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, η²= .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

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

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

Born – Shijiazhuang. Hebei. 1979 …………………………. OH FIELD OF STUDY Major Field: Education Area of Emphasis: Physical Education Teacher Education Cognate: Teacher Education vii . China 2001 ……………………………………… Bachelor of Education (Honors): Beijing Sport University Beijing. China Area: Physical Education 2004 – present……………………………. Graduate Teaching Associate The Ohio State University. Columbus.VITA August 11. China Area: Athletic Training 2004 ……………………………………… Master of Education: Beijing Sport University Beijing.

........... Research questions…......................................................... viii 13 13 14 19 22 25 26 27 30 31 31 ...………………………………............………..................................................xii List of Figures .........................................................…………....... The role of teacher feedback…………………………………….................................................................................................................... Significance of the study ........……………......................................................................... The role of teacher content knowledge…...................................................... Statement of the problem.......................................... Review of Literature ......................................................................................................... The problems in teaching sport....xiii Chapters: 1............... Definitions of terms ............……………… Background......TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract. Curriculum models proposed for the teaching of sports in PE..v Vita................................................................... Delimitations .................................................…ii Dedication ..................................iv Acknowledgments....... The role of the learner’s motivation and attitude….............................................. Limitations ....................................... The role of technical only approach.. Introduction................................................................................................................................... The role of the multiple activity curriculum……………………................................................................................................................ Implications …………………………………………….......………....vii List of Tables ..........................................................…………………....................................................................................................................................... The Teaching Games for Understanding……….........................……................................................................................... Page 1 4 6 8 8 9 10 2.................

........…………………………................ The model of Teaching Games for Understanding………. A critique of TGFU and TGM........ Pilot study………….....................………………………………………………… Institutional review board permission …....Conceptual rationale of Teaching Games for Understanding…………………………………………….... The serve test........................ Rationale of the Play Practice.………....... The model of Sport Education..............…. Methods…………...........…………................. The Sport Education Model……….. The conceptual rationale…........................……………………………..……………… The model of Play Practice...……………………………………..... The conceptual rationale…………………………………....………………… Instrumentation………………………………………………........... The empirical evidence for the TGFU model and TGM.. 78 78 82 82 85 87 88 93 95 99 ix .………………………………....... A critique of Sport Education…………….……..………………..........………………….……........ The model of Tactical Game Approach. Research design………....... The alternation test......………………………….……………………… Background…………………………………………............... Tactical Game Model…….................……………………………..... The forehand attack test......…..........……………………………....................……………....……………………………… 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... The Play Practice Model....…………................... Background………………………………………………. The research of Sport Education……….………......…………………………… Context of the study………...……… The forehand drive accuracy test...…....………........……………… Summary…………………………………………………........

.......................................................................………………………………...... 159 x ................................................. The Non-significant difference on pretest measures.... Treatment integrity ..... Data analysis…………….. Training of study personal…………………………………......................... Implication for physical education teacher education ……………….... Results of the first research question.....................................................................Intervention development...........................................................…................................... Results of the third research question.…….......... 120 120 121 121 123 125 132 132 133 5...............................……………………….................................................................. The differences of Play Practice and SFHP instruction .............................. Results of the second research question........................... Implications for teaching sport in physical education…....................................................... The similarities of the treatment and comparison group........................... Pretest scores ........... Treatment integrity………................................................……………….............................................................. Correlations among the dependent measures................................................................................................................................. 104 105 108 113 114 118 4.......………....... Methodological suggestions for future studies......…................................................………………………….............................................. The results of dependent measures ......................................……........ Results of the fourth research question...................... Inter-observer Agreement................................. Results....................... Time x Group effects and the intervention analysis.. Discussion.................................... Competition and game format practice........................................................................... Summary .............. The weakness of the study................................... The strength of the study…............................................................... 135 135 136 136 137 139 140 143 146 149 154 157 References ... Purposefully modified games............

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

...................115 3.................13 Workshop Agenda of Play Practice...34 2.................3 Five Variables Used to Shape the Game...96 3....................12 Pre-instruction Training Schedule.………………………………………...113 3.2 Three Instructional Approaches of Teaching Sport..................4 The Statement and Demonstration of the Serving Test.........122 4......................10 Sample Checklist of Procedural Integrity (Treatment Group) ...............................1 Sports and games classifications...........................................2 Treatment Integrity Data for Comparison Group...................... Variables.......... and Analytic Methods...3 The Statement and Demonstration of the Attacking Test...................................................................................117 3............6 Statement and Demonstration of the Alternating Test....4 Pre..................................1 Treatment Integrity Data for Treatment Group...................................7 Course Schedule...8 The treatment procedure……………..........119 4..................69 3........LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2............2 The Statement and Demonstration of the Forehand Accuracy Test.........................................112 3.........................................................................................123 4...........84 3......107 3.........58 2....................................................104 3...............5 The Example of Alternating Test Data Collection ....…………………124 xii ..11 Sample Checklist of Procedural Integrity (Comparison Group).................3 Correlation Data of Pretest Dependent Measures...........................................114 3....9 The differences between the treatment and comparison groups…………….................................1 Characteristics of Participants in the Study.......................................93 3.102 3..14 Research Questions.......122 4.........................................112 3.........and Posttest Raw Scores of Dependent Measures....99 3.........

.................................128 4............1 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Forehand Drive Accuracy Measures........9 Half vs..131 xiii ...............3 Table Tennis Skills Tests.......................130 4....................................................................94 3.109 3...91 3.... Half Play……………………………………………………………........................................98 3..........................................129 4.............2 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Forehand Attack Measures..............4 The context of the forehand drive accuracy test....87 3.................38 2.......LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2...................................2 The Tactical Game Model.........................4 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Alternation Measures......102 3.....6 The Context of the Serving Test...................86 3.................................................................................................................................43 2......................5 The procedure of the attack test.................................88 3.................2 Diagram of the intervention assignment of the study.........................8 The practice of forehand drive crosscourt in two groups……………………..............................................110 4..1 Diagram of the research design of the study..1 The Teaching Games for Understanding model...........3 The Play Practice Model............7 The Procedure of the Alternating Test......................65 3..................................3 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Serve Measures..

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

2004). 1986). & Griffin. Mitchell. and tactics as they apply to the learning and performance of physical activities” (NASPE. 1997. 1982. 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 . Rink et al. 2006.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. the learning outcomes of playing sport has been described as problematic (Bunker & Thorpe. 1982. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) argued that the traditional instructional approach of teaching sport overemphasized the learning of sport techniques. principles. Thorpe et al. 2006). 1999)... 1982). Many researchers have been concerned about the nature of the way sport that was taught in physical education (Bunker & Thorpe. and (b) understanding of movement concepts.. 1986. Mitchell. 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. & Oslin. Griffin. but ignored the learning of tactical knowledge and strategies. Mitchell et al. Turner & Martinek.. strategies. Oslin. Although sport has played an important role in school physical education. 1996. 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.

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

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. Play Practice emphasizes some characteristics of teaching sport that have not been addressed in either the traditional or more recent instructional approaches (Launder.typically compared a model to the technical instructional method and examined the effects of these approaches in teaching various sport events (i. 2005). 1996.. Play Practice provides a theoretical framework for teaching children and youth to play sports. Rink et al. 2001). & Wallhead. Holt et al. Wallhead & O’Sullivan. hockey) across different settings in elementary and secondary physical education.. While many studies have examined the effect of the Teaching Games for Understanding. no significant results have been found to support the superiority of any new instructional method over the traditional way of teaching sport games (Holt. Launder (2001) conceptualized and presented Play Practice in the book Play Practice: The game approach to teaching and coaching sports. 2001. and the Tactical Game Model. e. 2001). Statement of the Problem Australian physical educator Alan Launder has proposed an alternative instructional approach to teaching youth sport called Play Practice (Launder. 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). Ward. Sport Education. 2006). The instruction of sport must be able to address the sport techniques 4 .

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

(c) serve test. 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. 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. 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 . serve.Consequently future research should connect the merits of Play Practice to the unsolved problematic issue of teaching youth sport in physical education. (c) serve test. (b) forehand attack test. and (d) alternation test. 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. By comparing the SFHP instruction of teaching table tennis in the setting. The following research questions guided this study design and methods. (b) forehand attack test. this study specifically focused on the learning outcome on the forehand drive. and attack performance after an instructional unit with Play Practice.

(c) serve 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. 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. and (d) alternation test? 7 . 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. (c) serve test. and (d) alternation test Research Question Four Were there significant pre-to-posttest differences within each group (PP. (b) forehand attack test. (b) forehand attack test. (b) forehand attack test. CI) for the dependent measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test. (c) serve test. (b) forehand attack test. and (d) alternation test.forehand drive accuracy test. (c) serve test. (b) forehand attack test.

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

The study did not control for the type of feedback to participants but simply allowed the instructors to provide appropriate feedback to the participants. 7. such as the floor and light of the gym. 6.e. The lack of control of participant’s attendance (i. prior to the study they had little knowledge of Play Practice and one of them had never taught it. Factors of the environment of testing may have influenced the participant’s performance. Even though both instructors in the study were knowledgeable on the content of the instruction. 4.3. Delimitation The study is delimited to: 1. Their languages may have influenced the delivery of the intervention. and order of taking the test may have affected performance. 8. The experimental design used a comparison group rather than a true control group. time of testing. The study had no control of the activities that participants experienced outside of the intervention. 5. tardiness and absence) may have affected the results of the study. 9. The researcher’s expertise of the content of table tennis and Play Practice. Thus teacher effects may have occurred. The instructors were not native English Speakers. But the participants reported that they rarely played table tennis outside of class during time frame of the intervention. 9 . In the comparison group the participants received the traditional instructional approach to teaching table tennis.

Alan Launder’s agreement and identification of the Play Practice drills of teaching table tennis applied in this study. with high rates of success and low rates of error (Siedentop. 6. 5. 4. 3. & Parker. 1982). & Heward. 2007). Definition of Terms ALT-PE: Academic learning time in physical education. 1990). balls. 1992. 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. Young college-aged adults elected to take a table tennis course in the university. Environment: the world surrounding the individual (Cooper.2. 1995). numerous table tennis paddles. Heron. Turner & Martinek. The quality and quantity of the facilities used in the study including the spacious room of the gym. The duration of time the students are engaged with appropriate materials to their ability. The relatively long instructional unit of the course in which the intervention included 12 sessions. and tables in a good condition. 10 . Tousignant. Content knowledge: Knowledge of facts and concepts of a subject matter and the relationships among them (Grossman. 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.

2004). Intervention: a procedure. 2006).Feedback: Verbal statements provided to a performer regarding one’s performance (Rink. 2001). conceptions. game is usually meant as an authentic competition setting in which rule bound goal driven activities take place (Siedentop. 1990). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: the act of selecting content from one’s knowledge base for the purpose of teaching in a specific context (Ward et al. Game: broadly defined as any form of playful competition whose outcome is determined by physical skill. strategy and chance. Hastie. 2003). Game Sense: the ability to use an understanding of the rules.. 11 . 2007). 2006). Play: an irreducible form of human behavior that provides meaning in life and is thought to be a creative element in culture (Siedentop. and skills related to teaching (Grossman. Pedagogical Knowledge: general knowledge. & Van der Mars. or strategy of tactics and of oneself to solve the problems posed by the game or by one’s opponent (Launder. However. 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..

2003). Technique: the action of controlling and directing the ball are defined as techniques (Launder. Fitness. 2004). hop scotch). 2001). Sport: games that involve combinations of physical skill and strategy.Practice Trials (Opportunities to Respond): Cumulative record of the number of appropriate. Sport. but sport is always a game (Siedentop.g. 2004). 2006). and Health Program (SFHP) instructional approach: the instruction provided by the Sport Fitness and Health Program in the university to teach table tennis. and total trials completed at each object control skill station (Rink. Not all games are sport (e. Transfer of learning: the gain or the loss of a person’s proficiency on one task as a result of previous practice or experience on another task (Schimidt & Wrisberg. Tactics: behaviors demonstrating when to use and how to use skills (Lee. 2001). chess. 12 .. inappropriate. Skill: in an interactive game is defined as the combination of games sense with technical ability to achieve a specific desired outcome (Launder.

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. Thorpe et al. a new teaching method of sports. Schmidt & Wrisberg. it is not difficult to understand that students leave school with little knowledge of sport. Finally. As a consequence of poor proficiency. Siedentop. 2006). The third section presents Play Practice. Hastie. 1982. Launder. 1986.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter contains four sections. Ward.. the chapter with an analysis of a pilot study which examined the effects of Play Practice in teaching learners playing table tennis games. 2004. 2001. poor 13 . & Van der Mars. The second section reviews the curricular solutions that have been created to address the problem. Initially the chapter begins with an introduction of a problem that exists in teaching sports in physical education. 2004.

Rink. 2001. Teaching students sport in physical education setting is a complex process which is influenced by a variety of factors. 2000. 2002). and negative feelings about sport (Launder. On the other hand. Ward. (c) technical only instruction. Siedentop.. 2007. (b) multiple activity curriculum. et al. 2002.. There is agreement that teachers without adequate content knowledge do not efficiently affect learners’ achievement of playing sports (Ayvazo. (d) teacher feedback and (e) learner motivations and attitude towards playing sport. 2003. 1986. 2005. Siedentop. a lack of content knowledge has been shown to impact the implementation of different instructional models such 14 . 2005.performance. Siedentop & Eldar. Thorpe et al. 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. Solmon. 2003. 1995. Siedentop & Tannehille. 2006. 1989. A clear understanding of the nature of a sport improves the teacher’s flexibility in teaching sport skills (Chen & Ennis. Revogno. 2007. Siedentop. Thorpe & Bunker. 2004. 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. 2002. Metzler. Siedentop. 1982. Ward. 2003). 1995) and content knowledge also influences teachers’ instructional goals (Metzler. 2007). 2007).

2007. to improve teaching different types of sports (Ayvazo. According to Metzler’s description.as Sport Education (Wallhead & Ntoumanis. 2004) and Teaching Games for Understanding (Griffin. & Fincher. 1997). Ward. Chen & Ennis. “a teacher can never have too much content knowledge to teach sports and physical 15 . Metzler. Schempp. Manross. He stressed the necessity of content knowledge in various teaching strategies. Mitchell. Tan. 1995. 2007). and clear but narrow instructional goals in effective teaching sports and other physical activities. Scholars have repeatedly suggested that effective teachers in physical education need to be competent in the subject matter taught to students (Avayzo. Based on the measurement of a series of variables about teacher behaviors such as instructional cues and task modification. Meanwhile it is critical for teachers to acquire proficient content knowledge of the sport so that they could develop solid pedagogical content knowledge. 1998. Ayvazo (2007) concluded that more depth content knowledge and mature pedagogical content knowledge were consistently found in strong instructional units. Ayvazo (2007) systematically investigated two elementary teachers delivering two instructional units identified as strong and weak and who aimed to teach two different sports. 2005. Ayvazo. 2006). & Stuhr. Metzler (2005) highlighted the close connection between a teacher’s content knowledge and the effects of teaching sport while discussing different instructional models in physical education. Oslin.

1985). Ward et al. or section (Rink. and progressions of a sport or physical activity. skill discrimination. Teacher content knowledge directly determined the appropriateness of content progression because teachers should decide how to gradually introduce the content while 16 . and reflects the teacher’s belief and understanding of how and when to move students fro one task to the next task. (2006) provided a comprehensive definition of content knowledge in which the knowledge was divided into four domains: knowledge of the rules and etiquette. Hastie and Vlaisavljevic (1999) reported that teachers viewed as content experts hold learners accountable for their performance and presented more learning tasks with variation. technique and tactics. Content progression is the planned sequence of learning tasks and practice drills in lesson plans.activities” and developing such content is a lifelong process for teachers in the success of teaching physical education (p. 1995). Content progression was the central role of teaching (Revogno. Hastie and Vlaisavljevic (1999) found that content expert teachers extended learning tasks fully understanding the class ecology in their teaching. (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. drill. These teachers also frequently refined the learning tasks according to learner’s performance and development which enhanced the learning outcome of the subject matter. Ward et al.74).

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

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

The inevitable result of using multiple activity curriculum to teach sports was a deficiency of mastery and understanding of the subject matter (Metzler. 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. 1987. Siedentop. 1997). 2005. Doutis (1997) emphasized the significance of task selection and content progression as central to physical education teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge.pedagogical content knowledge. in this case. 2003). 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. On the surface. Siedentop. Taylor & Chiogioji. The Role of the Multiple-Activity Curriculum The multiple activity curriculum affects the effect of teaching sport in school physical education (Launder. 2005. 2001. 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. on their decision of content progression. 2003. learners seem to have a great opportunity to participate in a variety of sport events in 19 . which was reflected. 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. Ward. For instance. 2003). Metzler. 1999).

