INFORMATION TO USERS
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the m aterial submitted. For example:
® Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed.
• Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages.
• Copyrighted m aterial may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print.
Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography.
8703555
Harari, Israel
/
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND SKILL ANALYSIS ABILITY IN GYMNASTICS
The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1986
University Microfilms
International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
Copyright 1986 by Harari, Israel All Rights Reserved
PLEASE NOTE:
In ail cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V
1. Glossy photographs or pages______
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______
3. Photographs with dark background______
4. Illustrations are poor copy\/
5. Pages with black marks, not original______copy
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides ______of page
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages^
8. Print exceeds margin requirements______
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost ______in spine
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct______print
11. Page(s)______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.
12. Page(s)______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages______
15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received______
16. Other ______
University Microfilms International
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG KNOWLEDGE, EXFEKEQJCE, AND
SKILL ANALYSIS ABILITY IN GYMJASTICS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Israel Harari, B.A., M.A.
*****
The Ohio State University
1986
Dissertation Ccanmittee: Approved by
Dr. Daryl Siedentop
Dr. Andrew Taggart pviser School of (Health, Physi<( Dr. James Sweeney Education and Recreation Copyright by
Israel Harari
1986 This study is dedicated to my dear father, Noah. Although
he did not live to see its final completion, his support,
love and encouragement was the inspiration
for me for the past three years. ACKN0HLHDQ4ENT
I would like to express my appreciation to many people who contributed to the completion of this study.
Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Daryl Siedentop for his guidance and support with this study. His professional leadership and enthusiastic approach to the study of teaching had a strong impact on my theoretical work and professional development during my stay at The Ohio
State University.
I would also like to thank Dr. Andrew Taggart for his professional assistance and helpful suggestions. His friendship and encouragement will always be remembered.
I would like to express rry gratitude to Drs. James Sweeney and
Michael Wilson for their professional expertise and assistance in the gymnastics tests production.
To Larry Cox, Dennis McIntyre, Nurit Harari, Valery Striggow for their professional assistance.
To Dr. Paul Pelloquin for his help in the visual skill analysis test production.
To the preservice teachers who served as subjects in this study.
All the inservice teachers from the Columbus School System and suburban areas for volunteering to take part in this study.
All The Ohio State University varsity team gymnasts who volunteered to be subjects in this study are cwed many thanks.
iii To Renee and Morris Prayzer for being my family during our stay in
Columbus.
To Barry Kanpol for his patience in reading and helping to edit this work.
To my beloved wife, Nurit, for sharing with me each step of the road to this work's completion.
Finally, to my parents, I cwe thanks for their support, both financially and emotionally. Without them this part of my professional development would never have been realized.
iv vim
January 19, 1945 Bom, Afula, Israel
1965 Teaching Certificate, Teacher's College for Physical Education, Wingate Institute, Israel.
1965 — 1968 Military Service, Israel
1968 — 1978 Physical Education Teacher, ORT Middle and High School and WIZO School Systems.
1978 — 1983 The Zinman College of PHysical Education, Instructor in Teacher Education and Gymnastics
1982 B.A., Haifa University, Israel
1983 — 1986 Graduate Teaching Associate in Physical Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1984 M.A., Physical Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Publications
Compulsory Competitive Gymnastics Exercises for Children and Youth. (1973). Israel: Sport Federation.
Compulsory Competitive Gymnastics Exercises for Elementary, Middle School, and High School. (1979). Ministry of Education, Israel.
Fields of Study
Major Field: Physical Education Studies in Teaching and Teacher Education, Professor Daryl Siedentop
Minor Field: Studies in Applied Behavior Analysis Professor Daryl Siedentop, Professor John Cooper
v TABLE OF a in X N IS
Page
Dedication...... ii
Acknowledgements...... iii
Vita...... v
List of Tables...... ix
List of Figures ...... x
CHAPTER
I. Introduction...... 1 Recent Call for Change in Teacher Education...... 4 Introduction to Research on Teaching in Physical Education ...... 5 The Relationship Between Subject Matter Knowledge and Teacher Effectiveness ...... 8 The Study of Expertise ...... 8 Findings from Physical Education Research...... 9 Statement of the Problem...... 11 Definition of T e r m s ...... 15 Limitations of the Study...... 16 S u n m a r y...... 18
II. Review of Related Literature...... 19 Professional Wisdom and Educational Philosophy Perspective...... 20 Reform Documents — The Call for Change in Teacher Education ...... 21 Research Findings About Teacher Knowledge and Skills . 25 TWo Different Approaches to Research on Teaching Curriculum Generic and Curriculum Specific...... 26 Domain-Specific Knowledge and Teacher Decision Making...... 28 The Study of Expertise...... 29 Suirmary...... 34 Research Findings from Physical Education...... 36 Research on Skill Performance, Skill Teaching, and Skill Analysis...... 36
vi TABLE OF OONXENTS (OONTXNUB))
Page
Research on Skill Analysis and Clinical Diagnosis as Pedagogical Skill ...... 38 Expert-Novice Differences and Teacher Quality Variables...... 42 Summary...... 45
III. Methods and Procedures...... 48 Subjects for the Research...... 48 Knowledge Test Production...... 50 Formative Evaluation...... 54 Reliability and Validity of the Test...... 54 Test Reliability...... 54 Test Validity...... 55 Visual Skill Analysis Test Production...... 55 Preparation of Videotapes for Analysis...... 60 Preparing the Visual Analysis Tape...... 61 The Three Test Phases ...... 62 Level 1 Error Detection and Feedback Provision . 62 Level 2 Errors Identification...... 62 Level 3 Future Teaching Tactics...... 63 Scoring System...... 63 Reliability Test of the Subjects' Visual Analysis . 64 Validity of the Visual Skill Analysis Test...... 65 Questionnaire...... 65 Methods of Data Collection...... 66 Data Collection and Testing Procedures...... 67 Settings for T e s t i n g ...... 67 Data Analysis Procedures...... 71 Research Question Number 1 ...... 71 Research Question Number 2 ...... 71 Research Question Number 3A...... 72 Research Qaestion 3B, C and D ...... 71 Research Question Number 4 ...... 73 Summary...... 73
IV. Analysis and Discussion of Data ...... 74 Reliability Test Results for the Visual Skill Analysis Test Data Collection...... 74 Observer 1 ...... 75 Observer 2 ...... 76 Discussion of the Reliability Test Results...... 76
vii TABLE OF OCN3ESJTS (OON1TNUH))
Page
Analysis of the Data with Regard to the Research Questions...... 77 Question Number 1 ...... 77 Knowledge Test Findings (Group)...... 78 Discussion of the Knowledge Test Results...... 81 Research Question 2...... 82 Discussion of the VSA Test Findings ...... 84 Research Question 3A ...... 86 Discussion of Question 3A Findings...... 87 Research Question 3B, C and D ...... 88 Research Question..4...... 93 Sunmary Discussion of Research Questions 2, 3, and 4...... 94
V. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations...... 98 Summary...... 98 Conclusions...... 101 Questions...... 101 Recommendations...... 106
Bibliography...... 109
Appendix A ...... 117
Appendix B...... 119
Appendix C ...... 121
Appendix D ...... 139
Appendix E ...... 141
Appendix F ...... 143
Appendix G ...... 147
Appendix ...... 151
viii U 3 T CF TRHEJES
Page
1. Subjects group characteristics ...... 50
2. Points system and weight given to the test sections...... 52
3. Question distribution according to gender...... 53
4. Question distribution according to apparatus...... 53
5. Experts' agreement on the most important skills for the visual analysis test ...... 59
6. 68
7. Reliability check by observer number 1 ...... 75
8. Reliability check by observer number 2 ...... 76
9. ANOVA table for the DV knowledge test...... 79
10. Mean scores of the six groups' knowledge test, and Tukey's post hoc test results...... 79
11. ANOVA table for the BV visual skill analysis...... 83
12. Mean scores of the six groups' visual skill analysis, and Tukey's post hoc test results...... 84
13. The Pearson correlation coefficient for linear relation ships between the subjects knowledge and the visual skill analysis test...... 90
ix LIST CF FIGURES
Page
1. The relationship between teacher's knew ledge of subject matter, observation and clinical diagnosis a pedagogical skill...... 12
2. Group mean knowledge scores comparison ...... 80
3. Group means VSA test comparison...... • ...... 85
4. A regression line for the relationships between total knowledge score (TKNCW) and total visual analysis score (TVIS)...... 95
x CHAPTER ONE mraaxjcmw
Teacher quality can be defined as a combination of two main characteristics: (1) teacher knowledge of the subject matter to be taught; and (2) teaching skills to transmit that knowledge and facilitate student learning. The second part of the definition has been established by teacher effectiveness research in the last 20 years.
Research on teaching has improved from an inconsistent body of knowledge to a small but well-established knowledge base (Brophy & Good, 1985).
Siedentop (1983) explained that the turning point for the improvement of teaching research was the systematic observation of real classrooms with real students and teachers. Flander's (1960) interaction analysis, Medley & Mitzel's (1963) observational systems and other categorical systems for systematic observation opened a window to the understanding of teachers and students behavior in the classroom.
About ten years later, Dunkin & Biddle (1974) developed the process-product model (teacher effectiveness research) for research on teaching. This nodel helped to promote an understanding of the relationships between measures of classroom behavior (process) and gain in student achievement (product). Among major teacher effectiveness researchers that contributed to this line of study were Gage (1978),
Soar £ Soar (1979), Brophy (1983), Evertson, Anderson & Brophy (1978),
Stallings & Kaskowitz (1974), and Kounin (1970). Hie main assumptions
1 2 underlying this paradigm were that more knowledge of process-product relationships would lead to the improvement of the teaching process and ultimately student achievement. Hie process-product model was modified by the researchers of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (BTES) under the leadership of Berliner, Fisher, and their colleagues into the
"model of classroom learning" (Berliner, 1979, p. 123). The researchers became dissatisfied with the process product paradigm because the design did not reflect the complexity and dynamic quality of classroom events.
The mediating link between teacher behavior and student achievement became the engagement with appropriate content for the individual student with high success rate. This mediator, identified as Academic
Learning Time (ALT), became an important indicator of student learning
(Berliner, 1979).
During the last two decades much has been studied and learned about how teachers operate in classrooms where student achievement gains were highest. Brophy & Good (1985) argued that independent researchers came to the same conclusions frcm their work served to validate and strengthen the results. Most of the effective strategies which developed from this line of research attended to two major parts: (a) management and control of student behavior; and (b) the nature of the instructional task. Variables such as management, transitions between activities, rule setting, accountability, and classroom climate, have been central in teacher effectiveness research.
Yet, the content itself, i.e., the subject matter as an important independent variable, was ignored. Moreover, teacher knowledge of the subject matter as a central variable in the process of teaching was 3 neglected. The reason for such neglect had been the curriculum generic approach taken by the majority of the process-production scholars. The generic approach looks for uniformity, concepts and principles that apply across all or many subject matters. This generic approach jumps frcm one subject matter to another as if the content did not make much difference. Rosenshine (1979) and Dunkin & Biddle (1974) looked for general relationships between the teaching process and student achievement; "these reviewers have neglected difference between subject matter and grade level and combined studies across these two major kind of distinctions" (Gage, 1979, p. 256). In the Dunkin & Biddle (1974) process-product model, teachers properties were part of the presage variables, including teaching skills, intelligence, motivation, personality characteristics, but not teacher knowledge. Because of their generic approach they do not examine teacher knowledge as a possible independent variable.
Shulman (1985) claimed, that other paradigms for research on teaching, such as classrocm-ethnography and cognitive science, have had a tendency to ignore the substance of classroom life, the specific curriculum and the subject matter being studied. Hie researchers' main emphasis on context has not treated curriculum and instructional content as a core feature of context. Shulman (1985, p. 22) claimed that
"interpretive researchers are guilty of treating talk as talk, turns as turns, task as task, regardless of the subject matter under study by the participants." Furthermore, Shulman (1986) and his colleagues referred to the absence of focus on subject matter among most research on teaching paradigms as the "missing paradigm problem" (p. 6). Shulman 4
(1986) explained that in order to simplify the complexity of classroom teaching, "researchers ignored one central aspect of teaching, the subject natter" (p. 6). Taxpayers and educational leaders are in general agreement that teacher competence in the subject matter is a central criterion of teacher quality. Shulman (1985) declared that the research community was not of great help in answering the question of hew much teachers should know about the subject matter, or what kind of knowledge teachers should possess. Little is known empirically about teacher knowledge "because this question has fallen between the cracks in the research on teaching field" (Shulman, 1985, p. 26). New emerging research programs led by Shulman, Leinhardt and others intend to remedy those deficiencies in the future.
Recent Call for Change in Teacher Education
In response to the National Commission on Excellence in Education
(1983), many reform documents have begun to emerge and have started to influence teacher preparation programs. Most of recent reform documents call for extensive change in teacher education (Joyce & Clift, 1984;
Clark, 1985; Egbert, 1985; Berliner, 1984; Siedentop, 1984; Holmes
Group, 1986; National Commission for Excellence in Teacher Education,
1985). The major teacher education reform suggestions are:
1. Teacher education should be moved to the graduate level.
2. Greater subject matter preparation will help to improve the
teaching practice.
3. There should be more extensive preparation in the liberal
arts. 5
4. Greater emphasis on field experience to improve the
preparation of teachers.
5. Pedagogy is an important dimension in the teacher education
program.
6. Teacher education should Le based on recent body of knowledge
emerged from research on teacher effectiveness.
Of major interest to this study is the call by almost all reform documents for a better subject matter preparation. Such preparation is an important dimension of effective instruction. The question of hew extensively one needs to be prepared in order to be effective in teaching is a missing link in research on teaching (Shulman, 1985) and a major component in this study. It should be noted that extensive subject matter preparation has nothing to do with additional study in the liberal arts (general education) which is a cornerstone of most teacher preparation programs in need of improvement. It simply means better preparation in teaching specialty and area of specialization.
Introduction to Research on Teaching in Physical Education
Within the past decade a growing number of researchers in physical education followed the model of their counterparts in the classroom by studying the relationships between teaching and learning. Siedentop
(1983) stated that the early efforts in research on teaching in physical education produced data similar to the classroom research findings.
Anderson & Barette (1978) were influenced by the descriptive-corre
lational-experimental loop direction (Rosenshine & Furst, 1971). They
studied what was going on in the gymnasium using a descriptive analytic
research. Cheffer's (1972) adaptation to Flander's interaction analysis 6
(CAFIAS) studied verbal and non-verbal interactions in the gym.
Siedentop, Birdwell & Metzler (1979) modified the Academic Learning Time £ (ALT) instrument which was developed frcm the Beginning Teacher
Evaluation Studies (BTES) in California (Berliner, 1979) to form
ALT-PE. Pieron (1981) and Graham (1983) used the process-product design with an Experimental Teaching Unit (ETU). The work of Doyle (1979) was modified by Tousignant (1982) to investigate task structures and accountability systems in the gym.
A beginning picture seems to emerge frcm the research efforts in physical education. ALT-PE (Siedentop, Tousignant & Parker, 1982) was found to be an important variable in determining effectiveness of instruction (Rink, 1985; McLeish, 1981). Direct instruction emerged as a variable which significantly related to student achievement and attitude variables (Oliver, 1983). Task orientation, active teaching, sufficient time for instruction, extensive content coverage, high opportunity for many students correct responses with immediate feedback, and student accountability for learning were characteristics of effective instruction in physical education. Taggart (1985) reconmended the use of a fitness-direct instruction to promote physical fitness in the school settings. Management and control of student's behavior were found to be a major component in teacher effectiveness research and were also found to be an important factor in physical education settings.
The use of rules and signals as a common language in the gym, clarity of task demonstration, task pacing, clear expectations for behavior, and monitoring student behavior have received more theoretical support than empirical support (Rink, 1985). Moreover, maintaining positive 7 gymnasium climate and positive teacher student interaction were identified as successful management procedures. Unfortunately, physical education teachers were not doing enough to establish and maintain a positive climate in the gym (Anderson & Barette, 1978; Siedentop, 1983).
