Effect of Peer Mediated Instruction With Task Cards on Motor Skills Acquisition

8/12/2019 Effect of Peer Mediated Instruction With Task Cards on Motor Skills Acquisition

1/21

Journai of Teaching in Ph ysical Education 2011 30. 31-502011 Human Kinet ics Inc.

Effects of Peer Mediated Instructionwith Task Cards on Motor SkillAcquisition in TennisPeter lse rby t\ Bob M a d o u \ Lieven Vergauwen^

Daniel Behets^^Katholieke Universiteit ^Karel de Grote Hogescho ol

This study compared the motor skill effects ofapeer teaching format by meansoftaskcards with a teacher-centered format. Tennis performance of eighth gradestudents n =55) was measured before and afterafour week intervention periodin aregular physical education program. Results show that peer mediated leamingwith task cards accomplishes motor goals almost as well as a teacher-centeredformat in a technical sport like tennis. In addition, it is discussed that peer medi-ated learning settings with taskcardscould offerapowerful leaming environment,emphasizing social as well as motor goals in physical education. eywords cooperative leaming, coaching, kinesiology, motorbehavior physicaleducation, teachingThe contemporary pedagogical concept of social constructivism introducedby Vygotsky 1978) assumes that human development is based on classic biologi-cal development as well as on cultural mediation. It emphasizes the importance ofpsychological tools in providing the means through which an individual convertssocial interactions into higher-order thinking. Research has tried to concretizethis theoretical concept of social learning. Lave and W enger 1991 )suggested thatstudents learn through a process of acculturation into communities and practicein real situations. Vygo tsky 1978) described learning as a developm ent from onelevel to another, no ting that:The zone of proximal development is the distance between the actual devel-opment level as determined by independent problem solving and the level ofpotential development as determined through problem solving under adultguidance or in collaboration with more capab le peers, p.86)


2/21

32 Iserbyt Ma dou Vergauwen Behets

Although Vygotsky emphasized asymmetrical relationships in which oneinteractant is more expert than the other, neo-Vygotskian researchers such asKing (2002) claimed that also peers can contribute to individual learning. Severalguidelines have been described for teachers to structure peer interaction and forstudents tofin heir role in the interaction process, emph asizing tbe cooperation ofequally capable peers (King, 2002). In contemporary interpretations of mediatingprocessescalled cognitive partnershipsthinking, as a crucial link in solvinga problem or leaming a task, is seen as being distributed between tbe one who isguiding the leaming process and the one who is appropriating knowledge or skills(King, 1997, 1998). Such cognitive partnerships are common in many hierarchicalsituations like adult-child and teacher-student relationships. In cognitive partner-ships between peers peer-tutoring classes, for example thinking between peersis more equally distributed. Peer partners engage in mutual appropriation and theyare in continuous interaction, sharing the cognitive demands of the leaming task.This reciprocity and interdependence between learning partners and betweenthe partners and the task is termed transactive cognitive processing (King, 1997;1998).Different peer tutoring formats create different ways of interaction betweenpeers,and these forms of interaction influence leaming (Graesser Perso n, 1994;Greenw ood, Carta, Maheady, 1991).

In current student-centered teaching formats based on tbe theoretical structureof social constructivism, students are encouraged to cooperate in well-structured,small, heterogeneous groups to master the lesson content. They are held responsiblefor the acquisition of knowledge, performance, and social skills through teachingstrategies characterized by positive interdependence, individual accountability,promotive face-to-face interaction, interpersonal and small group skills, and evalu-ation of group processing (Antil, Jenkins, Wayne, Vadasy, 1998; Coh en, 1994;Dyson Grineski, 20 01 ; Putnam, 1998).The reciprocal style of teaching (Mosston Ashworth, 2002) is one of themost commonly employed peer learning formats in physical education. The extentof peer learning in the reciprocal style of teaching is specifically the provision offeedback from one learner to anotber (Byra, 2006). In this format, learners arepaired and as one leamer (tutee) performs the task, the other (tutor) gives feed-back to tbe tutee based on information provided by tbe teacher or on task cards(Byra, 2006). This instructional format has showed to improve skill performancein different-aged learners across various physical activities (Ernst Byra, 1998;Goldberger Gem ey, 1986).Other formats based on the reciprocal style of teaching were developed andinvestigated, including class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT) and performer and coacheam rewards (PACER). CW PT involves the whole class in reciprocal roles of tutorand tutee. It allows all mem bers of a class to benefit from direct partner feedback,providing a form of individualized instruction in student pairs (Jobnson Ward,


