This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Francisco]On: 29 November 2014, At: 13:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Physical EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes19

Applying Multimedia Computer‐Assisted Instruction toEnhance Physical Education Students’ Knowledge ofBasketball RulesPanagiotis Antoniou , Vassiliki Derri , Efthimios Kioumourtzoglou & Spiridon MouroutsosPublished online: 10 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Panagiotis Antoniou , Vassiliki Derri , Efthimios Kioumourtzoglou & Spiridon Mouroutsos (2003) ApplyingMultimedia Computer‐Assisted Instruction to Enhance Physical Education Students’ Knowledge of Basketball Rules, EuropeanJournal of Physical Education, 8:1, 78-90

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1740898030080106

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Journal of Physical Education, 2003, 8, 78-90

Applying Multimedia Computer-AssistedInstruction to Enhance Physical EducationStudents' Knowledge of Basketball Rules

Panagiotis Antoniou, Vassiliki Derri, EfthimiosKioiimourtzoglou and Spiridon Mouroutsos1

Research has shown that computer-assisted instruction appears to be a highly promisingmode for teaching cognitive concepts of physical education and sports. The purpose ofthis study was to examine the effect of multimedia computer-assisted (MCAI), traditional(Tl), and combined (traditional and multimedia computer-assisted) (Cl) instruction onlearning rule violations in basketball. Seventy female first year university students wererandomly divided into three groups: MCAI, Tl and Cl' and each followed five-hours ofinstruction. A multimedia software program was created for the purpose of this study.All students completed a pre-test a post-test and a retention test For the assessment ofknowledge of rule violations, students completed a 25-item questionnaire (written test),and evaluated 10 basketball phases presented through video (video test). The scores fromeach of the tests were added to yield a total score. With regard to the written test, resultsindicated that students in all groups improved their knowledge of rule violations but onlythose in the Tl and Cl groups retained this knowledge since their scores in the retentiontest were greater than those in the pre-test Also, the Tl group showed significantlygreater retention than the MCAI group both in the written test and in total performance.On the contrary, the type of instruction did not affect performance in the video test andstudents' improvement was temporary. It appears that physical education students canlearn basketball rules through Tl and Cl. However, for real-game situations which requirerecall of information, more research is needed to identify which method results in betterretention of information.

INTRODUCTION

Physical education should foster learning to move, through motor skillacquisition and physical fitness enhancement, and learning through movement,by developing social-emotional and cognitive concepts (Gallahue, 1996).According to the same author, activity concepts are aspects of cognitive

1 Panagiotis Antoniou, Vassiliki Derri and Efthimios Kioumoiirtzoglou are in theDepartment of Physical Education and Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace,Greece and Spiridon Mouroutsos is at the Polytechnic School ofXanthi, Greece.

— 78

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Physical Education

concept learning that relate to movement, focus on learning patterns,formations, rules and strategies, and provide children with a knowledge basefor effective and more frequent participation in sport, games and recreationalactivities.

In-service teachers but also physical education students during theirteaching practicum in physical education are required to help upper elementaryor high school students learn activity concepts relevant to sports, providingthem essential knowledge about how to position themselves, to respond toelements of the activity and to follow the rules and strategies (Gallahue, 1996).They should also be able to referee during intra- and extra-mural games ofschoolchildren.

Technological innovations and applications appear to be a highly promisingmode for teaching cognitive concepts of physical education and sports. Ithas been stated that computers and information technology can influencepositively the learning environment (Coelho, 1999) if they fit the pedagogicalprinciples and the goals of physical education (Rintala, 1998), help educatorsto provide more and better information experiences, and children to meetthe goals of physical education (Lambdin, 1995). Skinsley and Brodie (1990)consider the use of the computer ideal to teach theory, strategies and rules'relevant to motor skills. According to Kerns (1989), when CAI is applied tolearning the above topics, the physical educator is able to allot greateramounts of time to teaching motor skills.