The gymnasium, pool, and playing field are different than the classroom. The subject matter of movement in the gymnasium demands specific concerns and innovations frcm the researcher in order to deal with the contextual complexity, and the nature and scope of the content. Moreover, the differences in student entry behavior as a consequence of sport, recreational and fitness opportunities in the private sector makes the physical education settings more complex
(Siedentop, Mand & Taggart, 1986).
Everyone understands and supports the notion that in order to become a highly skilled basketball or tennis player, one has to master fundamental skills. At the same time, it is clear that the teacher or coach who transmits these skills has a knowledge base and teaching skills to do so. A major problem for teacher preparation programs is to allocate the amount of time needed for such extensive preparation in the subject matter. Hoffman (1983) argued that most teacher education programs typically underestimate such extensive knowledge base as important for their graduates.
One of the domains in need of investigation is the relationship between the teacher's knowledge of subject matter and the effectiveness of the instructional process. Teachers with limited background in certain subject areas may teach the content incorrectly or fail to correct their students' mistakes. "The effectiveness of the lesson may vary with teacher's interest in and knowledge about the content being taught" (Brophy & Good, 1985, p. 369).
The Relationships Between Subject Matter Knew ledge and Teacher Effectiveness
Gage (1979) concluded that there were mixed research results about the relationships between teachers knowledge of content and their teaching performance. Seme major studies found positive relationships between teachers knowledge of subject matter and the instructional process (McDonald, 1976; Tikunoff, Berliner & Rees, 1975; Leinhardt,
1983; Leinhardt & Smith, 1985) while several other studies found weak or no relations between these variables (Begle, 1972; Hook, 1965; McCall &
Krause, 1959; Rothman, Welch & Walberg, 1969).
In the BTES sunmary results, Fisher, Filby, Marliave, Chahen,
Dishaw, Moor, & Berliner (1978) reported lew correlations between teacher's subject matter knowledge and gain in student achievement in reading and mathematics at the second and fifth grade classes „ On the other hand, Linhardt (1983) found clear relationships between teacher knowledge of curriculum and subject matter and teacher instructional behavior in the classroom.
The Study of Expertise
Chi, Glaser, & Rees (1982) defined "expertise" as "the possession of a large body of knowledge and procedural skills" (p. 8). A line of cognitive psychology research clearly identified the superior memory capacity of "experts" whether they were chess players, musicians, baseball players, computer programmers or electronic technicians.
Experts were found to cannit fewer errors, solved problems faster, and 9 have more domain-specific principles which helped them to understand problems better (Chi, et al., 1982).
Findings frcm Physical Education Research
There has been little systematic research on this topic in physical education. Yerg (1983) concluded that teacher competence in knowledge and skill on the subject matter being taught is vital. Furthermore, she suggested it should be a part of the revised process-product paradigm for physical education research. Phillips & Carlisle (1983) found that teachers knowledge of content, ability to analyze student's needs, use of objective, testing flexibility and appropriateness of instruction significantly contribute to student achievement. Vickers (1983) point of v i w was that the basic and most important step in the instructional design process and the first consideration for teacher education programs must be "a guarantee of subject matter expertise" (p. 19).
Hoffman (1983) emphasized the importance of this variable to the skill analysis process. Very little is known about the relationships between teacher's knowledge of content and their skill analysis performance, which is one of the most important functions of the teaching process.
With the above in mind, this study concentrated on the relationship between the subjects' knowledge in a specific content area to several critical aspects of the teaching process in physical education. These aspects include the ability to analyze sport skill performance and provide learners with appropriate feedback in order to close the gap between the actual and the desired response. Teachers need tools to deal with a variety of motor skills. They need extensive technical preparation instead of a single generic method course with a 10
supplementary sample of skills from different sports.
Locke (1972) argued that no empirical evidence exists to support the assumptions that undergraduate courses in kinesiology and
bicmechanics provide preservice teachers with a generic ability to analyze skills. He suggested that the analytic ability developed
through the practice of sport skills, previous performance of sport
skills, and the study of critical elements constitute sport skills. The
importance of the teacher's ability to analyze the skill to be acquired
by the learner, and identifying the critical and most important
components of the movement are key variables in the teaching process.
Expanding on Locke's view, Hoffman (1983) explained that the motor
performance of the student contains the basic data on which physical
education teachers and sport coaches can base their pedagogical
decisions. He also arguec that the accuracy of the diagnosis will
influence the correctness of the teachers' prescriptions to the
learners' skill problems where "effective skills teaching seems largely
a matter of fitting the correct instructional strategy to the primary
error judged to be hindering the learner's attempt to attain the skill"
(Hoffman, 1983, p. 38).
Broadening the concern of teachers' observational ability, Barrett
(1983) developed a hypothetical model of observing as a generic teaching
skill. The model's three basic components are: "deciding what to
observe, planning hew to observe and knowing what factors influence
ability to observe" (p. 23). Barrett argued that identification of
critical features (critical elements) is crucial for the observation
process, "this task is difficult and takes a strong knowledge base to 11 accomplish" (p. 25). The observer must know and understand why the critical elements were selected for observation; he must interpret the learner.
Similar to Barrett (1983), Hoffman (1977) explained that in order to make accurate decisions, the teacher must knew what constitutes correct and incorrect skill performance. Without such knowledge the teacher can observe non-relevant movements. From Hoffman's point of view, skill analysis ability should be taught as a pedagogical skill to teachers in order to help them in the clinical diagnosis process and to improve their effectiveness in facilitating student's skill acquisition.
Wilkinson (1986) has shewn that this can be done for volleyball skills.
The major research question of this study was that in order to be able to analyze the skills and make an accurate diagnosis, whether the skill was correctly performed or not, the teacher must have extensive knowledge about the skill technique, standards of performance, and sport-specific competitive context. Hoffman (1983) explained that such knowledge is needed for effective skill teaching in order to fit the correct instructional strategy to the major error identified in the learner's skill performance. Hoffman (1977) argued that such extensive knowledge base is typically underestimated by most teacher education programs.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this research was to study the relationships between the subjects' content specific knowledge and the clinical diagnosis process (Figure 1). 12
Teacher's knowledge of the subject-matter as
♦ a crucial link for observation, skill
analysis and clinical diagnosis as
pedagogical teaching skills.
Hoffman (1983) clinical Barrett (1983) observation
diagnosis as pedagogical as a teaching skill
skill. (Pedagogical
Kinesiology) (1977)
Figure 1 The relationship between teacher's knowledge of subject matter, observation and clinical diagnosis as pedagogical skill. 13
The subject matter specific area for this research was gymnastics, which is an integral part of the physical education curriculum.
In addition, gymnastics is a sport in which the evaluation of the
final product is based on the topographical aspects of the skill
performance. This sport has rules and procedures to evaluate the
technical aspect of the skill itself in a systematic way frcm simple to
complex. Moreover, such analytical process inherent in gymnastics as a
sport is the basis for skill analysis as an area of inquiry. Hoffman
(1983) explained that the teacher's clinical diagnosis rests on his/her
ability to analyze the learner's skill performance and to find whether
the skill was correctly performed or not. Furthermore, knowledge about
standards of performance is especially important in evaluating responses
of "form-specific skills such as diving and gymnastics" (Hoffman, 1983,
p. 37). Therefore, an examination of the relationships between teacher
knowledge of gymnastics and teacher ability to detect learner skill
deficiencies and provide appropriate feedback and remedial learning
activities will contribute to the knowledge base of skill analysis as a
pedagogical skill.
Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh' s (1979) reconmendations for beginning
educational researchers contain criteria for evaluating the problem
significance. The writers insisted that the research problem should be
suitable for the particular researcher, a problem about which the
researcher will be enthusiastic. Moreover, "the problem should be in an
area in which one has both knowledge and seme experience" (p. 49).
These recarmendations fit this researcher's background and experience in
the last 30 years as an active gymnast, gymnastics coach, international 14
judge and teacher educator.
The subjects for this study were representatives of the teacher preparation process (entrance, graduation, and teaching) and a group of elite college gymnasts.
The research questions for this study were:
1. How does the knowledge of various subjects with a differing
degree of experience in performing and teaching gymnastics
compare to the knowledge of gymnastics experts (knowledge
test)?
2. How does a differing degree of experience in performing and
teaching gymnastics affect the accuracy of visual analysis?
3. How does the subjects' knowledge of gymnastics, experience in
gymnastics, and teaching experience relate to:
A. The accuracy of the subjects' visual skill analysis
process (that is the relationship between total knowledge
score and total visual skill analysis score).
B. Assessments/error detection of videotaped gymnastics
skills of elementary, middle school, and high school
students.
C. Feedback suggested on the basis of those assessments of
skill performance.
D. Remedial and/or future learning activities based on those
assessments of skill performance.
4. Does the knowledge test score predict the accuracy of the
visual skill analysis? 15
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following definitions have been
included:
Gymnastics — "is a physical activity performed in a regulated environment, utilizing either heavy or light apparatus and a variety of tumbling mats. Gymnastics can be engaged in as a competitive sport, or as an educational or recreational pursuit" (George, 1985, p. 1).
Knowledge of Gymnastics — the subjects' knowledge of gymnastics in terms of terminology, general content knowledge, skill technique, principles and safety procedures, rules and officiating.
Code of Points — a book containing regulations governing the
judging of gymnastics (Published by the International Gymnastics
Federation, 1985)
Correctly Performed — the technical perfect performance of the
skill itself (according to the code of points Published by the
International Gymnastics Federation, 1985).
No Error — the learner skill performance has been perfectly
executed (based on the code of points)
Major Errors — a distinct deviation from perfect skill technique
performance. Factors influencing skill technique faults are problems of
force production, timing and angles of the body or body parts related to
each other and/or to the apparatus.
Minor Errors — errors of execution and form. Execution: the
manner of performing movements with regard to foot, leg, head, arm,
hands, and body position (Gagmier, 1974). Form: for example, a
position in which the legs are held straight and firmly together, with 16 the feet and toes pointed (Gagmier, 1974).
Specific Feedback — occurs whenever an individual receives information on specific aspects of his/her behavior (skill performance) after its completion.
Skill Analysis — "a process in which the teacher or coach systematically observes the response of his students and, on the basis of his observation, identifies discrepancies between actual and desired response characteristics" (Hoffman, 1977, p. 1).
Critical Elements — "one specific movement in a series of movements combined in a particular time-space sequence to form a successfully performed sport skill" (Kniffin, 1985, p. 8).
Expertise — "a possession of a large body of knowledge and procedural skills" (Chi, Glaser & Rees, 1982, p. 8).
Clinical diagnosis — refers specifically to "decisions made by skill instructors regarding the nature of the learner's performance problems and the factors that give rise to them" (Hoffman, 1983, p. 36).
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations were considered for this study:
1. Subjects
A. The study is limited to The Ohio State University
undergraduate physical education majors from the physical
education 541 class (secondary experiences) and students
who enrolled to the teacher preparation program from the
gymnastics 213 class (introduction to gymnastics)
(activity series). Two intact classes were chosen for
the research in order to study the differences between 17
students enrolling to the program and students entering
the student teaching stage of the teacher preparation
program. Any generalization can only be made to a
similar preservice population.
B. This study is limited to the inservice volunteer physical
education teachers from the Columbus school system and
suburban area. Problems of getting inservice teachers
with experience in teaching gymnastics in the schools
cause the use of volunteers instead of random sampling.
Therefore, the results of this study are generalizable to
similar population from the Columbus P.E. teachers.
C. This study is limited to the volunteer men and women
gymnasts from The Ohio State University gymnastics team
and one volunteer from Cortland State University. The
finding cannot be generalized to the colleges gymnasts
population because of non-random sampling.
2. Skills for the Visual Analysis
A. This study is limited to the United States Gymnastics
Federation (USGF) junior Olympic age group compulsories
for boys class 5 to class 2 for the years 1981-1984 and
1984-1988.
B. This study is limited to the USGF national compulsories
for girls class 4 to class 2 for the years 1980-1984 and
1986-1989. The study concerns are the improvement of the
teaching process in the school system; therefore, the
skills for the visual analysis were sampled from the 18
junior Olympic group classes which can be performed by
elementary, middle and high school students.
Summary
During the last two decades much has been learned about hew teachers operate effectively in classrooms where student achievement is a major factor. Yet, the content itself — the subject matter as an important independent variable has been neglected. The question of hew extensively a teacher needs to be prepared (in the content to be taught) in order to teach effectively is a missing link in research on teaching in general and in physical education specifically. Moreover, very little is known about the relationships between teachers knowledge of content and their skill analysis performance which is central to the teaching process in physical education.
The purpose of this study was to describe the relationships between the subject's knowledge of gymnastics and their skill analysis performance. C B A P H R T W O
KKVTB4 CF HEEMH) UDBRATORE
"Hie particular combination of knowledge and skills on which solution of a class of problems rests is apparently very important. It appears necessary to possess dcinain-specific knowledge to solve most problems. While the knowledge alone may not be sufficient in the absence of appropriate information processing skills and a proper set of problem formulations, it is abundantly clear that no amount of general intellectual skill or mastery over cognitive strategies will overcome lacks in content knowledge" (Shulman, 1974, p. 325).
Only recently the pendulum has swung, turning scholars' attention to the separation between the two central components of the teaching process which are: a) subject matter knowledge; and b) teaching skills to transmit that knowledge and facilitate student learning.
In the last 20 years, the study of teaching has been dominated by detailed information about organization and management behavior of effective teaching. The inquiry into use of instructional time, teacher planning, teacher decision making and environmental features which relate to pupil learning have been studied. Typically, teacher knowledge and skills in the subject matter being taught have been neglected (Shulman, 1985), which is surprising since teaching has to do with the transmission of knowledge and skills to the learners.
What follows is a review of the related literature concerned with the content aspects of teaching.
The importance of teacher knowledge in the subject matter taught comes from two main sources. The first is the professional wisdom and
19 20 educational philosophy, and the second cones from research on teaching in general and physical education specifically.
Professional Wisdom and Educational Philosophy Perspective
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards (1982) indicated that teachers should learn the content they are supposed to teach in the classroom and supplementary knowledge from subject matter specialty and allied field which will allow teachers more flexibility in their teaching. Green (1971) explained that teaching has to do with transmission of knowledge and knowledge has to do with truth and facts. Therefore, teacher educators must ensure that teachers who graduate from their program should have expertise in their subjecrt matter. The need for teacher education programs to teach the subject matter to be learned beyond the introductory level was expressed by
Conant (1963) in his book, The Education of American Teachers. Smith,
Cohen & Perel, 1969) argued that "to be prepared in the subject matter of instruction is to know the content to be taught and hew the cxmtent can be related to the interests and experience of children and youth"
(pp. 121-122). StaLth et al. (1969) believe that teachers should be prepared for the real world. They also believe that the major focus should be on preparing teachers in the subject to be taught in elementary and secondary schools. In a design for a School of Pedagogy,
Smith, Silverman, Borg & Fry (1980) emphasized the clinical work and the teaching skills which enables the preservice teacher to observe, diagnose, plan, manage, cxxnnunicate and evaluate students. Corrigan
(1983) supports the idea that teachers must go beyond the basic skills to prepare students for today's world. 21
Reform Documents — Hie Call for Change in Teacher Education
A number of reform documents have appeared in the past several years, and call for change in teacher education. One of the major demands is for greater emphasis on subject matter preparation (National
Comnission for Excellence in Teacher Education, 1985; Joyce & Clift,
1984; Egbert, 1985).
The National Ccranission for Excellence in Teacher Education (1985) prescriptions for quality teacher education rests on the importance of the content to be taught and pedagogical skill for effective teaching.
The Commission recommended that preservice teachers should demonstrate mastery of subject matter to be taught and pedagogical foundation for effective teaching before the field experience. Furthermore, such knowledge and skills should be demonstrated, before graduation, in three dimensions: a) knowledge of subject matter to be taught; b) knowledge and application of foundations, science, and the teaching process; and c) effective teaching skills. The Commission recommended that teachers should be assigned to teach only in fields for which they have appropriate foundation in the content to be taught.
Egbert (1985) synthesized reformers call for change in teacher education into a workable proposal for future teacher training.
In his summary of reform documents, Egbert (1985) criticized the current course work done in colleges of education. Egbert recommended that: a) high school teachers should have an academic major; b) teacher preparation programs should be placed at the graduate level; and c) teacher preparation should be extended to five years. Egbert (1985) summarized the reform documents (proposals) which criticized teacher education from the inside (Howsam, Corrigan, Denmark & Nash, 1976; 22
Cremin, 1978; Smith, 1980; Joyce & Clift, 1984). All four reports recommended that teacher preparation should be extended beyond the baccalaureate. Major attention was given to extensive curricular change.