3/21

Peer Med iated Instruction in Tennis

teams reached a predetermined goal, the teacher assessed each m ember individu-ally and rewarded teams with extra game play. Results with sixth grade childrenshowed significantly higher percen tage of correct trials in an 18-day handball unitcompared with children who received teacher-centered instruction.The implementation of student-centered instructional formats requires a con-ceptual shift in teacher functioning (Fullan, 1999), resulting in altered m anagem ent,instruction and planning (Dyson Rubin, 2003). These formats som etimes forceteachers to operate outside their comfort zones, with possible negative consequencessuch as discomfort and anxiety. These could lead to the inability or unwillingnessof teachers to delegate responsibility to students (Cohen, 1994). Similarly, little isknown about teacher behavior in student-centered formats and about their influ-ence on practice time and quality of practice. The time necessary to initiate andfully implem ent a peer tutoring strategy is often men tioned as a barrier to studentlearning (Slavin, 1995). The effect of academic learning time (ALT) as an indicatorof time-management quality has been investigated in recent peer tutoring formatsin third and sixth grade physical education classes. No significant differences inALT-PE times w ere revealed between teacher-centered and student-centered teach -ing strategies (Barrett, 200 5; Johnson Ward,2 1).In student-centered teaching formats, task cards are often used as instruc-tional tools to appropriate new skills. In general they can be used to enhance taskexecution on tbe one hand and stimulate task oriented behavior on the other hand.Considering task execution quality, simple instructions on a learning task or drill bymeans oftext illustrations, or pictures can be presented on task cards. They provideprom pts, critical cues and directions to be followed by the students during prac tice(Lee Ward, 200 2). Considering task execution quantity task cards can explainthe nutnber of exercises or trials to perform. In enhancing task oriented behaviorthey can be used as checklists for peers to assess each other's performance or as acognition support in organizing, supporting, and augmenting thinking (Pea, 1994;Salomon, Perkins, Globerson, 1991).In their roles as instructional, m anag erial,or feedback tools , task cards have showed beneficial influence as powerful learningtools in the social domain (Dyson Rubin,2003;Pea, 1994). To a much smallerextent researchers have examined the cognitive and motor benefits of task cards(Barrett, 2005).This study was designed to investigate the impact task cards have on learn-ing motor skills in tennis. The researchers aimed to add to the current literatureon field intervention studies specific to peer mediated instruction with task cards.First, in accordance with the implementation of authentic sport .settings in modifiedinstructional formats (Davey, Th orpe, Williams, 200 3), tennis, as a technicallyand tactically demanding individual sport, was modified into 'midi-tennis'(VanAken, M artens, Ge lens, 1994). This format is appropriate for implem entation ina regular physical education program (Pellett Lox, 1997;Van Aken et al., 1994).


4/21


and gave motor skill feedback to one another. The influence of these two differentteaching styles was compared on both ball control and stroke technique for theforehand stroke in tennis. Research suggests that several student characteristics caninfluence tooluse.Two studies in the domain of reading comprehension found highability students to profit more from control over tool use (glossary and navigationmaps) than low ability students (Chapelle M izuno, 1998). M ore experiencedstudents with higher prior knowledge in the domain of reading comprehensionhad a higher perception of competence and therefore often fostered learning better(Dochy Alexander, 1995). Because of the reported impact of prior know ledgeand ability on tool use, experienced students and beginners were distinguished inall performance measurements.

Third, in previous research (Pea, 1994; Salomon etal.,1991 it has been arguedthat task cards can augment and structure thinking in peer partnerships. Therefore,the study compared the improvement of relevant tennis specific know ledge acquisi-tion in the two experimental conditions.Fourth, Vygotsky's (1978) zone of proximal development was set up in thisstudy. In the student-centered condition, the student-tutor guided the tutee's leam-ing process based on instructions on the task cards. Consequently, the tutor wasthe more capable peer showing the way to better performance for the tutee. It ishypothesized that this will lead to similar learning gains in comparison with theteacher-centered group .Finally, considering former concerns about the time necessary to fully imple-ment peer mediated learning programs (Barrett, 2005) and the reported changes inboth teacher behav ior (Dyson Rub in,2003;Fullan, 1999) and student behavior(Dyson Rubin, 2003), this study measured a number of process variables inherentto both experimen tal cond itions. Different student roles in peer mediated learningstrategies can create different attention levels (Solmon Lee 1996), attention beingone of the variables crucial to student leaming (Lee Solmon, 1992).Therefore,we especially focused on the comparison of student behavior in the roles of tutorand tutee in the student-centered condition. In general, it was hypothesized thata strong peer mediated leaming environment with task cards could show to be aseffective asateacher-centered environment in developing the forehand tennis strokein a normal four week lesson period with eighth grade children in a technicallydemanding sport like tennis.

ethodsarticipan tsA total of55eighth grade students (24 boys and31girls) constituting four coedu-cational classes participated in this quasi-experimental study in Bruges, Belgium.