Researchers (e.g. Capper and Copple, 1985; Fletcher, 1990; Kulik, 1983), whohave investigated the effects of comp'uter use on variables such as studentachievement, attitudes and learning rate, in several educational areas havefound that CAI tends to be'more interactive than TI (Najjar, 1996), results infaster learning (Capper and Copple/1985; Kulik, 1983), and develops betterattitudes toward the information presented (Fletcher, 1990). With CAI, theinstructional material can also be better organised, and the learner can set apersonal pace of learning. Moreover, CAI fosters critical thinking and problemsolving skills (Bowman, 1995), enhances learners' interest, comprehension,and engagement, especially when used to complement instruction (Boyce,1988). In addition, the instructor is able to teach multiple, large sections of acourse providing tailored instruction to an unlimited number of learners onan individual basis (Goggin, Finkenberg and Morrow, 1997), and to monitorstudents' progress.

Meta-analyses (Najjar, 1996) of over two hundred studies in areas such asforeign languages, biology, chemistry and operation of electronic equipmentindicated that in general CAI either used alone or as a supplement, produceshigher achievement than TI in primary, secondary and college education, inindustry, and in the military. Some of the research findings support, however,the conclusion of Dalton and Hannafin (1988) that the effectiveness of bothTI and CAI is enhanced when they complement one another.

Similarly, in physical education and sports it is not clear that CAI ismore effective than traditional methods of teaching in promoting studentachievement. More specifically, CAI has been found to be as effective as TIin teaching tennis (Kerns, 1989) and golf rules and strategies (Adams, Kandt,

79 —

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Physical Education

Thogmartin and Waldrop, 1991) to college students. Similar findings have beenreported for schoolchildren who learned tennis rules (Alvarez-Pons, 1992), andbadminton rules (Skinsley and Brodie, 1992) through CAI. However, moststudies investigated the effect of CAI on achievement using nongraphic orlow graphics-capable computer technology. Nowadays, many multimediaprograms have been developed which use different types of sources such astext, pictures, video, sound, animation, and high quality graphics to provideinformation. These are faster and more user-friendly than their predecessors(Haggerty, 1997), and have been found to enhance retention of information(Kerka, 1990). People seem to prefer multimedia as a means of learning,enjoy interacting with it, and believe that it assists them to learn (i.e. Bosco,1986; Fletcher, 1990).

Only a few researchers (e.g. McKethan, Everhart and Stubblefield, 2000;Vernadakis, Zetou, Antoniou and Kioumourtzoglou, 2002), though, haveinvestigated the effectiveness of MCAI in the area of physical education andsports. They have reported inconsistent findings. Vernadakis, et al. (2002)found that MCAI is as effective and profitable as TI in improving knowledgeand skill in volleyball setting by high school students. In a study by Everhart,Harhsaw, Everhart, Kemodle and Stubblefield (2002), a year-long MCAIdesigned to provide nutritional and physical activity guidance did not affectsignificantly high school students' physical activity or nutritional patterns.McKethan, et al (2000) reported that preservice elementary teachers in theTI group scored significantly higher than those in the computer group on allof the critical components of the movement skills. However, no significantdifferences were found between groups on specific cue descriptions.Similarly, in a recent study in athletic training education (Wiksten, Patterson,Cruz and Buxton, 1998), those who received TI had significantly bettercognitive knowledge on assessment of the quadriceps angle and morefavourable attitudes toward instruction than those who received MCAI.However, no differences were found between the two groups on practicalskill assessment of the quadriceps angle. On the contrary, Fisher-Stitt (1996)found that the MCAI group was superior to the TI group on learning balletterminology.

These studies examined the effectiveness of MCAI comparing it with TIin topics relevant to physical education and sports. There are also a fewstudies which specifically address the use of MCAI in the acquisition ofcognitive aspects of sport skills, such as rules. To educate physical educationstudents, trainers should consider using the method which best meets theirinstructional objectives. Consequently, different forms of instruction withmultimedia applications might assist physical education students to acquirecognitive aspects of sport skills, such as rules and strategies.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of MCAI,TI, and CI on learning rule violations in basketball by university physicaleducation students. It was hypothesised that students in the MCAI andCI group would show greater retention than those in the TI group, on alltests.

— 8(1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Physical Education

METHOD

Participants

Seventy-three female first year students from the Department of PhysicalEducation and Sport Science at the Democritus University of Thrace withmean age 18.4+1 years, volunteered initially to participate in this study. Thestudents were randomly divided into one of the three experimental groups(MCAI, TI and CI). However, three students did not participate in the postand retention measures and therefore were not included in this study. Thus,the participants were seventy students [MCAI (n=23), TI (n=22), CI (n=25)].None of the students was a basketball player nor had previously receivedinstruction on the rules of this sport. For their participation in this studystudents were given a 10% credit to their final grade in the computer course.