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

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. Learners. 2001. Agreeing with Launder’s point. More important. He claimed. 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. 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.(1986). 2003). especially young and those with low skilled. 71). “it is vital that children practice persistently if they are to make progress and the practice shall be purposefully designed with positive environment” (Launder. simply are not prepared to digest the content being taught. the unavailability of enough practice time on the sport techniques impaired the possibility to be competent and efficient while performing the sport skill. p. 21 . 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. students must move from drills to drills very quickly so that they can accomplish the learning tasks of each instructional unit.

Launder. Bunker et al. Similarly. 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. 1986. traditionally volleyball 22 . Mitchell & Oslin. Silverman (1985) investigated the relationship of student time engagement and practice trials to their achievement on a surviving swimming skill. & Bryce’s (1991) analyzed the connection of trials of psychomotor skills and learning achievement in a college volleyball class. 1999. The results verified the assumption that practice trial variable could effectively predict the learning achievement. 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. & Wallhead. Holt. Ward. Using volleyball as an example. 1999.. Rink et al. 1997.. For instance. 2001. Mitchell et al. Wein. The results of their study enhanced the findings in Silverman’s (1985) study in which the total correct trials were correlated with student achievement. (1996) defined the traditional approach as an instructional method that includes introduction and drills of techniques in very simple conditions followed by game play. Rink et al.The empirical evidence from teacher effectiveness studies highlights the importance of successful trials as a result of extended engagement in activity. 1995). 2006. Buck. 1997. In summary. Griffin et al. 2001). 2006. Harrison.. 1996.. Silverman (1985) found that the appropriate level of the task practice seemed to be a more potent variable relating to achievement.. Turner & Martinek.

However at the end of the unit games were poorly played and the teacher was disappointed with the students’ learning achievement. Mitchell et al.. Decision-making connected to the question “what to do”. 1997. 1986). 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. set. deciding what to do in game situations was just as important as the execution of the skill (Bunker & Thorpe. Later Romar 23 . focusing solely on the technique achievement. 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. and spike and a long unit of game play for the rest of the class. perception. Ye the technical only teaching approach ignored the importance of making right decisions in effective game play.would be taught in a combination of simple introduction and exercise of techniques such as serve. which led to the poor performance of playing sports. Mitchell. & Almond. Thorpe. which involves functions such as selective attentions. 2006). Illustrating this outcome. & Griffin. and anticipation is critical toe effective performance. Bunker & Thorpe. Based on Bunker and Thorpe’s (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. Oslin. 1984.

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

For example in teaching tennis. 25 . 1991) and consequently unable to evaluate the developmental level of learner’s motor skills (Cohen. The Role of Teacher Feedback Feedback has been shown to be necessary for motor skill learning in physical education (Godbout. 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. 2006). The appropriateness of feedback was highly related to a teacher’s content knowledge (Cavallini. Silverman. 2006. a teacher is unable to detect the errors in observing a learner’s performance (Siedentop. Cohen. 2007).examined the transfer of tactical knowledge within the net/wall sport category by delivering a five-day instructional intervention focused on tactical awareness.. 1985. without enough content knowledge. 1986. teachers could hardly select appropriate content knowledge to improve students’ performance during practice and learning. Tyson. 1987. & Tousignant. Shulman. 2007. & Krampitz. If teachers do not know the content knowledge being taught in the class. 2007. Brunelle. Failing to diagnose the errors in student performance. “reach high to hit” (Brown. such as pedagogical content knowledge in physical education (Ayvazo. The study produced some empirical data in which the learners’ tactical understanding improved during badminton instruction and extended in pickleball instruction. Ward et al. Salter & Graham. 1992). Moreover. they will struggle to provide appropriate feedback to learners. 2004).

Attitudes towards physical education and sports must be important factors determining if individuals choose to engage in the activity (Solmon.Ayvazo. Zhang. 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. Sturh. Research has demonstrated that an individual’s motivation varies according to changes in perceptions of competence and people tended to feel more competent if 26 . teachers should use different strategies to motivate students and change their negative attitude towards physical education and sports. They did not know the reason why they had to learn physical education and why physical education should be required in the school curriculum. 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. The Role of the Learner’s Motivation and Attitude Attitudes influence people’s lives. Under this condition. Ward. Cohen. With the evidence provided by different researchers. 2003). In summary. 2006). and ultimately achieve more than do students who bring negative attitudes to the subject matter. it was not difficult to understand the poor performance of learning sports when students viewed physical education as trivial subjects. the learning achievements of playing sports ought to rely heavily on the type and content of the feedback provided by the instructor.

Learners are motivated if they achieve a successful performance. 1992 & Woods. 2007). This phenomenon is called “success does indeed breed success” (Launder. Research showed that poor performance of playing sports was related to enjoyment (Duda. Woods. (b) multiple activity 27 . Duda. 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. Another indicator of motivation is the enjoyment of participation. which can produce a high successful rate. 1992. 2001). 2007). 1997). and will continue to challenge and improve their play.they were motivated (Deci. 2007). Teachers did need to provide effective instruction to enhance student’s learning so that they can achieve success and motivation while playing sport games. Competent sport performance in students thus results from appropriate motivation from teachers (Duda. 1996. Launder (2001) highlighted the claim that efficient instruction of teaching sports and physical activities ought to provide plenty of practice. Woods. 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. 1992. Teachers should create a positive and enjoyable learning environment so that students can feel motivated through participation of the activities. students who experienced the blocked and repetitive drills tend to feel bored and tedious toward the learning process. For example.

ought to be a second goal of efforts to improve instruction. 2004) that often occurred in this curriculum (Taylor & Chiogioji 1987). especially ball game sport. and in the case of a curriculum focused on teaching sports.curricula. increasing teacher content knowledge ought to be the most important goal in improving students’ poor sport/game performance. and (e) lack of learner attitude and motivation. Siedentop (2002) argued that teacher education programs must address the issue of increasing teachers’ content knowledge. Ward. must add tactical knowledge to the instruction. 2007). In the process of teaching sports in physical education. (d) poor teacher feedback. Lee’s (2004) study provided strong empirical evidence on the effects of teaching tactical strategies in learning 28 . The removal of the multiple activity curriculum from school physical education. Reflecting on pre-service teachers and their CK. Focusing on the technique-only approach has been shown to be problematic. Longer instructional units are necessary for students to master the techniques and tactics of a sport. Similarly. Because of the strong influence content knowledge has on teaching sport. in-service teachers must be assisted in acquiring more content knowledge through professional development activities (Siedentop 2007. educators must avoid the “one-inch-deep but ten-miles-wide” effects (Siedentop et al. (c) technique-only instruction. 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 learner’s performance.

2007. and Siedentop et al. 121). 2007). providing specific and corrective feedback serves as an essential factor of an effective instructional approach (Cohen. (2004) noted “competence is more than performing isolated technique” and “anticipation and movement are what tactics are all about” (p. (2006). a learner’s motivation and attitude ought to be another emphasis of the teaching of sport. (2004). several papers and books from researchers such as Bunker and Thorpe (1982). 2006. Mitchell et al. Appropriate teacher feedback is the fourth goal of improvements in the teaching of sports. Cohen. Ward et al. A good learning attitude and appropriate motivation are essential 29 . When learning new motor skills. Robinson. 2007. have argued that making appropriate decisions related to the game play should be an essential component of teaching sports. and is closely connected to the content knowledge recommendation (Cavallini. 2007. 2000).. 1990). 2006). 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.sports. Finally. Appropriate teacher feedback can offer learners information about their performance so that they understand what they have learned and still need to improve (Cohen. 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. The provision of feedback is ties to the level of a teacher’s content knowledge (Cohen.. In addition. As Siedentop et al.. Siedentop & Tannehille. Stroot. 2007.

Thorpe. Researchers and physical educators have widely investigated and discussed these curricular approaches in the field of teaching physical education (Dyson. In a literature review of the Teaching Games for Understanding and the Tactical Game Models. and Sport Education (Siedentop. Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2005) in their review concluded that the structure and components of Sport Education Model promoted learner’s personal and social development by assigning student’s responsibility. 1986). 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. Bunker. Mitchell. 2005. 2004. and (c) the transfer of learning from one sport to others. & Oslin. & Almond. Van der Mars. 1982. In addition. 2005). 1997). 2004). 30 . Griffin. 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. which motivates every participant to become an enthusiastic sport person. Hastie.for the success of teaching sport games no matter what curriculum is implemented. Oslin & Mitchell. & Hastie. Wallhead & O’ Sullivan. the Tactical Game Model or TGM (Griffin.

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

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

Bunker. The effective transfer of learning relies on the assumption of similarity of tactical problems among similar sports.so that they can attend more advantages of scoring. which is an important component of game play (Bunker & Thorpe. Researchers found that the ability to make appropriate decisions differentiated experienced players from novice players (Maulden & Redfern. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) argued that decision-making can be transferred from one sport to similar others. 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. decision-making must also take place to select strategies and techniques to deal with the game scenario in order to anticipate the opponent’s play. 2004. Siedentop et al. thus the TGFU was designed to facilitate learners’ understanding of tactical complexities of the game. 2005. 2002). 1982. Students need to make decisions on how to support teammates’ play to keep the maneuverability and offensive position of play (Lee. Players must be able to make correct and reasonable decisions throughout the game play. 2003). Expert players develop their cognitive understanding of the game play of a sport throughout the process of practice and game play (Siedentop. Oslin & Mitchell.. Kirk & MacPhail. In addition. Thorpe and Almond (1994) first organized the common sports in the physical 33 . In addition to these situations. 2004). 1981).

D. 2004). a passing strategy defined in the 2v1 offensive situation while playing soccer can be transplanted to basketball or ice hockey. 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. and target sports (Bunker et al. skill/field. Based on the classification of the sports. & L.1 illustrates different sports organized for the purpose to foster transfer of learning. Rethinking games teaching (Loughborough University).1: Sports and Games Classifications Note. 71-72. Thorpe. invasion.” by R.education curriculum and classified them into four categories: net/wall. In this 34 . For instance. Adopted from “Reflecting on themes: A games classification. The definition stresses the reality of the generalization of tactical strategies between similar sports. Table 2. researchers have defined the transfer of learning as the gain or the loss of a person’s proficiency on one task as a result of previous practice or experience on another task (Schimidt & Wrisberg. Almond. Bunker. 1986). 1986..

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

Skill Execution: this should be the product of required performance seen in the context of the learner. 1982): Step one . It is necessary for learners to understand the relationship between the sport’s rules and the game play format so that they can appreciate the play. Step two . Skill execution is always seen in the context of the learner and the game. Step four .The Game: the class instruction unit begins with various games modified to facilitate learning. Step five .model presents games first to learners and aims to enhance the understanding of the sport before the introduction of techniques. Step three . Bunker and Thorpe specified the instructional units in the following six steps (Bunker & Thorpe. Based on the awareness of tactics of a given sport.Tactical Awareness: after some involvement with game play and awareness of sport rules and concepts. learners are able to choose appropriate responses toward the “what-to-do” situation. 36 . learners need to consider general principles across all sport game play that constructs the basic tactics of playing sports. while the formal adult version of a sport game still presents a long-term goal of teaching.Decision-making: learners need to figure out what to do and how to do it during actual game play. Learners are able to know the sport in an authentic context at the beginning stage of learning.Game Appreciation: learners need to know the rules of sports and be aware of how the rules shape the sport’s game play.

. 2004).. tactical awareness. 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. 37 . Siedentop et al. By following the model. this is the point at which students are classified as good or poor players of the sport. 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. According to Bunker and Thorpe (1982). 1994.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. students are supposed to achieve three outcomes: game appreciation. 1982). and making appropriate decisions before getting involved in learning and practicing techniques.Step six . This understanding priority feature influences the development of other instructional approaches such as Tactical Game Model (Griffin et al. 1997) and Sport Education (Siedentop.

1982).. The TGM has been widely accepted in school physical education (Metzler. 38 . 1997). three American scholars. called the Tactical Game Approach or TGM (Griffin et al. Mitchell. 2005). Griffin. Tactical Game Model TGM After the TGFU instruction was introduced.1: The Teaching Games for Understanding model (from Bunker & Thorpe. and Oslin created another game approach based on its framework.(1) Game (6) Performance (2) Game Appreciation Learner (3) Tactical Awareness (4) Making Appropriate Decisions (5) Skill Execution Figure 2.

Learners start their learning from solving basic and simple tactical problem but gradually move to more complex ones. Even though the Tactical Game Model is more similar than different from the TGFU model. In contrast. The Tactical Game Model was developed approximately fifteen years later and has been viewed as a modified version of the TGFU (Griffin et al. the TGM is also a student-centered approach of teaching sport games (Kirk & MacPhail. learners always study in a problem-solving context. the TGFU only brought up the concept of 39 . 2005). The TGM develops tactical knowledge of the sport into multiple levels (Mitchell et al.. During teaching the teacher’s role is more a facilitator. Metzler. 2005.. 2002) because the instruction model begins and ends with the learners (Griffin et al. demonstrating tactics of the sport. 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. Except for the similarity on the emphasis of tactical learning. the TGM includes more concrete and practical content and pedagogy of teaching sports. 2006).. First. Oslin & Mitchell.Background. there are two important differences. In both instructional approaches. 1997). 1997. 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. For example. Metzler.. 2005). and training students to make appropriate decisions. 2002. 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.

1997. As a result. e. Not only is the content more concrete in the TGM. & Almond. Then they will practice techniques. The designers of the TGFU (Bunker & Thorpe. the TGM contains the practice and instruction of techniques. 1986) believed that the goal of teaching sports in physical education is to understand rather than perform them. Bunker. tactical strategies). Thorpe.. which result in a manifest improvement in tactical instructional approaches. The TGM requires teachers to instruct in a “game – practice – game” procedure (Griffin et al. 1982. Yet according to Mitchell et al.. 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. 1982. followed by a game play to continue solving the tactical problem of the sport. 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. Specifically. Second. The inclusion of techniques indicates that the TGM is not a pure “tactical only 40 . Thorpe et al. the TGM is more explicit for teachers to use. 1986)..tactical awareness in general and did not map out the content specifically (i. Mitchell et al. (2006) techniques are essential components of every lesson. but also the pedagogy is clearly developed. learners start their learning from a modified game in which they need to be aware of and solve a tactical problem. 2006).

Then the result of tactical awareness serves as the motivation of learning techniques. (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.. 1996. Mitchell et al. Holt et al. 2006).instruction” but a (tactical and technical) integrate approach (Allison & Thorpe. The TGM gives prominence to a game format of teaching in order to effectively motivate learning. et al. 1995... Rink et al.. 2006). 1997. For less skilled learners. the TGM highlights the status of game in appropriately introducing tactical knowledge and attracting participants to get involved in learning. The realization of the difference between what to play how to 41 . 2002. Turner & Martinek. By using the Game-Practice-Game procedure during teaching. the game play probably only means some aimless organization of some techniques (Mitchell et al. 9)”. 1997.. Skilled learners feel bored with the tedium of isolated practice with techniques. 1999). The effect of motivation is reflected in two aspects. 1996. French et al. The conceptual rationale of the TGM includes two aspects: motivation and game centered instruction. At the beginning of the class. The conceptual rationale of the TGM. Mitchell et al. the TGM uses a modified game to encourage student’s participation and appreciation of the sport and its cognitive component of play (Griffin..

The key 42 . 2004) and Play Practice (Launder. 2).. 1997. The model of Tactical Game Approach.. 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. three components modified from the six instructional steps are used to introduce the sport content (See Figure 2. 2004). 1994. Siedentop et al. 2002. 1999). the game-centered instructional format significantly influenced the structure of many other teaching approaches such as Tactical Game Model (Griffin et al. Traditionally. 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. 1996). games are only introduced when students accomplish the learning of techniques (Holt et al. Students realize that only having the knowledge of what to do does not directly lead to a successful doing or winning. 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.. 2001). By contrast. Oslin & Mitchell. but also a vehicle for addressing the learning goal. Playing a game is not only a product of learning sports. In this model. Sport Education (Siedentop..play raises the need to improve the technical performance of a sport. Rink et al. A game centered model means that games play a primary and central role in teaching sports. Later. The model of Tactical Game Approach is similar with the TGFU.

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 learner’s 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 learner’s 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 student’s technique performance. An exception of the research results came from Turner and Martinek’s (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 player’s 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 student’s 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 player’s 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. can hardly concentrate on what to play but think about how to play it. The same issue can occur in playing tennis: when teaching children a basic strategy in net sport (i. learners need to know and practice the techniques in a game context. The ultimate goal of the Sport Education is to “cultivate competent. e. and enthusiastic sport persons so they 48 . what really happens in a student’s mind is the decision about how to contact the ball so that they can get it across the net. 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. Yet it is clear that. Rink et al. (1996) stated that it is always necessary to introduce the techniques first so that teachers can develop children’s tactics. 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. in order to foster the transfer of learning. 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. literate. However. without the mastery of the techniques necessary for delivery of tactics. especially low skilled learners. The Sport Education Model Sport Education is a PE curriculum model which connects the sport culture to sport taught in physical education (Siedentop. Children could not focus on more than one issue when they are at preoperational stage of learning. 1994). learners. space creation).