Joyce & Clift (1984) argued that "teacher education should be reformed because it is bad — not because of fear" (p. 13). The scholars offered improvements including the teacher's academic preparation, more theory practice integration and collaboration between school and college faculty. In addition, they claimed that the emphasis should be on life long preparation of teachers. Of most importance for this particular study are the curriculum changes offered. The researchers called for a better liberal arts education, extensive course work in the subject matter relevant to classroom teaching, and a stronger emphasis on teacher's area of specialization. The major emphasis should be on a sequential process of theory practice integration on campus as well as at the school site, with strong emphasis on the teacher's area of speciali zation.
Berliner (1985), Gage (1984), and Siedentop (1984) called for establishing teacher education on pedagogy based on the body of teacher effectiveness research which now exists.
Berliner (1985) blamed teacher educators for being timid about changing their programs. At the same time he blamed university deans and presidents for ignoring their teacher preparation programs.
Berliner identified three major reform trends for change in teacher preparation: a) to improve preparation in the subject matter to be taught (teachers need more content knowledge to teach effectively); b) 23
to increase student teaching and field experiences; and c) to decrease
the emphasis on pedagogical content. For reform trend (a), Berliner
(1985) claimed that there is a low correlation between measures of
subject matter competency and student achievement. He based his opinion on findings from meta-analysis of 65 studies of science education (Druva
& Anderson, 1983). A further review of this research revealed three main facts. First, teacher knowledge of subject matter was not
addressed as one of the teacher's characteristics (gender, coursework,
I.Q., etc.) in this study. Second, the subjects are teachers in
science, "in some instances, non-certified student teachers and
probationary teachers were included within the teacher sample" (Druva &
Anderson, 1983, p. 468). Thirdly, even though 65 studies were coded
"the data of any given pair are more often than not based on only one
study" (Druva & Anderson, 1983, p. 471-472).
In sum, f&i studies found low relationships between subject matter
knowledge and student achievement. On the other hand, other studies
found that knowledge of content is necessary for content presentation
(Leinhardt & Smith, 1985), problem solving (Chamess, 1979; Grino &
Riley, 1981), and decision making that best suits a classroom situation
at any given time (Borko et al., 1979). Final conclusions for either
side cannot be made on the basis of the meta analysis findings (Druva &
Anderson, 1983) cited by Berliner.
For reform trend (b), Berliner (1985) claims that student teaching,
as it is practiced, is of little value. Moreover, it often decreased
student teachers attitudes towards teaching. For reform trend (c),
Berliner (1985) argued that pedagogy and the body of knowledge from 24 research on teaching should be the content for teacher education programs.
Gage (1984) called for the importance of the scientific base of the art of teaching. This scientific base was improved from inconsistent findings to a small, but well established knowledge base. The descriptive-correlational experimental loop paid off. According to Gage
(1984), the major problem of teacher education is its inability to apply the findings from research on teacher effectiveness. Gage complained about the neglect of the pedagogical aspects of the teaching process by all four Commission1 s reports. Gage argued that knowledge of subject matter is not enough to make a teacher, moreover, teachers need to learn how to teach. Gage offered to move into inservice education.
Similar to Berliner (1985) and Gage (1984), Siedentop (1984) argued for pedagogy and effective teaching skills as the content for teacher preparation programs. He claimed that "if there are valid, leamable teaching skills that are essential to effective educational performance, then their acquisition should form the central mission of the professional content of teacher education" (Siedentop, 1984, p. 10).
Siedentop explained that data from physical education research tend to confirm the generic nature of pedagogical skills. But, such teaching skills do not develop without appropriate training under appropriate conditions with knowledge of results. Siedentop called the emphasis on the liberal arts as the major way to train teachers "The Great Teacher
Education Legend." He claimed that "if you prepare preservice teachers generally or liberally, don't expect to be able to shew that teacher education has an effect" (Siedentop, 1984, p. 15) simply because such 25 effect does not exist. Siedentop also argued that subject matter preparation is important, yet a major problem is that physical educators cannot agree about what is the subject matter to be taught. He found the curricular time as the major issue. Therefore, he concluded that all the other areas are secondary to the teaching skills and the commitment to use them in the work place.
Research Findings About Teacher Knowledge and Skills
Medley (1979) described cycles in teacher effectiveness research.
He indicated that early researchers asked pupils to describe effective teachers from which they learned most. One such study completed by
Getzels & Jackson (1963) listed four characteristics of effective teachers: "makes greater demands of students, has more teaching skills, has more knowledge of subject matter, and has better discipline" (in
Medley, 1979, p. 13). Winstin (1983) reports about similar findings from student ratings of teaching effectiveness, or student perceptions of the characteristics of good teachers. The typical variable (of effective teacher characteristics) from the elementary school and the college sample were "knowledge of subject matter, and the ability to teach" (Samuels & Griffor, 1980).
In the summary report of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study
(BTES) Phase II, McDonald (1976) measured teachers' knowledge, aptitude and attitude and found that "teachers' attitude towards reading and mathematics and their knowledge of the subject presumably also influence how they teach" (p. 10). Similar findings from Phase IIIA of the BTES reported by Tikunoff, Berliner & Rist (1975) indicated that more effective teachers were "found to be more accepting, more optimistic, 26
had greater knowledge of the subject and exhibited less recognition
seeking behavior" (p. 94). Tikunoff et al. (1975) found evidence that
"more effective teachers possessed a greater knowledge of subject
matter" (p. 94). It appeared to be particularly important as a generic
dimension because it applies in both grade levels and subject matter
(mathematics and reading). Moreover, "a greater knowledge of the
subject matter being taught can be directly related to teacher
instructional moves such as structuring, monitoring learning, and
spontaneity" (p. 94). They also argue that teachers who knew the
subject being taught can deal better with unexpected events. One of
Tikunoff et al.’s (1975) final conclusions was that teachers at
different grade levels teach reading and mathematics in very different ways. Therefore, teacher preparation programs should be more specific
than generic in preparing teachers for subject matter teaching in the
classroom.
IWo Different Approaches to Research on Teaching Curriculum Generic and Curriculum Specific
The findings from the BTES Phase II and IIIA led to two basic
approaches in research on teaching. Gage (1979) refers to the first as
"curriculum generic approach", which looks for "uniformity — concepts
and principles that apply across all or many subject matters" (p. 264).
This generic approach jumps from one subject matter to another as if the
content did not make much difference. The second is the"curriculum
specific approach," based on the assumption that the subject matter does
make a difference in the kinds of teacher behavior, methods, strategies,
styles and skills. Therefore, the investigator needs to be concerned 27 with the relationships to significant educational outcomes that he is likely to find.
Rosenshine (1974) and Dunkin & Biddle (1974) looked for general relationships between teaching process and student achievement, relationships that are general across various subject natter and grade level; "these reviewers have neglected differences between subject natter and grade level and have combined studies across these two major kinds of distinctions" (Gage, 1979, p. 256).
In Dunkin & Biddle's (1974) process produce model teachers properties are part of the presage variables. They contain teaching skills, intelligence, motivation, personality characteristics but not teacher knowledge. Because of their generic approach, they don't look for teacher knowledge as a possible independent variable.
Gage (1979) points out that in seme subject matter area, specific teacher competencies have been identified. He gives general examples including Laster's (1973) "general category of teaching skills, which describes specific skills to mathematics instruction for the most part because they require a knowledge of mathematics" (p. 269). Gage also noted that several studies found no correlation between teacher's knowledge of the subject and student achievement. He points out that the findings seem to favor some degree of both specific and generality.
Gage offered Siegel's (1977) implication for research strategy that "we should incorporate both general and curriculum specific teaching variables into our studies" (Gage, 1979, p. 280).
In their review of process product research, Brophy & Good (1985) suggested that "teachers with limited background in certain subject 28 matter areas may teach incorrect content or fail to recognize and correct their students' distorted understandings" (cf. Eaton, Anderson &
Smith, 1984). The researchers argue that the lesson effectiveness will vary according to teacher interest and knowledge about the subject matter being taught.
Shulman (1974) argued in favor of curriculum specific research on teaching. His conclusions came from research on physicians clinical diagnosis process. He claimed that "the particular combination of knowledge and skill on which solution of a class of problems rests is apparently very important. It appears necessary to possess domain-specific knowledge to solve most problems" (p. 325). He also believes that knowledge alone is not enough — we need appropriate information processing skills. General intellectual skills or cognitive strategies cannot overcome lack in content knowledge. Shulman claimed that "the critical missing element may well be the character of the task, subject matter or problem to be mastered (and) learning to fit instruction to the subject matter is at least as significant a challenge as learning to match instruction to learner characteristics" (pp.
329-330).
Domain-Specific Knowledge and Teacher Decision Making
Borko, Cone, Russo & Shavelson (1979), in their teacher decision making model, via; teaching not merely as a process of asking high order questions, or enhancing motivation, but "as a process of integrating all of our knowledge and skills into a decision that best suits the situation at any given moment" (p. 154). Borko et al. (1979) view is similar to Shulman (1974) in that they emphasize the importance of the 29 instructional task. Borko et al. (1979) pointed out "two important aspects of the instructional task that affect teachers' decisions, the nature of the subject matter and the goals of instruction" (p. 142).
Teacher knowledge of the nature of the subject matter, goals of instruction and teaching skills are important aspects in teacher decision making that best suit classroom situations at any given time.
The Study of Expertise
The study of expertise focused on the dimension of knowledge because expertise is, by definition, "the possession of a large body of knowledge and procedural skills" (Chi, Glaser & Rees, 1982, p. 8). A
line of cognitive psychology research has clearly identified the
superior memory capacity of skilled individuals, as exhibited in the
large patterns of chunks (units of knowledge structure), whether they are chess players, bridge players, musicians, baseball fans, computer
programers or electronic technicians (Chi et al., 1982).
Experts in several different domains are able to remember sequence of moves much more rapidly than novices. Chi et al. (1982) explained
that large structure domain-specific knowledge is characteristic of
experts. Having more knowledge means having more central concepts and more relationships between these concepts. Such knowledge contains
procedures of how to do or execute something. Newell (1973) called this
procedural knowledge a production system, which is described as a set of
rules and conditions which, "if satisfied, result in execution of the
action side of the rule" (In Chi & Glaser, 1978, p. 41).
Research on physics problem solving and expertise revealed major
differences between the expert and novice. One such difference was the 30 amount of time it took to find the solution. The speed with which a problem can be solved depends on the skill of the individual (Simon &
Simon, 1978; Larkin, 1981; Larkin, 1979). Larkin (1981) found that expert physicists solve problems four times faster and conmit fewer errors than novice. The main differences were found on the qualitative level. Experts do have more information on physics1 laws, while novices lack certain fundamental knowledge of physics' principles (Chi et al.,
1982). Hence, during qualitative analysis of the problem experts would understand a problem better than a novice because they "see" the underlying principles (Greeno & Riley, 1981).
Chamess (1979) found similar results in searching for differences between skill and unskilled bridge players. More skilled players solve problems faster and "remembered many more cards and seemed particularly sensitive to the distribution of cards into suits" (p. 6). Moreover, research has found that speed and accuracy are correlated with bridge skills. In addition, bridge skills seems to be directly related to the ability to reproduce a structured bridge hand after a five second exposure (Chamess, 1979, p. 8-10).
Prey & Adesman (1976) replicated and extended earlier research on chess expertise. The first experiment replicated clearly the findings of deGroot (1965) and Chase & Simon (1973), that recall of briefly exposed meaningful chess configurations varies directly with the chess skill of the subject. "The amount of chess specific information is the key factor for producing superior recall of chess positions by skilled players" (p. 542). The development of a chess position in terms of a sequence of familiar piece groupings leads to much better recall than a 31 similar sequential development in terms of unusual groupings (p. 546).
According to Prey & Adesman (1976) the more skilled players discover iroiie semantic relations among the pieces and among the chunks in addition to more chunks and bigger chunks identification.
Leinhardt's (1983) research was part of a series of studies into the nature of expertise in teaching. Ieinhardt (1983) argues that
"teachers classroom behaviors are influenced by knowledge of the curriculum and subject matter, by pedagogical theory, by the agenda that is operating not only for that day but also that week and that particular block of tire" (p. 165). The agenda is a dynamic plan, constantly being revised and updated by the teachers subject matter knowledge, by his or her knowledge about students, by knowledge about time, and indirectly by curriculum knowledge.
Novice teachers, who had considerable experience observing a group of students, and expert classroom teachers each estimated the degree of overlap between the curriculum a child was exposed to and the criterion test used to assess performance. Through thinking aloud and protocol analysis, novice and expert differences were revealed. Although novice and experts were about equal in their abilities to assess performance on the criterion test, the expert had much more understanding of hew and why they made their assessments. Experts focused on elements of the task that were teachable (like key words) — novice on more general knowledge (Leinhardt, 1983, p. 170). Novice have the data (hew kids will perform) but have little grasp of why or what to do about it.
Leinhardt & Smith (1985) examined the organization and content of subject matter knowledge of expert and novice arithmetic teachers. 32
According to the researchers, expertise evolved in the cognitive aspects of teaching can he seen as emerging from two core areas of knowledge; one consists of general teaching skills and strategies and the other consists of domain-specific information necessary for content presentation-
One of the most salient action segments in the teaching of arithmetic is the presentation of materials. Presentations are activity segments most closely identified with teaching. In presenting the subject matter, the teacher introduces new concepts, algorithms, reviews learned materials, and offers explanations. Especially in this context presentation teachers must draw heavily on their subject matter knowledge (Leinhardt & Smith, 1985, p. 249). In order to state a particular algorithm or to select a particular demonstration, subject matter knowledge must be achieved. A major finding is that teachers are often provided textbooks with incomplete descriptions of the concepts and relationships in a domain. In general, incomplete student knowledge base increases the likelihood that the student will generate incorrect inferences, develop misconceptions and produce inaccurate problem solutions (Resnick, 1980). "As teachers improve their conceptual knowledge and become more fluid in using them, then students mathematical competence may also improve" (Leinhardt & Smith, 1985, p.
269-270).
This line of research is important for physical educators because of the similarities between the physical education subject matter and the decision making process of chess and bridge, especially the acquisition of domain-related information (baseball) in relation to high 33 and lew domain knowledge (Chiesi, Splish & Voss, 1979; Splish,
Vensonding, Chiesi & Voss, 1979).
Chiesi et al. (1979) view "knowledge of a domain as understanding of its basic concepts (its relation and usage), as well as its goals, rules and/or principles" (p. 257). The particular knowledge domain selected by the researchers was baseball. After taking a knowledge test, two groups of high knowledge (HK) and lew knowledge (LK) subjects were identified. The main concern of the researchers was hew the subjects knowledge of the game influenced the acquisition of new baseball-related information. Taken as a whole, "the results indicate that knowledge in a given domain indeed facilitates the acquisition of new domain-related information" (p. 270). The researchers main conclusions were: a) that HK individuals are indeed more knowledgeable about how actions of the game are related to the games' goal structure; b) HK and LK differences were due to the superior ability of the HK individuals to relate successive game actions and changes in game state to the game goal structure; and c) the primary difference lies in the ability to relate the information presented in a sequence of baseball-related sentence. Thus, HK individual are better able to use the "context" in processing the input information (Frey & Adesman,
1976). The HK individuals have a better knowledge of the different action sequence, than are related to the game goal structure, a knowledge comparable to that of the chess experts' knowledge of patterns of chess positions (Chase & Simon, 1973). Chiesi et al. (1979) argue that a person can become HK individual only through exposure coupled with explanation of hew actions related to the goals. 34
Splish, Vensonder, Chiesi & Voss (1979) replicated the Chiesi et al. (1979) experiment with seme minor changes. The results of the knowledge test shows that the LK individuals had a reasonable knowledge of the game structure. Therefore, the researchers assumed that the explanations for HK and LK performance differences may be found in: a) the knowledge of how actions of the game are related to the goal structure; and b) the process of the sequences of game actions (p.