Measures

For assessing students' knowledge of rule violations in basketball, a writtenand video test were created. The articles of the International BasketballFederation's (FIBA) (1994) official referees' guide were classified by aninternational referee and a referee from the National division, in the followingcategories: a) articles and penalties for rule violations; b) articles whichdefine personal and technical violations; and c) others. The first of thesecategories was used in this study. It consisted of 17 articles which werefurther classified to a) ball handling (26, 27, 39), b) court area (37, 43), c)inbounds (31), d) shot (30, 38, 44), e) free throws (60), f) timing (18, 40, 41,

- 42), g) actions of the referee when rules are violated (8), condition of the ball(i.e. in the referee's hands before the jump ball) (24), and definition of theterm 'violation' (36).

Written knozvledge testBased on the tests used by the Hellenic Federation of Basketball Refereesfor the evaluation of referees' knowledge level, a 25-item questionnairewas created. Each question described a basketball situation. There were fourquestions for ball handling (e.g. a player is not allowed to dribble again afterhe stops dribbling), seven questions for timing (e.g. an offensive player cannot remain in the opponents' restricted area for more than three consecutiveseconds when the game is in progress), five questions for the shot (e.g. aplayer is not allowed to shoot the ball through the lower end of the basketor to touch the ball or the basket whilst the ball is in the basket), and fivequestions for the court area (e.g. a player is out-of-bounds when any part ofhis body is in contact with the floor or any object but not with a player, on,above or outside the boundary lines).

Also, there were two questions associated with inbounds (e.g. the playerwho executes an inbound cannot have any part of his body over the boundary

81 —

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Physical Education

line before throwing the ball across the line), two questions for free throws(e.g. the player has to stand behind the free-throw line and inside thesemicircle, and to release the ball within five seconds after receiving it fromthe referee). Each question described a basketball situation. Ten questionsrequired a positive answer and fifteen a negative answer. Questions werescored one point for a right answer and no point for a wrong answer. Thehighest possible score was 25 points and the lowest score 0 points. Cronbach'salpha for this test was .89.

Video testThe Video Machine of Fast Electronic GmbH was used to create a videocassette with ten phases from the Men's European Basketball Championship,similar to those used by the Hellenic Federation of Basketball Referees toeducate referees. Each phase had a different duration and the total durationwas 3 minutes and 15 seconds. In five of the phases the game was playedaccording to the rules. In the other five phases the rules were broken Thebasketball phases were projected through a Seleco Digital Electronic videoprojector and students were required to mark on the assessment form whichwas distributed before the start of the test the word 'YES' if, according totheir opinion a rule violation was apparent in a phase or the word 'NO' if itwas absent, i.e. that the game was played according to the rules. Each phasewas followed by a 5 second interval to enable students' to record theirresponse. For each correct response a student scored 2.5 points, thus, thehighest possible score was 25 and the lowest 0 points - the same possibletotals as for the written tests. Cronbach's alpha was .91. Students were notfamiliar with such type of tests.

Instruction

Based on the time used in seminars for referees, a total of five hours - 2.5 hoursin the morning and 2.5 hours in the afternoon, were allotted for teachingrule violations in basketball. Students in the MCAI group were asked to learnthe required information on rule violations via the multimedia application.After receiving guidelines and a demonstration of the program by theresearcher, students practiced individually, within a pre-scheduled time in aroom specifically arranged for the purpose of the study.

An international referee provided lecture-based instruction to the TI group.Before the start of the lectures, each pair of students was given a book withthe basketball rules. During the lecture, students interacted with the refereeand took notes.

Students in the CI group received both TI (2.5 hours) and MCAI (2.5hours). More specifically, they attended the referee's lecture in the morningand practiced individually in the afternoon, after receiving guidelines and ademonstration on the multimedia application.