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

1998. and it addresses deficiencies existed in the traditional approach. tactics. 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”. Siedentop et al. The Sport Education requires longer sport education units than are typical in the traditional instructional units in physical education (Siedentop et al. Siedentop.. 1996. 2000. Students have more time and chances to learn techniques. Proponents of the Sport Education (Hastie. and different roles of playing sport so that they can become competent game players. (1) Seasonal schedule of participating in sports. and rules. 2005). 2004). 2004) believed that the fewer activities taught in great depth included in longer instruction were significant in student achievement of playing sports.. 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 & O’Sullivan.and sport competency. The model of Sport Education. The seasonal schedule values the practice and competition and organization and progresses the learning in a developmental way. The longer unit of the Sport Education model encompasses both practice and 50 . The Sport Education model extends special meaning to playing sports.

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

(6) All players celebrate the participation and contribution through festival events. Then these learners can set up new objectives to achieve an even longer or faster distance or speed in the sport. 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. The culminating event ought to be festive and successful for all teams as well the team who finally achieves the championship. Festivity is another nature of sport and can be seen in everywhere such as Olympic Games and soccer’s World Cup. Siedentop et al.. (5) Complete score keeping helps feedback and facilitates learning. (2004) stated “Sport Education provides excitement and meaning for participants and adds an important social element to the experience. 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.” Through the festival activities in the Sport Education instruction.seasonal competitions and the objective of all participants. 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 . learners value their participation and a variety of splendid experiences throughout the participation such as fair play and performance.

The interaction and cooperation were recorded and evaluated as positive and accurate communication (Hastie & Sharpe. Such positive experiences are more likely to lead students to feel enjoyment and perceived efforts from participation of Sport Education (Wallhead & Ntoumanis. 1997). Teachers agreed with the research evidence and supported the belief that Sport Education remarkably enhanced students’ personal and social skills (Alexander & Luckman. 2001). In the Sport Education students increased the level of interaction and cooperation with peers through participation in different roles such as coaches. Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2005) stated that there was no convincing evidence supporting the assumption that the Sport Education facilitates content learning and performance of sports. 1993). and referees (Grant. The issue of how to improve student’s 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. In summary. Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2005) concluded that the Sport Education enhanced the affective learning achievement of playing sports. 1999).Research the Sport Education In a recent literature review of Sport Education. On the other hand. 1992). 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. & Medland. 2004). players. Taggart. 53 .

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

Silverman 1997. 1996). 1996). among other tasks. the student must have enough content knowledge of the sport to play a teaching role well. Rink et al. on the other hand. Many questions remain for future research.. Mitchell et al. Summary After a review of the literature of teaching sports in physical education. In Sport Education. Siedentop et al. Teaching Games for Understanding (Bunker Thorpe. 2005... Oslin & Mitchell. 1986) and Tactical Game Model (Griffin et al.. Mitchell et al.. influences the learning outcome of the whole team. 2002. and the effects of student’s learning on the affective dimension of learning (Rink et al.. 2002. 1998. 1997. 1982. 1994. 2006.. In addition. Little research suggests that the TGFU and TGM are superior to other instructional approaches especially the traditional one focused on techniques (Holt et al... three models have been proposed as a solutions to the problematic way sports are taught in the curriculum of the Sport Education (Siedentop. 55 . 2006). 2006) the measurement of student’s learning and performance on game play (Turner & Martinek 1995).2005) which contribute the learning outcome of individual learning. (b) provide feedback. Thorpe et al. The coach’s performance. 2004). such as appropriate alignment of teaching techniques and tactics (Holt et al. Holt et al.. the student who plays as a coach has to work as a teacher and probably needs to (a) present the task appropriately. and (c) organize the practice.

Turner & Martinek. 2001). 2001). 2005. such as Play Practice (Launder. 2003). More studies are required to examine the effects of the model. The rules of a sport shape its game play. provided an alternative way to teach youth sports. Siedentop. called Play Practice (Launder. Alternatively they can investigate other different instructional approach which might offer a better learning result for students. Students need to know what to do (Oslin & Mitechell. (i. 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. Play Practice Alan Launder. Play Practice challenges physical education teacher’s 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 . the lack of cogent evidence to support the benefits of the Sport Education. Meanwhile. research in Sport Education instruction demonstrates some evidence of gains on improving learners’ social skills and psychomotor skills (Wallhead & O’Sullivan. 2005). 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.e. especially the learning in psychomotor domain.In addition. an internationally known physical educator in Australia. 1995) and what not to do in game play. But in general the results of research of Sport Education is controversial. 1995.

Play Practice. 57 . The Game Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sports. Illustrated in the book. Background. Launder. 2006. Based on the format and the characteristics of these strategies.(Launder. Launder (2001) recognized that instructional methods used to teach sports could be classified into three approaches (See Table 2. 2).. After thirty years of experience teaching and coaching sport in different settings. 2001). Launder (2001) analyzed each instructional approach and described the characteristics and some problematic issues relating to each approach. The process of conceptualizing the theory and rationale of Play Practice reflects the author’s caring and understanding of young learners. 2001). the content (sport events). Play Practice is an innovative instructional strategy of teaching youth sports and was formally introduced in 2001 (Holt et al. Alan Launder implemented and investigated various instructional strategies of teaching sports. and their relationship from a pedagogical perspective.

2: Three Instructional Approaches of Teaching Sport Note: adopted from Play Practice. a soccer class in the “Let’s have full game” approach would include two teams and one ball played on a full sized soccer field. in the “Let’s have full game” approach. The Game Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sport. This is a time consuming instruction. For example. the class is divided into two groups and the teacher immediately introduces the whole class to the full adult game format of the sport. purposes of the game play (or mindless games) that prevents players from the game appreciation. First. which leads to a difficulty of transfer of learning.Names “Let’s 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. Table 2. Launder (2001). 58 . “Coaching” Approach Highly structured drills emphasized on the technical abilities Drills are often not aligned with the real game.

(b) the participation is always uneven (i. tactics. 2001). Launder criticized that soccer dodgeball game negatively influenced learner’s achievement because: (a) there is no alignment between the minor game and formal soccer game.e. 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. Consequently. soccer dodgeball is an example of a minor game that has been commonly used in school physical education programs (Launder. 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. Second. For example. and basic rules of the sport but learners spend the majority of the class time in full sized soccer game play. 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. in the “Minor games” approach. 59 . 2001). Launder argued that the “Let’s 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. the lack of participation in the sport tends to keep these low skilled players from developing growth and improvement of the sport. the instructor often selected some modified games and introduced them to the class.The teacher seldom introduces techniques. low skilled players has few opportunities to practice).

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

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

Play Practice converts the practice condition from the tedious and dry exercise to the challenging and interesting game play. Although players generally do not have balanced combination of tactic and technique. The playful 62 . these two different abilities must be taught simultaneously. The following discussion elaborates the connection between Play Practice and the two benefits.According to Launder’s conceptualization. and the technical ability to demonstrate this understanding. 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 ultimate performance of sport must represent two aspects of the skill: the player’s tactical ability to understand the rules or/and strategies. 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. In addition. The motivation feature of Play Practice mainly results from the enjoyable experience of play and perceived achievement on learning the skill. He asks the instructor to “turn practice into play” while using Play Practice to teach sport. The united relationship between technique and tactic in sport skill performance serves as the main rationale of Play Practice instruction. which releases joy of sport to players. 2001). Motivation refers to the fact that learners shall have the chance to enjoy the practice if it is presented in a game situation. Turning practice into play contains two benefits: motivation and transfer of training (Launder.

Play Practice requires the instructor to developmentally introduce the sport skill in which learners have more opportunities to increase the successful rate. Launder stresses this viewpoint by using the concept of alignment to describe the similarities between practice and practice and real sport competitions. Besides the motivation. As a 63 . Learners must be able to improve their performance through the learning process and realize the improvement so that they are motivated by their success. learners perceive their achievement and feel the enjoyment if they conquer the challenge and difficulty of the sport.47). Additionally. Launder states in his book that “the sport educator must motivate. which can encourage the adherence of playing the sport. 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. transfer of training also significantly influences the use of game play in teaching sport. encourage. 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. 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. 2001).learning environment created by Play Practice instruction functions on attracting learner’s attention and interests of participation and providing every child the opportunity to participate in enjoyable and challenging sporting activities.

Literature supports the significance of effective participation. 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. 64 . 1983) and practice trials (Silverman. 47). Play and competition are two fundamental features of the Play Practice Model. Launder insists that game play and competition are able to create the learning environment. 1985).result. According to Launder’s understanding of teaching sport. such studies as on Academic Learning Time Physical Education (Metzler. 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. which has been viewed as an essential factor in learning sports skills and other physical activities in physical education. Launder found out that the most useful way to positively influence effective participation in teaching sport comes from well defined game play and competition. After years of teaching and coaching sports. 1979 & Sidentop. which requires instructors to turn practice into play during teaching sport. Play Practice tends to maximize the learning outcome transferred from practice to practice and from practice to the real sport competition. Model. Play Practice avoids using mindless modified games and dead-end drills in the teaching of games.

2006). 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. 2001). shaping play.In chapter six of the textbook of Play Practice. 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..3. These playful drills aim to strengthen the learning achievement of sport skills. Launder (2001) conceptualizes that Play Practice model is composed of thee playing procedures: focusing play. 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. and enhancing play. especially those played as attackers have opportunities to 65 . Focusing Play Shaping Play Enhancing Play Figure 2. The Play Practice Model. The “3v2” game tends to directly create an overload condition in which players. The drill starts from focusing play and goes through shaping play and ends at enhancing play.

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

From this example. in soccer. the instructor can change the scoring and define that winning a shot by using forehand drive can receive two points. 2001). Moreover. This change can potentially benefit learners on three issues. In addition. He clearly states “sport educators must be prepared to modify any rule where necessary to make a play practice simpler and more enjoyable” (p. for the objective of shaping a practice of the forehand down the line skill in playing table tennis. First. players can use a kick to replace “throw in” to continue to game if the ball goes out of the sideline. it is easy to conclude that the instructor is able to effectively shape the play by modifying the rules of the sport. the instructor can set up a half table game to limit the player to hit the ball crosscourt. 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. 67 . according to Launder’s conceptualization. The example provided in the book is that. 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.Shaping is a process of modification so that the instructor can modify the game in different ways in order to attend the instructional goal. 60). the replacement can save some time on picking up and throwing. Launder (2001) is a strong supporter of shaping play by modifying sport rules. For instance. 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.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. and the limitation of techniques (See table 2. 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. The following part of the chapter provides a brief description of the five variables. In addition. 3). However. the number of players. 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. the playing area. 68 . more “kick ins” rather than “throw ins” can definitely increase the practice trials on kicking. equipment. returning to the discussion of the primary rules. However. an essential soccer technique. Launder (2001) mentioned five variables that the instructor can manipulate for achieving desired outcomes: scoring. Even though Launder provides evidence to support the modification of secondary rules of the sport. p. He did not specifically demonstrate the procedure about how to systematically shape a sport into a series of game play. 21).

Siedentop et al.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. the number of playing. playing area. Manipulating the score in 69 . if the instructional focus of a teaching unit is to develop the tennis forehand ground-stroke.3: Five Variables Used to Shape the Game Note: Five variables are the score. Because the reality is that young players always desire to win. and limitation of techniques. Though there can be a variety of ways to operate the factor. (2004) points out that the scoring influences the use of certain techniques and tactics. the instructor can take advantage of that fact and help them to develop their skills by changing scoring. For example. Scoring serves as a strong factor to manipulate the game. one of the most useful methods is to award more points to the target behavior. the instructor can change the game and explain that the player will receive two points if a rally is scored by a forehand drive. equipment.

the instructor may lower the net when teaching badminton. Decreasing the height of basketball hoops or using wider soccer goal may result in better scores and more successful rate of the performance (Clumpner. For sports without the net. and dribbling. Second. modifying the net and target of the game play can significantly change the game play.such a way can be utilized within all kinds of sports from volleyball. 2003). Equipment is a common variable used to modify the game format in physical education. catching. table tennis. basketball. tennis. The first method is to change the size and quality of the object in the game. However. The instructor can achieve this principle in two ways. 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. appropriately modifying the goalie’s role can ensure the same effects. For instance. and soccer. the regulation basketball and soccer ball are designed for adult game play but are inappropriate for youth players. and volleyball to encourage the attack performance as well as increasing the height of the net to develop the defense performance. Using smaller and softer balls can effectively fit children’s body and physical abilities. 70 . A general principle of manipulating equipment for youth learners is to make the game play easier. 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. Apparently.

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

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. break down defensive cover in basketball) when overcoming the challenging situation. 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. Take teaching tennis as an example. Limiting the use of some technique is closely connected to the effects of the modified game used in Play Practice.that includes these numerous benefits so that players can understand how to appropriately play (i.e. 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 limitation of the backhand ground-stroke can ensure longer rallies which can bring fun and interests to the play. First. For the purpose of becoming a skillful player of the sport. Without the limitation. The objective of limiting some techniques in game play situation is to harness the learning and practice of other techniques. Second. Enhancing play is the third procedure of the Play Practice model. The reason for the limitation of backhand strokes results from two perspectives. 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. the learner needs numerous perfect practical drills to strengthen the learning of 72 .

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

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. 2001). Launder (2001) suggests the instructor consider five critical variables to manipulate the game: scoring. Launder & Piltz. The research on Play Practice is very limited. Based on the content in Launder’s book (Launder. & Wallhead. 2006. 2006). the article provides an analysis of the foundation 74 . playing area. In order to make the Play Practice drills not only interesting but also meaning in terms of maximizing learning. 2001). 2006). 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. only two relative papers have been published in the public journals (Holt. 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. the play is the tool to create challenging learning situations (p. The research of the Play Practice. The instructor embeds the objectives to game play through a process of shaping the game. the number of players. As what Launder (2001) conceptualizes in the book.playing sport through appropriate game play and competitions. equipment. When using Play Practice. 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. and limitation of techniques. xi). Play Practice instruction must start from focusing play in which the instructor identify sport skills as the learning objectives. In addition. Ward.

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

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. Theoretically. 2006). the 3v2 demonstrated more beneficial on the transfer of learning the skill. the procedure and conclusion suggested two issues that were quite meaningful and useful for further studies of Play Practice. although there was no sequence effect that appeared. In Holt et al’s (2006) study. In addition. 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. especially on the transfer from practice to game play. 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. First. A 4 v 4 modified game instead of an 11v11normal game was operated to measure the participant’s skill 76 . Holt and his colleagues did not select the formal game play to evaluate the game play performance (Holt et al. In addition. based on the description from Alan Launder. one of the modified games. or at least receive enough competencies to participate in playing after being taught with the instruction of Play Practice.instruction via Play Practice was more successful for high skilled participants than it was for low-skilled ones. low skilled players should achieve as much as what high skilled did.

Inevitably. For example. within a limited period of time in game play during the class. 77 . from the perspective of research. modifying the game play format to ensure reliable measures shall be considered in future’s studies. 2001). some students may not have the chance to access the ball. 4v4 game play is better to supply more consistent opportunities for researchers to capture the target behavior demonstrated from the participants. 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.performance of playing soccer. Although the ultimate goal of teaching students playing in physical education is to have them play the real games (Launder.

(c) context of the study. Before the pilot study was conducted. and (i) data analysis. (e) instrumentation. (f) intervention development. The chapter is organized into the following sections: (a) a pilot study. (h) training of study personal.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. (d) research design. 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). the Human Subject Review Board approved all procedures and instruments included in the study (protocol number: 2007E0086). (g) treatment integrity. (b) institutional review board permission. 78 .

Four table tennis skills. which occurred before and after the intervention. Among these variables. The treatment group 79 . The design included a pretest and posttest. In addition. Two intact classes included in the same course were randomly assigned as the treatment and comparison group in the study. ball placement. A quasi-experimental design was used to demonstrate the effects of the intervention. The author of this dissertation. and attack performance were selected as the dependent variables in the pilot study through which the researcher measured the participant’s table tennis game performance. However the participants in each group were not randomly assigned. and early attack performance were tested in a game play situation while the forehand drive accuracy test was produced in a controlled setting. serve placement. a doctoral candidate in the Sport and Exercise Education program. The class time was forty-eight minutes per session. The instructional goals of the course were to learn basic tactics and techniques of playing table tennis. with twenty sessions in total.S. serve placement.Participants were college students who registered for two table tennis courses in a comprehensive university in the midwest of the U. the ball placement. the forehand drive accuracy. Thirty-six students completed the course and participated in the pilot study. eight trained observers used the live coding method to record participant’s performance on the four variables at the pretest and posttest. ran the study and taught both classes enrolled in the pilot study.

