carlson, T. B. & Hastie, P. A. (1997). The student social system within sport education, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 176195. Chalip, L., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Kleiber, D., & Larson, R. (1984). Variations of experience in formal and informal sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 109-116. Chandler, T. & Mitchell, S. A. (1990). Reflections on 'models of games education'. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 61(6), 19-21. Chen, A. & Ennis, C. D. (1995). Content knowledge transformation: An examination of the relationship between content knowledge and curricula. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 4, 389-401. Clumpner, R. (2003). Sport Progressions. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Cohen, R. (2007). The effects of aligned developmental feedback on third-grade students performance in overhead throw for force. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the Ohio State University, Ohio. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Corbin, C. & Lindsey, R. (1999). Fitness for life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Crvallini, F. M. (2006) Who needs philosophy in physical education? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 77, 28-33. Deci, E. L. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning. Learning & Individual Differences, 8(3), 165-183. Doutis, D. (1997). Teachers pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical theories of content. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(10). (UMI No. 9813254). Duda, F. (1992). Test your bib/triv knowledge. American Libraries, 23(6), 463-465. Dyson, B., Griffin, L., & Hastie, P. (2004). Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: theoretical and pedagogical considerations, Quest, 56, 226240. 160

Ennis, C. D. (1996). When avoiding confrontation leads to avoiding content: Disruptive students' impact on... Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, 11(2), 145-162. French, K. E., Rink, J. E., Rikard, L., Mays, A., Lynn, S., & Werner, P. (1991). The effects of practice progressions on learning two volleyball skills. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 261-274. French, K. E., Werner, P., Rink, J. E., Taylor, K., & Hussey, K. (1996). The effects of a 3-week unit of tactical, skill or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 418-438. French, K. E., Werner, P., Taylor, K., Hussey, K., & Jones, J. (1996). The effects of a 6-week unit of tactical, skill or combined tactical and skill instruction of badminton performance of ninth grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 439-463. Godbout, P., Brunelle, J., & Tousignant, M. (1987). Who benefits from passing through the program? In Barrette, G.T. (ed.) et al., Myths, models, and methods in sport pedagogy, (PP, 183-197) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Goodway, J. D. & Branta, C. F. (2003). Influence of a motor skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development of disadvantaged preschool children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(1) 36-47. Grant, B. (1992). Integrating sport into the physical education curriculum in New Zealand secondary schools. Quest, 44(3), 304-316. Gravetter, F. J. & Wallnau, L. B. (2007). Statistics for Behavior Sciences, Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, California. Griffin, L. L., Dodds, P., Placek, J., & Tremino, F. (2001). Middle school students conceptions of soccer: Their Solutions to Tactical Problems. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 324-340. Griffin, L. L., Michell, S., & Oslin, J. (1997). Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Griffin, L. L., Oslin, J. L., & Mitchell, S. A. (1995). An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching net games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, March 1995, Supplement, A-64. 161

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education, New York: Teacher College Press. Harvey, S. (2006). Effects of Teaching Games for Understanding on Game Performance and Understanding in Middle School Physical Education, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dissertation Abstract International, 17, 285. (UMI No. 3236883). Hastie, P. A. (1996). Student role involvement during a unit of sport education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 88103. Hastie, P. A. (2000) An ecological analysis of a Sport Education season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19, 355373. Hastie, P. A. (2003). Teaching sport within physical education. In S. Silverman & Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance learning (pp. 227-240). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hastie, P., & Saunders, J. (1990). A study of monitoring in secondary school physical education classes. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 25(1/2), 47-54. Hastie, P., & Saunders, J. (1991). Accountability in secondary school physical education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7(4), 373-382. Hastie, P. A., & Saunders, E. (1992). A Study of Task Systems and Accountability in an Elite Junior Sports Setting. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11(4), 376-388. Hastie, P. A. & Sharpe, T. (1999). Effects of a Sport Education curriculum on the positive social behavior of at-risk rural adolescent boys. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 4, 417430. Hastie, P. A. & Vlaisavljevic, N. (1999). The relationship between subject-matter expertise and accountability in instructional tasks. Journal of Teaching in Physical education, 19, 22-33. Hebert, E. P. (1995). Content development strategies in physical education: An exploratory investigation of student practice, cognition, and achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College, United States, Louisiana. Hellison, D. (1978). Beyond balls and bats: Alienated youth in the gym, Washington, DC: American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. 162

Hellison, D. (1983). Teaching self responsibility (and more). Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 54(7), 23. Holt, J., Ward, P., & Wallhead, T. (2006). The transfer of learning from play practices to game play in young adult soccer players. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(2), 101-118. Holt, N. L., Strean. L., & Bengoechea, W. B. (2002). Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 177-192. Kirk, D. & McPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Re-thinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 177192. Launder, A. G. (2001). Play practice: The games approach to teaching and coaching sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Launder, A. & Piltz, W. (2006). Beyond 'Understanding' to Skilful Play in Games, through Play Practice. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 39(1), 47-57. Lawton, J. (1989). Comparison of two teaching methods in games. Bulletin of Physical Education, 25(1), 35-38. Lee, M. A. (2004). Generaliztion of supporting movement in tag rugby from practice to games in 7TH and 8TH grade physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the Ohio State University, Ohio. Lee, A., Keh, N., & Magill, R. (1993). Instructional effects of teacher feedback in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12(3), 228-243. Lund, J. (1992). Assessment and accountability in secondary physical education. Quest (00336297), 44(3), 352-360. Martin, R. (2004). An investigation of tactical transfer in invasion/territorial games. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 75(1 Suppl), A-73-A-74. Mauldon, E. & Redfern, H. (1981). Games teaching: A new approach for the primary school. London: McDonald and Evans. McKenzie, T. & Sallis, J. (1996). Physical activity, fitness, and health-related physical education. In S. Silverman & Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in 163

physical education: Applying research to enhance learning (pp. 223-246). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. McMorris, T. (1998). Teaching games for understanding: Its contribution to the knowledge of skill acquisition from a motor learning perspective. European Journal of Physical Education, 3(1), 65-74. McPherson, S. L. (1994). The development of sport expertise: Mapping the tactical domain. Quest, 46, 223-240. McPherson, S, L. & French, K. E. (1991). Changes in cognitive strategies and motor skill in tennis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 2641. McPherson, S. L. & Thomas, J. R. (1989). Relation of knowledge and performance in boys tennis: Age and expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 190211. Metzler, M. W. (1989). A review of research on time in sport pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8(2), 87-103. Metzler, M. W. (2000). The tactical games model: Teaching games for understanding. In M. W. Metzler (Ed.), Instructional models for physical education (Chapter 13, pp. 339-379). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Metzler, M. W. (2005). Instructional models for physical education. Scottsdale, Arizona: Holcomb Hathaway. Mitchell, S. A. & Oslin, J. L. (1999). An investigation of tactical transfer of net games. European Journal of Physical Education, 4(2), 162-172. Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (1995). The effects of two instructional approaches on GP. Pedagogy in practice: Teaching and coaching in physical education and sports, 1(1), 36-48 Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2006). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach (2nd Ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. NASPE, (2004). Moving into the future. National standards for physical education. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Nevett, M. (2001). Chapter 8. Fourth-Grade Children's Knowledge of Cutting, Passing and Tactics in Invasion Games After a 12-Lesson Unit of Instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(4), 389-401. 164

Nevett, M. & French, K. E. (1997). The development of sport specific planning rehearsal and updating of plans during defensive youth baseball GP. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68(3), 203-214. ODonovan, T. M. (2003). A changing culture? Interrogating the dynamics of peer affiliations over the course of a sport education season, European Physical Education Review, 9(3), 237251. Ormond, T. C., DeMarco, G. M., Smith, R. M., & Fischer, K. A. (1995). Comparison of the sport education and traditional approaches to teaching secondary school basketball, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (Supplement), A66. Oslin, J. & Mitchell, S. (2005). Game centered approach to teaching physical education, in D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. OSullivan (Eds.). Handbook of physical education, Sage Publications Ltd. Robinson, E. L. (2007). Getting an "Active Start": The effect of project "SKIP" on object control skills in preschoolers who are disadvantaged. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio. Rovegno, I. (1995). Theoretical Perspectives on Knowledge and Learning and a Student Teacher's Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Dividing and Sequencing Subject Matter. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14(3), 284-304. Rink, J. (1985). Teaching physical education for learning. St. Louis, times Mirror/Mosby. Rink, J. (1997). Teacher Education Programs: The Role of Context in Learning How To Teach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 68(1), 17. Rink, E. J. (2006). Teaching physical education for learning (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Graham, K. C. (1996). Implications for Practice and Research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 490-502. Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1996). Foundations for the learning and instruction of sport and games. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 399-417. Romar, J. (1994). Adolescent athletes' perceived sport competence and motives for individual sports. Physical Educator, 51(3), 114-118. 165