5/21

Peer Me diated Instruction in Tennis 5

physical education teacher who wasqualified as a tennis trainer The teacher wasnaive to the purpose of the study.SettingsAll lessons and tests took place in a multipurpose sports hall containing six miditennis cou rts measuring 13.40 m. by 6.13 m. The surface was qualified as moder-ate to quick. The net height was 0.80 m . Students received a personal midi tennisracket (sizes 23-26) suitable to their stature. Ninety midi tennis balls (Easy Play,Wilson) were used. Three cameras were used to videotape each lesson. One, witha broadened focus, was permanently fixed on the teacher while two were fixedon the students. All audio com me nts of the teacher were captured w ith a wirelessmicrophone. iResearch esignIntervention The intervention spanned a seven-week period. At the end of aprevious physical education lesson period, marked as week one, students wereintroduced to midi tennis via a 10-min video illustrating basic rules, techniques,and tactics to be learned in the upcoming period. The ForeGround procedure(Vergauwen et al., 2004) was administered during week two as a pretest. Thisprotocol consists of 18 program m ed rallies, reproducing neutral and offensivesituations as they occur during midi tennis game play, driven by a te.st leader.Beginning in week three and continuing through week six, the students partici-pated in the weekly 40-min lesson in midi tennis. In two classes, students wereinstructed according to the traditional teacher-centered format via direct instruc-tion (M osston, 1981). In the other two classes, learning occu rred in a peer m edi-ated setting based on M osston and Ash worth's (2002) reciprocal style of teaching,with all instruction and managerial information explained and illustrated on taskcards. During the intervention period, the students with no experience were notallowed to participate in any form of racquet spo rts outside their regular physicaleducation class (i.e., the study setting) while the students w ith limited experiencewere permitted to maintain their standard weekly training regimen outside ofthe study setting. At week seven, the ForeGround procedure was administeredagain as posttest.Lesson Content Lesson content in both conditions was standardized.In linewith current curric ular models (Van Aken et al., 1994), studen ts were introducedto tennis play via authentic and developmentally m atched lead-up gam es. Threebasic rally patterns were taught on a midi tennis court: (a) forehand consistencyduring baseline play, (b) forehand down the line (to the oppo nen t's weaker stroke)followed by a net approach , and (c) ope ning the court by m eans of sharp angled


6/21


7/21

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis 7

Student Centered Lessons. Tbe class was divided into four subgroups fourplayers per group), and each subgroup practiced at four stations in the tennis hall.During each lesson, each subgroup rotated through the four stations, alternatingbetween a playing station and a practice station. ALT-PE, which started with thereading of the task card s), was 12 min. At the playing stations, all four studentsplayed the entire rally pattern on two midi tennis courts.At the practice stations, two of the four students practiced the core feature ofthe pattern indicated on the task card see Figure 1). Each of them was coachedand given feedback by a classm ate on three technica l see Figure 2) and tacticalsee Figure 3) items mentioned on help cards.

T e c h n i q u eS t a y c lo s e to y o u r p a r t n e r a n d h e lp h im b y - s h o w in g t h e p i c t u r e s

- e x p l a in i n g t h e t e c h n i q u e

K e e p y o u r r a c k e t h o f z o l i t iT h e r a c q u e t h e a d a n d t h e h a n d a r e o n th es a m e h o r i z o n t a l iin e a t b a l l c o n t a c t2 . M a k e c o n t a c t w i t h t M b a l l inf r o n t o f y o u r b o d y

fWt


8/21

38 Iserbyt, Mad ou, Vergauwen, Behets

a l l p la c e m e n tbail deep in the court in thec orrea zone.

2 P l a ; ^ irte bal 1 meter above the net,fp lay with control)

3. Foiiow your forehand irrtmediateiy tof . t l iene i f t>.

1

-- J ^ - ' ^ - '1 X1

"1

1 1

11

_ l _ . _ _j . . . _ .