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

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

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

83 . 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. 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). serves. The organization of the room is shown in Appendix C. The study occurred during the winter quarter of 2008 for a duration of ten weeks between January and March. The common experience related to table tennis was recreational play with families and friends at home. Fifty six students (Female= 10. and blocking.1. The objectives of this course were to have students demonstrate (a) the appropriate level of competence in the following skills: grip and racket control. and (c) to apply the basic strategies covered in singles games. All students reported they were novice table tennis players and none had received any formal teaching and training of table tennis.the context of the study. and (b) the knowledge of the basic tactics and strategies to play singles games. The brand of the tables was TIGA Stiga Expert Roller ST82201. All classes were conducted in a multi-purpose physical activity room where 10 formal table tennis tables were used for the class. neither at schools or clubs. Participants. 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. forehand and backhand drives.

Ping typically receives Student Evaluation Index scores of 4. He knew the content of the sport and had a solid understanding of basic table tennis techniques. Ms. M=Female Mr. She had a strong background in playing racket sports such as table tennis and tennis. Ping and Ms.5 out of 5 in teaching this class. M=8 Class 4 14 F=3. Pong was an experienced PE teacher and taught in a public middle school in South Korea for four years.1: Characteristics of Participants in the Study Note F=Female. Mr. M=10 Class 2 18 F=1.Treatment Groups Class 1 Participants Gender 13 F=3. M=17 Comparison Groups Class 3 11 F=3. Ms. Ping had taught table tennis during his student teaching practicum. M=11 Table 3. 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 . Mr. and also taught table tennis in college while pursuing his PhD. Ping was an experienced table tennis player who learned and practiced it for three years when he was an undergraduate student in the college. Pong (pseudonyms) participated in the study as teachers and taught all table tennis classes involved in the experiment. Mr.

she had taught several activity classes.9 on Yoga) that ranked above the average of the university (4. Pong served as a qualified Teaching Assistant and worked as a first year Master student. She was the Junior National Champion for tennis in Korea and represented her country in the Junior Wimbledon Grand Slam tennis competition in 1998. Non-equivalent experimental design ensures a fairly strong control of internal validity of the research (Thomas & Nelson. Testing. 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. Ms. 85 . 1990). and Regression (Gliem. Ms. At the same time. including tennis. Maturation. The non-equivalent control group experimental design is structured like a pretest-posttest randomized experiment. 1990). The use of a comparison group directly controls the internal invalidity of History. Instrumentation.random assignment. 2005). Prior to the study. At the time of this study. She had high SEI scores in her classes (5. and badminton. 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. The research design of the study is expressed in Figure 3.0 on tennis and 4. but it lacks the key feature of the true experimental design-. yoga. the introduction of the pre-test controlled the selection and mortality.1.0).college.

Having each instructor teach two classes offered the benefit 86 . Selection-maturation interaction is specifically relevant to the non-equivalent group designs and can only be controlled by randomization of subjects (Thomas & Nelson.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. Each instructor taught two classes in each condition: Play Practice instruction and SFHP instruction.N N O O X X O O ---------------------------------N N O O O O N= No Randomization O= Test X= Treatment Figure 3. 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.

Ping Comparison Group 3 Mr. Pong Group 4 (n=x) Comparison Ms. (c) the serve test.of decreasing the potential influence of “teacher effects”. Four assessments were selected to measure the performance of these table tennis skills: (a) the forehand drive accuracy test. (b) the forehand attack test. Pong (n=x) PP Intervention Figure 3. Ping Group 2 (n=x) PP Intervention Mr. 2). Group 1 (n=x) Mr. The following part of the chapter provided 87 . and (d) the alternation test (See Figure 3. forehand serve. and forehand alternation.3). forehand attacking. The Play Practice condition was randomly assigned to one of the two groups for each teacher (see 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 attack 3.an introduction of these four tests. which contained the information such as the test personal and equipment. Each test included a rationale of the variable followed by a description of the assessment procedure. 88 . Forehand serve 4. Forehand drive 2. the test description provided a checklist that the test administrator followed in the process of the assessment. A diagram was added to illustrate the test environment.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. At the end. Table Tennis Skill 1. Forehand alternation Test Forehand drive accuracy test The third ball attack test Serving test Alternation skill test Figure 3.

The forehand drive accuracy test was chosen to examine the participant’s ability to control the ball. The forehand drive accuracy test aimed to measure the ability to control the ball in playing table tennis. beginners often automatically block the ball with the backhand drive and were less likely to use the forehand. 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 researcher believes that it is more challenging for the 89 . 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. 2001) and plays a significant role in effective game play of table tennis (Seemiller & Holowchak. From the perspective of practice. The primary reason of testing the forehand resulted from the researcher’s teaching experiences in which most players. especially beginners. Controlling the ball is critical in racket sport (Launder.The rationale of the forehand drive accuracy test. 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. Especially when using the shaking hands grip (see Appendix B). 1997). picked up the technique of backhand drive easily but tended to learn the forehand drive more slowly. Table tennis game play requires players to be able to control the ball with both forehand and backhand but this study only tested participant’s forehand control ability. Regardless of the level of table tennis competitions.

who delivered a table tennis ball 30 times in a four second interval.instructor to develop beginners control ability on their forehand. 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. The procedure of the forehand drive accuracy test began with the test administrator. 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. Besides controlling the timing variation of the shot. The forehand drive accuracy test controlled the following variables in order to provide equal opportunities to all participants. Consequently the result of teaching forehand drive on control ability really examined the effectiveness of Play Practice on teaching table tennis. The effective zone was a 16-inch square marked on the right corner of the table.4). Moreover. the pilot study confirmed that the 4 second interval was appropriate for the player to take the test. The description of the forehand drive accuracy test. All participants had 30 effective trials. The maximum score of the test outcome was 30/30 and the minimum number was 0/30. If 90 . the defined effective zone restricted the landing of each shot (trial) throughout the test. 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.

the participant had an extra opportunity to make up the trial until the total number of correctly administrated trials went to thirty.the administrator landed the shot outside the zone. The validity of the forehand drive accuracy test 91 . The instrument for recording the forehand drive accuracy test is attached in Appendix D. Evaluators Target: 14 inches squared Effective Zone T Player Beeper Balls Figure 3. 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 = .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.707.

The test administrator informs the class: “Find a table and play a ‘best five’ competition with your peer. middle. You will have 30 trials in a row. Procedure 1 Statement and Demonstration The test administrator assigned students into groups with two participants on each and numerated every group from 1-10. 3 The test administrator demonstrates four trials.2: The Statement and Demonstration of the Forehand Accuracy Test 92 . at a 4 second intervals. 21 points per set.697. and high. Table 3. The primary researcher and a table tennis instructor blocked the twenty student’s skill levels in three categories: low.resulted from a calculation of skill levels and their performance of their performance on forehand drive accuracy test. Table 3. the other one helps collecting the balls” 2 The test administrator announced following statement: “In this test you will hit the ball to the target using your forehand. When one of group members is taking the test.2 shows what the test administrator had to say and do during the test. 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. Then the researcher correlated the skill level to the performance by using a Spearman Correlation. The results were r = .

When the test began. It represented a successful attack. Especially if the player wants to win the game. The result of the attack was recorded in one of three outcomes (see Appendix E).The Forehand Attack Test The forehand attack test was the assessment of the performance of forehand attack in a rally situation.5). The attack test used the following procedures. the player shall always find opportunities to attack the ball rather than driving it in a slow and easy way. When the course goal of table tennis is to effectively play games. 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. Actively attacking the ball plays as an important role in table tennis games. 93 . The rationale of the forehand attack test. the instruction ought to include attacking performance as a compulsory component of the learning. The description of the attacking performance. (1) In: the ball was landed on the table and bounced to the effective zone. the player served to the test administrator who was responsible for returning it to the player’s 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. In this study the attacking test was chosen to measure the performance of attacking the ball in table tennis.

or a missed shot).e. Step 3: Player attacks the ball to the zone.5: The procedure of the attack test.(2) Out: the ball was landed on the table but not to the target zone. Every In was equal to two points and the Out meant one point. the maximum score of the attacking test that a participant could 94 . (3) Missing: the ball did not land on the table (i. Since every participant equally had 20 effective trials on this test. Player Step 1 Attacking Zone Test Administrator ES Step 3 Step 2 Step 1: Player serves to the feeder. Figure 3. played out. hit the net. Each type of the outcome was converted to a specific score for the performance evaluation. Every Missing received a zero accordingly.. Step 2: Feeder returns to ES.

The serve is the first shot of a rally but is more than merely putting the ball into play. The rationale of the serve test. 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. In addition. in this study the researcher investigated the participant’s competency of serving in the serving test. the participant had to have a redo of the trial until the effective one was produced.achieve is 40 which represent 20 Ins from the test.89. If the administrator failed to produce an effective trial.05. which indicated that the player missed all the attacking opportunities. 1997). p < . The minimum number of the attacking test was 0. Participants were asked to serve the ball to the specific targets in a randomized order. Due to its importance. The correlation of the skill level to the performance indicated the validity of the forehand attack performance was r =. 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. The Serve Test The serve test was the third assessment of the study.05. p < . 95 .91. the effective trial was defined as the situation when the test administrator successfully returned it to the effective zone with an easy drive.

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.” 2 The teacher finds another test administrator from the other test and demonstrates the procedure of the test twice.3: The Statement and Demonstration of the Attacking Test 96 . the other one helps collecting the balls” Table 3.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 will redo the trial. If the ball comes to you does not land on the effective square located on the right corner of the table. When one of group members is taking the test. 21 points per set. you need to serve to me slow and high and I will send it back to your on your forehand side. The test administrator informed the class: “Find a table and play a ‘best five’ competition with your peer. Then you hit the ball crosscourt with power and strength and try to let it bounce to the zone marked on the floor. You will have 20 trials in this assessment. 3 The teacher assigned students into groups with two participants on each and numerated every group from 1-10.

6). coming to the net (1 point). p < . The off of the target situation meant missing the serve. The correlation of the skill level to the performance indicated the validity of serve performance was r =. In addition.05. 97 . The coding procedure of the serve test was similar with the forehand drive accuracy test.56.05. The pilot study showed the reliability of the serve test that the test-retest correlation was r = 0. and outside the table (0 points).Description of the serving test. It evaluates if the participant can successfully serve the ball to the particular area in a randomly alternative order.83 p < . The serving test required participants to serve the ball to two targets at two corners of the table (see Figure 3. The performance on each trial was only coded as one of two outcomes: on the target and off the target. Every participant had twenty trials in the serving test. the let caused a redo in this situation (see Appendix F for the instrument). 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.

A B Beeper Participant Figure 3.6: The Context of the Serving Test 98 .

2 3 The test administrator demonstrates the first four trials (ABAA). There are two targets on the two corners of the table marked A and B. which served as the main 99 . 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 test administrator strictly followed the serving test procedure illustrated in Table 3. The test administrator assigned students into groups with two participants on each and had them play games. Table 3. When the test starts.4 the primary researcher indicated what the test administrator announced during the serve test. The main purpose of the alternating test was to measure player’s performance on creating space. Participants were expected to vary the landing of their shot in a rally situation during the assessment.3 and demonstrated the same content to both treatment and comparison group.4: The Statement and Demonstration of the Serving Test In Table 3. The Order is “ABAABABBBABAABAABBAB”(printed in a card). The rationale of the alternation test.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. try to land your serve to the target. The Alternation Test The alternation test was the second measurement of the table tennis skill.

1999). As 100 . The player obtains the benefit by creating space because under the pressure of covering the space. he or she is creating the space. 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. 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. In the alternating test.7). 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. the researcher measured how many times the player hits to ball alternating to the left and right parts of the table in 20 trials.goal of playing racket sports (Mitchell & Oslin. For the consideration of the influence and variation of forehand and backhand drives. Especially when facing a higher skilled player who usually has a balanced forehand and backhand drive. Description of the alternating test. 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). the player must actively create space to pressure the opponent and set up opportunities for the attack. 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 opponent is more likely to make mistakes on the return but less likely to attack the player’s shot as well.

The effective zone aimed to provide consistent trials to the participant in rallies. 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 test defined an effective zone on right corner of the table where was located on the participant’s side. 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. Figure 3. every shot had to be marked as one of the three situations: the left.5 illustrates the procedure of alternating test. right. 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.a result. When coding the performance in the alternation test. Accordingly the shot was only counted as an effective trial when the test administrator landed the ball in the zone. (End meant that the player failed to land the ball on the table and the rally was dead.5 the blue dotted line indicated the shots from the administrator and the black straight line indicated the shots from the participant. this result indicated that no left to right alternation took place within the 20 trials.) Each participant equally had 20 trials in the observation. In Figure 3. 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 participant’s performance was 0 out of 20. or end shot. See the instrumentation of the alternating 101 .

Test Administrator A B Participant Figure 3.5: The Example of Alternating Test Data Collection 102 .5 for an example. See Table 3.test in appendix G. B-A) F 3 1(A-B) F 3 0 Total: 9 3 Table 3. 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.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.

5 indicated that the player performed nine trials and alternated the shot three times. The maximum number of the score was 20 while the minimum was 0. The primary researcher and the trained independent rater did not have any role in the table tennis skill intervention.6 the content showed how the test administrator announced the test procedure to all the classes in a standardized manner. and Heward (2007) recommended 90% as the standard of high interobserver agreement. 103 .The example in Table 3. 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. Inter-Observer Agreement of the data collection. Heron. Then the total number in the demonstration column would be the final score of the participant on the alternating test. The IOA recording was calculated on all skill test measurements (both pretest and posttest). The player should continue the rallies until the number of trials became 20. The primary researcher coded all of the skill performance from videotape analysis and live coding. In Table 3. Cooper.

stop the rally and we will start a new one. In the treatment group. 2 3 The test administrators demonstrate six trials. the instructors used Play Practice to teach the instructional unit while the comparison group was taught by the SFHP method.Procedure Statement and Demonstration 1 The test administrator announced following statement: “In this test please use your forehand to keep a rally with me. 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. We will stop after 20 forehand shots. The test administrator assigned students into groups with two participants on each and had them play games. 2001). However. 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. if the ball comes to your backhand side. Table 3. 104 . 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).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.

and lateral two-step footwork (Seemiller & Holowchak. the teacher used the first session to recruit participants to the study in both the treatment group and comparison group.The similarities of the treatment and comparison group The time frame of the intervention was consistent for both conditions. intervention. Pre-intervention refers to the first three lessons prior to the pretest implementation (see Table 3. and posttest. Firstly. flat service. forehand drive. Since all classes enrolled in both groups took place in every Monday and Wednesday throughout the quarter.2). all classes received the same instruction in order to accomplish two tasks: introduction and test preparation. the treatment and comparison groups experienced the four sections at the same pace (see Table 3. the complete instructional unit was divided into four sections: pre-intervention. The second similarity of the treatment and comparison group was the instruction that existed in the pre-intervention section. pretest.7). after the recruitment session. According to the need of the measurement. The instructional unit was composed of nineteen lessons. Participants who wanted to be enrolled in the study were required to sign the consent form mandated by the IRB. The purpose of introducing these four basic elements was to help every 105 . Secondly. which ensured that the length of teaching was identical in the treatment and comparison groups. Within these three sessions. 1997). the instructor used two consecutive sessions (lesson # 2 & 3) to introduce all participants in both groups to four basic table tennis techniques: backhand drive.

g. For providing equally effective instruction in the treatment and comparison group. to understand the concepts and movements of the techniques (e. forehand serve) so that everyone was able to participate in the pretest. especially beginners. four classes used identical facilities during the instruction.participant. 106 . All equipment and facilities were identical in both the treatment and compassion group. 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 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 example.

7: Course Schedule 107 .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.

and Health Program contained in the table tennis course and (b) the drills the instructors learned from and experienced in their undergraduate program. The modification of the scoring was such that players were allowed to score only by using the forehand drive (See figure 3. participants in the treatment group played a target game to develop their forehand crosscourt skill. During the practice. For example. when teaching the forehand drive crosscourt shot.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. participants were required to hit the ball crosscourt in rallies for a period of time (e. Players tried to hit the spot to score a point during the game play. two targets (12-inch squared spots) were located on two diagonally opposite corners of the table. In the target game.8). all practice and drills were converted to either a game or a competition situation. In the instruction of Play Practice. Contrary to the traditional method. 10 minutes).g. traditional drills referred to two types of drills: (a) the practice and exercise that the Sport. Fitness. 108 . participants in the comparison group had an exercise of 10 minutes forehand rally. In this study.

These changes aim to facilitate the understanding and improvement of table tennis skills. participants only needed to follow the formal table tennis rules and there were no changes or modifications of the rules and procedure. In the comparison group. On the other hand.SFHP Instruction: 10 min rally Player A Play Practice: target game Player A Player B Player B Figure 3. Modified games reflected one 109 . When playing the formal games. Modified games consisted of formal competition with changed rules or procedures.8: The practice of forehand drive crosscourt in two groups The second difference came with the format of game play. participants played the formal game after the introduction and practice of the specific techniques. Formal games mean the competition used at the professional level. 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. the treatment group did not contain the formal game but applied modified games to teaching.