Salter, W. B. & Graham, G. (1985). The effects of three disparate instructional approaches on skill attempts and student learning in an experimental teaching unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 212-218. Schempp, P. G., Manross, D., Tan, S. K. S., & Fincher, M. D. (1998). Subject expertise and teachers knowledge. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 342-356. Schimidt, A. R. & Wrisberg, A. C. (2004). Motor Learning and Performance. A problem-based learning approach (3rd ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Seemiller, D. & Holowchak, M. (1997). Winning table tennis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Shiebler. C. (2007). Sport fitness, and health program instructional handbook. The Ohio State University, Ohio. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 15, 414. Siedentop, D. (1968). A theory for programs of physical education in schools, Dissertation Abstracts International, 30(03), 1006A. Siedentop, D. (1982). Recent advances in pedagogical research in physical education. American Academy of Physical Education Papers, 16, 82-94. Siedentop, D. (1987). The theory and practice of sport education, in: G. Barrette, R. Feingold, R. Rees & M. Pieron (Eds) Myths, models and methods in sport pedagogy, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Siedentop, D. (1992). Thinking Differently about Secondary Physical Education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63(7), 69. Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport education: quality P. E. through positive sport experiences, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D. (2002). Sport Education: Retrospective. Journal of teaching in Physical Education, 21, 409-418.

166

Siedentop, D. (2003). Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D. (2007). Junior Sport and the Evolution of Sport Cultures. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 40(2), 19-23. Siedentop, D. & Eldar, E. (1989). Expertise, experience, and effectiveness. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 254-260. Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A. & Van der Mars, H. (2004). Complete guide to Sport Education, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D. & Tannehille, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Siedentop, D., Tousignant, M., & Parker, M. (1982). Academic learning time-physical education: 1982 revision coding manual. Unpublished manual, School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Silverman, S. (1985). Relationship of engagement and practice trials to student achievement. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 13-21. Silverman, S. (1997). Technology and physical education: present, possibilities, and potential problems. Quest, 49(3), 306-314. Silverman, S., & Kulinna, H. (1995). Skill-related task structures, explicitness, and accountability: Relationships with... Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 66(1), 32-40. Silverman, S., Tyson, A.L., & Krampitz, J. (1992). Teacher feedback and achievement in physical education: Interaction with student practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 333-344. Solmon, M. A. (2003). Student issues in physical education classes: attitudes, cognition, and motivation. In S. Silverman & C. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance learning (pp. 223-246). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Strikwerda-Brown, J. & Taggart, A. (2001) No longer voiceless and exhausted: sport education and the primary generalist, Australian Council for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 48(4), 1417. 167

Stroot, S. (1990). Focus on feedbackIs it enough? International Council for Health Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance, 13, 2023. Taylor, J. & Chiogioji, E. (1987). Implications of educational reform on high school programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 58(2), 22-23. Thomas, J. R. & Nelson, J. K. (1990). Research methods in physical activity (2nd, ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Thomas, K. T. & Thomas, J. R. (1994). Developing expertise in sport: The relation of knowledge and performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 25, 295- 312. Thorpe, R. D., Bunker, D. J., & Almond, L. (1986). Sport pedagogy, Pieron, M. and Graham, G. (eds.), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Turner, A. P. (1996). Teaching for understanding-Myth or reality? Journal of PhysicalEducation, Recreation & Dance, 67(4), 46-48. Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1992). A comparative analysis of two models for teaching games (technique approach and game centered (tactical focus) approach). International Journal of Physical Education, 29(4), 15-31. Turner, A. & Martinek, A. (1995). Teaching for understanding: A model for improving decision making during game play. Quest, 47, 44-63. Turner, A. P. & Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge, and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(3), 286-296. Van der Mars, H. (1989). Observer reliability: Issues and procedures. In P. Darst, D. Zakrajsek, and V. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing Physical Education and Sport Instruction (2nd ed.) (pp. 53-80). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Wallhead, T. L. (2004). Effects of a Sport Education Intervention on Students' Motivational Responses in Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23(1), 4-18. Wallhead, T. L. & Ntoumanis, N. (2004) Effects of a sport education intervention on students motivational responses in physical education, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 418.

168

Wallhead, T. L. & OSullivan, M. (2005). Sport Education: physical education for the new millennium, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(2), 181-211. Ward, P. (1999). Chapter 5: Curriculum Effects in Eighth-Grade Lacrosse. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18(4), 428-443. Ward, P. (2006). What we teach is as important as how we teach it, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 77, 22-24. Ward, P. (2007, October). Content matters. Knowledge that alters teaching. Paper presented at Historic Traditions and Future Directions of Research on Teaching and Teacher Education in Physical Education" conference, Pittsburgh, PE. Ward, P., Ayvazo, S., & Stuhr, P. T. (2006, October). Teaching the Subject Matter of Physical Education. Paper presented at the Physical Education Teacher Education Conference, Long Beach, CA. Ward, P., Barrett, T. M., Evans, S. A., Doutis, P., Nguyen, P. T., & Johnson, M. K. (1999). Chapter 5: Curriculum Effects in Eighth-Grade Lacrosse. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18(4), 428-443. Wein, H. (2001). Developing youth soccer players. Coach better with the soccer development model. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding: evolution of a model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 28-33. Wetzsteon, R. J. (2007). Bone strength and body composition in pediatric multiethnic populations: Descriptive and intervention studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minnesota. Williams, A. M., & Ford, P. (2006). Developing expertise: The road to excellence in football. Insight - The Football Association Coaches Association Journal, 9(2), 48-55. Woods, A. M. (2007). Chapter 5: Influences of Perceived Motor Competence and Motives on Children's Physical Activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26(4), 390-403.

169

APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL

170

APPENDIX B COURSE SYLLABUS (TREATMENT & COMPARISON CONDITION)

172

Instructor: Office: Office Hours: Email Mailbox:

The Ohio State University School of Physical Activity and Educational Services EHE PAES 185.01 Table Tennis I (1 credit) Call Number: PE A20 Class Location: PE 0200 9:30 am-10:30 am M 9:30 am-10:30 am W Meeting Time: Quarter PE A215 9:30am 10:18am M/W Winter 2008

SFHP Website: http://education.osu.edu/paes/sfhp Course Website: http://carmen.osu.edu

Course Description The purpose of this course is to provide the student with the appropriate level knowledge and skills in Table tennis. As a result of the class the student will improve his/her general physical fitness and skill performance. Principles, techniques, safe practices, and strategies of table tennis will be taught throughout the class. Relationship to Other Courses This is a basic activity course in the Sport, Fitness, and Health Program. It is open to any student at The Ohio State University. There are no prerequisites for this course. Course Objectives 1. The student will demonstrate the appropriate level competence in the following skills: Grip and racket control Spin and racket angles Forehand and Backhand Drives Serves Pushing Blocking 2. The student will: 173

Demonstrate knowledge of the basic tactics and strategies to play singles games. Demonstrate knowledge of the rules governing the games of table tennis. Apply the basic strategies covered in singles and doubles games. Recognize and develop an appreciation for the role of table tennis in lifetime activities as a result of participation in course activities.

Off Campus Field Experience This course does not have an off-campus field experience. Diversity The curriculum and experience is designed, implemented, and evaluated in a manner that promotes the acquisition and application of knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Technology The use of web technology will be employed in this course for the dissemination of course materials such as syllabus, handouts and course notes. Additional means of communication between the instructor and students is available through the use of web-based email. Course Requirements/Evaluation Participation 35% Skills 35% Knowledge 30% Every absence causes losing 1.75 on the final grade. Game play performance on tournaments An online written-exam of table tennis content knowledge (multiple choices questions).