- 82

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Physical Education ;

The multimedia computer program

The multimedia computer program was created by Authoring software, theAuthorware Pro 2.0.1 (Macromedia Inc., 1993). It consisted of pictures andphotographs from books and journals, text from the FIBA's (1994) officialreferees' guide, video from Olympic and National level games, and audio(comments of a referee). Additional basketball phases were videotaped andwere included in the program.

The multimedia program included the following sections: a) user's guide;b) the official referees' guide in a digital form; c) additional knowledge(screen 1); and d) articles for rule violations (screen 2) (see below). Two pulldown menus, one for the termination of the program and one for help,were also included. The program started with a video of violent basketballbehaviours and a text which partly related these behaviours to unfamiliaritywith the rules. The screen with the title of the program, the cover page ofthe rule book, the contents, the names of the author and the institutionfollowed. The user can continue or terminate the program. If the user selectsto continue, the main menu appears with four active picture-buttons whichserve as links to the other sections of the program.

In the user's guide, there is a description of the active picture-buttons andsuggestions for the program use. In the section with the official referees'guide, the user can read the basketball rules electronically and search forcertain articles and pages. Both sections provide the option for the user toreturn to the main menu.

Screen 1 contains a section consisting of four sub-sections. These containsupplementary information for understanding rule violations. The activepicture-buttons are entitled: 1) violations: definition; 2) violation and thereferee; 3) ball condition; and 4) court: size.

By selecting Screen 2, the following categories of violations appear: 1) Shot;2) Ball handling; 3) Court area; 4) Free throws; 5) Inbounds; and 6) Timing,along with the corresponding articles of the referee's guide. Each categoryincludes different relevant material [visible or hidden texts (the user has toselect it if he wishes to see it), video, audio, animated pictures]. The studentscould use all this information to understand each article and could also returnto any section of the program or to the main menu.

After the multimedia computer program was completed, it was presentedto high level basketball coaches and to members of the Department forcomment. Three phases were replaced with others more relevant to thepurpose of the study, and with better close-ups. Prior to this study, a four-hour pilot study was conducted with ten students in the Department to checkfor possible problems either with the software of the multimedia program orwith the computer because of the software configuration (software bugs).Students in the pilot study reported no problems in using the program. Inaddition, they improved their knowledge, and had positive attitudes towardthe multimedia program.

83 —

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Physical Education

Procedure

Prior to instruction, students were required to complete the 25-itemquestionnaire. Then, they watched 10 video phases from basketball gamesto identify possible rule violations. After receiving a five-hour instruction,students were given the written and video tests again as a post-test and aweek later they were tested again to ascertain if the received informationwas retained (retention test). No feedback was provided to students abouttheir scores after they took each of the tests each time.

Data analysis

To check for possible differences between the experimental groups (MCAI,TI and CI) in the pretest scores, multivariate analysis of variance (Manova)was used. Analysis indicated that there was no significant difference betweenthe three groups for the written (F2,68=2.1, p>.05), and the video test (£2,68=1.75,p>.05). The Manova [3 instructions (MCAI, TI, CI) X 3 measures (pre-, post-and retention test) with repeated measures was used to test the pre-, post-and retention test differences (factor "measure") between the three groups(factor "instruction"), on the written and the video test. Post hoc comparisonswere made using the Scheffe test. However, Manova indicated significantdifferences between groups on the total score (written and video test score)in the pre treatment measure (F2,68=3.28, p<.05). Thus, analysis of covariancewas used to control the differences and compare groups' scores in the post-and the retention tests. Post hoc comparisons were made using the Scheffetest.

RESULTS

Written test

Means and standard deviations for pre-, post- and retention test scores ofall groups in the written test are shown in Table 1. Manova with repeatedmeasures showed a significant multivariate effect of the factor 'measure'(Fi, 67=44.91, p<.001) and a significant instruction X measure interaction(F2,67=11.11, p<.001), (Figure 1). Scheffe's multiple comparison test indicatedthat all groups improved significantly their performance in the post-test andthey lowered it, although not significantly in the retention test. Only the TI(Fi,2i = 16.84, p<.05) and the CI group (Fi,24=5.10, p<.05) had significantlyhigher scores in the retention test than in the pre-test (Table 1). It seems thatonly the TT and CI groups retained the knowledge they gained about ruleviolations. Mean differences of the three groups were compared usinganalysis of variance and significant differences were found. Scheffe's multiple

- 84

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Physical Education

comparison tests indicated that the improvement of the TI group in the post-and retention test (compared to the pre-test scores) was significantly greaterthan that of the MCAI group.