2001. For example. see Figure 3. they were examined by Alan Launder. Half Play In order to determine if the activities developed for the Play Practice condition were appropriate. 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). Alan Launder agreed with 110 . on the first day of intervention. shaping play (Launder. Player A Player B Figure 3. use of the backhand was not allowed in the game. 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. As a result.9).9: Half vs.of the Play Practice procedures. p59). and / or if (b) he or she returned the ball with a backhand. For the purpose of practicing the forehand.

” “three shots game. In the comparison group. Turner & Martinek.the appropriateness and accuracy of the instructional drills and modified games used in the study.8 demonstrates the procedures of the treatment and comparison groups. Besides the differences in the format of practice drills and game play. 1992. the treatment group was differentiated from the comparison group in instructional procedures. the instruction started with building up techniques and ended at the tournament game play. The ratio of the technique practice and game play within eleven lessons was 5:6.” and “snowman game” (see Appendix H for the details). the instruction focused on the practice of attack performance. After he examined the practice drills and modified games Alan Launder’s opinion indicated the validity of the Play Practice instruction used in the treatment group. The teaching began with the learning of ball placement and then serving placement. Finally. However. In line with the definition of SFHP instruction (Rink. 111 . in the treatment group. the instruction processed in three steps. 1999) the instructional unit was divided into two parts: technique practice and tournament. Table 3. such as the “half and complete table game.

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. See Table 3. the differences between treatment and comparison conditions can be found in three aspects.9.9: The differences between the treatment and comparison groups 112 .8: The treatment procedure In summary. 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.

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 researcher’s 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 teacher’s 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

ANOVA.school. instructors were required to study the lesson plans that they would implement in winter. 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. However. It assumed that they would make sense of the content of each single lesson. 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. and paired sample t-tests were used to analyze these data and answered the four research questions. 118 . MANOVA.14.

(c) serve test.14: Research Questions. CI) for the dependent measures of (a) forehand drive accuracy test. Post) MANOVA with repeated measure 2 Group (PP. and Analytic Methods 119 . CI) X 2 Time (Pre-. Variables. and (d) alternation test? Were there significant pre-to-posttest differences within each group (PP. (b) forehand attack test. (b) forehand attack test. Post) ANOVA One-Way MANOVA Forehand Drive Accuracy Forehand Attack Serve Alternation Forehand Drive Accuracy Forehand Attack Serve Alternation Paired Sample t-test. CI) X 2 Time (Pre-.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. Table 3. (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. (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. and (d) alternation test? Forehand Drive Accuracy Forehand Attack Serve Alternation 2 Group (PP. (b) forehand attack test. (c) serve test.

1% (range.. 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.6 %.3-100%). the IOA was 94.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. Last. Next.0 % (range. treatment integrity is reported to indicate the extent to which the delivery of the intervention followed the lesson plan. et al.7% (range. 120 . 85-100%). Overall IOA for all dependent measures was 95. The IOA for the forehand drive accuracy test was 96. the results of all dependent measurements are reported. The IOA show that every dependent measure had more than 85 % agreement (Cooper. 83. 85-100%).3% to 100% on data collection. For the attacking test.6% (range. 2007) with the range from 88. The IOA for serving and alternation test was respectively 95. 85-100%) and 97. Inter-observer Agreement Inter-observer agreement (IOA) was conducted on 78 % of the dependent measures.

The adjustment of the schedule mainly resulted from the unaccomplished amount of exercise due to the limited time available for the activity and game. and 94. the treatment integrity score was 96.5% from the second class. Pong respectively taught class one and two. which was averaged by the 92. In the SFHP Instruction group. (c) serve test (SER).6%. (b) forehand attack test (FAT). 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 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). Ping and Ms.3%).1 and Table 4. and (d) alternation test (ALT)? 121 .4%) and fourth class (97. In Play Practice group. Overall the data show that the instruction in Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group followed the intervention goals and procedures. 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.9% which combined the score of the third class (96. the overall treatment integrity level was 93. Mr.2 display the treatment integrity of the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group.Treatment Integrity Table 4.7% from the first class.

7% 94.5% Table 4.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 92.2: Treatment Integrity Data for Comparison Group 122 .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.

As there 123 .00 Table 4.01 57.00 . (2-tailed) N ALT Pearson-product coefficient Sig.00 60.31(*) .00 FAT .00 . (2-tailed) N SER Pearson-product coefficient Sig. The results of Pearson-product coefficient indicate that five of the six dependent measures were correlated with each other. FDA Pearson-product coefficient Sig. 2007).36(**) . r (62)= .30(*) . Table 4. a Pearson-product coefficient correlation was conducted to compute the degree and direction of relationship of the four dependent measures (Gravetter & Wallnau.00 60.03 56.00 57.18.02 59.21 .12 59. (2-tailed) N FAT Pearson-product coefficient Sig.00 1.00 .Results of Question One: Before the comparison of the pretest scores between Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group.00 1.3 reports the six correlation relationships existed among four dependent variables on pretest dependent measurements.05.00 SER .00 59.31(*) .00 57.00 ALT .00 1. (2-tailed) N FDA 1.41(**) .01 60. p > .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.

84 14.84 22. 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 15.79 4.67 6. Table 4.30 4.00 3. The descriptive statistics contain the sample size.30 4.88 2. mean.76 4.39 6.64 5.72 4.04 12.4: Pre.04 6.65 7.54 Table 4.94 15.58 6.42 23. & ALT).32 3. and standard deviation in the two instructional groups (PP. FAT.17 17. SI).74 4. SER.16 Alternation test Posttest Mean SD 17.82 14.were significant correlations among the four dependent measures.99 9.00 14.52 2.34 6.06 3.64 16. (b) forehand attack 124 .04 14.18 6.51 16.87 15.74 4. a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was selected to investigate the group differences among the dependent measures.99 20.18 17.97 10.66 3. (a) forehand drive accuracy test.55 4.45 13.73 13.96 SD 4.46 4.28 3.36 15.42 5.4 displays the descriptive statistics for the pretest and posttest scores on the four dependent measures (FDA.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.79 2.

91. 51] = 5. and (d) alternation test. (c) serve test. Accordingly. and (d) alternation test. 51) = . F (4.001. 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. SI) significantly improved their performances from pretest to posttest.05. there was a significant Time main effect which showed that groups (PP. 〔F [4. A non-significant group main effect was found. F (4. the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction groups were statistically similar. p > . η²= . (c) serve test.04〕indicating that irregardless of time. p > . (b) forehand attack test. as there was a non-significant group effect in the MANOVA test. 125 . 51) = 40. (b) forehand attack test.64. Post-) MANOVA with repeated measures on last factor was conducted on (a) forehand drive accuracy test. and (d) alternation test? Results of Question Two: A 2 Group (PP. p < . The main effect for group.34. and (d) alternation test. the univariate tables were not examined. Second. η² = .test. (c) serve test.05.47. 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. SI) x 2 Time (Pre-. (b) forehand attack test. (c) serve test. revealed that the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction groups were statistically similar at the pretest.

Figure 4. 126 . 〔 51] = 5.13〕. On the forehand attack test.〔F [1. p < . 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.20.76.35. η²= .01.20〕showing that groups significantly improved the performance on forehand drive accuracy from pretest to posttest. p > . 54] = 13.〔F [1. p < . p < . the Time main effect was significant. 54] = . As the MANOVA findings had a significant Time main effect and a significant Group x Time interaction. and (d) alternation test. Third. 54] = 122. On the forehand drive accuracy test. p < .01. the results reported a significant Group x Time interaction indicating one group was significantly better than the other group from pretest to posttest. Play Practice had a significantly better improvement from pretest to posttest on forehand attack performance than the SFHP Instruction group. (a) forehand drive accuracy test. there was a significant Group x Time interaction.70〕revealing groups significantly improved pre-to-posttest performances on the forehand attack measures.29〕.001. (c) serve test.16.01. η²= .004〕. there was a significant Time main effect F 〔 [1.〔F [1. However.51.87.η²= . Figure 4. (b) forehand attack test. η²= .2 displays the improvements of two groups from pretest to posttest on forehand attack measures. the primary researcher examined the univariate ANOVA tests on each of the four dependent measures. η²= . 54] = 8. F [4. η²= .05.1 presents the pretest and posttest changes on this dependent measure between Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group. Moreover.

a non-significant Group x Time interaction was reported in the univariate tests. Figure 4. p < . (b) forehand attack test. on the alternation test. p > . the Time main effect was also significant. 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. (c) serve test.00. One group was not significantly better than the other one on the alternation test from pretest to posttest.06〕.01. (a) forehand drive accuracy test. and (d) alternation test.〔F [1.04.〔F [1,54] = 3. 54] = 13.05. η²= . However. p < . In summary. 54] = 79.4 demonstrates the pre-to-post improvement on alternation test. η²= . η²= . Additionally.15.01. There was also a significant multivariate Group x Time interaction. However.Similar results were also found in the serve test. there were significant improvements overall for each of the four dependent measures. 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. Finally.〔F [1.59〕showing groups improved significantly on the serve from pretest to posttest. There was a significant Time main effect. 127 .3).20〕revealing that group significantly improved from pretest to posttest.

00 13.Group 18.00 16.1: Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Forehand Drive Accuracy Measures 128 .00 15.00 Pretest Posttest Figure 4.00 14.00 Play Practice Conventional 17.

50 Pretest Posttest Figure 4.00 12.2: Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Forehand Attack Measures 129 .00 17.50 15.Group Play Practice 22.50 Conventional 20.

00 7.00 Conventional 10.00 6.00 9.00 Pretest Posttest Figure 4.3: Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Serve Measures 130 .Group 12.00 8.00 Play Practice 11.

00 Pretest Posttest Figure 4.4: Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Alternation Measures 131 .00 Play Practice Conventional 17.00 16.Group 18.00 15.

(c) serve test. SI) for the four. (b) forehand attack test. & ALT). A non-significant group effect was found. On forehand attack test.00625〕showed a non-significant pretest to posttest difference on improvement on forehand drive accuracy test. FAT.00625〕 and the SFHP Instruction group〔t (24) = -2. Research Question Four: Were there significant pre-to-posttest differences within each group (PP. A Bonferoni adjustment of the alpha was calculated at . (c) serve test.00625.0. 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 significant pre-to-posttest difference was found for the Play 132 . p>.05. F (4. p>. and (d) alternation test? Result of Question Three: A MANOVA by group (PP & SI) was conducted on four posttest dependent measures (FDA. The multivariate finding shows that the posttest scores did not differ between the two instructional groups (PP. (b) forehand attack test.07.36. SI) for the dependent measures of: (a) forehand drive accuracy test. the Play Practice group〔t (30) =-2.35. η²= . p > . For the first variable. SER.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.87. 51) = 2.

65.00625〕. the SFHP Instruction group did not. 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. p<.60. SI) significantly improved their performances from pretest to posttest on all dependent measures. Summary This study revealed five of six significant correlations of a medium level among the four table tennis forehand skills at the pretest.00625〕and the SFHP Instruction group〔t (24) =-6. suggesting the groups were statistically similar prior to the table tennis intervention.00625〕.〔t (30) =-9. However ANOVAs showed that only the forehand attack test and the serve test had a significant Group x Time univariate interaction.00625〕 〔t displayed a significant pre-to-posttest differences in serving. A pretest MANOVA confirmed no Group differences on the four dependent measures between the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group. p<.Practice group. Paired sample t-tests indicated pretest to posttest 133 .77. SI) x 2 Time (Pre-. p<. t (30) =-3. There was a significant Time main effect showing that groups (PP.13. the Play Practice group〔t (30) =-8.〔t (24) =-1.39. p<.00625〕 but 〔 .35. p<. The results of the serve test was in line with the previous two variables. In the alternation test the paired sample t-tests showed that the Play Practice group significantly improved from pretest to posttest. A 2 Group (PP.00625〕and SFHP Instruction group (24) =-4. p>.

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 .

The MANOVA indicated that a non-significant difference was found between groups when the four variables 135 . the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction. Next. Pretest Results The pretest results demonstrate that two groups. 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. The discussion then focuses on the analysis of the Group x Time effects of the intervention.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 chapter ends with a discussion of the implications of Play Practice instruction in teaching sport in physical education. were similar on the four table tennis skill tests. the chapter discusses the strength and weaknesses of the study including several methodological suggestions for future studies.

were considered together. As the syllabus notes. the forehand drive 136 . 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. For example. Correlations Among the Dependent Measures The Pearson-product coefficient analysis found that a significant linear correlation existed among the dependent measures. and indicate that two groups were similar on forehand table tennis skill levels. 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. students who registered for the course are typically beginners with little or no experience in the activity. In summary. 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 pretest results on the dependent measures support the participants’ self-reports and the course description. and the instruction addresses the basic skills on table tennis techniques and tactics (See the course syllabi in Appendix B and C). “There are no prerequisites for this course”. 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. Because the four classes chosen for the study were all introductory table tennis courses.

attack. 1995. (b) the forehand attack test. 137 . Similar results were found on the alternation test which also correlated with the rest of the dependent measures. and alternation. serve. 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. (c) the serve test.accuracy test interacted with the three other measures: (a) the forehand attack test. (b) the serve test. The only non-significant correlation occurred between the forehand attack test and the serve test. Launder (2001) claimed that identifying the critical skills for effective play should be the first step of using Play Practice to teach sport. 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. and with the serve test. game play always requires distinct skills. The four dependent measures chosen for the study examined the different forehand skills of playing table tennis: forehand drive. All relationships ranged from low to medium correlated levels. 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. Because of the complexity of sports. and (d) the alternation test. and (c) the alternation test. Play Practice produced better learning outcomes than did the SFHP instruction on (a) the forehand drive accuracy test. such as with the forehand attack test.

1995. One of the biggest factors associated with the intervention should result from the Play Practice progressions chosen for the intervention.Griffin. 1982. 1995. McMorris.. The primary researcher. Turner & Martinek. Turner & Martinek. & Oslin. & Mitchell. 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. 1996a & 1996 b. 1996. The modified games and practices shared two pedagogical characteristics. Rink et al. 1999). These characteristics are directly related to the results of the current study. Mitchell. These studies turned out non-significant differences on technique execution. using the Play Practice model (see chapter two). Griffin. 1998.. 138 . In this study.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. 1999). French et al. designed a series of practices with modified games. This has left the TGfU movement without a validation for what Bunker and Thorpe (1982) argued as the rationale of TGfU-.. 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. 2002. Turner. 1992. Oslin. Mitchell & Oslin. 1997). 1996.

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). Lund. Kulinna. Silverman. At the same time. Lund’s research (1992) found that more 139 . For example.Competition and Game Format Practice The first characteristic means that Play Practice instruction presented all learning tasks in a competition. plus a normal table tennis game play (see Appendix I). 1995). The literature on teacher effectiveness supports the significance of using competition and games in teaching sport in physical education (Hastie & Saunders.or game-like format which trained participants to either compete in exercise or play modified games every session in the intervention. they were presented in two different formats. 1991. Accountability is correlated with the learning outcomes. 1992. &1992. & Krull. For instance. 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. 1990. While the activities used in two groups aimed to develop the forehand drive skill. the comparison group used forehand down the line and forehand crosscourt during two traditional exercises. These game-like progressions made the Play Practice instruction special and may influence the learning outcomes measured in the study. and indicates that competition helps hold students’ accountable for their learning.

The different format might increase the quality of every practice trial in the exercise. and when the teacher took time after each short practice to assess performance through public reporting and recognition. 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.achievement was produced when the instructional task included an individual or group challenge as part of the task demands. However. Purposefully Modified Games The second characteristic of Play Practice is that every game that was modified had a specific purpose for skill development. the primary researcher observed that the participation level of the practice in Play Practice group was more intense. The effect of competition-like progressions for more learning outcomes of sport skills may also be associated with the quality of the participation. Although no data were collected for examining the differences about levels of participants’ efforts on Play Practice progressions and SFHP drills. Every game that the participants played with Play Practice instruction included a clear goal for a skill such as forehand attack or alternation. this characteristic did not exist in the SFHP 140 . 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 SFHP Instruction group was assigned a normal game without any changes in the rules or procedures. Participants in the SFHP Instruction group played the typical games which did not have a specific goal except for playing in general (Launder.instruction. 2001. in the Play Practice group. The Play Practice group played a modified game. the primary research found that some participants used their backhand to hit the ball all the time during the normal game play. A good example can be found in the lessons on the third day of the intervention (see Appendix H). in a lesson with the instructional goal of mastering the forehand drive crosscourt and down-the-line shot. However. By controlling the learning ecology. especially if the instructor wants to use games to improve learning. Playing games should be purposeful (Launder. the 141 . using only half of the table. For instance. the biggest problem with typical games is that students cannot focus on the skill that they need to work on. Rink. 1992). the instructor assigned a half versus half game which mandated that players return every shot with their forehand. From a pedagogical perspective. 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. In contrast. the “half versus complete game. 2001).” which aimed to develop forehand down-the-line and forehand crosscourt shot.