Note: The quizzes will be opened on Carmen. Participation is defined as the students involvement in all assigned drills and activities. It is during this time that the instructor will monitor and evaluate student progress. Based upon a 100 points total value for the course, of which 35 points are based upon participation, the following guidelines will be used for missed participation: Number of Class Meetings 20 Points Deducted per Non-participation 1.75 points

174

Grading Scale 94%-100% = A 80% - 83% = B67% - 69% = D+ 90% - 93% = A77% - 79% = C+ 60% - 66% = D 87% - 89% = B+ 74% - 76% = C 59% - below = E 84% - 86% = B 70% - 73% = CStudents who have arranged through their College to take this course under the Pass/Non pass grading option must achieve a minimum of 60% to receive a Passing (P) grade. Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Class 15: Class 16: Class 17: Class 18: Class 19: Sessions & Time Class 1: Class 2: Class 3: Class 4: Class 5: Class 6: Class 7: Class 8: Class 9: Class 10: Class 11: Class 12: Class 13: Class 14: Tasks Introduction of the Syllabus Grip & Backhand Forehand & Serve Game Play & Pretest Game Play & Pretest Holiday No class! Ball Placement 1 Ball Placement 2 Ball Placement 3 Ball Placement 4 Ball Placement 5 Early Attack Performance 1 Early Attack Performance 2 Serve Placement & Early Performance 3 Serve Placement & Early Performance 4 Comprehensive Performance Comprehensive Performance Game Play-Posttest Game Play-Posttest

Attack Attack

9 10

Facility Access Any PAES course meeting in any Ohio State University recreational facility will require the use of a valid Buck ID to enter that facility. Failure to present a Buck ID would prohibit the students entry into the facilities, and therefore, would prevent the student from attending class. This would be considered an unexcused absence. 175

Attendance Policy The 10% Rule The SFHP program has a 10% absence rule. This rule recognizes that situations occur where a student may miss class (e.g. medical illness) during the quarter. The 10% rule allows students to miss up to 10% of classes without points being lost in the area of participation. After a student has missed 10% of the class, the above participation points will be deducted. As a result of this guideline, the SFHP program does not recognize excused medical absences. It is anticipated that medical absences will be taken care of within the 10% guideline. It is important to note that although an absence (within the 10% guideline) will not result in points being deducted, it will still count toward the total number of absences explained in the 30% rule.

The 30% Rule As this is a laboratory-based class which centers around learning through participation in class activities, missing more than 30% of the class will result in the student earning a failing grade (i.e. receiving a final grade of E). The following guideline will be used: Number of Class Meetings 20 Number of Absences that will result in an E 7 Tardiness Any combination of two tardy arrivals or leaving class early equals an absence. The instructor will determine the tardy time. Excused Absences There are three situations, which constitute an excused absence from the class meeting time. They are: 1) students who participate in a documented University sanctioned event, 2) students who have a documented death in the family, and 3) students who are observing a religious holiday. In accordance to Faculty Rule 3335-7-15, students who will be participating in University sanctioned events must provide the instructor with a copy of the scheduled events and those classes which will be missed. This documentation must be on University letterhead, signed by the coach/supervisor, and given to the instructor within the first two weeks of the quarter. Students who will be observing a religious holiday must provide date/event written notification to the instructor within the first two weeks of the quarter. Any such missed classes must be made up within two weeks of the absence using the official SFHP Course Make Up Form. Failure to complete an SFHP Course Make Up Form and the necessary activity within two weeks will result in that absence 176

becoming an unexcused absence. The make up form is available from the instructor. There will be no make up of unexcused absences or medical related absences. Risk Potential As you considering enrolling in a University Sport Fitness and Health Program class, the University would like you to be aware that participation in any physical activity involves minor/serious risks to your body. Prior to participation students will be asked to read and sign statement that you (or parent/guardian if under 18) are aware of these risks and that you consent to medical treatment in the event that you are injured. For certain classes that involve potentially dangerous, vigorous and or risky behavior students will be asked to sign a statement releasing the University and its instructors from liability in the event students are injured as a result of participation in this class. Dress Code Attire appropriate to activity such as shorts, t-shirt and athletic footwear that is in compliance with building policies (see attached handout). Improper attire includes ballcaps, loose jewelry, running shoes, or street shoes. No gum chewing or tobacco chewing is allowed during class. Locker Availability There are two types of lockers available for use within the R-PAC facility. A limited number of day-use lockers require that you bring your own lock, and that you remove your items by the end of the day. Quarterly locker rental is available for a fee please see the R-PAC sport shop desk for more information (ph. 292-8590). Equipment Policy At the beginning of the second week of class, each student is required to bring to class eight table tennis balls (in unopened package). These balls will be used during the quarter, and returned to students on the last day of class, depending on the quantity remaining. The University will provide tables and paddles. Academic Misconduct Students are expected to do their own original work within the confines of the course objectives and evaluation procedures. Any deviation from these expectations is considered academic misconduct and Faculty Rule 3335-31-02 will be enforced. The Ohio State Universitys Code of Student Conduct (Section 3335-23-04) defines academic misconduct as: Any activity that tends to compromise the academic integrity of the University, or subvert the educational process. Examples of academic misconduct include (but are not limited to) plagiarism, collusion (unauthorized collaboration), copying the work of another student, and possession of unauthorized materials during an examination. Ignorance of the Universitys Code of Student Conduct is never considered an 177

excuse for academic misconduct, so it is strongly recommended that students review the Code of Student Conduct and, specifically, the sections dealing with academic misconduct. Text No textbook is required in this course. Statement of Student Rights Any student with a documented disability who may require special accommodations should self-identify to the instructor as early in the quarter as possibly to receive effective and timely accommodations.

178

Instructor: Office: Office Hours: Email Mailbox:

The Ohio State University School of Physical Activity and Educational Services EHE PAES 185.01 Table Tennis I (1 credit) Call Number: PE A20 Class Location: PE 0200 9:30 am-10:30 am M 9:30 am-10:30 am W Meeting Time: Quarter PE A215 10:30am 11:18am T/R Winter 2008

SFHP Website: http://education.osu.edu/paes/sfhp Course Website: http://carmen.osu.edu

Course Description The purpose of this course is to provide the student with the appropriate level knowledge and skills in Table tennis. As a result of the class the student will improve his/her general physical fitness and skill performance. Principles, techniques, safe practices, and strategies of table tennis will be taught throughout the class. Relationship to Other Courses This is a basic activity course in the Sport, Fitness, and Health Program. It is open to any student at The Ohio State University. There are no prerequisites for this course. Course Objectives 1. The student will demonstrate the appropriate level competence in the following skills: Grip and racket control Spin and racket angles Forehand and Backhand Drives Serves Pushing Blocking 2. The student will: Demonstrate knowledge of the basic tactics and strategies to play singles 179

games. Demonstrate knowledge of the rules governing the games of table tennis. Apply the basic strategies covered in singles and doubles games. Recognize and develop an appreciation for the role of table tennis in lifetime activities as a result of participation in course activities.

Off Campus Field Experience This course does not have an off-campus field experience. Diversity The curriculum and experience is designed, implemented, and evaluated in a manner that promotes the acquisition and application of knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Technology The use of web technology will be employed in this course for the dissemination of course materials such as syllabus, handouts and course notes. Additional means of communication between the instructor and students is available through the use of web-based email. Course Requirements/Evaluation Participation 35% Skills 35% Knowledge 30% Every absence causes losing 1.75 on the final grade. Game play performance on tournaments An online written-exam of table tennis content knowledge (multiple choices questions).