285). Splish et al. (1979) main findings were: a) HK subjects recalled more goal related information; b) they tend to integrate sequence of goal related actions more than LK individuals, and they recall information in the appropriate order more than LK individuals; c) LK individuals recalled more frequently information and actions not related to the goal structure, they had considerable troubles organizing information sequentially. In general, d) HK subjects gave more correct answers to questions about major game actions than LK subjects.
Summary
Teachers knowledge in the subject matter to be taught and teaching skills to transmit that knowledge to the learners have been found to be of major importance in the teaching learning process.
The demands for teachers to learn and master the content they are supposed to teach beyond the introductory level comes from NCATE standards (1982); educational philosophers, teacher educators, researchers, National Conmission for Excellence in Teacher Education, reformers and more.
The main research findings regarding subject matter knowledge are:
1. Teacher subject matter knowledge influences how they teach. 35
2. A characteristic of effective teachers is greater knowledge of the
subject matter; such knowledge can help them to deal better with
unexpected events, and to correct students errors and improve
understanding.
3. It appears necessary to possess domain-specific knowledge to solve
most problems.
4. Teacher knowledge of the nature of the subject matter, goals of
instruction and teaching skills are important aspects in teacher
decision making that best suit classroom situations at any given
time.
5. Expertise is defined as the possession of large body of knowledge
and procedural skills. A line of cognitive psychology research has
clearly identified the superior memory capacity of skilled
individuals, whether they are chess players, bridge players,
physicists, musicians, teachers, or baseball players.
6. Experts connit fewer errors, solve problems faster, have more
knowledge of domain-specific principles which help them to
understand problems better.
7. Expertise in teaching emerges from general teaching skills and
strategies and domain-specific information necessary for content
presentation.
8. High knowledge baseball players, similar to chess players, make
better use of context in processing information. They also tend to
integrate sequence of goal related actions and recall information
in appropriate order better than lew knowledge individuals. 36
Research Findings fran Physical Education
The major efforts of research on teaching in physical education were based on the general classroom research efforts. Siedentop (1983) argues that the early efforts in research on teaching in physical education produced similar data to classroom research findings.
Research on Skill Performance, Skill Teaching, and Skill Analysis
Manahan (1972) conducted a pilot study involving 16 volunteer seventh grade students and an archery learning task. The subjects were randomly placed into groups and randomly assigned a treatment. TWo methods of teaching were compared: a) direct instruction; and b) subject self-instruction. Both group© received similar general instructions about the target, the bow, and the distance and the same goal. In sum, the group who had received direct instruction (a motor plan) frcm the teacher reached the initial criterion more quickly and got higher scores in the final test; in addition, they were more successful in the transfer task. Manahan (1972) suggested that the
"teacher's knowledge of the skill being taught and his ability to analyze movement errors are the important ingredient for success of the teacher formulated motor plan" (p. 51). The researcher believed that without the understanding of the skill specific structure, the teacher cannot analyze the movement errors and provide students with appropriate correction. Moreover, in such a case the student may learn more by initiating and refining his cwn motor plan.
Girardin & Hanson (1967) investigated the relationship between the ability to perform tumbling skills and the ability to diagnose performance errors. Thirty-two physical education majors served as 37 subjects; they were given a knowledge test to find their knowledge of the mechanics of execution for the tumbling skills. Each subject was filmed and evaluated by experts. Subjects then diagnosed errors in the execution of these skills from a filmed presentation of demonstrator performance. A significant correlation (r=.49) was found between performance ability and diagnosing performance errors. Higher
"significant correlation (r=.51) was found between the subjects' scores for diagnosis ability and knew ledge" (p. 559). No significant relationship between the ability to perform and knowledge was established.
Stadulis (1972) proposed coincident-anticipation as a system of teaching and analyzing skills involving the interception of a moving object through space. Coincident-anticipation consists of three distinct phases including a pre-release phase, the object fly phase, and the response phase. The second component of Stadiulis' model is
"analysis of the task into component parts, and analysis by developmental sequence" (p. 70). Motor skills are complex and require more analysis; each skill contains specific elements to which the performer must attend. Only by understanding the various components of the coincident-anticipation task the teacher will be able to structure teaching techniques to improve learning. Such understanding will enable the teacher to detect the performers1 technical problems and correct them "instead of labeling the performance as poor and recommending practice of general nature" (p. 72). It seems necessary that teachers understand the subject matter to be taught and how it is learned before they can be expected to teach it (Schwartz, 1972, p. 52). Work by Hult 38
(1968) suggested that "student achievement in the skill co-varies directly with the teacher's level of skill and knowledge, the correlation is raising as the complexity of the subject matter increases" (In Nixon & Locke, 1973, p. 1214).
Research on Skill Analysis ana Clinical Diagnosis as Pedagogical Skill
Several studies have been completed in physical education in order to demonstrate the relationships between knowledge, teaching skills and clinical diagnosis as a pedagogical skill. The skill analysis line of research under Hoffman's leadership compared expert and novice physical educators. In order to make clinical diagnostic decisions, skilled teachers must know if the performance of the skill is correct. Hoffman
(1983) argued that, "in skills where outcomes are graded on a continuous scale, knowledge about standards of performance is especially important in evaluating form specific skills such as diving and gymnastics" (p.
37). Hoffman also emphasized that "knowledge about the subject matter being taught is important in order to make sense out of the data and fit the solution to the problem" (p. 38). Iitwold & Hoffman (1983) explained that skills in analyzing movement-like skills in other domains depend upon "elaborate repertoire of task specific knowledge requiring intensive practice experience over a period of time for its development"
(p. 154).
Biscan & Hoffman (1976) conducted research to investigate whether physical education teachers and preservice teachers possess special skill analysis proficiency, and if such proficiency can be transferred to novel skills. The results shows that both physical education teachers and preservice teachers were superior to classroom teachers in 39 analyzing familiar skills. However, no significant differences were found in the novel skill analysis between the three groups. From the
"subject matter knowledge" point of view it seems that physical education teachers and preservice teachers have superior analytic proficiency only when they are familiar with the subject matter.
Armstrong & Hoffman (1979) empirically researched the differences in error detection between 40 professional tennis teachers and 40 preservice teachers. The subjects were required to analyze 15 responses of the tennis forehand which was presented on a film. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of four different experimental treatment conditions: (a) performer competence information present and performance outcome information present; (b) performer information present and performance outcome information absent; (c) performer competence information absent and performance outcome information present; and (d) performer competence information absent and performance outcome information absent. The main reason for the four different experimental treatments was to find the differences between the two groups, when they were provided with preresponse information concerning the performer's skill ability, and knowledge of results produced by the response. No significant main effects were found between the groups exposed to different treatments. The researchers concluded that experienced tennis teachers are only marginally better error detectors and made less "false alarms" than inexperienced teachers. The researchers also concluded that the low differences between the high and lew scores are due to the test items which were relatively easy to identify. 40
Hoffman & Sembiante (1975) found that baseball and softball coaches scored significantly higher than physical education teachers and control group with no formal training in physical education theory and no intensive experience in softball or baseball. In both "the Biscan &
Hoffman and Hoffman & Sembiante studies no differences were found in recognition performance between the groups when the subjects viewed a novel movement sequence" (Hoffman, 1983, p. 43).
Inwold & Hoffman (1983) found that gymnastics coaches were significantly more accurate in their perceptual recognition and visual observation strategies used in visual analysis of gymnastics skills than physical education teachers and preservice teachers. The study emphasized the importance of intensive visual and possibly kinesthetic experience with the skill which is far from that provided by traditional programs of professional preparation, and probably beyond what physical education teachers acquire during years of teaching experiences in the schools. The findings are striking, particularly in the case of the physical education teachers sample which was found to correctly diagnose learner's handspring performance in no more than 47% of the cases they confronted (Hoffman, 1983). The fact that the physical education teachers with more than five years of experience and who teach gymnastics in physical education classes were no better than undergraduate students in diagnosing learners skill performance must be alarming for teacher training programs. Especially because "the findings are similar to former research (Biscan & Hoffman, 1976; Hoffman
& Sembiante, 1975) which suggest that analytical proficiency may decline rather than improve with teaching experience" (Inwold & Hoffman, 1983, 41 p. 153).
Most recently a line of research linking skill analysis as pedagogical skill began to develop at The Ohio State University.
Instructional videotapes were used in a variety of ways to help the preservice teaches to ir:prove their sport skill analysis ability.
Kniffin (1985) used instructional packages to improve undergraduate physical education majors analytic ability on four sport skills. The training materials were based on training videotaped plays in regular
speed and slow motion; storyboard were scene-by-scene shots of all four skills were displayed, and videotapes of highly-skilled college level
students which served as modeled performers. The preservice teachers used the materials following the Personal System of Instruction (PSI) developed by Keller (1968). Kniffin's research study shewed that the
instructional package was effective in helping preservice students to
"identify the critical elements of a sport skill as well as improve
ability to visually discriminate those elements as correct or incorrect"
(p. 125). The training package used produced significant differences
between baseline, intervention and generalization phases of the research.
Following Kniffin's study, Wilkinson (1986) examined the effects of volleyball skill analysis visual discrimination training on the
acquisition and maintenance of volleyball skill analytic ability of physical education students. The research used videotapes with stop
action, slow motion and regular speed for the training of subjects. The
class was divided into experimental and control groups while another
volleyball class served as a control group. The experimental group 42 received videotaped instruction, included examples and non-examples of each skill combined with verbal cues while the control half of the class received "pictures only" condition. The results demonstrated that all three groups improved in their skill analytic ability, yet, the two experimental groups have been significantly better improved than the control group. "There were no significant differences between the two experimental groups at the posttest" (p. 2). Based on the study the researcher recQnmended that sport skill analysis training must be arranged so that accurate discrimination can be made between students actual and desired responses.
Expert-Novice Differences and Teacher Quality Variables
Sherman (1983) summarized three papers dealing with the relationships between pedagogical expertise and interactive decision making. These studies are based on a conceptual model which looks at teaching as a process of decision making. Accordingly, this model assumes that "decisions require knowledge of the task, performance criteria, and pedagogical alternatives, plus skills to solicit, monitor and evaluate learner responses" (p. 31). Sherman (1983) claimed that the most important factor for interactive decision making is the ability to diagnose correct and incorrect responses and to find an alternative routine when the initial response calls for change. The researcher is relying on Chi, Glaser & Rees (1982) who defined expertise as "the possession of a large body of knowledge and procedural skills" (p. 8).
Sherman claimed that the key distinction between expert and novice is the appropriateness of the action for a given problem. The expert finds and corrects errors quickly while the novice is inconsistent and less 43
automatic. Furthermore, the teacher competence on the skill had an
effect on teacher behavior and feedback provision. Hie low amount of
feedback in the second study may have been a "default option"; that is,
the teachers remain silent observers because they didn't knew what
feedback to give. From the study, the researcher concluded that teacher
competence both in knowledge and skill on a criterion task should be
considered as important presage variables in Doyle's (1978) paradigm.
Yerg (1982) compared two Experimental Teaching Unit (ETU) studies which result in conflicting findings (Yerg, 1977; Yerg, 1982). In the
first study, Yerg (1977) investigated preservice teachers in a 20 minute
lesson on a cartwheel given to three learners. Yerg used the Teacher
Behavior Observation Scale (TBOS) which emphasizes "three generic
teacher behavior categories: task presentation, providing for practice,
and providing feedback." In the 1977 study, "the practice component
followed by teacher knowledge and performance component positively
influenced the outcomes, whereas task presentation and providing
feedback negatively affected the final performance" (p. 312). In the
second study, Yerg (1982) examined preservice teachers on 32 ETUs given
to four learners on beginning balance beam skills; Yerg used the TBOS
observation scale. In contrast to the present study, the results shew
that the task presentation and feedback provision had a positive effect
on students' learning. Moreover, "the practice component was negatively
related to pupil achievement on the task" (p. 314). When students
practice without knowledge of results, they did not improve even though
the skills were relatively simple.
Comparing the results of the two studies, the researcher found that 44
75% of the variance in final student performance was explained by student entry behavior. From Yerg (1977) it appears that the skill difficulty was far beyond the learners ability; "the were not at a level of learning on the task where they could benefit from the feedback given" (p. 314). By re-examining the two studies, Yerg (1983) concluded that in order to be effective and facilitate student learning, teachers must understand the student, the tasks, the learning process and appropriately provide practice time and feedback. Yerg (1983) suggested that the process product paradigm in physical education should include teachers1 competence in knowledge and skill on the criterion task as important presage variables.
In a study involving 32 university physical educators, Phillips &
Carlisle (1980) verified that knowledge of content was believed to contribute to effective teaching. "Knowledge of content was consistently ranked as the most important variable for effective teaching throughout four survey interactions between the researchers and faculty" (p. 22), and an additional survey included 60 physical education majors.
Influenced by the teacher effectiveness, research, and especially by the BTES, Phillips & Carlisle (1983) investigated the importance of teacher instructional time, management time, and student engaged skill learning time in physical education settings. The researchers used
Experimental Teaching Units (ETUs) for teaching volleyball skills by 18 experienced physical education teachers from junior high, middle, and elementary schools. Data on students behavior was collected from 144
5th to 8th grade students enrolled in the classes of the 18 teachers. 45
The Physical Education Teaching Assessment Instrument (PETAI) was designed for the data collection (Phillips & Carlisle, 1983). The scholars reported that "the teacher ability to analyze students needs, particularly the teachers knowledge of content, use of objectives and testing, flexibility and appropriateness of instruction appears to be significant contributors to the amount that students achieve" (Phillips
& Carlisle, 1983, p. 64). Moreover, these variables were found to be
"the best indicators of the amount of Engaged Skill Learning Time and
Student Learning Time" (Carlisle, 1981, p. 180). They also reported that engaged skill learning time was found to be the most important criterion in effective physical education teaching. Carlisle (1981) argued that "student achievement would be greater and students would experience increased Student Learning Time, Allocated Skill Learning
Time, and Engaged Skill Learning Time when their teachers have higher knowledge of content" (p. 167-168).
Summary
The importance of teachers knowledge in the subject matter to be taught and especially the combination of such knowledge with effective teaching skills were found to be of major importance in teaching physical education.
The main research findings regarding subject matter knowledge in physical education are:
1. Teachers knowledge of the skills being taught and their ability to
analyze movement errors are important ingredients for successful
motor plan.
2. Mixed results are found between performance ability and diagnosis of performance errors.
Significant correlation was found between the subject knowledge of content and their diagnostic ability of motor skills.
Leaders of skill analysis research agree on the importance of teacher knowledge of subject matter as an important variable in the clinical diagnosis process. Especially in skills where outcomes are graded on a continuous scale. Knowledge about standards of performance is important in evaluating form specific skills such as diving and gymnastics.
Physical education teachers and preservice teachers have superior analytic proficiency only when they are familiar with the subject matter.
Skill analysis training improved inservice and preservice teachers ability to visually analyze sport skills.
Experts were found to possess a large body of knowledge and procedural skills. Such knowledge helped them to detect errors faster and provide accurate feedback to the learners.
In order to be effective, teachers must understand the student, the task and the learning process. They have to provide high practice time with high success rate and accurate feedback.
Few researchers suggested that teacher competence in knowledge and skill on the criterion task should be considered as important presage variables in a modified process-product research in physical education.
Among other variables, teacher knowledge of content was found to be an important indicator of the amount of Engaged Skill Learning Time 47
(ESLT) provided to the learners. Such ESLT was found to be the most important criterion in effective physical education teaching. CHAPTER THREE
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Chapter Three is divided into seven sections which are presented in the following order: (a) subjects for the research; (b)knawledge test production; (c) visual analysis test production; (d) questionnaire; (e) methods of data collection; (f) testing procedures; and (g) data analysis procedures.
Subjects for the Research
The subjects for this study included elite college gymnasts with extensive competitive experience in gymnastics and preservice and inservice teachers at different stages of the teacher education process and with different experience levels in gymnastics. These details are summarized in Table 1.
The subjects' group characteristics were:
1. Gymnasts — Eighteen elite college level gymnasts from The
Ohio State University teams volunteered to participate in the
study (7 females and 11 males). In addition, one gymnast from
Cortland State University volunteered.