& Bryce. Harrison. while 142 . 1983. This analysis of the games indicated that a clear purpose of learning skills for a modified game does influence students’ learning. Modified games must ensure that the games create many opportunities for learners to work on the techniques or/and tactics.instructor created response opportunities on the forehand skill. helping students to develop their forehand throughout the game time. Siedentop. With one or more specific purposes on each learning task. 1991. 1989. Silverman. Without a specific purpose. 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. Participants in the Play Practice group gained more significant improvement than did the cohort in SFHP Instruction group. 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. 1982). Practice trials and ALT-PE were examined to predict the learning achievement (Buck. 1985) but it is unknown if Play Practice can produce more practice trials or academic learning time than other instructional approaches in teaching sport. however. the instructors turned every game play into purposeful practice to help learners improve the performance. Because this study was not a process-product study (Graham. normal game play may not focus on the skill that the teacher intended to improve. Metzler.

The high quality instruction in both groups should result from two connected factors: teacher expertise and appropriate content development. 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. They provided good instruction throughout the intervention. The Strengths of the Study This study implemented high quality teaching in both the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction groups. Pong were viewed as effective teachers based on their teaching records and the primary researcher’s observation. 2). 143 . both instructors demonstrated clear task presentations on their SFHP instruction. 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. In addition. During the task presentation. the two instructors’ expertise on teaching and the subject content should contribute to the delivery of the Play Practice instruction. Treatment integrity data shows that they delivered the lesson plans as instructed (see Table 4.exploring the process-product relationship between the time spent on these progressions and games and the ultimate learning achievement. For instance. Ping and Ms. they addressed correct critical elements of the techniques and physically demonstrated them to the class. First. Mr. Their presentations and demonstrations are associated with the accurate content.

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. and provided many thoughtful reflections on using Play Practice progressions to the future classes. The second critical feature of the high quality teaching should be the developmentally appropriate content. In addition. 1996a & 1996b. 1999). Rink et al. Siedentop. Play Practicing should continually and 144 .In terms of Play Practice teaching. 1992. The literature of teaching sport shows that significant learning occurs with expert teachers regardless of the instructional approaches (French et al. 1996). 2004. Ward. By following what Alan Launder emphasized about the content structure in teaching sport. a good example for indicating the instructors’ expertise is based partly on their quickness and success in learning Play Practice materials. 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 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). both teachers made suggestions for the Play Practice progressions during the intervention. Both the Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group presented the learning tasks in a developmental way although they used different progressions and games...

SFHP Instruction provided progressions also in a developmental way. and forehand crosscourt plus down-the-line. In having students alternate the shots from side to side. Research showed the connection between the participants’ improvement and high quality teaching featured content that was developmentally appropriate (French. In this example.gradually increase the complexity of practice (Launder. 1997). Lynn. in lesson number nine of the SFHP Instruction. Metzler. Rink. p. Mays. forehand down the line. the sequence of the exercises was forehand crosscourt..The findings of current study are in line with the literature and 145 .76). With the same reason. 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. It is better for learners to start begin with elementary skill and then go to an advanced one. 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. For example. Take the practice of forehand alternation as an example. & Werner. 1985). although the amount and procedure of the progressions were different from those in Play Practice. students practiced the flat serve and then the spin serve because the spin serve was viewed as an advanced serve skill (Seemiller & Holowchak. French et al. the two single-line skills had to be learned before the combined one. 1985. Rikard. 1991. 2001. 2005). Rink. 1991.

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

no random assignment of the participants influenced the internal validity of the study (Glim. such as high schools students. Corresponding to this weakness. 1966). 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. 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. 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). As Launder suggested. 2001).the current study can be generalized to only the student population who participated in the study. future studies should use a true experimental design to examine the effects of a Play Practice intervention. 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. 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. 2005). “skill is based on a combination of 147 . Except for the shortcoming of random selection.

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

1994). Rink. in this study. Keh. This study serves as a precursor for this research line of inquiry and provides several suggestions for future studies.. 2006.. However. 1992). 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. Teacher Feedback Teacher’s feedback has been valued as an important process variable that may affact the students’ learning outcome with different results (Graham. 1985. 2007) and sport techniques (Lee et al. 2001). Magill. 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 . Feedback can be a key component that leads to students’ learning of fundamental motor skills (Cohen. A control of teacher feedback would make the effects of the intervention clearer and stronger and increase the validity of the study. Launder. 1983. Silverman. 1993. the amount of feedback for each instructional group was not recorded so it is unclear that all groups received a similar amount of feedback.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. Lee.

Second. If the same results were produced. The current study required on four sessions for testing which counted for 20 percent of the instructional unit. future studies should explore learning in the cognitive dimension. Specifically. research design. such as measuring declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge of a sport (Thomas & Thomas. and teaching subjects.and posttest. intervention construction.be produced in the future. should modify the forehand drive accuracy test and the alternation test. There are two reasons for this proposed modification. After doing the study. 2002. 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. Suggestions for Dependent Measures Future studies investigating the effects of teaching table tennis forehand skills and using the dependent variables provided in this study. these two variables did not show significant pre-to-posttest improvement on the Play Practice instruction over the SFHP instruction. 150 . Such a heavy time commitment is not practical for many studies as well for the real world of teaching. Kirk & MacPhail. combining the two tests will take less time which is crucial for the success of running the pre. the primary researcher realized that assessment is very time consuming and needs abundant resources. the researcher would have more evidence by which to judge the effects of the intervention on learning the skill. the suggestions focus on the dependent measures. 1994. First. Except for the measures of skill execution.

because researchers can not replicate the same situation each time in game play. 1996a. a good measure of the procedure knowledge called “point interview” has been used in the similar studies (French et al. MacMorris. Mcpherson. researchers can administer a cognitive test before and after the intervention as has been shown in the TGfU literature (French et al. 1996b. Turner & Martinek. MacMorris (1998) 151 . some researchers may want to measure the skill in game play. the primary researcher does not recommend them doing this but rather supports evaluating techniques and tactics separately in a practice setting. It is difficult to differentiate decision making from technique performance and record it objectively. 1996b. Multiple choice questions may be delivered to examine the learning of content knowledge after the Play Practice instruction. However.. 1999). 1992). 1998. 1991. Second. For evaluation of the procedural knowledge.Metzler. 1996). The point interview method has demonstrated solid test validity and the primary researcher recommends the method for the future studies. Rink et al. Since Play Practice brings up the concept of “skill” to combine teaching techniques and tactics together in a game context. For measuring the declarative knowledge such as game rules and terminology. In addition. 2005. 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. The reason is because first the poor performance can result from either inappropriate decision making or incorrect skill execution... the reliability of the measures is problematic. 1996a.

forehand serve. both instructors felt a bit rushed in covering these skills from class to class. objective. As a result. and ecologically correct dependent measures of learning. The results of the study also demonstrated that the multiple instructional goals included in the instruction might negatively impact the teaching effectiveness. The experiences of implementing the intervention indicated that fewer skills selected for the teaching would result in more improvement of student learning. while this study demonstrated that it is possible to combine techniques and tactics and teach them simultaneously.and Rink et al. and alternation were selected as the instructional objectives of the course. Suggestions for Intervention Construction For future studies of teaching table tennis in a similar educational environment.. During the process of teaching. the first suggestion regarding the intervention construction is to teach no more than three skills in a 11-lesson instructional unit. (1996) claimed that one of the biggest challenges for examining the effects of teaching sport lies in the difficulty of selecting a reliable. In the current study. the forehand alternation test did not show a significant Group x Time interaction. 2006). 152 . the future’s data-based research of instructional approaches should testify to the techniques and tactics of the sport respectively to ensure the validity of the measurement. For example. The second suggestion relating to the intervention construction is that future researchers should test the sequence effect of the instruction (Holt et al. attack.

McMorris (1998) in a review of TFfU studies concluded. Holt et al.Implementing the same progressions in a different order may produce different learning results. 2007). & Heward. 2007). Heron. 2006). A most appropriate research method to study the sequence effect should be single subject design (Cooper. “the design of TGFU research is generally straightforward…. Researchers in both sport education and motor development have criticized the lack of examining the long term effect of the intervention (French et al. 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.and researchers pre. Without an assessment of the extent to 153 . 68). 2003..and posttested participants using a skill test ….” and compared the changes (p. (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. 1996a. A good example showing the sequence effect comes from a teaching soccer study in a secondary physical education setting (Holt et al. 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. 1996b.. This study found that the 3 v 2 practice produced greater results than did 2 v 1 practice on improving students’ performance. Goodway & Branta. Robinson.

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

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

Originally this game was developed to address the significance of footwork in table tennis game play. and generic versions of games could be used to teach the main tactics required by the sport. After learning and researching Play Practice instruction. which is always to develop the sport skills. 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. In this game. teachers must ensure that the modified game addresses the learning objective. the primary researcher found that modified games could have multiple functions. 2004). the pilot study indicated that this stationary exercise could be a great drill for teaching the strategies of creating 156 . 1997). because effective play requires competence in both good technique execution and in decision making (Launder. In addition. However. with forced foot movement costing a point (see Appendix H).simplified. modified. the players were not allowed to move their feet during the rally. Siedentop et al. He not only agreed with Bunker and Thorpe’s 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.. 2001. They believed that instruction of TGfU could effectively teach children how to play games and also improve children’s game play performance although the belief mainly came from their teaching experiences. A good example is the snowman game which aims to teach the forehand alternation skill and the strategy of creating space.

. 2004. 1982. Right now the typical instructional approaches used in the secondary physical education method course are TGFU (Bunker and Thorpe. 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. 2004). the primary researcher found that normal game play participation can not effectively facilitate the learning of specific skill. Students automatically drove the ball to the two side lines on the table to force their opponents to move.space and alternation. It is important to revisit and retest previous levels of performance. Besides these weaknesses. & Oslin. 1997) and Sport Education (Siedentop. 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. Mitchell. Turner & Martinek. Rink. This technique can happen early in a session or at any time that the group reaches a sticking point at the next level. Siedentop et al. Griffin. 1982. 1992. 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. In addition. to take learners back to a point where they feel comfortable. 1999). Play Practice has not been widely accepted by the Physical education teacher education programs and introduced to the pre-service 157 .

teachers. 158 . 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.

Brophy. J. 40. K. M. (2001). (1991). J. Ohio. T. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. (2004). Enhancing undergraduate physical education student’s content knowledge toward developing pedagogical content knowledge. Brown. & Thorpe. Paper presented at the Physical Education Teacher Education Conference.. An Analysis of Learning Trials and Their Relationship to Achievement in Volleyball. A skills approach versus a games for understanding approach.). Ward. J.). 16–23. Physical Education. (2007). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. A. Champaign. Exploring the pedagogical content knowledge of effective teachers in physical education.. 7. Teacher behavior and student achievement. Ayvazo. Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed. P. 9-13. New York: Macmillan. Long Beach. 39–44. R. S.. L. In M. Recreation and Dance. C. & Good. Sport education in physical education: try before you buy. and Recreation National Journal. E. P.. A sport education curriculum model for a collegiate physical activity course. P. Alexander. & Medland. (1986). & Bryce. & Luckman. Australian Council for Health. R. 243–267. (2006). 68. K. Buck. CA. J. & Zhang. Allison. European Physical Education Review. Stuhr. IL: Human Kinetics. (1997). 159 .LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander. British Journal of Physical Education. Ayvazo. Tennis steps to success (3rd ed. (1997). 10(2). Bennet. Wittrock (Ed.. R. 28(3).. S. 134-152.). Journal of Physical Education. Taggart. Cohen. S. G. Harrison. A. & Hastie. the Ohio State University. A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education.. G. Australian teacher’s perceptions and uses of the sport education curriculum model. M. P. (1993)..

Variations of experience in formal and informal sport. 58(10). Recreation. & Hastie. 4. Dyson. Fitness for life. Test your bib/triv knowledge. The effects of aligned developmental feedback on third-grade student’s performance in overhead throw for force. P. Dissertation Abstracts International. Content knowledge transformation: An examination of the relationship between content knowledge and curricula. The Journal of Physical Education. (1982). L. Applied behavior analysis. D. Cohen.. 9-16. Quest. L. (2004). & Larson. O. 10. (1995). 28-33. 176–195. (1997). & Ennis. 23(6). 8(3). Learning & Individual Differences. Chalip.Bunker. R. 11. E. 19-21. Sport education. R. American Libraries. & Hastie. (1997). Heron. Foresman. 160 . 226–240. and Dance. S. IL: Scott. T. (2006) Who needs philosophy in physical education? Journal of Physical Education. (1999). A.. Griffin. J. Bulletin of Physical Education. Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning. Chandler.. T. tactical games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. P. & Mitchell. The student social system within sport education. 61(6). (2003).. Cooper. Chen. C.. (UMI No. Crvallini. A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school. (2007). L. L. Teaching and Teacher Education. Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical theories of content. Clumpner. Ohio. R. & Lindsey. B. A. Kleiber. M. T. (1990). Unpublished doctoral dissertation.. Csikszentmihalyi. W. & Heward. 389-401. Duda. E. Corbin. Deci. IL: Human Kinetics. 109-116. 56. R. F. C. Doutis. 165-183. Champaign. D. Recreation & Dance. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. 9813254). and cooperative learning: theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Upper Saddle River. 77. (2007). Reflections on 'models of games education'.. the Ohio State University. & Thorpe. (1984). 463-465. (1996). Sport Progressions. Glenview. 17. Carlson. D. 55. D. A. B. R. (1992). M. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. F.

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, 88–103. Hastie, P. A. (2000) An ecological analysis of a Sport Education season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19, 355–373. 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, 417–430. 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, 177–192. 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, 26–41. McPherson, S. L. & Thomas, J. R. (1989). Relation of knowledge and performance in boys tennis: Age and expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 190–211. 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. O’Donovan, 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), 237–251. 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), A–66. Oslin, J. & Mitchell, S. (2005). Game centered approach to teaching physical education, in D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (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

A problem-based learning approach (3rd ed). C. L. through positive sport experiences. Champaign. (1997). Rees & M.. American Academy of Physical Education Papers. P. The Ohio State University. Siedentop. Tan. Seemiller. Schempp. Siedentop. Pieron (Eds) Myths. IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. D. Shulman.). Manross. 342-356.. Mountain View. (1986). Sport education: quality P. Recreation and Dance. D. & Wrisberg. (1994). IL: Human Kinetics. Sport Education: Retrospective. Shiebler. A. R. Champaign. & Graham. K.. 17. Schimidt. S. D. C. 63(7). and health program instructional handbook. Thinking Differently about Secondary Physical Education. D. 69. 409-418. & Fincher. B. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Educational Researcher. 4. (1998). Champaign. Winning table tennis. D. CA: Mayfield. 21. Siedentop. (2004). (1968). S. W. (1991). G. 1006A. Siedentop. Subject expertise and teacher’s knowledge. D. D. (2007). 212-218. 15. M. Siedentop. R. D. IL: Human Kinetics. D. 4–14. Ohio. (1982). D. models and methods in sport pedagogy. (1985). The theory and practice of sport education. 30(03). Recent advances in pedagogical research in physical education. Champaign. Feingold. A. & Holowchak. (1992). G. Motor Learning and Performance. Journal of teaching in Physical Education. E. The effects of three disparate instructional approaches on skill attempts and student learning in an experimental teaching unit. Developing teaching skills in physical education (3rd ed. A theory for programs of physical education in schools. Sport fitness.Salter. 82-94. 166 . 16. M. Dissertation Abstracts International. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Journal of Physical Education. Barrette. IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop. R. (2002). (1987). in: G.