Note: The quizzes will be opened on Carmen. Participation is defined as the students involvement in all assigned drills and activities. It is during this time that the instructor will monitor and evaluate student progress. Based upon a 100 points total value for the course, of which 35 points are based upon participation, the following guidelines will be used for missed participation: Number of Class Meetings 20 Points Deducted per Non-participation 1.75 points

180

Grading Scale 94%-100% = A 90% - 93% = A87% - 89% = B+ 84% - 86% = B Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sessions Class 1: Class 2: Class 3: Class 4: Class 5: Class 6: Class 7: Class 8: Class 9: Class 10: Class 11: Class 12: Class 13: Class 14: Class 15: Class 16: Class 17: Class 18: Class 19: 80% - 83% = B77% - 79% = C+ 74% - 76% = C 70% - 73% = C67% - 69% = D+ 60% - 66% = D 59% - below = E

Tasks Introduction of the Syllabus Backhand & Serve Forehand & Footwork Game Play Game Play Holiday No class! Forehand Drive: down-the-line and Crosscourt (1) Forehand Drive: down-the-line and Crosscourt (2) Serve Advanced (1) Serve Advanced (2) Tournament 1 Tournament 2 Tournament 3 Tournament 4 Tournament 5 Tournament 6 Tournament 7 Game Play Posttest Game Play Posttest

Facility Access Any PAES course meeting in any Ohio State University recreational facility will require the use of a valid Buck ID to enter that facility. Failure to present a Buck ID would prohibit the students entry into the facilities, and therefore, would prevent the student from attending class. This would be considered an unexcused absence. Attendance Policy The 10% Rule The SFHP program has a 10% absence rule. This rule recognizes that situations occur where a student may miss class (e.g. medical illness) during the quarter. The 10% rule allows students to miss up to 10% of classes without points being lost in the area of participation. After a student has missed 10% of the class, the above 181

participation points will be deducted. As a result of this guideline, the SFHP program does not recognize excused medical absences. It is anticipated that medical absences will be taken care of within the 10% guideline. It is important to note that although an absence (within the 10% guideline) will not result in points being deducted, it will still count toward the total number of absences explained in the 30% rule. The 30% Rule As this is a laboratory-based class which centers around learning through participation in class activities, missing more than 30% of the class will result in the student earning a failing grade (i.e. receiving a final grade of E). The following guideline will be used: Number of Class Meetings 20 Number of Absences that will result in an E 7 Tardiness Any combination of two tardy arrivals or leaving class early equals an absence. The instructor will determine the tardy time. Excused Absences There are three situations, which constitute an excused absence from the class meeting time. They are: 1) students who participate in a documented University sanctioned event, 2) students who have a documented death in the family, and 3) students who are observing a religious holiday. In accordance to Faculty Rule 3335-7-15, students who will be participating in University sanctioned events must provide the instructor with a copy of the scheduled events and those classes which will be missed. This documentation must be on University letterhead, signed by the coach/supervisor, and given to the instructor within the first two weeks of the quarter. Students who will be observing a religious holiday must provide date/event written notification to the instructor within the first two weeks of the quarter. Any such missed classes must be made up within two weeks of the absence using the official SFHP Course Make Up Form. Failure to complete an SFHP Course Make Up Form and the necessary activity within two weeks will result in that absence becoming an unexcused absence. The make up form is available from the instructor. There will be no make up of unexcused absences or medical related absences. Risk Potential As you considering enrolling in a University Sport Fitness and Health Program class, the University would like you to be aware that participation in any physical activity 182

involves minor/serious risks to your body. Prior to participation students will be asked to read and sign statement that you (or parent/guardian if under 18) are aware of these risks and that you consent to medical treatment in the event that you are injured. For certain classes that involve potentially dangerous, vigorous and or risky behavior students will be asked to sign a statement releasing the University and its instructors from liability in the event students are injured as a result of participation in this class. Dress Code Attire appropriate to activity such as shorts, t-shirt and athletic footwear that is in compliance with building policies (see attached handout). Improper attire includes ballcaps, loose jewelry, running shoes, or street shoes. No gum chewing or tobacco chewing is allowed during class. Locker Availability There are two types of lockers available for use within the R-PAC facility. A limited number of day-use lockers require that you bring your own lock, and that you remove your items by the end of the day. Quarterly locker rental is available for a fee please see the R-PAC sport shop desk for more information (ph. 292-8590). Equipment Policy At the beginning of the second week of class, each student is required to bring to class eight table tennis balls (in unopened package). These balls will be used during the quarter, and returned to students on the last day of class, depending on the quantity remaining. The University will provide tables and paddles. Academic Misconduct Students are expected to do their own original work within the confines of the course objectives and evaluation procedures. Any deviation from these expectations is considered academic misconduct and Faculty Rule 3335-31-02 will be enforced. The Ohio State Universitys Code of Student Conduct (Section 3335-23-04) defines academic misconduct as: Any activity that tends to compromise the academic integrity of the University, or subvert the educational process. Examples of academic misconduct include (but are not limited to) plagiarism, collusion (unauthorized collaboration), copying the work of another student, and possession of unauthorized materials during an examination. Ignorance of the Universitys Code of Student Conduct is never considered an excuse for academic misconduct, so it is strongly recommended that students review the Code of Student Conduct and, specifically, the sections dealing with academic misconduct. Text No textbook is required in this course. 183

Statement of Student Rights Any student with a documented disability who may require special accommodations should self-identify to the instructor as early in the quarter as possibly to receive effective and timely accommodations.

184

APPENDIX C CLASS ORGANIZTION

185

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

186

APPENDIX D FOREHAND DRIVE ACCURACY INSTRUMENT

187

Coding guides:
Circle the number that the player hits the ball to the target. On target only includes two situations: (1) Inside the bounds (2) touch the bounds of the target. If the feeding ball is not appropriate, circle the number and move on to the next point.

Forehand Drive Accuracy Test

1 11 21 31

2 12 22 32

3 13 23 33

4 14 24 34

5 15 25 35

6 16 26

7 17 27

8 18 28

9 19 29

10 20 30

Total number on target: _________________

Feeders name: _________________ ___________________ Observer: ____________________ Date: Students name:

_________________

188

APPENDIX E FOREHAND ATTACK INSTRUMENT

189

The Attacking Test Instrumentation M: missing shot: The ball goes to the net or out of the bounds and the player misses the ball. I: successful driving shot The ball successfully lands on the table but does not bounce to the attacking zone. O: successful attacking shot The ball successful lands on the table and bounces in the attacking zone. Trail 1: Trail 2: Trail 3 Trail 4 Trail 5 Trail 6 Trail 7 Trail 8 Trail 9 Trail 10 Trail 11 Trail 12 Trail 13 Trail 14 Trail 15 Trail 16 Trail17 Trail 18 Trail 19 Trail 20 Total: Feeders name: _________________ Observer: ____________________ Students name: ___________________ Date: ________________________ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

190

APPENDIX F SERVE INSTRUMENT

191

The Serving Test Instrumentation

Coding guides:
Cross the number that the player hits the ball to the target.

1 A

2 B

3 A

4 A

5 B

6 A

7 B

8 B

9 B

10 A

11 B

12 A

13 A

14
B

15 A

16 A

17 B

18 B

19 A

20 B

On target only includes two situations: (1) inside the bounds (2) touch the bounds of the target.

Total number on target: _________________

Feeders name: _________________ Students name: ___________________ Observer: ____________________ Date: _________________

192

APPENDIX G ALTERNATION INSTRUMENT

193

The Alternating Test

The player must start each rally. Each shot only can be marked as one of three letters L (left), R (right), or F (failed). The Let causes a redo the rally. If the ball lands on (1) the centerline on the table, (2) the central mark on the net, and (3) centerline on the extension area, you always mark it as R (the right side). The observer one keeps every shot that player 1 performs in each rally. If the first bounce of the serve touches the edge (vertical part) of the table and the ball goes backward, that point shall be marked as F since the service can not demonstrate a ball placement that includes a direction (left side or right side). Students name: ___________________ Observer: ____________________ Trial 1: Trial 2: Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 Trial 8 Trial 9 Trial 10 Trial 11 Trial 12 Trial 13 Trial 14 Trial 15 Trial 16 Trial17 Trial 18 Trial 19 Trial 20 Trial 21 Trial 22 Trial 23 Trial 24 Trial 25 Trial 26 Trial 27 Total: L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Test Administrator: ______________ Date: ____________________ F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Score

194

APPENDIX H LESSON PLANS FOR PLAY PRACTICE GROUP

195

Class session: 1 Date: 01.04.2008 Class Purpose: Introduce the class and understand students Fill out the Low Risk Form Section Tasks Greet students and confirm the courses number and place. Warming Fill out the Low Risk Form up Introduce teacher and this course and sport Practice Teachers background Courses purposes: basic techniques, strategies and rules of table tennis Students introduce themselves (ice break games) Keep the attendance Game Play Go over the syllabus: Emphases the requirement of the course: attendance, equipment, attire and test. Preparation Handouts: Syllabi; Table Tennis terms; Table Tennis and health. Check the syllabus Bring the forms of the tournament