2. Inservice Teachers — Eleven physical education teachers from
the Columbus School System and suburban area schools
volunteered to take part in the study — five from the
elementary schools, five from middle schools, and one from
high school. 3. Physical Education Majors — Students enrolled in Physical
Education 541, the final teaching methods class before student
teaching, were selected to participate in the study (this
group was an intact class). All 21 subjects from this class
completed the questionnaire and the knew ledge test, but, only
16 of them completed the visual skill analysis part of the
test. The other five did not complete the tests for different
reasons. Three subjects cane late, and the other two did not
complete the test as required and left the room during the
process.
4-5. Prospective Physical Education Majors — Students enrolled in
the teacher preparation program class, Physical Education 213
(activity series), were selected. TWenty-four students from
this class served as subjects in a former skill analysis
research study (Wilkinson, 1986). Fourteen of the subjects
were part of Wilkinson's experimental group and ten came from
her class control group (which was taught by a different
teacher). In order to control the influence of the former
skill analysis training (should such training have any
transfer effect from volleyball to gymnastics), the researcher
divided the Physical Education 213 class into two different
groups with regard to Wilkinson's grouping. The fourteen
experimental students became group 4 (in this study) and the
ten control students became group number 5 (in the current
study).
6. Competitive Gymnastics Background — Six subjects from the 50
above groups with former competitive experience in gymnastics
or with a combination of conpetitive experience and teaching
experience were grouped separately. IVo subjects came from
group number 1, another two came from group number 2, and the
last two came from groups 3 and 4 (for more information, see
Appendix G).
TABLE 1
Subjects Group Characteristics
Sex Conpetitive Non-competitive No Group Number M F background background
1Gymnasts 1811 7 X 2 Inservice Teachers 11 3 8 X 3 Physcial education majors 16 5 11 X 4 Prospective Physical Education majors (A) 14 7 7 X 5 Prospective Physical Education majors (B) 10 6 4 X 6 Conpetitive Gymnastics Background 6 2 4 X
All Groups 75 34 41 2 4
Knowledge Test Production
In order to study the relationships between the physical education teacher's knowledge and his/her ability to observe and analyze skill performances, a reliable and valid knowledge test was needed. Although gymnastics in an integral part of most teacher preparation programs, it was hard to find any gymnastics knowledge test appropriate to the population under study. Therefore, the researcher developed an extensive knowledge test of gymnastics as a competitive sport. The 51 first phase in developing a gymnastics knowledge test was to identify the components and subcomponents of gymnastics as a competitive sport.
After reviewing the current gymnastics literature (Sands, 1984; Sands &
Conklin, 1984; Fukushima & Russell, 1980; Mirdock, 1979; Loken &
Willoughby, 1977), the researcher selected the four areas most conmonly cited by the experts in the field. The four areas on which the test was based on were: (a) terminology; (b) skill technique; (c) principles and safety procedures; and (d) rules and officiating. Questions which fall between these areas or formed from a combination of two areas or more are gathered under general content knowledge. Based on the above literature and the researcher's expertise in gymnastics, "Knowledge of
Giymnastics" was defined as the subject's knowledge of gymnastics in terms of terminology, general content knowledge, skill technique, principles and safety procedures, rules and officiating.
The second phase was to write the test questions keeping in mind differences and similarities between men's and women's gymnastic apparatus; differences regarding gymnastics rules and officiating for both sexes; differences in the use of terminology by physical education teachers, coaches, and gymnasts; and the wide range of subjects experience in gymnastics as a competitive sport.
The third phase was to balance the weight of importance given to each section of the test according to its importance to teachers, coaches, and performers involved in the sport. The knowledge test was balanced into three sections (final test sections): (a) terminology and general content knowledge section; (b) skill technique secrtion; and (c) spotting, safety, rules and officiating section (see Table 2). 52
TABLE 2
Points System and Weight Given to the Test Sections
Final Initial Test Number of Test Sections Sections Questions Points %
1 Terminology (A) 42 21 25.14% 2 General Knowledge (A) 8 8 9.58% 3 Skill Technique (B) 43 32.5 38.92% 4 Spotting and Safety (C) 15 15 17.97% 5 Rules and Officiating (C) 7 7 8.39%
Total 115 83.5 100.00%
In the fourth phase, the first version of the knowledge test was given to seven gymnastics experts. This exceptional elite panel of experts were experienced in teaching, coaching, and judging competitive gymnastics. All had been college level gymnasts. In addition, two of them hold a B.S. degree, and all the others hold a master's degree or above. All the experts served and three are serving on a variety of national gymnastics committees (see Appendix A). Each expert received a draft of the knowledge test with guidelines (see Appendix B) that requested experts to study the test carefully and offer corrections, changes, and further explanations in places they were needed. Moreover, the experts were asked to check carefully the components and subcomponents of the test, including the point system and provide the researcher with their professional expertise. Together with the test questions the experts had been provided with additional information about the test sections, question distributions according to gender (see
Table 3) and question distribution according to apparatus (see Table 4). The additional information was crucial because physical education in the United States is co-educational by law. This study was concerned with better understanding of the teaching process in public schools; therefore, an integration of women's and men's gymnastics was needed.
TABLE 3
Question Distribution According to Gender
Initial Test Both Sections Female & Male Male Female Total
1 Terminoloay 16 24 4 44 2 General Kncwledae 5 1 2 8 3 Skill Technicue 23 11 8 42 4 Scotrincr ana Safetv 14 1 15 5 Rules and Officiatina 5 1 1 7
Total 63 38 15 116
TABLE 4
Question Distribution According to Apparatus
Both Apparatus Female & Male Male Female Total
1 Floor Exercise 25 25 0 Horse Vaulting 12 2 2 16 3 Rings 3 3 Balance Beam 4 4 5 Farallel Bars 6 6 6 Uneven Bars 11 11 7 Pommel Horse 8 8 8 Horizontal Bars 5 5 9.Combination 48
Total 37 24 17 115 54
The next phase was to revise the test according to the experts'
requests for change. This process was completed by the researcher and
one of the experts (who is also a teacher educator). The second edition
of the knowledge test was approved by the experts with only small
changes.
Formative Evaluation
Following these five phases the researcher gave the test
independently to an elite gymnast (a trial subject from group 1) and to
a preservice teacher (a trial subject from group 3) in order to get an
estimate of the time needed to take such a test, and, furthermore, to
get feedback about the clarity of the test components.
Finally, a pilot test was administered to a group of students from
another Physical Education 213 class, a morning class with a population which was similar to the research groups number 4 and 5 (for final test
form, see Appendix C).
Reliability and Validity of the Test
Test Reliability.
The Kuder-Richardson formula (KR2 0 ) was used to estimate the
internal consistency of the knowledge test. This formula was chosen for
the study because of three main reasons: (a) the reliability
coefficient can be determined from one test administration; (b) it is
more accurate than the other formulas (offered by Kuder-Richardson); and
(c) "it provides a coefficient that is equal to the average of all
possible split-half coefficients" (Johanson & Nelson, 1986, p. 414-415).
The Kuder-Richardson (KR2 0 ) coefficient was found to be .7189 for 55 the 17 students included in the sample.
Throughout the analysis and discussion of data, the following scale, suggested by Johanson & Nelson (1986, p. 25) was used to describe the magnitude of relationships among variables for all correlations,
r = .00 (no relationship)
r = + .01 to + .20 (low relationships)
r = + .20 to + .50 (slight relationships)
r = + .50 to + .70 (substantial relationships)
r = + .71 to + .99 (high to very high relationships)
r = + 1.00 (perfect relationships)
Since the table is a rough guide, the researcher considered the knowledge test coefficient to be substantial to high. A similar coefficient of .71 was found by Carlisle's (1981) reliability testing of her volleyball knowledge test.
Test Validity.
Johanson & Nelson (1986) explains that content validity is the most important type of validity for knowledge tests. Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh
(1979) argue that content validity is obtained when experts in a field agree that the test items represent the content domain adequately. For this reason, content validity for this knowledge test was confirmed by the high level of agreement achieved by these elite experts (see
Appendix A).
Visual Skill Analysis Test Production
The visual skill analysis tape was needed in order to test the relationships between the subjects' knowledge of gymnastics and their 56 ability to detect the learners' major and minor errors to provide appropriate feedback, and to provide remedial learning activities for the learners problems (in attaining the skill).
The visual skill analysis test consisted of three phases (see
Appendix F). In phase one, the subjects observed a videotaped skill performance three times so as to detect the one most serious error in a particular skill. In addition, the subjects provided the specific feedback (if any) that they would provide to the learner. In phase two, another three consecutive replays of the same skill performance were presented. The subjects needed to identify additional major (MAJ) and minor (MI) errors in the learners' performance. Finally, in phase three, the subjects described their future teaching tactics and remedial learning activities which they would offer for the learners' skill problems.
The researcher's main concerns were the improvement of the teaching process in the schools system. Therefore, the skills used for the visual analysis were taken from the Junior Olympic group corrpilsories for boys (Class 5 to Class 2) and girls (Class 4 to Class 2) for the years 1981-1984 and 1984-1988. These skills can be performed by elementary, middle school and high school students. Physical education in the United States is co-educational by law, therefore, the skills for the visual analysis tests were sampled from all men and women gymnastics apparatus.
A list of all the gymnastics skills from the Olympic group compulsories cited above was given to seven elite gymnastics experts.
The experts were requested to circle the 10 most important skills on 57 each apparatus according to the following criteria (see Appendix D):
1. the skills should be ordered with regard to the teaching
progression (from simple to complex).
2. the skills should represent the different "families" (rolls,
kips, underswings, saltos, handsprings, etc. of the gymnastics
spectrum).
3. the skills should represent the different quality of movement
— for example, swing, strength, flexibility, etc.
The experts' list of gymnastics skills was tabulated by the researcher to develop a representative list of skills as agreed upon by most of the experts (see Table 5). The final list of skills based on the experts agreements includes 11 skills for Floor Exercise, 6 skills for Vault, 8 skills for Balance Beam, 7 skills for Uneven Bars, 8 skills for Rings, 7 skills for Pcmmel Horse, 7 skills for Parallel Bars, and 7 skills for
Horizontal Bar (see Table 5).
A stratified saitpling procedure was conducted for the selection of four skills for Floor Exercise, and two skills for all the other gymnastics apparatus (see Appendix C).
The main reasons for choosing four skills for the floor exercises and two skills for all other apparatus were: (a) floor exercise skills form the basic gymnastics skills which transfer later on to other apparatus; (b) there are more skills for floor exercises than for the other apparatus; (c) floor exercise skills are performed by women and men; and (d) floor skills are widely practiced in most school systems frcm grade one to twelve.
The number of skills was reduced to 18 because of the length of 58 time (over two hours) needed to complete the test, which was thought by the researcher to be inconvenient to the subjects. The final list of 18 skills sampled for the visual analysis test is listed belcw:
Floor Exercise 1. Handstand forward roll 2. Tucked front salto 3. Front handspring 4. Round-off, flip flop, to back salto tucked
Rings 5. Felge upward swing to support 6. From piked hang; cast to inlocate
Balance Beam 7. From "V" sit; straddle the legs and place the hands forward on the beam, wipe the legs backwards to a squat position on the beam landing with one leg in front 8. Cartwheel
Porrcnel Horse 9. Single leg uphill side-travel 10. Double leg circles
Horse Vaulting 11. Handspring (side horse) 12. Layout squat vault
Uneven Bars 13. Dismount; straddle sole circle-underswing 14. From sit on the low bar; short kip (to the high bar)
Parallel Bars 15. From front support; swing forward and backward to handstand 16. Front support; straddle press to shoulder stand
Horizontal Bar 17. From cast; free undershot with half turn to mixed grip, swing forward, swing backward changing undergrip hand to overgrip. 18. Cast to 3/4 overgrip giant 59
TABLE 5
Experts' Agreement on the Most Important Skills for the Visual Analysis Test
Floor Balance Uneven Ponmel Parallel Horizontal Exer. Vault Beam Bars Rings Horse Bars Bars (FX) (HV) (BB) (UB) (R) (PH) (PB) (HB) No. NO*N** NO N NO N NO NNO NNO NNO N NO N
1 5 7 1 6 2 4 6 5 1 4 2 4 10 4 8 4
2 12 7 8 6 6 4 10 5 2 4 7 4 15 4 11 4
3 19 6 4 5 5 3 1 4 3 4 9 4 21 4 4 3
4 17 5 7 5 8 3 17 4 6 4 15 4 23 4 7 3
5 11 5 10 4 10 3 7 3 8 4 5 3 6 3 9 3
6 1 5 5 4 11 3 4 3 10 3 8 3 11 3 10 3
7 2 5 25 3 9 3 12 3 11 3 14 3 12 3
8 21 5 27 3 14 3
9 30 5
10 35 5
11 28 5
* NO = Skill number ** N = Number of experts' agreements on the skill (n=7) 60
Preparation of Videotapes for Analysis
Permission to videotape elementary, middle school, and high school
students in Columbus' suburban area school systems was granted by boards of education, principals and physical education teachers. The skills were videotaped in two elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools located in three different school systems. In addition, several skills were videotaped in two private gymnastics clubs. The
skills were videotaped during scheduled physical education classes,
lunch time periods, and after school team gymnastics training.
A portable Panasonic VHS color videotape camera and tape deck were used to videotape in all settings. Students were using regular mats and apparatus which can be found in most of Columbus1 suburban area schools. Usually the teacher told the students the skill name and they performed each skill twice. The skills were videotaped by the researcher with minimal interference to the students performance.
After videotaping the list of 18 skills (as previously agreed to by the experts), the researcher reviewed the tapes and selected performances for the final visual analysis test tape based on the
following criteria:
1. The tape was clear with no blurring or bouncing.
2. The skills were performed in a way that the performer can be
seen (from the beginning to the end of the skill performance)
with major, minor or no errors (see definition of terms, p.
15.).
3. The skills were performed naturally without intentional
mistakes. 61
4. Hie skills were performed by all students from the three
school levels previously mentioned (elementary school, middle
school, and high school).
Preparing the Visual Analysis Tape
After the skills selection process (based on the criteria mentioned above), a final visual analysis tape was constructed by editing the selected skill performances into a one-half inch color videotape. The tape started with an introduction about the content and the main goal including instructions on how to use the observation formats for the three different phases. Then an example of the visual analysis process was given on one skill, over the three phases of the visual analysis test. Next, each of the 18 skills to be analyzed was recorded three times at a normal speed, to allow the subjects the opportunity to view three consecutive replays of the same student performing the same skill. Each instant replay was separated by 1.5 seconds of blank tape which appeared black to the observer. After the third time of the skill replay, visual and verbal instructions were given to the subjects to answer the questions on observation-format number one (Appendix F, major error identification and feedback provision). Itoo minutes later, another three consecutive replays of the same student performing the same skill was presented. Again, visual and verbal instructions were given to the subjects to answer the questions on observation-format number two (additional major and minor error identification). Two minutes later, verbal and visual instructions were given to the subjects to answer the questions on observation-format number three (future teaching tactics). Hie observation formats shown on the videotape and 62 the one used by the subjects were presented in three different colors to help the subjects to discriminate between the different phases of the visual analysis test.
The Three Test Phases
The different phases of the visual skill analysis test including all details are provided in Appendix F.
Level 1 Error Detection and Feedback Provision.
The subjects observed a videotaped skill performance (three times) in order to make an assessment:
A. The subjects decided if the skill was correctly performed or
not.
B. If above question was answered by NO the subjects described
what they detected to be the one most serious error in the
learner's performance.
C. The subjects described the specific feedback (if any) which
they would provide to the learner.
Level 2 Errors Identification.
After observing a second non of the learner's skill performance
(three times):
A. The subjects wrote a list of errors identified in the
learner's skill performance.
B. The subjects labeled each error as MAJOR, or MINOR for that
specific learner's performance (see definition of terms,
Chapter One). 63
Level 3 Future Teaching Tactics.
Level three data was collected on one skill on each apparatus.
After observing the second run of the performance for three times on the
videotape, the subjects described their next steps (choose one of the
following):
A. Did you observe silently (no feedback) while the learner
continued to practice the skill?
B. Did you provide feedback and ask the learner to try again?
C. Did you suggest a different or remedial activity for the
learner? (if so, what is that activity?)
Scoring System
A scoring system for the test's three phases was developed by the
researcher in order to quantify the subjects' visual diagnostic
observations.