Siedentop. 32-40... The Ohio State University.). 306-314. A. 167 . Columbus. (1997). M. & Krampitz. Ennis (Eds. Silverman. M. (1995). Skill-related task structures.. and accountability: Relationships with. 19-23. P. Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance learning (pp. Teaching Responsibility Through Physical Activity. Champaign. OH. Quest. A.. IL: Human Kinetics. D. D. explicitness. 254-260. and potential problems. S. and effectiveness. 48(4). 333-344. 223-246). S. Developing teaching skills in physical education (4th ed. 66(1). Relationship of engagement and practice trials to student achievement. Technology and physical education: present. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport. (1992). (2003). Solmon. 40(2). Siedentop. E. 14–17. experience. J. & Eldar. Teacher feedback and achievement in physical education: Interaction with student practice.). (2000). D.. cognition. H. Silverman.. Hastie. Physical Education and Recreation. (2001) No longer voiceless and exhausted: sport education and the primary generalist. H. Strikwerda-Brown. Student issues in physical education classes: attitudes. S. (1985). Tousignant. CA: Mayfield. 5. S. J. D. & Taggart. D. & Parker. Teaching & Teacher Education. 49(3). & Kulinna. IL: Human Kinetics. D. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. A. (1982). (2004). School of Health. (2007). possibilities. IL: Human Kinetics. 13-21. Unpublished manual. A. Mountain View. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand. & Tannehille. Champaign. M. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Silverman.. Siedentop. Siedentop. Tyson. Siedentop. Complete guide to Sport Education. and motivation. Junior Sport and the Evolution of Sport Cultures. 8. 8.. Silverman & C. & Van der Mars. Expertise.L. Australian Council for Health. Champaign. D. Academic learning time-physical education: 1982 revision coding manual. and Recreation Healthy Lifestyles Journal. Silverman. (1989). (2003). Physical Education. Siedentop. In S.

22-23. & Martinek. Teaching for understanding-Myth or reality? Journal of PhysicalEducation. In P.). Journal of Physical Education. ed. A. IL: Human Kinetics. Thorpe. Mancini (Eds. (eds. Zakrajsek. (1996). (1990). J. & Nelson. M. K. Implications of educational reform on high school programs. and game play. & Chiogioji. A. Research methods in physical activity (2nd. P. Sport pedagogy. D. Champaign. Observer reliability: Issues and procedures.) (pp. 4–18.. R. N. 58(2). L. T.312. A. (1995). 53-80). K. Champaign. (1994). Pieron. E. Darst. J.. Focus on feedback—Is it enough? International Council for Health Physical Education. Recreation. IL: Human Kinetics. 23(1). T. 29(4). 67(4). L. 70(3). Analyzing Physical Education and Sport Instruction (2nd ed. G. J. and Dance. Recreation & Dance. Champaign. 286-296. A. IL: Human Kinetics. P. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. (1992).). 4-18. 15-31. 25. (1999). 46-48. Recreation. & Almond. Developing expertise in sport: The relation of knowledge and performance. Sport and Dance.Stroot. and V. 13. J. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill. Turner. 168 . J. Teaching for understanding: A model for improving decision making during game play. R. H. 20–23. 47. 44-63. & Martinek. & Ntoumanis. Thomas. and Graham. Van der Mars. 295. (1987). (2004) Effects of a sport education intervention on students’ motivational responses in physical education. & Thomas. A. 23. & Martinek. D. J. Quest. T. D. knowledge. Turner. (2004). Wallhead. Bunker. T. Turner. A comparative analysis of two models for teaching games (technique approach and game centered (tactical focus) approach). International Journal of Physical Education. R. T. (1986). Turner. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. (1989). Effects of a Sport Education Intervention on Students' Motivational Responses in Physical Education. Wallhead. L. Taylor. S.). International Journal of Sport Psychology. (1990).. J. P. Thomas.

. 428-443. and Dance. & Johnson. Chapter 5: Curriculum Effects in Eighth-Grade Lacrosse. (1999). Bone strength and body composition in pediatric multiethnic populations: Descriptive and intervention studies. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. S.. Paper presented at the Physical Education Teacher Education Conference. & Ford. T. Coach better with the soccer development model. M. Wetzsteon. Knowledge that alters teaching. A.. October). 428-443. Minnesota. (2001). What we teach is as important as how we teach it. Teaching games for understanding: evolution of a model.. P. Developing expertise: The road to excellence in football. M. IL: Human Kinetics. Ward. A. P. P. P. P. Sport Education: physical education for the new millennium. 77. Chapter 5: Influences of Perceived Motor Competence and Motives on Children's Physical Activity. Nguyen.The Football Association Coaches Association Journal. 18(4). Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. (2007. Ward. 181-211. Woods. Pittsburgh.. University of Minnesota. PE. Recreation. P. 169 . (1999). D. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. T. 28-33. Thorpe. 22-24. CA. Paper presented at Historic Traditions and Future Directions of Research on Teaching and Teacher Education in Physical Education" conference. Williams. 26(4). Champaign. Journal of Physical Education. (2007). L. & Stuhr. 48-55. Barrett. T. Recreation and Dance. Journal of Physical Education. (1996). M. Long Beach. Content matters. Doutis. & Bunker. October).. Insight . R. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. M. Ward. H. A. (2006). M.Wallhead.. Ayvazo. Wein. Werner. P. R. Teaching the Subject Matter of Physical Education. 10(2). J. P. S. K. 67(1). Developing youth soccer players. (2006. (2006). 18(4). 390-403. (2005).. Ward. (2007). & O’Sullivan. Ward. Evans. P. T. 9(2). Chapter 5: Curriculum Effects in Eighth-Grade Lacrosse.. P..

APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL 170 .

.

APPENDIX B COURSE SYLLABUS (TREATMENT & COMPARISON CONDITION) 172 .

As a result of the class the student will improve his/her general physical fitness and skill performance.osu. Relationship to Other Courses This is a basic activity course in the Sport. It is open to any student at The Ohio State University. techniques. and strategies of table tennis will be taught throughout the class. Course Objectives 1. The student will: 173 .osu. Fitness. and Health Program.edu Course Description The purpose of this course is to provide the student with the appropriate level knowledge and skills in Table tennis.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. safe practices.edu/paes/sfhp Course Website: http://carmen. Principles. There are no prerequisites for this course. 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.Instructor: Office: Office Hours: Email Mailbox: The Ohio State University School of Physical Activity and Educational Services EHE PAES 185.

Off Campus Field Experience This course does not have an off-campus field experience. Course Requirements/Evaluation Participation 35% Skills 35% Knowledge 30% Every absence causes losing 1. It is during this time that the instructor will monitor and evaluate student progress. Technology The use of web technology will be employed in this course for the dissemination of course materials such as syllabus. implemented.75 points 174 . Participation is defined as the student’s involvement in all assigned drills and activities.• • • • Demonstrate knowledge of the basic tactics and strategies to play singles games. handouts and course notes. and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. and evaluated in a manner that promotes the acquisition and application of knowledge. Based upon a 100 points total value for the course.75 on the final grade. Demonstrate knowledge of the rules governing the games of table tennis. Recognize and develop an appreciation for the role of table tennis in lifetime activities as a result of participation in course activities. Game play performance on tournaments An online written-exam of table tennis content knowledge (multiple choices questions). Additional means of communication between the instructor and students is available through the use of web-based email. skills. Apply the basic strategies covered in singles and doubles games. Diversity The curriculum and experience is designed. Note: The quizzes will be opened on Carmen. the following guidelines will be used for missed participation: Number of Class Meetings 20 Points Deducted per Non-participation 1. of which 35 points are based upon participation.

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.76% = C 59% . would prevent the student from attending class.89% = B+ 74% .79% = C+ 60% . 175 .93% = A77% . and therefore.69% = D+ 90% . 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.below = E 84% .83% = B67% .Grading Scale 94%-100% = A 80% .86% = B 70% .66% = D 87% . Failure to present a Buck ID would prohibit the student’s entry into the facilities. This would be considered an unexcused absence.

Attendance Policy The 10% Rule The SFHP program has a 10% absence rule. Failure to complete an SFHP Course Make Up Form and the necessary activity within two weeks will result in that absence 176 . It is anticipated that medical absences will be taken care of within the 10% guideline. This rule recognizes that situations occur where a student may miss class (e. the SFHP program does not recognize “excused medical absences”. receiving a final grade of ‘E’).e. 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. 2) students who have a documented death in the family. Any such missed classes must be made up within two weeks of the absence using the official SFHP Course Make Up Form. signed by the coach/supervisor. the above participation points will be deducted. As a result of this guideline. 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.g. The instructor will determine the tardy time. After a student has missed 10% of the class. and given to the instructor within the first two weeks of the quarter. and 3) students who are observing a religious holiday. This documentation must be on University letterhead. The 10% rule allows students to miss up to 10% of classes without points being lost in the area of participation. it will still count toward the total number of absences explained in the 30% rule. In accordance to Faculty Rule 3335-7-15. Excused Absences There are three situations. medical illness) during the quarter. 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. missing more than 30% of the class will result in the student earning a failing grade (i. The 30% Rule As this is a laboratory-based class which centers around learning through participation in class activities. They are: 1) students who participate in a documented University sanctioned event. It is important to note that although an absence (within the 10% guideline) will not result in points being deducted. which constitute an “excused absence” from the class meeting time.

Equipment Policy At the beginning of the second week of class. These balls will be used during the quarter. The Ohio State University’s Code of Student Conduct (Section 3335-23-04) defines academic misconduct as: “Any activity that tends to compromise the academic integrity of the University.becoming an unexcused absence. Quarterly locker rental is available for a fee – please see the R-PAC sport shop desk for more information (ph.” Examples of academic misconduct include (but are not limited to) plagiarism. 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. Ignorance of the University’s Code of Student Conduct is never considered an 177 . No gum chewing or tobacco chewing is allowed during class. 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. t-shirt and athletic footwear that is in compliance with building policies (see attached handout). and returned to students on the last day of class. The make up form is available from the instructor. Improper attire includes ballcaps. There will be no make up of unexcused absences or medical related absences. Locker Availability There are two types of lockers available for use within the R-PAC facility. 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. collusion (unauthorized collaboration). loose jewelry. or subvert the educational process. and possession of unauthorized materials during an examination. For certain classes that involve potentially dangerous. and that you remove your items by the end of the day. 292-8590). A limited number of day-use lockers require that you bring your own lock. or street shoes. depending on the quantity remaining. each student is required to bring to class eight table tennis balls (in unopened package). Dress Code Attire appropriate to activity such as shorts. The University will provide tables and paddles. copying the work of another student. the University would like you to be aware that participation in any physical activity involves minor/serious risks to your body. Risk Potential As you considering enrolling in a University Sport Fitness and Health Program class. running shoes.

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. the sections dealing with academic misconduct. so it is strongly recommended that students review the Code of Student Conduct and. 178 . specifically. Text No textbook is required in this course.“excuse” for academic misconduct.

and Health Program.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. 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. Principles. Course Objectives 1.edu Course Description The purpose of this course is to provide the student with the appropriate level knowledge and skills in Table tennis. Relationship to Other Courses This is a basic activity course in the Sport.edu/paes/sfhp Course Website: http://carmen. techniques. As a result of the class the student will improve his/her general physical fitness and skill performance.osu.osu. Fitness. There are no prerequisites for this course. and strategies of table tennis will be taught throughout the class. safe practices. The student will: • Demonstrate knowledge of the basic tactics and strategies to play singles 179 .Instructor: Office: Office Hours: Email Mailbox: The Ohio State University School of Physical Activity and Educational Services EHE PAES 185. It is open to any student at The Ohio State University.

Diversity The curriculum and experience is designed. Apply the basic strategies covered in singles and doubles games. Based upon a 100 points total value for the course. Game play performance on tournaments An online written-exam of table tennis content knowledge (multiple choices questions). 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. and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Participation is defined as the student’s involvement in all assigned drills and activities. implemented. Demonstrate knowledge of the rules governing the games of table tennis. and evaluated in a manner that promotes the acquisition and application of knowledge. skills.75 points 180 . Technology The use of web technology will be employed in this course for the dissemination of course materials such as syllabus.75 on the final grade. Off Campus Field Experience This course does not have an off-campus field experience. Recognize and develop an appreciation for the role of table tennis in lifetime activities as a result of participation in course activities.• • • games. handouts and course notes. It is during this time that the instructor will monitor and evaluate student progress. Note: The quizzes will be opened on Carmen. the following guidelines will be used for missed participation: Number of Class Meetings 20 Points Deducted per Non-participation 1. of which 35 points are based upon participation.

medical illness) during the quarter.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.89% = B+ 84% . and therefore.83% = B77% . the above 181 .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% .69% = D+ 60% .73% = C67% .93% = A87% .66% = D 59% .g. Failure to present a Buck ID would prohibit the student’s entry into the facilities.79% = C+ 74% . After a student has missed 10% of the class. This rule recognizes that situations occur where a student may miss class (e. Attendance Policy The 10% Rule The SFHP program has a 10% absence rule. The 10% rule allows students to miss up to 10% of classes without points being lost in the area of participation.Grading Scale 94%-100% = A 90% .76% = C 70% . This would be considered an unexcused absence. would prevent the student from attending class.

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

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

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 .

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: _________________ Feeder’s name: _________________ ___________________ Observer: ____________________ Date: Student’s name: _________________ 188 . On target only includes two situations: (1) Inside the bounds (2) touch the bounds of the target. If the feeding ball is not appropriate.Coding guides: Circle the number that the player hits the ball to the target. circle the number and move on to the next point.

APPENDIX E FOREHAND ATTACK INSTRUMENT 189 .

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: Feeder’s name: _________________ Observer: ____________________ Student’s 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 . 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.The Attacking Test Instrumentation M: missing shot: The ball goes to the net or out of the bounds and the player misses the ball.

APPENDIX F SERVE INSTRUMENT 191 .

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.The Serving Test Instrumentation Coding guides: Cross the number that the player hits the ball to the target. Total number on target: _________________ Feeder’s name: _________________ Student’s name: ___________________ Observer: ____________________ Date: _________________ 192 .

APPENDIX G ALTERNATION INSTRUMENT 193 .

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).The Alternating Test The player must start each rally. If the first bounce of the serve touches the edge (vertical part) of the table and the ball goes backward. Student’s 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 . you always mark it as R (the right side). (2) the central mark on the net. The Let causes a redo the rally. and (3) centerline on the extension area. If the ball lands on (1) the centerline on the table. The observer one keeps every shot that player 1 performs in each rally. Each shot only can be marked as one of three letters L (left). R (right). or F (failed).

APPENDIX H LESSON PLANS FOR PLAY PRACTICE GROUP 195 .

04. equipment. Preparation Handouts: Syllabi.2008 Class Purpose: Introduce the class and understand students Fill out the Low Risk Form Section Tasks Greet students and confirm the course’s number and place. Table Tennis’ terms. Warming Fill out the Low Risk Form up Introduce teacher and this course and sport Practice Teacher’s background Course’s purposes: basic techniques.Class session: 1 Date: 01. 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. Check the syllabus Bring the forms of the tournament 196 . Table Tennis and health. attire and test.

100 trials. Teach backhand drive: Backhand Demonstration of following 6 critical elements drive Ready position—arm relaxed Bring racket straight toward the waist—cock 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 hit—return to ready position Practice: 2. and 2.Class session: 2 Date: 01.2008 Class Purpose: Shake-hand grip Handling the ball (Racket control) Backhand drive Tasks Section Shake hand 1. Preparation Evaluation sheet of student skill levels 197 . It is the preferred grip of most players in the world. 2. Running4 laps in the gym with keeping a table tennis ball Warm-up on the top of the paddle. & 150 trials (cooperation!). Skill 11 points x 4 sets game Pretest & Promptly to use backhand to return Game Play Serve can be modified.07. 50 trials. Check the attendance and collect balls. The most versatile. Teaching shake-hands grip Benefits: having a free wrist & balanced forehand and backhand stroke. Dribbling the ball: handling 100 times Forehand the ball 100 times Backhand 50 times forehand / backhand alternately (flip over) 1. 1. Backhand drive (crosscourt) drill: A flight of stairs: 30 trials. Announce the task of today’s class: grip 3.

similar to a salute. 7. in front and slightly to the right of your body.Class session: 3 Date: 01. with the hand swinging out ward. Your weight should transfer to the left leg. keep your elbow almost stationary.09. With the blade of your bat slightly opened and just left of center 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. Announce the task of this session: 3. Exercise: Forehand drive activity (crosscourt) 198 . Rotate your body to the right at the waist. 6. Crouched with knees bent. Make contact at about the top of the bounce. 2. Start the forward swing by rotating your weight forward onto your left foot. 9. take a short backswing from directly behind the ball. Demonstrating following critical elements (for right Forehand handed): Drive 1. 8. At the same time.2008 Class Purpose: Review Backhand Drive Forehand Drive Serve Section Tasks 1. your right foot slightly back. During the back swing. begin with the front of your body nearly parallel to the end of the table. 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. Back swing and forward swing should be one continuous motion. 5. Keep the attendance W Arming up 2. keep the racket perpendicular to the floor. 4. Keep your elbow near your waist. Stand out facing the table. 3. rotate your waist and arm forward.

Draw racket back roughly 1 foot 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 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. Teacher’s demonstration of critical elements of serve: Serve 1. Ball in palm 2. Equipment Balls and peddles Frames (Peng prepares this) 199 . 50 trials.A flight of stairs: 30 trials. Follow through naturally 2. Contact ball as it drops 6. Toss ball six inches or more 4. 100 trials & 150 trials 1. Palm flat and stationary 3.