196

Class session: 2 Date: 01.07.2008 Class Purpose: Shake-hand grip Handling the ball (Racket control) Backhand drive Tasks Section Shake hand 1. Check the attendance and collect balls. 2. Announce the task of todays class: grip 3. Teaching shake-hands grip Benefits: having a free wrist & balanced forehand and backhand stroke. The most versatile. It is the preferred grip of most players in the world. 1. Running4 laps in the gym with keeping a table tennis ball Warm-up on the top of the paddle. and 2. Dribbling the ball: handling 100 times Forehand the ball 100 times Backhand 50 times forehand / backhand alternately (flip over) 1. Teach backhand drive: Backhand Demonstration of following 6 critical elements drive Ready positionarm relaxed Bring racket straight toward the waistcock wrist backward Racket and elbow move straight forward Contact made in front and slightly to left side Turn top of wrist down at contact so it faces the table-Closing the racket Racket goes in general direction ball is hitreturn to ready position Practice: 2. Backhand drive (crosscourt) drill: A flight of stairs: 30 trials, 50 trials, 100 trials, & 150 trials (cooperation!). Skill 11 points x 4 sets game Pretest & Promptly to use backhand to return Game Play Serve can be modified. Preparation Evaluation sheet of student skill levels

197

Class session: 3 Date: 01.09.2008 Class Purpose: Review Backhand Drive Forehand Drive Serve Section Tasks 1. Keep the attendance W Arming up 2. Announce the task of this session: 3. Warm up and peddle control: Dribble the ball 100 times 5 on forehand / 5 on backhand alternately Dribble the ball and squat while Dribble and pass the ball to the peers with one ball and two balls Warm up in tables: Backhand drive for 100 trials x 3 times 1. Demonstrating following critical elements (for right Forehand handed): Drive
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stand out facing the table, your right foot slightly back. Rotate your body to the right at the waist, with the hand swinging out ward. Keep your elbow near your waist. During the back swing, keep the racket perpendicular to the floor. Start the forward swing by rotating your weight forward onto your left foot. At the same time, rotate your waist and arm forward; keep your elbow almost stationary. Back swing and forward swing should be one continuous motion.

7.
8.

Make contact at about the top of the bounce, in front and slightly to the right of your body.
The racket should rotate around the top and back of the ball Follow through with the racket going roughly to your forehead or a little to the left, similar to a salute. Your weight should transfer to the left leg.

9.

Crouched with knees bent, begin with the front of your body nearly parallel to the end of the table. With the blade of your bat slightly opened and just left of center of your body, take a short backswing from directly behind the ball. Exercise: Forehand drive activity (crosscourt) 198

A flight of stairs: 30 trials, 50 trials, 100 trials & 150 trials 1. Teachers demonstration of critical elements of serve: Serve 1. Ball in palm 2. Palm flat and stationary 3. Toss ball six inches or more 4. Draw racket back roughly 1 foot 5. Contact ball as it drops 6. Follow through naturally 2. Serve 10 trials (5 down the line & 5 crosscourt) X 2 groups Students need to be paired up and the partner practice serve returning 3. Serving Zone activity Forehand serve 6 trails X 3 times and see if all trails in different zones. The partner needs to check the critical elements of the performance. Equipment Balls and peddles Frames (Peng prepares this)

199

Class session: 4 Date: 01.14.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test Section Tasks 1. Announce the test procedure Warming 2. Pair up students with 4 on each group (student ABCD in up a pre-determined order). 8 minutes Test 1. Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Student A takes the test while B picks up the balls. Procedure 40 minutes Two students rotate to take the test. 4 minutes/ Two observers code the performance. 2. Attacking Test group Student C & D take the attacking test while A & B taking the forehand drive accuracy test. Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test

Student A & B

Student C & D

Game play Preparation

3. Student AB and CD rotate the test when two of them finished the test. Students who do not take the test play a game with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn. Two targets (paper board) One radio cassette 35 competition balls 20 evaluation forms for two measures (FDA & AT) Three pencils Six clipboards Two stop watches My table tennis racket A name list of the students 200

Class session: 5 Date: 01.16.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Serving Test Alternation Test Section Tasks 1. Announce the test procedure Warming 2. Pair up students with 2 on each group (student AB in a up pre-determined order). 8 minutes 1. Test Procedure Test Two students play a formal table tennis game by Procedure 40 minutes winning 21 point 4 minutes/ Test administrator serves as the referee. group Ball Placement Service Placement, Service Placement, and Early Attack Performance are tested at the same time. Serving Test Alternation Test Student A & B Student C & D

2. Student AB and CD rotate the test when AB finished the test. Students who do not take the test play a tournament with Game play the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn. Preparation Peng prepares: 40 evaluation forms for three measures (BP. SP, & EAP) Three pencils Three clipboards One stop watches Four markers (ABCE for identifying the table) Alex and Jooryun prepare a name list of the students. 201

Class session:6 Date: 2008.1.23rd Class Purpose: Ball placement (forehand crosscourt) Section Tasks 1. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: up 3. Warm up activity for handling: Dribble the ball again wall (forehand). 1. Multiple ball exercise: 20 trials x 4 times Practice Forehand Procedure: one student (the feeder) feed 20 balls to drive forehand side of the player. The player must return the ball (crosscourt) to a target by using his/her forehand drive. The feeder records the players performance (X/20 on target). And two player rotate. The winner will receive a sticker. 2. Target game 1 minute x 5 times Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and score a point if the ball his either target and accumulate the score within one minute. The instructor counts the time and identifies the three pairs who have the highest score on the activity. Feeder Player A 20

Game Play 20 minutes

Half vs. Half Play: 11 points x 5 sets

Player A Player B Modification: Both only can forehand serve and return. 202

players use drive to

Closure

Take over tables and collect balls. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session.

Class session:7 Date: 01.28.2008 Class Purpose: Ball placement (forehand crosscourt + down the line) Section 1. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: up 3. Warm up activity for handling: Play by yourself. Practice Forehand drive (cross court) 1. Target Drill 30 Seconds x 8 times Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and score a point if the ball his either target and accumulate the score within one minute. The instructor counts the time and identifies the three pairs who have the highest score on the activity. 2. Multiple ball exercise: 20 trials x 4 times Procedure: one student (the feeder) feed 20 balls to forehand side of the player. The player must return the ball alternately to two targets by using his/her forehand drive. The circle target values 2 points and the squared is 1. The feeder records the players performance (X/20 on-target). Player A Feeder

Game Play 20 minutes

Half vs. Half Play: 11 points x 5 sets

Player A

Player B

Modification: 203

Players only can use forehand drive to serve and return. Players can only return to half of the table. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Closure Preparation 20 targets for practice drills & One stopwatch

204

Class session:8 Date: 01.30.2008 Class Purpose: Ball placement (forehand crosscourt + down the line) Section Tasks 1. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming up 2. Announce the task of this session: 3. Warm up activity for handling: Touching the dead-balls Practice 1. Target Game 11 x 5 sets Forehand Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and score a drive point if the ball hits either of the targets and accumulate the (cross court) score. The rally starts from the receiver and the serve does NOT count as a shot. 2.Multiple ball exercise: 20 trials x 4 times Procedure: one student (the feeder) feed 20 balls to forehand side of the player. The player must return the ball alternately to two targets by using his/her forehand drive. The circle target values 2 points and the squared is 1. The feeder records the players performance (X/20 on target). (Pick up 20 balls)

Game Play 20 minutes

Half vs. Complete Play: 11 points x 5 sets

Player A Modification: Player can use

Player B

A only

Closure Preparation

forehand drive to serve and return. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. 20 targets for practice drills & One stopwatch

205

Class session: 9 Date: 02.04.2008 Class Purpose: Ball placement (forehand crosscourt + down the line) Section Tasks Warming up 1. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form 2. Announce the task of this session: 3. Warm up activity for handling: Touching the dead-balls Practice 1. 1 minutes in maximum x 5 trials Forehand Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and count drive the number of shots. Every time they should increase 5 (cross court) shots from the first trial. Only forehand allowed. 2.Multiple ball exercise: 20 trials x 4 times Procedure: one student (the feeder) feed 20 balls to forehand side of the player. The player must return the ball to the target by using his/her forehand drive. (X/20 on target). Player A Feeder

Game Play 20 minutes

Half vs. Complete Play: 11 points x 5 sets

Player A B

Player

Modification: Player only use forehand drive to serve and return.