Phase One — The subjects earned three points for detecting
correctly the major skill error. An additional two points were given to
the subjects for correct feedback provided with regard to the major
error.
Phase iWo — The subjects received three points for each additional
major error identified correctly (if any) and one point for each minor
error identified correctly.
Phase Three — In this phase, the subjects used open ended
descriptions of different remedial learning activities which were hard
to quantify. Therefore, the researcher scored the subjects' offerings
as correct or incorrect.
The videotaped skills were analyzed by four of the seven experts 64 involved in the skill analysis test validation (see Appendix A). Hie subjects' answers on the test observation formats were compared to the responses given by the experts.
A master list of the expert's observations in terms of errors, feedback, and suggested remedial learning activities was compiled into a master key. The subjects1 answers on the test observation formats were compared with the experts1 master key and points were assigned to them accordingly.
Reliability Test of the Subjects' Visual Analysis
Reliability checks were completed in order to test the accuracy of the researcher's test analysis and scores given to the subjects. The researcher's scoring system was based on a comparison of the subjects visual analysis answers with the expert visual analysis list of major errors, feedback provision, additional major and minor errors, and remedial learning activities.
Siedentop (1983) explained that a reliability check is usually done to ensure that the definitions of the performance categories are clear and that change in the subjects error identification is not due to observer interpretation. "Observers often tend to see what they want to see, either consciously or unconsciously biasing the observation by their feelings" (p. 264).
The reliability check was done independently by two of the seven experts who were involved in production of the knowledge and visual analysis tests. Both were elite gymnastics coaches and teacher educators. The observers independently checked the accuracy of the researcher's evaluation of 18 gymnastics skill responses per subject in 65 the visual analysis test. Each observer checked a different random stratified sample of six subjects (one from each group) out of the list of subjects. Siedentop (1983) explains that "the term reliability refers to the degree to which independent observers agree on what they see" (p. 265). A general formula used for estimating reliability is:
agreement______X 100 = percentage of agreement + nonagreement agreement
Validity of the Visual Skill Analysis Test
Similar to the knowledge test, content validity was found to be the most important type of validity with regard to the visual skill analysis test. Validity refers to the degree to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure. A representative list of 18 gymnastics skills on all men and women gymnastics apparatus was validated by seven elite gymnastics experts (see Appendix A). According to Kerlinger (1973)
"content validation is guided by the question: Is the substance or content of this measure representative of the content or the universe of content of the property being measured?" (p. 458).
Questionnaire
A questionnaire was administered prior to the knowledge test in order to collect information about the subjects' background and former experiences in gymnastics (see Appendix G). This personal gymnastics history profile included: (a) a list of sports in which they have had most experience; and (b) gymnastics background experiences received in elementary school, middle school, high school, college, or club level.
In this section subjects further defined their experiences as either school classes, competitive, and/or recreational; (c) the subjects 66 specified their highest competitive achievement in gymnastics (if any); and (d) the subjects wrote about their teaching, coaching and/or judging experiences in gymnastics.
Such information was needed because one of the important variables in this study was the potential influence of competitive gymnastics experiences vs. teaching experiences on the accuracy of the skill analysis process. The information obtained from this questionnaire helped the researcher to control for subjects' gymnastics history, and place them in different groups according to their gymnastics competitive background.
Methods of Data Collection
1. A questionnaire was answered by the subjects prior to the knowledge
test, in order to obtain important data about their gymnastics
background. Such information was needed because one of the most
important variables was to investigate the influence of competitive
gymnastics background on the subjects visual analysis ability.
2. The subjects took the gymnastics written test in order to find
their level of gymnastics knowledge in terms of: terminology,
general content knowledge, skill technique, principles and safety
procedures, rules and officiating (see Appendix C).
3. The subjects took the visual skill analysis test in order to
determine their visual analysis ability. The criteria for
analyzing the subjects skill analysis ability was based on their
error detection, feedback provision, and remedial learning
activities offered to remediate the learner's problems. 67
Data Collection and Testing Procedures
The data collection process was completed during the spring quarter
of the 1985-1986 academic year. Most of the subjects were busy in their
regular daily activities (teaching, studying, practicing, etc. )
therefore it was impossible to collect the data from all the subjects at
the same time and place. Furthermore, neither the Teacher Education Lab
nor Pomerene Hall Lab could accommodate more than 20 students at a time.
In most of the data collection sessions, more than one group of
subjects were present (see Table 6). The majority of the gymnasts group were the first to be tested. The other high competitive gymnastics
background subjects were tested together with the population to which
they usually belonged (physical education 541, or physical education
213, etc.).
The physical education majors (physical education 541 group) and
the prospective physical education majors (physical education 213 group) were tested in the same day in order to eliminate external influence or
the possibility of interaction between subjects which could bias the
test results.
Settings for Testing (See Table 6).
The Teacher Education I.ab — The subjects sat in two rows in a
classroom desk-chairs positioned in front of two 19 inch color TV
monitors. One monitor was positioned in front of each rcw. No more
than six subjects were sitting in front of one monitor. When more than
12 students attended, a third monitor was set up for use. 68
TABLE 6
Testing Testing Dates Dates Group No. of Questionnaire Test Visual Test Subjects No. Subjects & Knowledge Setting Analysis Settings
Gymnasts 1 2 5-16-86 Gymnasium 5-19-86 Teacher Education Lab (TEL)
Gymnasts 1 6 5-19-86 Gymnasium 5-19-86 TEL
Gymnasts 1 5 5-21-86 TEL 5-21-86 TEL
Inservice 2 2 5-21-86 TEL 5-21-86 TEL
PE-541 3 16 5-23-86 Room 306 5-30-86 Room 306 PE-Majors Pomerene Pomerene Hall Hall
Competitive 6 1 5-23-86 Room 306 5-30-86 Room 306 Background Pomerene .Pomerene (PE-541) Hall Hall
Inservice 2 4 5-28-86 TEL 5-30-86 TEL
Gymnasts 1 1 5-28-86 TEL 5-28-86 TEL
Competitive 6 1 5-21-86 Gymnasium 5-28-86 TEL & teaching (Gymnast)
Inservice 2 2 5-30-86 School 6-2-86 School Lab Lab*
Inservice 2 1 6-3-86 School 6-4-86 School Lab Lab*
Competitive 6 2 5-21-86 TEL 7-1-86 School Background Lab* (Inservice)
Prospective 4-5 24 6-5-86* Gymnasium 6-10-86* Teacher PE Majors Education (PE-213) Lab (TEL)**
* Equipment from Pomerene Lab 69
TABLE 6 (CONTINUED)
Testing Testing Dates Dates Group No. of Questionnaire Test Visual Test Subjects No. Subjects & Knowledge Settings Analysis Settings
Competitive 6 1 6-5-86 Gymnasium 6-10-86 TEL Background (PE-213)
Inservice 2 1 6-10-86 TEL 6-10-86 TEL
Gymnasts 1 3 6-5-86 Pomerene -10-86 Pomerene Lab Lab
Competitive 6 1 6-5-86 Pomerene 6-10-86 Pomerene & Teaching Lab Lab (Gymnast)
Inservice 2 1 6-30-86 Pomerene 6-30-86 Pomerene lab Lab
* A & B ** 10:00 A.M. (A & B) 1:00 P.M. (A & B)
The researcher sat behind the subjects and controlled the presentation of the test videotape on the TV monitor by remote control.
A Casio stop watch was used by the researcher to control the time given for each of the three test levels (see Appendix F).
All the explanations were built into the test master tape.
Moreover, example and observation format use was demonstrated without the researcher interference. At the end of the introduction part, the subjects were asked if further explanations were needed. In all sessions there were no requests for additional explanations. A package of three color observation formats numbered frcm 1 to 18 were placed on the table of each subject. A yellcw format was used for level one, a 70 white color for level two, and a blue color for level three. As soon as
the test started it continued without interruptions to the end (one hour
and forty-five minutes).
Pomerene Hall (Rocnt 306) — The subjects sat in two rows in a
regular classroom desk-chairs in front of a 40 inch color monitor
screen, which provided them with clear view for observation. The
researcher sat behind the subjects and controlled the test presentation
by remote control. The same test master tape and observation formats were used. In addition, the sane stop watch was used, and the time
conditions were given in all settings.
Pcmerene Hall Lab — The subjects sat near a classroom table facing
a 19-inch Panasonic color TV monitor. The researcher sat behind the
subjects and controlled the test presentation by remote control. All
the test formats, time and other equipment used was the same in all
settings (the researcher used, the Lab to test subjects from groups 1, 2
and 6).
School Lab — The School Library Lab was also used as a setting to
collect data. The room was similar to the Pomerene Lab. The Panasonic
tape deck and monitor were taken from Pomerene Lab to the school setting
and was operated by the researcher in the same way. As mentioned
before, the sane master tape and observation formats were used.
Moreover, the same amount of time was given to the subjects to answer
the questions in each level. The data was collected from the two
subjects in the same day at the same time in order to eliminate the
possibility of interaction between subjects teaching in the same school
setting. 71
Data Analysis Procedures
The data analysis procedures used in this section were considered with the four research questions. The differences among the groups
scores on the knowledge test and the VSA test were checked_ The relationships between the knowledge test and the subjects visual ability were tested; and the predictive power of the knowledge test over the
subjects VSA process was found.
Research Question Number 1
How does knowledge of various subjects with differing degrees of experience in performing and teaching gymnastics compare to the knowledge of gymnastics experts (knowledge test)?
A one-way analysis of variance procedure (AN0VA) was used to test whether the six groups differed in performance on the knowledge test.
When the Hq hypothesis (all means are equal) had been rejected, Tukey's post hoc test was used to detect how group means differed. Tukey's test was particularly useful in this context as it allowed for making
simultaneous tests of all possible pairwise comparison between cell while controlling for the overall alpha level.
Research Question Number 2
How does a differing degree of experience in performing and
teaching gymnastics affect the accuracy of visual skill analysis (group membership)?
The following procedures were used for answering this question:
A one way Analysis of Variance Procedure (ANCVA) was used to test whether the six groups differed in scoring on the visual skill analysis 72 test. When the Hq hypothesis (all means are equal) had been rejected,
Tukey's post hoc test was used to detect how group means differed.
Research Question 3A
How does the subject's knowledge of gymnastics, experience in gymnastics, and teaching experience relate to the accuracy of the subject's visual skill analysis process (that is the relationships between total knowledge score and total visual skill analysis score)?
The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed in order to find the linear relationship between the variables in the research question.
Gay (1976) states that the correlation research "involved collecting data to determine whether, and to what degree, a relationship exists between two or more quantifiable variables" (p. 142). A correlation coefficient states the degree of relationships between the variables.
The stronger the relationship, the closer to + 1.00 a correlation coefficient will be. The weaker the relationship, the closer the coefficient will be to .00.
Research Question 3B, C and D
How does the subjects knowledge of gymnastics, experience in gymnastics, and teaching experience relate to:
B. Assessments/error detection of videotaped gymnastics skills of
elementary, middle school, and high school students.
C. Feedback suggested on the basis of those assessments of skill
performance.
D. Remedial and/or future learning activities based on those
assessments of skill performance. 73
Similar to question 3A, the Pearson correlation coefficient was computed in order to find the linear relationships between the variables in the research questions.
Research Question Number 4
Does the knowledge test score predict the accuracy and the visual skill analysis?
A simple regression was completed using the total knowledge score as the independent variable, and the total visual skill analysis score as the dependent variable. This was done in order to test the predictive power of the knowledge test. The regression was computed in order to "exploit the relationship between two (or more) variables so that we can gain information about one of them through knowing the values of the other(s)" (DeVore, 1982, p. 422).
Summary
Chapter Three contains a description of the subjects for the research, a details of the knowledge test production, visual skill analysis test, and a personal history questionnaire. Included are descriptions of data collection and testing procedures, and a description of the data analysis procedures. The next chapter describes the findings of the study. CHAPTER POOR
ANALJTSIS AM) DISCUSSICN OF D M A
Chapter Four presents the findings of the study; the relationship between the subjects' knowledge of gymnastics and the accuracy of their skill analysis responses. This chapter is divided into two main sections. The first section includes the reliability test results of the visual skill analysis test. Section two presents the analysis of the data with regard to the four research questions. After presenting the data for each question separately, a discussion of the findings is offered.
Reliability Test Results for the Visual Skill Analysis Test Data Collection
In Chapter Three a summary of the procedures and methods for reliability tests of the visual skill analysis data collection was outlined. This section presents the outcomes of the interobserver agreement tests.
Reliability checks were completed in order to test the reliability of the researcher's test score analysis aiven to the subjects (on the visual skill analysis test). The independent observers verified the accuracy of the researcher scoring system, by comparing the subjects answers with the expert visual skill analysis list of major errors, feedback provision, additional major and minor errors and remedial learning activities.
74 75
The reliability check was done independently by two of the seven experts who were involved in the production of the knowledge and visual skill analysis tests (see Appendix A). Each observer checked a different random stratified sample of six subjects (one from each group). The test included responses to 18 gymnastics skills per subject on the test three levels.
Observer 1
The first observer reliability check is listed belcsv. Table 7 summarizes the following: (a) the responses identified by the subjects;
(b) the agreement and disagreement between the researcher and the observer on the accuracy of the scoring system; and (c) calculation of reliability.
This observer checked agreements on 498 subjects' responses and disagreed only on 15. The interobserver agreements were calculated for each subject separately. The overall agreement was 96.9% which is high with regard to the gymnastics evaluation system.
TABLE 7
Reliability Check by Observer Number 1
Number of Reliability Subject No. Responses Scored Agreement Disagreement %
1 98 96 2 98% 2 70 68 2 97% 3 84 82 2 97% 4 95 94 1 99% 5 71 65 6 91% 6 80 78 2 97%
Totals: 498 483 15 76
Observer 2
The second observer checked the agreement on 461 subject responses, and disagreed only on 7 of them. The total agreement was 98.4% (see
Table 8). The overall high agreement between the observers and the researcher demonstrated a high level of specificity of the definitions used by the researcher, and the accuracy of the data collection by using the scoring system. It simply means that the data collected by the researcher can be trusted.
TABLE 8
Reliability Check by Observer Number 2
Number of Reliability Subject No. Responses Scored Agreement Disagreement %
1 65 65 0 100% 2 96 92 4 96% 3 66 66 0 100% 4 84 84 0 100% 5 69 67 2 97% 6 81 80 1 99%
Totals: 461 454 7
Discussion of the Reliability Test Results
The observation formats of the visual skill analysis (VSA) test completed by the subjects were assessed by the two independent observers. Reliability checks were completed to verify the accuracy of the researcher's scoring of subject responses. The point system used by the researcher was: (a) three points for a major error (ME) detection;
(b) two points for accurate feedback (FB) provision; (c) three points for additional major error identification (MAJ); and (d) one point for 77 each minor error (MI) identification. One of the main reasons for the high agreement between the observers and the researcher can be explained by the high coaching and judging experience of both. There seems to be high agreement between experts on the critical elements of the 18 skills analyzed by the subjects. This high agreement is demonstrated in Tables
7 and 8.
Moreover, the scoring system for the VSA test was similar to the evaluation and deduction systems used in gymnastics judging. On the VSA test the subjects gained three points for identifying the ME, an additional three pints for other MAJ error detections, and one point was given for MI error identification. In a gymnastics competition, judges will deduct at least .3 for major error performances, and at least .1 for MI error performances. The point system was used to discriminate among levels of skill analysis ability.
Since the subjects used their cwn language to describe the learner's problems, it was agreed that correct responses would be accepted as correct even if the responses were in non-technical terms.
Reliability results are presented in Tables 7 and 8.
Analysis of the Data with Regard to the Research Questions
In this section the test findings are presented, and the statistical procedure used in order to find the relationship between the variables is explained. A short discussion follows the analysis of data for each research question.
Question Number 1
How does the knowledge of various subjects with differing degree of 78 experience in performing and teaching gymnastics compare to the knowledge of gymnastics experts (knowledge test score)?
Knowledge Test Findings (Group)
Total knowledge scores were tested for differences among the varying groups. A one way analysis of variance (ANCJVA) sunmary is presented in Table 9. A significant effect was found for the independent variable (TV, group) on the dependent variable (DV, total knowledge) (F = 56.01; p < .0001).