Pair up students with 4 on each group (student ABCD in up a pre-determined order). Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Student A takes the test while B picks up the balls. 2.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test Section Tasks 1. 4 minutes/ Two observers code the performance. Announce the test procedure Warming 2.14. Student AB and CD rotate the test when two of them finished the test. Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test Student A & B Student C & D Game play Preparation 3. 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 . 8 minutes Test 1. Students who do not take the test play a game with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn. Attacking Test group Student C & D take the attacking test while A & B taking the forehand drive accuracy test.Class session: 4 Date: 01. Procedure 40 minutes Two students rotate to take the test.

and Early Attack Performance are tested at the same time. 201 . group Ball Placement Service Placement. Announce the test procedure Warming 2. Serving Test Alternation Test Student A & B Student C & D 2. 8 minutes 1. Preparation Peng prepares: 40 evaluation forms for three measures (BP.Class session: 5 Date: 01. 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. 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. SP.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Serving Test Alternation Test Section Tasks 1.16. Service Placement. Pair up students with 2 on each group (student AB in a up pre-determined order). & 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.

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. 202 players use drive to . 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. Keep the attendance Warming 2.23rd Class Purpose: Ball placement (forehand crosscourt) Section Tasks 1. The winner will receive a sticker.1. Warm up activity for handling: Dribble the ball again wall (forehand). Announce the task of this session: up 3. The player must return the ball (crosscourt) to a target by using his/her forehand drive.Class session:6 Date: 2008. The instructor counts the time and identifies the three pairs who have the highest score on the activity. The feeder records the player’s performance (X/20 on target). 1. And two player rotate. Half Play: 11 points x 5 sets Player A Player B Modification: Both only can forehand serve and return. Feeder Player A 20 Game Play 20 minutes Half vs.

Warm up activity for handling: Play by yourself. The feeder records the player’s performance (X/20 on-target). 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 reviews the practice and play in this session. Announce the task of this session: up 3. 2. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Half Play: 11 points x 5 sets Player A Player B Modification: 203 .2008 Class Purpose: Ball placement (forehand crosscourt + down the line) Section 1.28. The circle target values 2 points and the squared is 1. Practice Forehand drive (cross court) 1. The player must return the ball alternately to two targets by using his/her forehand drive. Player A Feeder Game Play 20 minutes Half vs.Closure Take over tables and collect balls. The instructor counts the time and identifies the three pairs who have the highest score on the activity. Multiple ball exercise: 20 trials x 4 times Procedure: one student (the feeder) feed 20 balls to forehand side of the player. Class session:7 Date: 01.

Closure Preparation 20 targets for practice drills & One stopwatch 204 .Players only can use forehand drive to serve and return. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Players can only return to half of the table.

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 circle target values 2 points and the squared is 1. Warm up activity for handling: Touching the “dead-balls” Practice 1. The rally starts from the receiver and the serve does NOT count as a shot. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. The feeder records the player’s performance (X/20 on target). Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming up 2. 20 targets for practice drills & One stopwatch 205 . (Pick up 20 balls) Game Play 20 minutes Half vs. 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.Class session:8 Date: 01. Announce the task of this session: 3.30.Multiple ball exercise: 20 trials x 4 times Procedure: one student (the feeder) feed 20 balls to forehand side of the player. 2.2008 Class Purpose: Ball placement (forehand crosscourt + down the line) Section Tasks 1. The player must return the ball alternately to two targets by using his/her forehand drive.

Multiple ball exercise: 20 trials x 4 times Procedure: one student (the feeder) feed 20 balls to forehand side of the player. 1 minutes in maximum x 5 trials Forehand Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and count drive the number of shots.2008 Class Purpose: Ball placement (forehand crosscourt + down the line) Section Tasks Warming up 1. Warm up activity for handling: Touching the “dead-balls” Practice 1. A can 206 .04. The player must return the ball to the target by using his/her forehand drive. Player A Feeder Game Play 20 minutes Half vs. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form 2. Every time they should increase 5 (cross court) shots from the first trial. Only forehand allowed.Class session: 9 Date: 02. Complete Play: 11 points x 5 sets Player A B Player Modification: Player only use forehand drive to serve and return. Announce the task of this session: 3. (X/20 on target). 2.

Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming up 2.06. The feeder records the player’s performance (X/20 on target). 20 targets for practice drills One stopwatch 207 Closure Preparation . 2. Player B can only return to half of the table but can use both hands. Half Play: 11 points x 5 sets Player A Modifications: Player A only can use backhand drive to serve and return. 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. Warm up activity for handling: Play by yourself 1. And two players rotate to exercise. Announce the task of this session: 3. Player B The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. The player must return the ball alternately to two targets by using his/her backhand drive. 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.Class session:10 Date: 02.2008 Class Purpose: Ball placement (backhand crosscourt + down the line) Section Tasks 1. Game Play 20 minutes Half vs. The instructor counts the time and identifies the three pairs who have the highest score on the activity.

Dead area game 11 X 4 sets up Player A (yellow smelly) cannot return the ball to the No Play Area. Serve does not count. 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. 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.Class session:11 Date: 02.2008 Class Purpose: Two Step Footwork Forehand alternation Section Tasks 1.11. 208 . 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. Keep the attendance Warming 2.

20 targets for practice drills 209 . And two players rotate to exercise.Class session:12 Date: 02. weight evenly distributed between both legs Execution phase: left foot takes a short step. Warm up activity: snow man game 11 points x 2 sets Snowman Game involves maintaining a completely stationary position. The only exception to this is that if a player moves his or her feet. left leg pulls. both feet shuffle to the left Follow through phase: left leg moves to the left. that player automatically loses the point currently being played.Demonstrate the two step footwork a couple of times Game Play Closure Preparation Preparation phase: knees slightly bent. start back swing stroke immediately after footwork Imitate the movement following teacher for 10 times 1. Forehand Game: 21 points x 2 sets Modification: Players only can use forehand drive to serve and return.2008 Class Purpose: Attack performance: Forehand alternation Section Tasks 1. Take over tables and collect balls. The player must use his/her forehand to return the ball down the line and crosscourt to the targets. Announce the task of this session: up 3. 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.13. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming 2. 1 Review Two-step footwork: Practice . The game is played according to the regular rules. The feeder records the player’s performance (X/20 on target). The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Both players must choose a stance and keep their feet “frozen” in place throughout the duration of each point played.

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. Preparation 20 targets for practice drills 210 .S. Announce the task of this session: up 3. 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. Closure The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. it scores two points while 6 feet zone with 1 point. 1. Player A responds to return the ball to the server and switch with Player B after 10 trials.18. If the player B lets the ball bounce in the 9 feet zone. (P. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming 2. The modification is that if the total number of shots of a rally is more than 4.) Formal game 11 points x 5 sets Take over tables and collect balls. In other words. the server has to finish the rally within 3 shots (in total) to avoid losing score. Warm up activity: Play by yourself.2008 Class Purpose: Attack performance: Forehand crosscourt and down the line Forehand Serve Section Tasks 1. 02. 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 rally ends up and the server loses a point.Class session: 13 Date:. 2. Every player will serve the whole set.

1. 2. 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.20 Class Purpose: Attack performance: Forehand crosscourt and down the line Forehand serve Section Tasks 1.Class session:14 Date: 2008. If the player B lets the ball bounce in the 9 feet zone. Announce the task of this session: up 3. 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 A responds to return the ball to the server and switch with Player B after 10 trials. it scores two points while 6 feet zone with 1 point. Warm up activity: Three shots game 11 x 3 times. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming 2. Both players can use half of the table to play (if the ball 211 . 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.2. Player B scores a point if the ball touches the target.

Class session:16 Date: 02. 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 Purpose: Comprehensive skills and game play Section Tasks Warming 1. 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.2008.27. Keep the attendance 2. If the player 3 feet zone B lets the ball bounce in the 9 feet zone.

2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test Section Tasks Warming 1.03. Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Test Student A takes the test while B picks up the balls. 4 minutes/ 2. 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.Class session: 17 Date: 03. Announce the test procedure 2. Pair up students with 4 on each group (student ABCD in a up pre-determined order). 213 . 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. 8 minutes 1. Procedure 40 Two students rotate to take the test. minutes Two observers code the performance.

Test Procedure Two students play a formal table tennis game by winning 21 point Test administrator serves as the referee. 1.Class session: 18 Date: 03. Pair up students with 2 on each group (student AB in a pre-determined order). Service Placement.05. 214 .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. and Early Attack Performance are tested at the same time. Student AB and CD rotate the test when AB finished the test. Ball Placement Service Placement. Serving Test Alternation Test Student A & B Student C & D 3. Announce the test procedure 2. Students who do not take the test play a tournament Game play with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn.

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 course’s number and place. Warming Fill out the Low Risk Form up Introduce teacher and this course and sport Practice Teacher’s background Course’s 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 today’s 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 position—arm relaxed Bring racket straight toward the waist—cock 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 hit—return 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

Contact ball as it drops 12. 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. Draw racket back roughly 1 foot 11. Serving Zone activity Forehand serve 6 trails X 3 times and see if all trails in different zones. Ball in palm 8. Toss ball six inches or more 10.Serve 1. Palm flat and stationary 9. The partner needs to check the critical elements of the performance. Teacher’s demonstration of critical elements of serve: 7. Follow through naturally 5. Equipment Balls and peddles Frames (Peng prepares this) 220 .

Class session: 4 Date: 01. Pair up students with 4 on each group (student ABCD in a up pre-determined order). 221 . Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test Student A & B Student C & D 3. Students who do not take the test play a game with the Game play peer until the test administrator calls for their turn.Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Student A takes the test while B picks up the balls. Attacking Test Student C & D take the attacking test while A & B taking the forehand drive accuracy test. Student AB and CD rotate the test when two of them finished the test. Procedure 40 minutes Two students rotate to take the test. Announce the test procedure Warming 2.2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test Tasks Section 1. 8 minutes Test 1. group 2.14. 4 minutes/ Two observers code the performance.

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. Serving Test Alternation Test Student A & B Student C & D Game play Student AB and CD rotate the test when AB finished the test.16. Students who do not take the test play a tournament with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn. 222 .Class session: 5 Date: 01.2008 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). Service Placement. group Ball Placement Service Placement. and Early Attack Performance are tested at the same time.

50 x 6 rallies 2.2008 Class Purpose: Forehand drive drills Tasks Section 1. Forehand drive drill (down the line) Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and keep the ball in rally. 1.23. Two players use one half of a table to operate the activity and rotate every 2 minutes (the teacher remind the time).Class session:6 Date: 01. Preparation 30 Ping Pong balls One stopwatch 223 . Warm up activity for handling: Dribble the ball again wall (forehand). Closure The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Announce the task of this session: up 3. 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.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. One of them uses backhand and other use forehand to return the ball. Keep the attendance Warming 2.

2008 Class Purpose: Forehand drive drills (2) Tasks Section Warming 1. 224 . Player A needs to drive the ball to different directions: crosscourt and down the line 20 alternately. Warm up activity for handling: Play with your self 1.Class session:7 Date: 01. 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).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 B alternately uses his or her backhand and minutes forehand to send the ball to the forehand side of the player A. Announce the task of this session: up 3.28. 2. Forehand drive drill (down the line) 5 Procedure: two players hit the ball back and forth and keep the ball in rally. 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). One of them uses forehand drive to return the ball down the line. Keep the attendance 2.

5. Serve drills backhand backspin The server produces 10 backspin serves by using his or her backhand. Keep the attendance and finish the low risk form Warming 2. 1. 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). The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Closure 2. Then the receiver returns the serve by either using drive or loop (if possible). Then the receiver returns the serve by either using forehand or backhand drive.30. Two players switch the roles after 10 trials. Announce the task of this session: up 3. Warm up activity for handling: Play by yourself.2008 Class Purpose: Serve drills Tasks Section 1. 1. Demonstrate backhand backspin serve: (critical elements) Practice server Racket very open—wrist loose and cocked slightly up Draw racket back and slightly up—toss 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 drill: forehand topspin The server produces 10 topspin serves by using his or her forehand.Class session:8 Date: 01. Preparation One stopwatch 225 . Serve drills forehand/backhand sidespin The server produces 10 sidespin serves by using his or her forehand or backhand. Take over tables and collect balls. Two players switch the roles 4. Then the receiver returns the serve by either using push or loop (if possible).

Backhand serve Flat serve: 10 x 2 times Backspin serve: 10 x 2 times The partner of server practices receiving the serve. Keep the attendance 2. 2. Then the server and receiver rotate their roles whenever the server finishes the exercise of one trial. Forehand serve: Flat serve: 10 x 2 times Topspin serve: 10 x 2 times 2. Announce the task of this session: serve practice & Round Robin 3.Class session: 9 Class Purpose: Tournament: serve drills round robin (1) Tasks Section Warming up 5 minutes Date: 02. Start the game Take over tables and collect balls. Warm up activity for handling: five minutes free play and exercise 1. Game Play 25minutes 1. The schedule table of the tournament The nametag Closure Preparation 226 .2008 Practice server and return of the serve 15 minutes 1. Demonstrate the procedures: N-1 matches per player “Best 2” games per match Winning 11 points per game Two serves in a row 2.04. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session.

Warm up activity for handling: five minutes free play and exercise Game Play 1.Keep the attendance Warming 2.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. Take over tables and collect balls. Preparation 1. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session.Start the game 1. Announce the task of this session: Round Robin up 3.Class session:10 Date: 02.06. The schedule table of the tournament 2. Closure 2. The nametag 227 .2008 Class Purpose: Tournament: round robin (2) Tasks Section 1.

and fifth seed of each team. fourth.11. Select the first. 2. Closure Take over tables and collect balls. 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 .Warm up activity: Forehand and Backhand drives (5 minutes) Game Play Procedure: 35minutes 1. Italy. 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. Preparation 1.2008 Class Purpose: Singles Tournament: Team competition Tasks Section 1. Identify four teams (Brazil Chad. Japan) 2. Announce the task of this session: singles tournament up 3. third. 1. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session.Class session:11 Date: 02. Keep the attendance Warming 2. 2. second. Select a captain from each team Brazil vs Chad Italy vs Japan 4.

Class session:12 Date: 02.Warm up activity: Forehand and Backhand drives (5 minutes) Game Play Procedure: 35minutes 1.2008 Class Purpose: Singles Tournament: Team competition Tasks Section 1. third. Announce the task of this session: singles tournament up 3. Identify four teams (Brazil Chad. Italy. 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 . Take over tables and collect balls. and fifth seed of each team. 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. second. Japan) 2. fourth.13. Select a captain from each team Brazil vs Japan Italy vs Chad Select the first. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. Keep the attendance Warming 2.

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 .

Keep the attendance Warming 2. Preparation 3. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. and Mango etc. The schedule table of the tournament 4.Class session:13 Date: 02. Berry.18. The nametag 232 . Closure 4. 3.2008 Class Purpose: Singles Tournament: Team Rivalry Tasks Section 1. Take over tables and collect balls. Orange. 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.) 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.

Orange.Class session:14 Date: 02.Warm up activity: Dribbling the wall against the wall Game Play Procedure: 35minutes Identify the Fruit Teams (Apple. Keep the attendance Warming 2. Berry.20. Take over tables and collect balls. The schedule table of the tournament 6. Announce the task of this session: singles tournament up 3. The nametag 233 .) 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. and Mango etc. 5. Closure 6. Preparation 5. The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session.2008 Class Purpose: Singles Tournament: Team Rivalry (cont) Tasks Section 1.

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 .

Forehand Drive Accuracy Test Attacking Test Student A & B Student C & D Game play 3. group 2. Student AB and CD rotate the test when two of them finished the test.03. Students who do not take the test play a game with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn.Class session: 17 Date: 03. Attacking Test Student C & D take the attacking test while A & B taking the forehand drive accuracy test. 4 minutes/ Two observers code the performance.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. 235 . Procedure 40 minutes Two students rotate to take the test.

Pair up students with 2 on each group (student AB in a up pre-determined order).2008 Class Purpose: Pretest of table tennis skill performance Serving Test Alternation Test Tasks Section 1.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. Service Placement. 236 . and Early Attack Performance are tested at the same time. group Ball Placement Service Placement.05. Serving Test Alternation Test Student A & B Student C & D Game play Student AB and CD rotate the test when AB finished the test. 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. Students who do not take the test play a tournament with the peer until the test administrator calls for their turn. Announce the test procedure Warming 2.

Preparation Peng prepares: 40 evaluation forms for three measures (BP. 237 . 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.

25. 238 . The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session. 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.Class session:15 Date: 02. 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.2008 Class Purpose: Comprehensive skills and game play Tasks Section Warming up 1.

The instructor reviews the practice and play in this session.Class session:16 Date: 02. 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. Keep the attendance Warming 2.27.2008 Class Purpose: Comprehensive skills and game play Tasks Section 1. 239 . 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.

APPENDIX J MULTIPLE BALL ACTIVITY PROCEDURE 240 .

9 Feet 6 Feet 3 Feet Feeder Target Player 241 .