A can

206

Class session:10 Date: 02.06.2008 Class Purpose: Ball placement (backhand crosscourt + down the line) Section Tasks 1. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming up 2. Announce the task of this session: 3. Warm up activity for handling: Play by yourself 1. Multiple ball exercise: 20 trials x 4 times Practice Forehand drive Procedure: one student (the feeder) feed 20 balls to (cross court) backhand side of the player. The player must return the ball alternately to two targets by using his/her backhand drive. The feeder records the players performance (X/20 on target). And two players rotate to exercise. 2. Target game 1 minute x 5 times Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and score a point if the ball hits any target and accumulate the total score within one minute. The instructor counts the time and identifies the three pairs who have the highest score on the activity.

Game Play 20 minutes

Half vs. Half Play: 11 points x 5 sets Player A Modifications: Player A only can use backhand drive to serve and return. Player B can only return to half of the table but can use both hands. Player B The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. 20 targets for practice drills One stopwatch 207

Closure Preparation

Class session:11 Date: 02.11.2008 Class Purpose: Two Step Footwork Forehand alternation Section Tasks 1. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Dead area game 11 X 4 sets up Player A (yellow smelly) cannot return the ball to the No Play Area.

No Play Area

Practice

1. Keep the ball in rally ( 1 minute x 6 trials) Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and keep the ball in rally for one minute. Both players use their forehand and backhand to return the ball but Player A only returns the ball crosscourt and Player B returns the ball down the line. Players rotate the roles after every trial.

Game Play

1. Target game: 11 points x 5 times

Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and score a point if the ball hits any target. Serve does not count.

208

Class session:12 Date: 02.13.2008 Class Purpose: Attack performance: Forehand alternation Section Tasks 1. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: up 3. Warm up activity: snow man game 11 points x 2 sets Snowman Game involves maintaining a completely stationary position. Both players must choose a stance and keep their feet frozen in place throughout the duration of each point played. The game is played according to the regular rules. The only exception to this is that if a player moves his or her feet, that player automatically loses the point currently being played. 1 Review Two-step footwork: Practice
- Demonstrate the two step footwork a couple of times

Game Play

Closure Preparation

Preparation phase: knees slightly bent, weight evenly distributed between both legs Execution phase: left foot takes a short step, left leg pulls, both feet shuffle to the left Follow through phase: left leg moves to the left, start back swing stroke immediately after footwork Imitate the movement following teacher for 10 times 1. Multiple ball exercise: 20 trials x 4 times Procedure: one student (the feeder) randomly feed 20 balls to backhand or forehand side of the player. The player must use his/her forehand to return the ball down the line and crosscourt to the targets. The feeder records the players performance (X/20 on target). And two players rotate to exercise. Forehand Game: 21 points x 2 sets Modification: Players only can use forehand drive to serve and return. Take over tables and collect balls. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. 20 targets for practice drills 209

Class session: 13 Date:. 02.18.2008 Class Purpose: Attack performance: Forehand crosscourt and down the line Forehand Serve Section Tasks 1. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: up 3. Warm up activity: Play by yourself. 1. Serving game (10 x 4 times / player) Practice
Procedure: Player B serves to two targets alternately and scores a point if the ball touches the target. Player A responds to return the ball to the server and switch with Player B after 10 trials.

2. Serving and attacking game (15 trials x 4 times / player) Player A serves the ball to the two targets and player B needs to attack the ball by using forehand. If the player B lets the ball bounce in the 9 feet zone, it scores two points while 6 feet zone with 1 point. 9 feet zone
6 feet zone

Player A

3 feet zone

Player B Player Game Play Three shots game: 11 points x 3 sets Two players play a formal table tennis game. The modification is that if the total number of shots of a rally is more than 4, the rally ends up and the server loses a point. In other words, the server has to finish the rally within 3 shots (in total) to avoid losing score. (P.S. Every player will serve the whole set.) Formal game 11 points x 5 sets Take over tables and collect balls. Closure The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Preparation 20 targets for practice drills 210

Class session:14 Date: 2008.2.20 Class Purpose: Attack performance: Forehand crosscourt and down the line Forehand serve Section Tasks 1. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: up 3. Warm up activity: Three shots game 11 x 3 times. 1. Serving game (10 x 4 times / player) Practice
Procedure: Player A randomly calls 1 or 2 to Player B who needs to serve to the corresponding target. Player B scores a point if the ball touches the target. Player A responds to return the ball to the server and switch with Player B after 10 trials.

2. Serving and attacking game (15 trials x 4 times / player) Player A randomly serves the ball to the two targets and player B needs to attack the ball by using forehand. If the player B lets the ball bounce in the 9 feet zone, it scores two points while 6 feet zone with 1 point.
9 feet zone 6 feet zone

Player A
1 2

3 feet zone

Game Play Half vs Half Game: 11 points x 3 sets

Player

A Player B

Modification: Both players only can use forehand drive to serve and return. Both players can use half of the table to play (if the ball 211

Class session:16 Date: 02.27.2008. Class Purpose: Comprehensive skills and game play Section Tasks Warming 1. Keep the attendance 2. Announce the task of this session up Serving and attacking game Practice (15 trials x 4 times / player) Player A serves the ball 9 feet zone to the two targets and player 6 feet zone B needs to attack the ball by using forehand. If the player 3 feet zone B lets the ball bounce in the 9 feet zone, it scores two points while 6 feet zone with 1 point.

Game Play

Round Robin (small group) game (11 points) Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Round Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3-6 2-5 4-8 3-7 1-4 5-7 1-2 1-8 4-7 2-6 1-5 2-3 6-8 3-4 2-7 3-8 1-7 4-6 5-8 1-3 5-6

Table 4 4-5 1-6 3-5 2-8 6-7 2-4 7-8

212

Class session: 17 Date: 03.03.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test Section Tasks Warming 1. Announce the test procedure 2. Pair up students with 4 on each group (student ABCD in a up pre-determined order). 8 minutes 1. Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Test Student A takes the test while B picks up the balls. Procedure 40 Two students rotate to take the test. minutes Two observers code the performance. 4 minutes/ 2. Attacking Test group Student C & D take the attacking test while A & B taking the forehand drive accuracy test. Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test

Student A & B

Student C & D

Game play

3. Student AB and CD rotate the test when two of them finished the test. Students who do not take the test play a game with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn.

213

Class session: 18 Date: 03.05.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Serving Test & Alternation Test Section Warming up 8 minutes Test Procedure 40 minutes 4 minutes/ group
Tasks

1. Announce the test procedure 2. Pair up students with 2 on each group (student AB in a pre-determined order). 1.Test Procedure Two students play a formal table tennis game by winning 21 point Test administrator serves as the referee. Ball Placement Service Placement, Service Placement, and Early Attack Performance are tested at the same time. Serving Test Alternation Test Student A & B Student C & D

3. Student AB and CD rotate the test when AB finished the test. Students who do not take the test play a tournament Game play with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn.

214

Class session:15 Date:02.25.2008 Class Purpose: Comprehensive skills and game play Section Tasks 1. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Announce the task of this session up Serving and attacking game Practice (15 trials x 4 times / player) 9 feet zone Player A serves the ball to the two targets and player B 6 feet zone needs to attack the ball by 3 feet zone using forehand. If the player B lets the ball bounce in the 9 feet zone, it scores two points while 6 feet zone with 1 point.

Game Play

Round Robin (small group) game (11 points) Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Round
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 3-6 2-5 4-8 3-7 1-4 5-7 1-2 1-8 4-7 2-6 1-5 2-3 6-8 3-4 2-7 3-8 1-7 4-6 5-8 1-3 5-6 4-5 1-6 3-5 2-8 6-7 2-4 7-8

Modification: Table 1& 2: Half vs Half Table Game Play (crosscourt & only forehand)

215

APPENDIX I LESSON PLANS FOR SFHP INSTRUCTION GROUP

216

Class session: 1 Date: 01.04.2008 Class Purpose: Introduce the class and understand students Fill out the Low Risk Form Tasks Section Greet students and confirm the courses number and place. Warming Fill out the Low Risk Form up Introduce teacher and this course and sport Practice Teachers background Courses purposes: basic techniques, strategies and rules of table tennis Students introduce themselves (ice break games) Keep the attendance Game Play Go over the syllabus: Emphases the requirement of the course: attendance, equipment, attire and test. Preparation Handouts: Syllabi; Table Tennis terms; Table Tennis and health. Check the syllabus Bring the forms of the tournament