Table 1: Means, standard deviations and within group differences on thewritten test

Instruction

MCAI

TI

CI

Total

Fre-test

M

15.30

13.95

14.84

14.71

SD

1.94

1.75

2.33

2.08

Post-test

M

17.43

18.40

18.24

18.02

SD

1.50

2.53

2.53

2.25

Retention test

M

15.56

17.59

16.72

16.61

SD

1.44

1.94

2.24

2.05

Sheffe results

1-2

6.03*

25.18*

16.70*

2-3

4.64

0.83

333

1-3

0.08

16.84*

5.10*

*p<.05

Figure 1: Performance of the three groups on all measures of the written test

co 1 9 - ,

2S.CO CO

•Q £ 1 6 -

il113

15.3

Pre-test

18.417.59

Post-test Retention test

Video testMeans and standard deviations for the pre-, post- and retention test scoresof all groups on the video test are shown in Table 2. Multivariate analysis ofvariance with repeated measures indicated no significant interaction betweenthe factor 'instruction' and the factor 'measure' (F2,67=2.51, p>.05). This meansthat the performance of all groups among measures was similar. Also, themultivariate effect of the factor 'instruction' (F2,67=.45, p>.05) was not significant.However, the multivariate effect of the factor 'measure' was significant(F167=12.93, p<,05). Scheffe's multiple comparison test indicated that studentsimproved significantly their performance after instruction but they did notretain it as they scored significantly lower in the retention test. However,they had significantly better scores in the retention test than in the pre-test.

85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Physical Education

Table 2: Means and standard deviations of the three groups on all measuresof the video test

Instruction

MCAI

TI

CI

Total

Fre-test

M

11.84

10.22

11.70

11.28

SD

3.63

3.07

3.43

3.42

Post-test

M

13.47

13.63

13.80

13.64

SD

3.43

3.05

4.90

3.87

Retention test

M

10.86

11.93

12.30

11.71

SD

3.16

3.17

3.13

3.17

Sheffe results

1-2

3.53

14.78*

6.37*

2-3

9.05*

3.67

3.25

1-3

1.27

3.71

0.52

*p<.05

Total scoreThe scores from each of the tests were added to give a total score. Means andstandard deviations for the pre-, post- and retention test scores of all groupsare shown in Table 3. Analysis of covariance indicated significant differencesbetween groups only in the retention test (£2,67= 4.89, p<.05). Scheffe's multiplecomparison test showed that the TI group had significantly better total scorethan the MCAI group.

Table 3: Means and standard deviations of the three groups on all measuresof the total performance

Instruction

MCAI

TI

CI

Total

Pre-test

M

27.15

24.18

26.54

26.00

SD

4.22

3.34

4.69

4.28

Post-test

M

30.91

32.04

32.04

31.67

SD

3.86

3.91

6.83

5.09

Retention test

M

26.43

29.52

29.02

28.32

SD

3.39

4.14

4.49

4.21

Sheffe results

6.05

*p<.05

DISCUSSIONMCAI has not been used extensively in the area of physical education andsport. Also, research has, to date, provided no solid evidence to support its usein order to affect student retention. The purpose of this study was to examinethe effect of MCAI, TI and CI on learning rule violations in basketball, bycollege students. With regard to the written test, all groups improved theirknowledge of rule violations in basketball, after instruction. However, only

86

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Physical Education

students in the TI and in the CI group retained the knowledge gained afterinstruction as they scored more accurately in the retention test than in thepre-test. On the contrary, the performance of students in the MCAI group waslower in the retention test - at levels almost similar to those before instruction.Also, differences in performance between the post-test or retention test and thepre-test of the MCAI group were lower than those of the TI group, meaningthat lower knowledge improvement and retention of information wasachieved by the MCAI group than by the TI group. Although Kerka (1990)reported that MCAI enhances retention of information, the above findingsseem to support that it is inadequate to produce permanent learning.