Figure 3 Help card tactics.A total of 12 task cards were used per lesson; one instructional task card andtwo technique cards on the two practice stations, one instructional task card onboth playing stations, and one task and management-oriented task card at all fourstations (.see Figure ).The teacher's role in this setting was to facilitate the learningprocess by controlling time management. Ifnecessary,the teacher intervened in aninterrogatory way via task card content (e.g., W hat do you think this means? Haveyou read the task card well? What are you supposed to do now? ). Interventions


9/21

Peer Med iated Instruction in Tennis 9

Teacher Centered Lessons. In this condition, the teacher controlled all aspectsof the didactical process, from instruction to skill assessment. The teacher wasallowed to present additional technical and tactical cues and to provide sk ill-relatedfeedback at any time. The lesson content was identical to the peer-mediated situ-ation. Instruction and demonstrations, provided on a central court in one to twominutes, were alternated with 2.5 min of activity. ALT-PE was equally distributedbetween pattern play and practice as in the case of peer-mediation. ALT-PE, thenumber of players per court, and technical and tactical cues were stand ardized inboth situations.Teaching S tyle raining and Verification. To achieve intervention fidelity, alllessons in the student-centered and teacher-centered condition were permanentlysupervised by two educational researchers, both experienced in instructional strate-gies in the field of physical education. Before the experiment, these re searchers setup a teaching .style protocol for both experimental conditions based on Mosston s(1981) spectrum of teach ing styles and Shertnan s (1982) Reciprocal Style A nalysisChecklist. Both protocols were u.sed to train the teacher. This training procedureincluded 60 min discussion ofthetheoretical basis of each teaching style and videoobserva tions of dem onstration episodes, followed by the teaching oftwoles.sons inboth the student-centered and teacher-centered fortnat. After every lesson taught,the teacher received feedback from the researchers concerning the implementationoftheteaching style. By the end ofthistraining the teacher demonstrated appropri-ate behavior for the successful implem entation of both teaching styles. In addition,during the experiment all teacher actions were filmed, audio taped and analyzedto detect inconsistencies in the experitnental treatments. None were identified.Process t{/leasurementsTime Investment General time investment in eachlesson was analyzed by measuring the titne spent on ALT-PE. management, andinstruction. Therefore, two of the four stations (a practice station and a playingstation) were followed du ring the entire lesson by a cam era and v ideo images wereanalyzed afterward with observational software (Noldus, The observer 5.0,2003).Quality ofALT PE. Quality of ALT-PE was measured by coun ting forehand ra teand forehand error rate per minute. Every forehand that was not hit in the court,every air swing, ball in tbe net, or ball not landing in the court on the opposite sideof the net was scored as an error. These analyses were based on a satnple yieldinghalf the motor ALT-PE of each lesson. During every student-centered lesson, allforehand strokes of the students were coded during their play on both a playingstation and a practice station. In the teacher-centered condition the lesson tim e wasdivided into similar pe riods to be able to allow forehand counting in correspondingsituations. In the teache r-centered condition .students rotated in the sam e way as inthe student-centered condition to make sure the coding p rocess was similar. Afterevery rotation, the teacher continued the lesson as planned.


10/21

40 iserbyt Mad ou Vergauwen Behets

or interrogative. The fifth variable, contents of the intervention, was divided intoseven headings: technique, tactics, regulations, social behavior, encouragement,annoying behavior, and a m iscellaneous category. For variable six, the presence orabsence of demonstrations during the teacher interventions was marked.Student Behavior Student behavior in the student-centered condition was ana-lyzed on PC with a software package (Noldus, The observer 5.0,2003). Each changein student behavior was encoded using a two level structure. Level one denotedthe actual function of the student: player or coach. Level two concerned the taskorientation of the student. It distinguished three variables: (a) task oriented behav-ior, (b) nonfunctional behavior and (c) disturbing bebavior. Student behavior wasclassified as task-oriented if the expected behavior was executed at the right timeand place for his function, otherw ise the behav ior was labeled nonfunctional. Ifclassm ates showed disturbing behavior, it was qualified disturbing.Product Measurements st Protocol Upon arrival at the indoor hall, standa rdized test instructions w ereread to participants. The test assignment was illustrated by means of clear draw-ings. Then, each subject warmed up for five minutes with an experienced tennisplayer eliciting long forehand rallies from tbe base line. Tbe ForeG round procedure(Vergauwen et al., 2004) was executed immediately tbereafter and consisted ofthree rally patterns of six rallies each. Each rally started with an underarm ballfed by the expert test leader, with every stroke being hit to the target area on theplayer's side of the court. The students w ere asked to return the approach ing ballsas close to tbe corresponding target spot as possible, while m aking minim al e rrors.A rally ended witb a player error or its completion. The total number of shots hitby the participant during the entire test ranged between 18 and 48 forehands,resulting in a test procedure duration of two to three minutes. A questionnaire onstudents' know ledge concluded the test protocol. The sam e regimen was followedat pre- and posttest.Bait Control Ball control was de term ined by five different variab les, (a) lateraldistance from the ball bounce to the respective target point, (b) longitudinal distancefrom the ball bounce to the respective target point, (c) success rate (percentageballs landing in the court), (d) a precision index taking into account both lateraland longitudinal p lacement and (e) an overall index integrating the precision indexas well as the success rate. These variables were determined from video imagesas described elsewhere (Vergauwen et al., 2004).Stroke Technique Stroke technique was evaluated per student and per forehandbased on video images. An initial 22-item ob.servation protocol was construc ted by