217

Class session: 2 Date: 01.07.2008 Class Purpose: Shake-hand grip Handling the ball (Racket control) Backhand drive Tasks Section Shake hand 1. Check the attendance and collect balls. 2. Announce the task of todays class: grip 3. Teaching shake-hands grip Benefits: having a free wrist & balanced forehand and backhand stroke. The most versatile. It is the preferred grip of most players in the world. 1. Running4 laps in the gym with keeping a table tennis ball Warm-up on the top of the paddle. and 2. Dribbling the ball: handling 100 times Forehand the ball 100 times Backhand 50 times forehand / backhand alternately (flip over) 4. Teach backhand drive: Backhand Demonstration of following 6 critical elements drive Ready positionarm relaxed Bring racket straight toward the waistcock wrist backward Racket and elbow move straight forward Contact made in front and slightly to left side Turn top of wrist down at contact so it faces the table-Closing the racket Racket goes in general direction ball is hitreturn to ready position Practice: 2. Backhand drive (crosscourt) drill: A flight of stairs: 30 trials, 50 trials, 100 trials, & 150 trials (cooperation!). Skill 11 points x 4 sets game Pretest & Promptly to use backhand to return Game Play Serve can be modified. Preparation Evaluation sheet of student skill levels

218

Class session: 3 Date: 01.09.2008 Class Purpose: Review Backhand Drive Forehand Drive Serve Tasks Section Warming 1. Keep the attendance 2. Announce the task of this session: up 5 minutes 3. Warm up and peddle control: Dribble the ball 100 times 5 on forehand / 5 on backhand alternately Dribble the ball and squat while Dribble and pass the ball to the peers with one ball and two balls Warm up in tables: Backhand drive for 100 trials x 3 times 1. Demonstrating following critical elements (for right handed): Forehand 10. Stand out facing the table, your right foot slightly back. Drive
11. Rotate your body to the right at the waist, with the hand swinging out ward. 12. Keep your elbow near your waist. 13. During the back swing, keep the racket perpendicular to the floor. 14. Start the forward swing by rotating your weight forward onto your left foot. 15. At the same time, rotate your waist and arm forward; keep your elbow almost stationary. Back swing and forward swing should be one continuous motion.

16. Make contact at about the top of the bounce, in front and slightly to the right of your body.
17. The racket should rotate around the top and back of the ball

18. Follow through with the racket going roughly to your forehead
or a little to the left, similar to a salute. Your weight should transfer to the left leg. Crouched with knees bent, begin with the front of your

body nearly parallel to the end of the table. With the blade of your bat slightly opened and just left of center of your body, take a short backswing from directly behind the ball. Exercise: Forehand drive activity (crosscourt) A flight of stairs: 30 trials, 50 trials, 100 trials & 150 trials

219

Serve

1. Teachers demonstration of critical elements of serve:

7. Ball in palm 8. Palm flat and stationary 9. Toss ball six inches or more 10. Draw racket back roughly 1 foot 11. Contact ball as it drops 12. Follow through naturally 5. Serve 10 trials (5 down the line & 5 crosscourt) X 2 groups Students need to be paired up and the partner practice serve returning 6. Serving Zone activity Forehand serve 6 trails X 3 times and see if all trails in different zones. The partner needs to check the critical elements of the performance. Equipment Balls and peddles Frames (Peng prepares this)

220

Class session: 4 Date: 01.14.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test Tasks Section 1. Announce the test procedure Warming 2. Pair up students with 4 on each group (student ABCD in a up pre-determined order). 8 minutes Test 1.Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Student A takes the test while B picks up the balls. Procedure 40 minutes Two students rotate to take the test. 4 minutes/ Two observers code the performance. group 2. Attacking Test Student C & D take the attacking test while A & B taking the forehand drive accuracy test. Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test

Student A & B

Student C & D

3. Student AB and CD rotate the test when two of them finished the test. Students who do not take the test play a game with the Game play peer until the test administrator calls for their turn.

221

Class session: 5 Date: 01.16.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Serving Test Alternation Test Tasks Section Warming Announce the test procedure Pair up students with 2 on each group (student AB in a up 8 minutes pre-determined order). Test Procedure Test Two students play a formal table tennis game by Procedure 40 minutes winning 21 point 4 minutes/ Test administrator serves as the referee. group Ball Placement Service Placement, Service Placement, and Early Attack Performance are tested at the same time. Serving Test Alternation Test Student A & B Student C & D

Game play

Student AB and CD rotate the test when AB finished the test. Students who do not take the test play a tournament with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn.

222

Class session:6 Date: 01.23.2008 Class Purpose: Forehand drive drills Tasks Section 1. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: up 3. Warm up activity for handling: Dribble the ball again wall (forehand). 1.Forehand drive drill (crosscourt) Practice Forehand Procedure: two players use their forehand to drive the ball drive back and forth and keep the ball in rally. 50 x 6 rallies 2. Forehand drive drill (down the line) Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and keep the ball in rally. One of them uses backhand and other use forehand to return the ball. Two players use one half of a table to operate the activity and rotate every 2 minutes (the teacher remind the time). Student A(forehand) Student A (backhand)

Student B (forehand) Student B(forehand) Crosscourt activity Down the line Game Play Formal game 21 points x 5 sets (accomplish the game from last 20 minutes week) Collect balls. Closure The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Preparation 30 Ping Pong balls One stopwatch

223

Class session:7 Date: 01.28.2008 Class Purpose: Forehand drive drills (2) Tasks Section Warming 1. Keep the attendance 2. Announce the task of this session: up 3. Warm up activity for handling: Play with your self 1.Forehand drive drill (crosscourt and down the line) 5 minutes Practice Forehand Procedure: two players use their forehand to drive the ball back drive and forth and keep the ball in rally. Player A needs to drive the ball to different directions: crosscourt and down the line 20 alternately. Player B alternately uses his or her backhand and minutes forehand to send the ball to the forehand side of the player A. 2. Forehand drive drill (down the line) 5 Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and keep the ball in rally. One of them uses forehand drive to return the ball down the line. The other stays on his backhand side and alternately returns it with forehand and backhand. Two players use one half of a table to operate the activity and rotate every 2 minutes (the teacher remind the time). Student A(forehand) Student A (backhand & forehand)

Game Play 25 minutes

Student B(forehand & backhand) Student B(forehand & forehand) Crosscourt and down the line activity Down the line Tournament: Round Robin (simplified version) 11 points game within 2 minutes (if you win you move counter clockwise but you move clockwise if you lose).

224

Class session:8 Date: 01.30.2008 Class Purpose: Serve drills Tasks Section 1. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: up 3. Warm up activity for handling: Play by yourself. 1. Demonstrate backhand backspin serve: (critical elements) Practice server Racket very openwrist loose and cocked slightly up Draw racket back and slightly uptoss ball upward 20 minutes between 6 inches and eye level Graze the bottom of the ball with a forward and slightly downward motion Follow through naturally 3. Serve drills backhand backspin The server produces 10 backspin serves by using his or her backhand. Then the receiver returns the serve by either using push or loop (if possible). Two players switch the roles 4. Serve drill: forehand topspin The server produces 10 topspin serves by using his or her forehand. Then the receiver returns the serve by either using forehand or backhand drive. Two players switch the roles after 10 trials. 5. Serve drills forehand/backhand sidespin The server produces 10 sidespin serves by using his or her forehand or backhand. Then the receiver returns the serve by either using drive or loop (if possible). Two players switch the roles Game Play Moving like a Clock: 20 minutes 11 points game within 2 minutes (if you win you move counter clockwise but you move clockwise if you lose). 1. Take over tables and collect balls. Closure 2. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Preparation One stopwatch

225

Class session: 9 Class Purpose: Tournament: serve drills round robin (1) Tasks Section Warming up 5 minutes

Date: 02.04.2008

Practice server and return of the serve 15 minutes

1. Keep the attendance 2. 2. Announce the task of this session: serve practice & Round Robin 3. Warm up activity for handling: five minutes free play and exercise 1. Forehand serve: Flat serve: 10 x 2 times Topspin serve: 10 x 2 times 2. Backhand serve Flat serve: 10 x 2 times Backspin serve: 10 x 2 times The partner of server practices receiving the serve. Then the server and receiver rotate their roles whenever the server finishes the exercise of one trial.