Eighty percent of the variance in the knowledge score was explained by group membership (R^ = .80). This suggests that there was a significant main effect for the group membership on total knowledge scores.
Tukey' s post Hoc test was used to determine the nature of the differences among the groups. Significant differences were found among several of the groups. Specifically, the gymnasts (G) and the former competitive gymnastics background group (FOGB) scored significantly higher than the remaining groups (see Table 10). No statistical differences were found between the inservice teachers (IT) and the physical education majors (PEM) (groups 2 and 3); or between the prospective physical education majors (PPEM) groups (4 and 5). However, there were statistical significant differences between the PEM and the
PPEM (groups 3 and 4). Finally, non significant differences were found between the PPEM (group 5)and the PEM (group 3). 79
TABLE 9
ANOVA Table for the DV Knowledge Test
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Scores F Value PR > F
Group 5 12226.32239268 2445.26447854 56.01 0.0001 Error 9 3012.15760732 43.65445808 Corrected Total 74 15238.48000000
TABLE 10
Mean Scores of the Six Groups' Knowledge Test, and Tukey's Post Hoc Test Results
Group N Mean Standard Deviation
FOGB (6) 6 65.583 a* 8.44 G (1) 18 60.194 a 6.09 IT (2) 11 43.364 b 6.92 PEM (3) 16 38.031 b 7.82 PPEM (B) (5) 10 32.200 b, c 4.53 PPEM (A) (4) 14 30.000 c 5.83
* Means with the same letter are not significantly different at the .05 level of probability (Tukey's Test).
The means are also visually presented in Figure 2. The bar graphs clearly presents the differences between the G and the FGGB groups and the others. 80
70
Xx
60
50
40
30
20
(Xa X < X \ a '
10
X Gymnasts (G) Inservice Teachers (IT) Physical Education Majors (PEM) Prospective Physical Education Majors Group 4 (PPEM - A) Prospective Physical Education Majors Group 5 (PPEM - B) Former Competitive Gymnastics Background Group 6 (FCGB) Figure 2. Group means knowledge scores comparison. 81 Discussion of the Knowledge Test Results Based on the knowledge test results, a clear picture emerged about the strong relationships between the subjects competitive background and their knowledge of the sport. Figure 2 presents the group means score on the knowledge test. This visual presentation demonstrates that groups 1 and 6 are different from the others. These two groups contained subjects with strong gymnastics competitive backgrounds. IWo subjects from the FOGB group have five years of teaching experience in the school system. Another two have recently finished their student teaching experiences. One of the last two is presently a physical education major (PE-541 class) while the other is a prospective physical education major (PE-213 class). The highest scores on the knowledge test were achieved by 4 subjects from group 6 with prior competitive gymnastics background and teacher training experiences. These subjects scored between 5-10% above their group mean score which was already higher than all the other groups. Two subjects from group 6 with a lower ccnpetitive background, and who are presently in the teacher preparation program, scored between 5-18% belcw their group mean score. Although these two subjects were the lcwest from group 6, they scored significantly higher than the teacher preparation population to which they belong (15-38% higher). The knowledge test results revealed that the competitive gymnastics background of the subjects significantly influenced their knowledge test scores. Eighty percent of the variance in the knowledge score was attributable to group membership (R^ = .80). Moreover, the knowledge test results clearly demonstrate the advantages of physical education 82 teachers with competitive gymnastics background over the other subjects. The non-statistical differences between the IT and the PEM can be explained by the fact that teaching experience cannot overcame deficiencies in subject matter knowledge. Teachers with five years of experience or more did not score significantly higher than physical education majors without experience. From the IT questionnaires, it appears that most of them took only one or no classes in gymnastics during their teacher education programs. It is clear that subjects without a gymnastics background cannot overcame their deficiencies by taking one gymnastics class over a three year program. Furthermore, even though significant differences were found between the PEM and PPEM (groups 3 and 4), the low magnitude of the differences suggests that the teacher education gymnastics classes curriculum should be re-evaluated. Finally, the different groups knowledge mean scores (from high to low) clearly demonstrate strong relationships between a gymnastics competitive background and the knowledge test score. Subsequently, subjects with a combination of both a competitive background and teacher training experiences (subjects frcm group 6) gain the highest scores on the test. Research Question 2 How does differing degree of experience in performing and teaching gymnastics affect accuracy of visual analysis? A one way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedure was used to test the hypothesis that the mean of the six groups visual skill analysis (VSA) scores were equal. Findings are presented in Table 11. A 83 significant main effect was found for the IV group on the DV, VSA score (F = 58.73; p < .0001). OABLE 11 ANOVA Table for the DV Visual Skill Analysis Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Scores F Value PR > F Group 5 78826.30039322 15765.26007864 58.73 0.0001 Error 69 18522.81960678 268.44666094 Corrected Total 74 97349.12000000 The Tukey1 s post Hoc test was used to test the nature of the differences among the groups. Similar to the knowledge test results, the gymnasts and the FOGB groups were found to be significantly higher than the other groups (see Table 12). No statistically significant differences were found between the G and the FCGB groups. All the other groups scored lcwer on the VSA test; with no statistical differences among them (see Table 12). 84 TABLE 12 Mean Scores of the Six Groups' Visual Skill Analysis, and Tukey's Post Hoc Test Results Group N Mean Standard Deviation FOGB (6) 6 130.333 a* 26.24 G (1) 18 120.278 a 17.06 PEM (3) 16 60.563 b 15.95 IT (2) 11 59.909 b 18.26 PPEM (B) (5) 10 48.700 b 9.67 PPEM (A) (4) 14 47.071 b 12.81 * Means with the same letter are not significantly different at the .05 level of probability (Tukey's Test). The means are also visually presented in Figure 3. The means for the FOGB and the G groups were considerably larger than those found for all the other groups. In addition, the differences between the FOGB and the G groups and the remaining groups were much larger for the VSA test compared to the knowledge test. Discussion of the VSA Test Findings Similar to the knowledge test, a strong relationship was found between the subjects competitive background (group) and their scores on the VSA test. The test findings clearly demonstrate that the former competitive gymnastic background group (FOGB) and the gymnasts (G) scored significantly higher than the other four groups. The magnitude of the differences between these two groups and the other four on the VSA test were higher for the VSA test than they were for the knowledge test (see Tables 10 and 12). Figure 3 visually presents the mean differences among the groups. 85 1401 120 100 XX X X v (5) (6 ) (1) (2) (3) (4) IT PEM PPEM PPEM FCGB (A) (B) Gymnasts (G) Inservice Teachers (IT) Physical Education Majors (PEM) Prospective Physical Education Majors Group 4 (PPEM - A Prospective Physical Education Majors Group 5 (PPEM B) Former Competitive Gymnastics Background Group 6 (FCGB) Figure 3. Group means VSA test comparison. 86 The FOGB group scored higher than the gymnast group, yet no statistically significant differences were found between them. The VSA of the gymnasts and the FOGB groups was 100% better than the VSA of the other four groups. Subjects from these two groups (1 and 6) detected more accurately major and minor errors in the learner's skill performances, and provided correct feedback to remediate the learners' problems Surprisingly, no statistical differences were found among the other four groups. The inservice teachers with five years of experiences or more, and physical education majors with teaching skills and field experiences in the school settings, did not score better than prospective physical education majors without such experiences and training. The IT and the PEM groups scored only 24% of the possible scores compared to the gymnastics expert (total possible scores scored by panel of experts). Similarly, the PPEM (A) and (B) groups scored only 19% of the possible scores. No statistical significant differences were found among these four groups (see Table 12). On the other hand, the gymnasts scored 48% of the possible scores. The highest score of 52% was gained fcy the FCGB group. The results emphasized the difficulty of the skill analysis process in a form specific sport, were the skills duration is a second or two with no permanent product for future evaluation. It seems reasonable to assume that in real physical education situations, the results are going to be lcwer than those achieved in a lab controlled setting. Research Question 3A Row is the subjects knowledge of gymnastics, experience in 87 gymnastics, and teaching experience related to: A. The accuracy of the subjects visual skill analysis process. (That is the relationship between total knowledge score and total visual analysis score.) Pearson's correlation coefficient was computed to test for a linear relationship between the subjects' knowledge and accuracy of the visual skill analysis process. As shewn in Table 13 a high significant correlation (r = .89) was found between total knowledge score and visual skill analysis accuracy. These data clearly demonstrate that the subjects visual skill analysis process is highly related to their knowledge of gymnastics skills. Discussion of Question 3A Findings The findings of the current study verified former teaching and coaching wisdom concerned with such relationships. Vickers (1983) argued that the expert knowledge should be the first and most important step in an instructional design model in physical education. Yerg (1983) suggested that the process product paradigm in physical education should include teachers' competence in knowledge and skill on the criterion task as important presage variable. Inwold & Hoffman (1983) found that gymnastics experts were more accurate in their visual analysis of gymnastics skills than physical education teachers and physical education majors. The researcher emphasized the importance of the intensive visual and kinesthetic experience with the skill which is far from that provided by traditional teacher preparation programs. Inwold & Hoffman found that physical education teachers identified correctly the learners handspring performance in no more than 47% of the 88 cases they confronted. This study found that physical education teachers and physical education majors scored only 24% of the possible points on the VSA test. A high relationship (r = .89) was found between the subjects knowledge of gymnastics and the accuracy of their VSA process. In the Inwold & Hoffman (1983) study, the subjects VSA process was tested on one gymnastics skill (front handspring), while in this study the accuracy of the subjects' VSA was tested on 18 gymnastics skills. The low scores of the subjects (in this study) on the VSA test can be explained by the greater knowledge and experience needed by the subjects to deal with 18 gymnastics skills on all men and women gymnastics apparatus. It seems that the level of expertise needed for skill analysis increases with the complexity of the skills to be analyzed. Research Question 3 B, C and D How is the subjects knowledge of gymnastics, experience in gymnastics, and teaching experience related to: B. Assessments/error detection of videotaped gymnastics skills of elementary, middle school, and high school students. C. Feedback suggested on the basis of those assessments of skill performance. D. Remedial and/or future learning activities based on those assessments of skill performance. As presented in Table 13, significantly high correlations were found between subjects' knowledge of gymnastics and their: major error (ME) identification (r = .83); additional major (MJ) and minor (MI) error identification (r - .81 and r = .58, respectively); suggested 89 feedback (FB, r = .86); and correctness of future teaching tactics and/or remedial learning activities (CR, r = .77). These data clearly demonstrate that each aspect of the visual skill analysis score is highly related to the knowledge score. The knowledge test was divided into three sections in order to check the influence of each part on the accuracy of the VSA process. Part A was combined of terminology and general knowledge (FKNCW) „ The second part included skill technique (SKNCW) and the third part contained information regarding spotting, safety, rales and officiating (THKNOW). Table 13 demonstrates the relationships between each part of the knowledge test to every part of the VSA test (and to each other). The three parts of the knowledge test were found to be highly related to major error detection (ME), and additional major error identification, yet only moderate relationships were found with minor error identification. The statistical analysis describes numerically an on-going process identified during the VSA test. Subjects from groups 6 and 1 with high knowledge and experience in gymnastics concentrated on the major error detection and on additional major error identification. At the same time, low knowledge subjects from the other four groups could not identify the major errors and instead concentrated on minor errors (error of form and execution). The PPEM (A) and (B) could not identify the major error (ME) in 83% of the skills. The PEM could not identify the ME in 77% of the skills, and the IT in 72% of the gymnastics skills observed on the VSA test. It seems that the lew gymnastics knowledge of these subjects enables them to detect mainly additional major and minor errors. In the majority of the skills on the TABLE 13 The Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Linear Relationships Between the Subject's Kncwledge and the Visual Skill Analysis Test FKNOW SKNOW THKNCW MEFBMJ MICR TVIS TKNOW FKNOW 1.00000 0.73293 0.71733 0.76774 0.82603 0.80543 0.60578 0.68116 0.86065 0.91271 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 SKNOW 0.73293 1.00000 0.72164 0.75754 0.75941 0.68883 0.46979 0.70007 0.77626 0.92199 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 THKNOW 0.71733 0.72164 1.00000 0.72082 0.75493 0.72375 0.52284 0.719765 0.78383 0.86913 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 ME 0.76774 0.75754 0.2082 1.00000 0.90789 0.77630 0.47519 0.78285 0.92910 0.83061 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 FB 0.82603 0.75941 0.75493 0.90789 1.00000 0.77630 0.47519 0.78285 0.92910 0.83061 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 MJ 0.80543 0.68883 0.72375 0.77630 0.81193 1.00000 0.56542 0.68341 0.92845 0.81679 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 MI 0.60578 0.46979 0.52284 0.47519 0.55680 0.56542 1.00000 0.53533 0.65994 0.58763 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 CR 0.68116 0.70007 0.71976 0.78285 0.84314 0.68341 0.53533 1.00000 0.81326 0.77047 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 TVIS 0.86065 0.77626 0o78383 0.92910 0.94692 0.92845 0.65994 0.81326 1.00000 0.89302 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 TKNOW 0.91271 0.92199 0.86913 0.83061 0.86404 0.81679 0.58763 0.77047 0.89302 1.00000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 91 VSA test they could not detect the one most serious error. In sum, the three parts of the knowledge test together (TKNCW) were found to be highly related to ME detection (r = .83), to additional MAJ error identification (r = .81), and moderately related to MI error identification (r = .58). High linear relationships were found between the subjects knowledge of gymnastics and the correctness of their feedback. Subjects from groups 6 and 1 provided correct feedback (FB) in (mean) 12 out of the 18 skills. On the other hand subjects from the other four groups provided correct feedback only for 3 or 4 (mean) skills out of the 18 learners' skill performances on the VSA test. Subjects with high gymnastics knowledge from groups 6 and 1 provided detailed specific corrective feedback on most of the 18 skills of the VSA test. In contrast subjects with low gymnastics knowledge provided general feedback on most of the learners' skill performance. These low knowledge subjects concentrate on observable minor mistakes and left the learning process to the learners trial and error experiences. In many cases subjects from groups 2-5 gave general feedback for example: practice, keep the legs together, keep knees straight, swing harder, don't be so jerky, looks good, practice and do not give up, etc. However, subjects from groups 6 and 1 feedback found to be more specific and prescriptive. They provided clear, step by step directions to the learner with specific details what to do in order to improve their skill performance. For example: — punch upward on balls of feet — reach higher to allow for rotation time 92 — tuck tighter. A second example: — run faster — punch the springboard harder — straighten body while reaching to the horse. The high linear relationships between the subject's knew ledge and their suggested feedback (r = .86) confirmed former research findings. Fishman & Tobey (1974) found that feedback requires a level of specificity that an instructor might not be capable of giving. They also found that teachers gave more demonstrations with feedback when they were skilled in the content to be taught. The findings demonstrate that the correctness and amount of feedback provided is highly related to the teachers knowledge of the content. In Yerg (1983) teachers provided a lot of practice with little feedback. "The practice component was negatively related to student achievement on the criterion task" (p. 314). The lack of feedback results in low learning level of simple skills. Yerg concluded that the teachers remained silent observers since they did not know what feedback to provide. Strong relationships were found between the subject's knowledge of gymnastics and the correctness of their teaching tactics and/or remedial learning activities offered to improve the learners' skill performance. The mean score of the FOGB group and the G was 6 correct responses out of 8, whereas the IT and the PPEM (B) groups mean scores were 3 correct responses out of 8. The lowest score of 2 out of 8 correct responses was gained by the PEM and the PPEM (B) groups. The important 93 contribution of the subjects' knowledge of gymnastics to their feedback provision and remedial learning activities offered in this study was evident (see Table 13). The high relationships between the subjects knowledge and these two variables emphasizes the importance of a qualitative remedial loop. Such a remedial loop is a combination of practice, feedback and or remedial learning activities, and practice. Fishman & Tobey (1974) argued that there are critical relationships between feedback and the acquisition of motor skills. Van Houten (1982) emphasized the importance of a qualitative feedback in the skill acquisition phase. These research findings showed that teachers without sufficient knowledge in the subject matter being taught are not able to provide such a qualitative remedial loop to their learners. Researchers (Placek, 1983; Yerg, 1982; Anderson & Barrette, 1978) found that teachers spend a substantial percentage of their teaching time as silent observers. The low amount of correct feedback and remedial learning activities provided by the inservice teachers with the lew knowledge of gymnastics and the physical education majors (in this study) supports the conclusions that the reasons for physical education teacher being silent observers is due to a lack of subject matter knowledge. Research Question 4 Does the knowledge test score predict the accuracy of the visual skill analyses. To test the predictive pcwer of the total knowledge (TKNOW) on the accuracy of the visual skill analysis process, a simple regression was computed using TKNOW score as the IV and total visual analysis (TVIS) 94 score as the DV. TKNOW accounted for 79% of the variance, in total visual score and a significant effect (F = 287.46; p < .0001) for TKNOW on TVIS was found. The regression line, with an R2 = .79, shews there exists strong linear relationships between the two variables (see Figure 4). From the regression results we can learn that the knowledge test developed for this study has a high predictive pcwer of visual skill analysis accuracy. In addition the Pearson correlation coefficient revealed high relationships between each part of the kncwledge test to every sub component of the skill analysis process (see Table 13). Moreover, the test as a complete unit has a high relationship to the accuracy of the VSA test (r = .89). The test sub-components are a representative sample of the gymnastics sport. The test content validity was obtained by the high level of agreement of elite experts (see Appendix A). The test sub-components can be used by teacher preparation programs as a curriculum guide to their gymnastics classes. The test can reliably measure the physical education majors knowledge in gymnastics. The test results can highly predict their VSA ability. Summary Discussion of Research Questions 2, 3, and 4 The visual skill analysis test provided results similar to the kncwledge test. A strong relationships exists between the subjects' competitive background (group) and their score on the visual analysis test. Group membership affected the total VSA score (see Table 10). The test findings demonstrate that groups 6 and 1 were found to be significantly different frcm the others (higher). The findings are 95 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Total Kncwledge Test Figure 4. A regression line for the relationships between total knowledge score (TKNOW) and total visual analysis score (TVIS). 