11/21

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis 4

cues index (CCI), includes four items that were addres.sed as technica l cues inboth experimental conditions. The 'additional cues index' (ACI) represents cuesthat deliberately were given by the teacher only in the teacher-centered condition.Knowledge. Knowledge was tested immediately after the ForeGround test proce-dure by means ofa20 item questionnaire with10techn ical, 5 tactical, and5generalitems. The items were constructed by three tennis experts concerning basic tenn isinitiation (Van Aken et al., 1994). Five technical andfiv actical items were closelyrelated to the lesson content. The10general items included tennis regulations andbasic tennis knowledge. All questions were in a multiple choice format with onecorrect answer out of four possibilities. This knowledge questionnaire was pilottested in the same age group with classes from another school.Data Collection. Before the pretest, students were interviewed by a test leaderon their former tennis experience. Thirty-one students had no prior tennis experi-ence and 24 (six students per class) had a limited experience (as a former tennisclub member for at least one season or followed at least two tennis camps of oneweek). All lessons were video- and audio recorded with three cameras. Lessondata included teacher and pupil behaviors. During the test procedures, six digitalcatneras were used for digitizing the players and test leaders positions and the land-ing spots of each ball. Knowledge scores were collected through a standardized20 item questionnaire in pre- and posttest. t Analysis. The average age oftheparticipants was 13.4 years{SD- 0.4).Thefive ball control variables and two stroke technique variables were examined by 2 *2 * 2 (conditions * experience* tests) factorial ANOVA w ith repeated measures inthe test conducted on the multiple dependent variables. Intraobserver and interob-server reliability of both technique indices (ACI and CCI) and the knowledge testwere determined by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Time investment da tawere analyzed by 2 4 (conditions * lessons) ANOVA, followed by univariate andScheff post hoc. Quality of ALT-PE (forehand rate and forehand error rate), allsix teacher behavior variables, all three student behav ior variables, and know ledgedata were analyzed using ANOVA. Intra- and interobserver reliability (ICC) forthe know ledge test were .98 and .94 respectively. A probability level of.05was setas the criterion for acceptance of statistical significance. As the focus in this studyis put on individual student learning outcomes and processes, students were usedas the unit of analysis for all statistical treatments.

ResultsProcess Results.


12/21

42 Iserbyt Mad ou Vergauwen Behets

Table 1 Percentages of Time Investment in the Studen t-CenteredSC) and Teacher-Centered TC) LessonsTime Category

ALT-PEInstruction Time

ManagementTime

SCTCSCTCSCTC

WeekM58.764.526.130.515.25.0

1S6.42.09.81.24.30.9

Week 2M68.359.820.633.511.16.7

S2.80.54.61.52.31.4

Week 3M68.768.619.825.511.55.9

S2.82.23.61.81.91.6

Week 4M71.571.517.323.5n 25.0

S4.52.61.83.74.51.2

ALT-PE score, F l, 44) - 88.67,/> < .01, in the teacher-centered group in weektwo,but not in weeks one, three and four. For instruction time , a main tim e effectwas observed, F 3, 132) = 294.12, p


13/21

Peer Med iated Instruction in Tennis 43

Teacher Behavior. Du ring ALT-PE and in.struction time six teacher behaviorvariables, expressed in rate per lesson were m easured (see Table3).For interventiontype, feedback rates were higher (p


14/21


with student-centered lessons. Considering intervention intonation, interrogativeinterventions occurred more p


15/21


16/21


well as a time by condition interaction effect, F(l, 44) = 6.08,p < .05, were noted.Post hoc Scheff showed a significant improvement in the teacher-centered p

Documents

Effect of Peer Mediated Instruction With Task Cards on Motor Skills Acquisition