Differences between the MCAI and TI group might be attributed to thefact that TI was familiar to the students, the topic of rule violations wasunknown and therefore the instructor attracted their attention. Also, in the TI

. group it was the instructor who was guiding the instruction while in the MCAIgroup students had to find the information by themselves and determine theirown learning pace. Although there was an orientation and a user's guide forthe MCAI program, there were additional areas of the program that could havebeen distracting the students. Perhaps the use of an assistant could assurethat students in the MCAI group use only the areas of the program includedin this study. It is also possible that a different length of instruction couldresult in different findings.

The superiority of TI over MCAI has also been shown in other studiesof physical education (McKethan et al., 2000; Wiksten et al, 1998). However,these findings are not in accordance with those of Goldberg (1996) andFisher-Stitt (1996) who found that MCAI produces better results than TI.They are also inconsistent with studies which indicated no differences betweenthe two instructional methods (Everhart et al, 2002; Vernadakis et al, 2002).It seems that more research is needed to explain these contradictory findings.Although CI has not been proved as effective as TI, it appears to facilitateretention of information as students' performance in the retention test wasgreater than that in the pre-test. Perhaps, TI that students in the CI groupreceived, enabled them to concentrate on the relevant areas of the multimediaprogram and supplement their knowledge base. The effectiveness of acomputer program when used as a supplement to the TI, was also supportedby Adams and Waldrop (1985).

The results of the video test showed that the type of instruction had nodifferent effect on knowledge level. Although instruction in general enhancedstudents' knowledge, it did not affect positively retention of the information.There was, however, an improvement compared to the pre-test scores. Itappears that the effect of instruction on students' knowledge, as measured viathe video test, was temporary. A possible explanation for this finding mightbe that students were required to recall information they received duringthe intervention, and identify among many actions in a game phase if a rulewas violated. On the contrary, in the written test, actions were described indetail for a specific topic (e.g. actions during a shot, or during a jump ball),and students were required to decide if there was a rule violation. Findingsof a study by McKethan et al (2000) also support that demands on recall of

87 —

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Physical Education

information determine the effectiveness of the instructional methods, that is,TI is more effective than MCAI when there is no need to recall information.In the written test, students were also able to re-read the questions and recordtheir response, without being forced by the time. It is important to notice,however, that the scores of all groups in the video test were low. The maximumpossible score was 25 and students' scores were near or below the mean,even after instruction. Perhaps instruction of longer duration is needed toproduce better outcomes for this type of test.

For the total score, although results showed no differences between thegroups on the post-test, performance of the TI group in the retention test wassuperior to that of the MCAI group. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study,that students in the MCAI and CI group would show greater retentionresults than those in the TI group, was not verified for any of the tests.

In summary, the results of this study appear to suggest that TI canproduce better retention results than MCAI in non-real game situations (asin the written test), which require no recall of information. The combinationof MCAI with TI (CI) can also promote learning, whereas MCAI leads onlyto a temporary enhancement of students' knowledge. However, in almost real-game situations (as in the video test) with demands on recall of information,the type of instruction does not seem to play a role in enhancement andretention of students' knowledge, since all groups progress in a similar way:they improve their knowledge level but they do not retain information.

Consequently, to train physical education students on rule violations inbasketball, TI and CI could be applied effectively. However, educators whoteach cognitive aspects of physical education to college students, shouldtake into account that through CI students can learn part of the informationrequired on an individual basis, outside the class. This implies that educatorscan allot greater amounts of time to teaching students motor aspects or tomonitor their progress in real settings. Besides, the findings of this studysupport that longer instructional periods might be necessary to enable studentsto focus on relevant cues, and learn to identify rule violations in real gamesituations. In this case, although all instructional methods applied in this studyseem effective in improving students' knowledge, more research is neededto identify which method is more effective in retaining information.

Therefore, future studies could extend the instructional period andinvestigate the effect of these three types of instruction on performance inalmost real game situations or even on actual refereeing of children's games.They could also create multimedia applications and compare MCAI to otherforms of instruction in order to examine their effectiveness in learning motoror cognitive concepts of sport or fundamental movement skills.