Game Play 25minutes

1. Demonstrate the procedures: N-1 matches per player Best 2 games per match Winning 11 points per game Two serves in a row 2. Start the game Take over tables and collect balls. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. The schedule table of the tournament The nametag

Closure Preparation

226

Class session:10 Date: 02.06.2008 Class Purpose: Tournament: round robin (2) Tasks Section 1.Keep the attendance Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: Round Robin up 3.Warm up activity for handling: five minutes free play and exercise Game Play 1.Demonstrate the procedures: 35minutes N-1 matches per player Best 2 games per match Winning 11 points per game Two serves in a row 2.Start the game 1. Take over tables and collect balls. Closure 2. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Preparation 1. The schedule table of the tournament 2. The nametag

227

Class session:11 Date: 02.11.2008 Class Purpose: Singles Tournament: Team competition Tasks Section 1. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: singles tournament up 3.Warm up activity: Forehand and Backhand drives (5 minutes) Game Play Procedure: 35minutes 1. Identify four teams (Brazil Chad, Italy, Japan) 2. Demonstrate the and rules: 4/5 players per team 1 match per player 3 games per match (neither best 3 nor best of 3 game) Winning 11 points per game Two serves in a row 3. Select a captain from each team Brazil vs Chad Italy vs Japan 4. Select the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth seed of each team. 1. 2. Preparation 1. 2. Closure Take over tables and collect balls. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. The schedule table of the tournament The nametag

Brazil Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4

Japan Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4

Italy Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4

Chad Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4

228

Class session:12 Date: 02.13.2008 Class Purpose: Singles Tournament: Team competition Tasks Section 1. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: singles tournament up 3.Warm up activity: Forehand and Backhand drives (5 minutes) Game Play Procedure: 35minutes 1. Identify four teams (Brazil Chad, Italy, Japan) 2. Demonstrate the and rules: 4/5 players per team 1 match per player 3 games per match (neither best 3 nor best of 3 game) Winning 11 points per game Two serves in a row 3. Select a captain from each team Brazil vs Japan Italy vs Chad Select the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth seed of each team. Take over tables and collect balls. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Preparation The schedule table of the tournament The nametag Closure
Brazil Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4 Japan Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4 Italy Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4 Chad Player 1 Player 2 Player 3 Player 4

229

SCORE SHEET DATE Scoring Game 1 2 3 4 5 Total TEAM: TEAM:

Scoring: Game 1 2 3 4 5 Total TEAM: TEAM:

MVP Best Serve Best Forehand Best Backhand Best Attack Best Defense Sportsmanship

230

EXAMPLE SCORE SHEET DATE 2/5/08 Scoring Game 1 2 3 4 5 Total TEAM: Japan John 3 Susan 1 Andy 0 Paul 0 Matt 3 7 Scoring: Game 1 2 3 4 5 Total TEAM: Brazil Peter 2 Mary 3 Luke 3 Pete 0 Beth 3 11 TEAM: Italy Ryan Jacob Fanny Jack Brian 1 0 0 3 0 4 TEAM: Chad Randy 0 Jean 2 Fred 3 Jason 3 Brandon 0 8

MVP Best Serve Best Forehand Best Backhand Best Attack Best Defense Sportsmanship

Mary Luke John Susan Jack Brian Jacob

231

Class session:13 Date: 02.18.2008 Class Purpose: Singles Tournament: Team Rivalry Tasks Section 1. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: singles tournament up 3.Warm up activity: Dribbling the ball against the wall Game Play Procedure: 35minutes Identify the Fruit Teams (Apple, Orange, Berry, and Mango etc.) Demonstrate the and rules: 2 players per team 3 matches per competition: (1) Singles (2) Doubles (3) Singles 3 games per match (neither best 3 nor best of 3 game) Winning 11 points per game Two serves in a row Select the first & second player in each team. 3. Take over tables and collect balls. Closure 4. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Preparation 3. The schedule table of the tournament 4. The nametag

232

Class session:14 Date: 02.20.2008 Class Purpose: Singles Tournament: Team Rivalry (cont) Tasks Section 1. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Announce the task of this session: singles tournament up 3.Warm up activity: Dribbling the wall against the wall Game Play Procedure: 35minutes Identify the Fruit Teams (Apple, Orange, Berry, and Mango etc.) Demonstrate the and rules: 2 players per team 3 matches per competition: (4) Singles (5) Doubles (6) Singles 3 games per match (neither best 3 nor best of 3 game) Winning 11 points per game Two serves in a row Select the first & second player in each team. 5. Take over tables and collect balls. Closure 6. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Preparation 5. The schedule table of the tournament 6. The nametag

233

Score Sheet
Game 1 Singles Doubles nd 2 Singles Final Score
st

Team:

Team:

Game 1 Singles Doubles nd 2 Singles Final Score

st

Team:

Team:

Game 1 Singles Doubles nd 2 Singles Final Score

st

Team:

Team:

Game 1 Singles Doubles nd 2 Singles Final Score

st

Team:

Team:

Game 1st Singles Doubles 2 Singles

nd

Team:

Team:

Game 1st Singles Doubles 2 Singles

nd

Team:

Team:

Final Score
Team: Game 1 Singles Doubles nd 2 Singles Final Score
st

Final Score
Team:

Game 1 Singles Doubles nd 2 Singles Final Score

st

Team:

Team:

Team: Game 1 Singles Doubles nd 2 Singles Final Score

st

Team:

Game 1 Singles Doubles nd 2 Singles Final Score

st

Team:

Team:

234

Class session: 17 Date: 03.03.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test Tasks Section Announce the test procedure Warming Pair up students with 4 on each group (student ABCD in a up pre-determined order). 8 minutes Test 1. Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Student A takes the test while B picks up the balls. Procedure 40 minutes Two students rotate to take the test. 4 minutes/ Two observers code the performance. group 2. Attacking Test Student C & D take the attacking test while A & B taking the forehand drive accuracy test. Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test

Student A & B

Student C & D

Game play

3. Student AB and CD rotate the test when two of them finished the test. Students who do not take the test play a game with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn.

235

Preparation

Two targets (paper board) One radio cassette 35 competition balls 20 evaluation forms for two measures (FDA & AT) Three pencils Six clipboards Two stop watches

Class session: 18 Date: 03.05.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Serving Test Alternation Test Tasks Section 1. Announce the test procedure Warming 2. Pair up students with 2 on each group (student AB in a up pre-determined order). 8 minutes Test Procedure Test Two students play a formal table tennis game by Procedure 40 minutes winning 21 point 4 minutes/ Test administrator serves as the referee. group Ball Placement Service Placement, Service Placement, and Early Attack Performance are tested at the same time. Serving Test Alternation Test Student A & B Student C & D

Game play

Student AB and CD rotate the test when AB finished the test. Students who do not take the test play a tournament with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn. 236

Preparation Peng prepares: 40 evaluation forms for three measures (BP. SP, & EAP) Three pencils Three clipboards One stop watches Four markers (ABCE for identifying the table) Alex and Jooryun prepare a name list of the students.

237

Class session:15 Date: 02.25.2008 Class Purpose: Comprehensive skills and game play Tasks Section Warming up 1. Keep the attendance Serving and attacking Practice (15 Practice trials x 3 times / player) Player A serves the ball to Player B who needs to attack the ball by using forehand.

Player A

Player B Game Play

Round Robin (small group) game (11 points) Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Table 1 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 3-6 2-5 4-8 3-7 1-4 5-7 1-2

Table 2 1-8 4-7 2-6 1-5 2-3 6-8 3-4

Table 3 Table 4 2-7 3-8 1-7 4-6 5-8 1-3 5-6 4-5 1-6 3-5 2-8 6-7 2-4 7-8

Closure Preparation

Take over tables and collect balls. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session.

238

Class session:16 Date: 02.27.2008 Class Purpose: Comprehensive skills and game play Tasks Section 1. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Announce the task of this session up Serving and attacking Practice (15 Practice trials x 3 times / player) Player A serves the ball to Player B who needs to attack the ball by using forehand.

Player A

Player B Game Play

Round Robin (small group) game (11 points) Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Table 1 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 3-6 2-5 4-8 3-7 1-4 5-7 1-2

Table 2 1-8 4-7 2-6 1-5 2-3 6-8 3-4

Table 3 2-7 3-8 1-7 4-6 5-8 1-3 5-6

Table 4 4-5 1-6 3-5 2-8 6-7 2-4 7-8

Closure Preparation

Take over tables and collect balls. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session.

239

APPENDIX J MULTIPLE BALL ACTIVITY PROCEDURE

240

9 Feet

6 Feet

3 Feet

Feeder

Target

Player
241