CORRESPONDENCEPlease address all correspondence to: Panagiotis Antoniou, Lecturer, Departmentof Physical Education and Sport Science, Democritus University of Thrace,69100 Komotini, Greece, tel: +302531039659; e-mail: panton@phyed.duth.gr

88

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

European journal of Physical Education

REFERENCESAdams, T., Kandt, G., Throgmartin D. and Waldrop, P. (1991). Computer-assisted instruction vs.

lecture methods in teaching the rules of golf. The Physical Educator, 48 (3): 146-150.Adams, T. and Waldrop, P. (1985). Computer-assisted instruction in teacher education: Making

the technology work. The Physical Educator, 43:156-160.Alvarez-Pons, F.A. (1992). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in teaching sport

rules, scoring procedures, and terminology. Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University.University Microfilms International, O.N 9234205.

Bosco, J. (1986). An analysis of evaluations of interactive video. Educational Technology, 25:7-16.Bowman, A. (1995). Teaching ethics: telling stories. Nurse Education Today, 15 (1): 33-38.Boyce, B.A. (1988). A computerised simulation of teaching. A glimpse of the real world. Journal

of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 59 (2): 31-33.Capper, J. and Copple, C. (1985). Computer Use in Education: Research Review and Instructional

Implications. Washington, DC, Center for Research into Practice.Coehlo, J.D. (1999). Physical education in the 21st century. Teaching Elementary Physical Education,

10 (6): 29-30.Dalton, D.W. and Hannafin, M.J. (1988). The effects of computer-assisted and traditional• mastery methods on computation accuracy and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research,

82 (1): 27-33.Everhart, B., Harhsaw, C, Everhart, B., Kernodle, M. and Stubblefield, E. (2002). Multimedia

software's effects on high school physical education. Physical Educator, 59 (3): 151-157.Fisher-Stitt, N.S. (1996). Effect of an interactive multimedia computer tutorial on students'

understanding of ballet allegro terminology. Microsoft Publications. International Institutefor Sport and Human Performance, 406444.

Fletcher, D. (1990). The effectiveness and cost of interactive videodisc instruction in defensetraining and education (IDA Paper P-2372). Alexandria, VA, Institute for Defense Analyses.

Gallahue, D.G. (1996). Developmental physical education for today's children. Dubuque, IA:Brown and Benchmark.

Goggin, N.L., Finkenberg, M.E., and Morrow, J.R. (1997). Instructional technology in highereducation teaching. Quest, 49 (3): 280-290.

Goldberg, M.W. (1996). CALOS: An experiment with Computer - Aided learning for OperatingSystems. Proceedings of the ACM'S 27th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer ScienceEducation.

Haggerty, T. (1997). Influence of information technologies on kinesiology and physical education.Quest, 49:254-269.

International Basketball Federation (FIBA, 1994). Official Basketball Rules For Men and Womenas adopted in the International Congress, Toronto Canada.

Kerka, S. (1990). Interactive videodisk in Vocational education. ERIC, ED325660.Kerns, M. (1989). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in teaching tennis rules and

strategies. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8:170-176.Kulik, J.A. (1983). Synthesis of research on computer-based instruction. Educational Leadership,

41 (1): 19-21.Lambdin, D. (1995). Using computers to personalize elementary physical education. Teaching

Elementary Physical Education, 6 (2): 14-15.Macromedia (1993). Authorware 2.0.1. (Computer software). San Fransisco, Macromedia.

89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

: European Journal of Physical Education

McKethan, R., Everhart, B. and Stubblefield, E. (2000). The effects of a multimedia computerprogram on preservice elementary teachers' knowledge of cognitive components of movementskills. Physical Educator, 57 (2): 58-68.

Najjar, L.J. (1996). Multimedia information and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia andHypermedia, 5 (2): 129-150.

Rintala, J. (1998). Computer technology in higher education: an experiment not a solution. Quest,50:366-378.

Skinsley, M. and Brodie, D. (1990). A study of the effectiveness of computer assisted learning inphysical education. Research supplement, 7:14-16.

Vernadakis N., Zetou E., Antoniou P. and Kioumourtzoglou E. (2002). The effectiveness ofcomputer - assisted instruction in teaching the skill of setting in volleyball. Journal of HumanMovement Studies, 43:151-164.

Wiksten, D.L. Patterson, AX, Cruz, D. and Buxton, B.P. (1998). The effectiveness of an interactivecomputer program versus traditional lecture in athletic training education. Journal ofAthletic Training, 33:238-243.

90

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

13:

18 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014