96 supported by Wilkinson (1986) skill analysis training study. Wilkinson found abrupt and substantial inprovement in the verbal identification and visual skill ability of the high-skilled subjects, while the low performers1 skill analysis process remained poor on the post test. The results from the Tukey's post Hoc test revealed no statistical differences between the IT (group 2) with five years of experience or more, the PEM (group 3), and the PPEM (groups 4 and 5) with no teaching experience. The data clearly demonstrate that teaching experience cannot overcame deficiencies in subject matter kncwledge. Visual discrimination between efficient and inefficient skill performance cannot be done without the knowledge of the skill and its sub-components (critical elements). The Tukey's test results also indicated no statistical significant differences between PPEM (A) group 4 and PPEM (B) group 5. The PPEM (A) with former skill analysis training in volleyball was found to be no different than PPEM (B) without such training. These findings indicate that there is no transfer between skill analysis training in volleyball and skill analysis process in gymnastics. The results of this study confirm findings from previous studies which showed that the subjects skill analysis performance is a function of experience and familiarity with the subject matter (Inwold & Hoffman, 1983; Hoffman & Simbiante, 1975; Biscan & Hoffman, 1976). Locke (1972) observed that skill analyzers owe their analytic ability to the practice of sport skills, previous performance of sport skills, and the study of the specific components of the skill (critical elements). The emerging picture from the data suggests that skill analysis 97 proficiency depends on a repertoire of task specific kncwledge and practice under appropriate conditions with kncwledge of results. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient revealed strong linear relationships between the subjects kncwledge of gymnastics and the correctness of their visual skill analysis process (see Table 13). The findings shewed that each aspect of the visual skill analysis score is highly related to the kncwledge score. The direct measures of teacher kncwledge in this study confirm finding from former research (Manahan, 1972; Gerardin & Hanson, 1972; Carlisle, 1981; Yerg, 1983). The subject's kncwledge of the domain- specific sport found to be strongly related (r = .89) to the accuracy of his VSA process. The results frcm the regression between the subjects kncwledge and their VSA process clearly demonstrate (R^ = .79) the predictive power of the kncwledge test. The total kncwledge score accounted for 79% of the variance in the total skill analysis score. There is a big difference between keeping students busy in physical activities and qualitative process of teaching motor skills. The study started with the assumptions that teacher quality can be defined as a combination of two main characteristics; (1) teacher kncwledge of the subject matter to be taught; and (2) teaching skills to transmit that kncwledge and facilitate student learning. The study indicated that this kncwledge base in physical activity (gymnastics) is developed by intensive engagement with the sport skills and the sport competitive context. Yet, the best results were demonstrated by subjects who have both extensive engagement with the sport, and teacher preparation experience (see Table 12). CBAP3ER FIVE SCHKftKY, OONCUJSIGNS M D KBOC*MH®MTCNS Summary Teacher effectiveness has been investigated extensively by the research ccsimunity in the last 20 years. Brophy S Good (1985) explained that teacher effectiveness research has inproved from an inconsistent body of knowledge to a small but well established kncwledge base. Variables such as management, transitions between activities, rule setting, accountability, and classroom climate have been central in teacher effectiveness research; however, the content itself, i.e., the subject matter as an important independent variable has been ignored. Moreover, teacher knowledge of the subject matter as a central variable in the process of teaching has been neglected. Shulman (1985) argues that the research caimunity was not of great help in answering the question of how much teaches should know about the subject matter, or what kind of knowledge teachers should possess. One of the domains in need for investigation is the relationship between the teacher's knowledge of the subject matter and the effectiveness of the instructional process. Teachers with a limited background in certain areas may teach the content incorrectly or fail to correct their student's mistakes. There has been little systematic research on this topic in physical education. Very little is known about the relationships between a 98 99 teacher's knowledge of content and their skill analysis performance. This is one of the most important functions of the teaching process. Locke (.1972) has argued that such analytic ability has been developed through the practice of sport skills, previous performance of sport skills and the study of the critical elements that constitute sport skills. The teacher's ability to analyze the skill to be acquired by the learner is a key variable in the instructional process. Hoffman (1977) explained that in order to make accurate decisions, the teacher must know what constitutes correct or incorrect skill performance. The accuracy of the diagnosis will influence the process of fitting the correct instructional strategy to the learners' skill acquisition problems. The purpose of this research was to study the relationships between the subjects' content specific kncwledge and the visual skill analysis process. More specifically, what was investigated were the relationships between the subjects' knowledge of gymnastics and their accuracy in detecting the learners' skill deficiencies, providing appropriate feedback, and offering remedial learning activities. The study attempted to answer the following research questions: 1. How does the knowledge of various subjects with a differing degree of experience in performing and teaching gymnastics compare to the knowledge of gymnastics experts (kncwledge test)? 2. How does a differing degree of experience in performing and teaching gymnastics affect the accuracy of visual analysis? 3. How does the subjects' kncwledge of gymnastics, experience in 100 gymnastics, and teaching experience relate to: A. The accuracy of the subjects' visual skill analysis process (that is the relationship between total knowledge score and total visual skill analysis score). B. Assessments/error detection of videotaped gymnastics skills of elementary, middle school, and high school students. C. Feedback suggested n the basis of those assessments of skill performance. D. Remedial and/or future learning activities based on those assessments of skill performance. 4. Does the knowledge test scores predict the accuracy of the visual skill analysis? This studys1 six phases included choosing the population, producing the knowledge and visual skill analysis tests, producing questionnaire, tests administration and data collection, reliability testing, and analyzing the data. Seventy-five subjects volunteered to participate in this study. The subjects included 18 elite college gymnasts, 11 inservice teachers, 16 physical education majors, 24 prospective physical education majors, and 6 subjects with a competitive gymnastics background from the former 5 groups (see Table 11). All subjects were given a gymnastics knowledge test and a visual skill analysis test in lab controlled settings. In addition, a questionnaire was answered by the subjects prior to the knowledge test. This questionnaire helped the researcher to obtain the subjects1 101 gymnastics history, and to place them in different groups according to their competitive (or non-conpetitive) gymnastics backgrounds. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and analyze the data. Relationships among the variables were examined by using the Pearson correlation coefficient. One Way Analysis of Variance and the Tukey's post hoc tests were used to find the differences among the six groups' scores on the two tests. A linear regression model was used for future predictions of the relationships between the kncwledge of gymnastics and the visual skill analytical ability based on all 75 observations. Conclusions The conclusion of the study are presented to coincide with the four research questions. Questions 1. How does the knowledge of various subjects with a differing degree of experience in performing and teaching gymnastics compare to the knowledge of gymnastics experts (kncwledge test)? 1.1 Total knowledge scores were tested for the differences among the varying groups. A significant effect was found for the independent variable (IV) group on the dependent variable total knowledge score (F = 56.01; p < .0001). 1.2 Eighty percent of the variance was explained by the IV group Cr 2 - ,80). This suggests a strong effect of the group membership on total knowledge scores. 1.3 The gymnasts and the former competitive gymnastics background 102 groups were found to be significantly higher than the remaining groups. 1.4 No statistical differences were found between the inservice teachers with five years of teaching experience or more and the physical education majors. 1.5 Very small differences were found between the inservice teachers and the prospective physical education majors. In summary, a significant effect was found for the group on the total kncwledge score. The former competitive gymnastics background group and the gymnasts were found to be significantly higher than the other four groups. 2. How does a differing degree of experience in performing and teaching gymnastics affect the accuracy of visual analysis? 2.1 Total visual skill analysis scores were tested for the differences among the varying group®. A significant effect was found for the (IV) group on the (DV) visual skill analysis score (F = 58.73; p < .0001). 2.2 Eighty percent of the variance in the visual skill analysis was explained by the (IV) group (R2 = .80). This suggests a very high effect of the group membership on the total visual skill analysis score. 2.3 The mean scores for the former competitive gymnastics background group and the gymnasts were 100% larger than the other groups mean scores. 2.4 The highest mean score was achieved by the subjects with a competitive gymnastics background and teaching skills. 103 2.5 No statistical significant differences were found between the inservice teachers, physical education majors and prospective physical education majors. In summary, a strong relationship exists between the subjects competitive background (group) and their score on the visual skill analysis test. Group membership affected the total VSA score. The former gymnastics competitive background group and the gymnasts were found to be significantly higher than the other four groups. No statistically significant differences between the other four groups clearly demonstrate that teaching experience cannot overcome deficiencies in subject matter knowledge. Visual discrimination between efficient and inefficient skill performance cannot be done without the knowledge of the skill and its subcomponents (critical elements). No statistical significant differences were found between prospective physical education majors (group A) with former intensive skill analysis training in volleyball and the other three groups [PPEM (B), PEM, and IT]. The findings from this study clearly indicate that there is no transfer between skill analysis training in volleyball and skill analysis process in gymnastics. The results of the study confirm findings from previous studies which showed that the subjects skill analysis performance is a function of experience and familiarity with the subject natter. To reiterate, the most accurate visual skill analysis process was achieved by the former competitive gymnastics background group with teacher preparation training. 104 3A. How does the subjects' knowledge of gymnastics/ experience in gymnastics, and teaching experience relate to the accuracy of the subjects' visual skill analysis process (that is the relationship between total knowledge score and total visual skill analysis score). 3.1 A very high significant correlation (r = .89) was found between the subjects knowledge score and the accuracy of their visual skill analysis process. These data clearly demonstrate that the subjects visual skill analysis process is highly related to their kncwledge of gymnastics skills. In summary, the data supports former research findings. This emphasizes the importance of an intensive visual and kinesthetic experience with the skill which is far from that provided by traditional teacher preparation programs. It seems that the level of expertise needed for visual skill analysis increases with the complexity of the subject matter. 3. B, C, and D How does the subjects' knowledge of gymnastics, experience in gymnastics, and teaching experience relate to B. Assessments/error detection of videotaped gymnastics skills of elementary, middle school, and high school students. C. Feedback suggested n the basis of those assessments of skill D. Remedial and/or future learning activities based on those assessments of skill performance. A significantly high correlation was found between the 105 Subjects' knowledge of gymnastics and their: major error (ME) detection (r = .83); additional major (MJ) and (moderate for) minor (MI) error identification (r = .81 and r - .51, respectively); suggested feedback (FB, r = .86); and correctness of future teaching tactics and/or remedial learning activities (CR, r = .77). In summary, these data demonstrate that each aspect of the visual skill analysis score (except minor error detection) is highly related to the knowledge test score. Subjects from the former competitive gymnastics background and the gymnasts concentrate on the major error detection and additional major and minor error identification. At the same time, low knowledge subjects from the other four groups could not identify the major errors; therefore, they concentrate on minor errors detection which can be generally identified (errors of form and execution). Subjects with a high gymnastics knowledge from group 6 and 1 provided detailed specific feedback on most of the 18 skills of the VSA test. In contrast, subjects with low gymnastics kncwledge (groups 2-5) provided general feedback on most of the learners' skill performances, especially on the less kncwn skills. The high linear relationships between the subjects kncwledge and their suggested feedback (r = .86) confirm former research findings. The correctness and the amount of feedback provided bry the teachers was highly related to their knowledge of content. A strong linear relationship was found between the subjects knowledge of gymnastics and the correctness of their remedial 106 learning activities (r = .11). These research findings shewed that teachers without sufficient knowledge in the subject matter are not able to provide a qualitative remedial loop to their learners. 4. Does the knowledge test scores predict the accuracy of the visual skill analysis? Findings from the regression between the total kncwledge score on the accuracy of the visual skill analysis process shewed clearly that the kncwledge test developed for this study has a high predictive power on visual skill analysis accuracy. The total knowledge score accounted for 79% of the variance in total visual skill analysis. A significant effect (F = 287.46; p < .0001) for total knowledge scores over total visual scores was found. Reccnmendations Based upon the results of this study, the following recommendations are suggested: 1. Systematic replication of this study with high numbers of inservice and preservice teachers, with and without competitive background in gymnastics. 2. Systematic replication of this study utilizing different sports. 3. A longitudal study on the skill analysis process of the physical education majors and prospective physical education majors from this study in real classroom settings. 4. Future experimental studies to investigate the effects of kncwledge package and skill analysis training on the skill analytic ability of physical education majors. 107 5. To investigate the skill analysis ability of a single subject in sports in which he or she has the most and least kncwledge and experience. Beyond the recaimendation for future research, the study calls for a re-evaluation of the teacher preparation curriculum in physical education. A number of reform documents in the past several years call for change in teacher education. Recent recommendations for quality teacher preparation rest on the importance of the content to be taught and pedagogical skills for effective teaching. Most of the reformers are calling for extensive course work in the subject matter relevant to classroom teaching, and strong emphasis on teacher's area of specialization. The data from this study showed clearly that teachers must not be subject to general teacher training programs but rather to program with specific content areas which, when combined, complete the entire physical education curriculum. Given the findings from this study, and previous research on the sport skill analytic ability of inservice and preservice teachers, it seems that a programatic decision should be made with regard to the teacher preparation curriculum. A major emphasis should be on the content and active interaction of the physical education majors with the sport skill enterprise. Moreover, the skill analysis process should be taught as an integral part of the program. Skill classes and the skill analysis process should be integrated with lab controlled settings and experiences in the 108 real world. The programs should emphasize the three important planning principles of continuity, sequence and integration. The low skill analytic ability of the teachers in this study and former research findings should be brought to the attention of teacher educators. The ability to observe, diagnose and provide the learner with qualitative feedback and remedial learning activities is the essence of the teaching process in physical education. Yet, such a qualitative process cannot be done without sufficient knowledge base of the subject matter to be taught. Since such a knowledge base is best developed through active experience with the subject matter, those who are responsible for teacher preparation in physical education should find the time and resources needed to equip their graduates with such a knowledge base. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, W.G., & Barrette, G.T. (Eds.). (1978). What's going on in gym? Descriptive studies of physical education classes. A special Monograph of Motor Skills; Theory Into Practice. Newton, Conn. Armstrong, C.W., & Hoffman, S.J. (1979). Effects of teaching experience, knowledge of performer competence, and knowledge of performance outcomes on performance error identification. Research Quarterly, 50, 318-327. Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (1979). Introduction to Research in Education. Now York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Barrett, K.R. (1983). A hypothetical model of observing as a teaching skill. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, £(1), 22-31. Berliner, D.C. (1985). Reform in teacher education: The Case for Pedagogy. Association of Colleges and Schools of Education in State Universities and Land Colleges. Berliner, D.C. (1979). Tempus Educare. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds.). Research on Teaching. (pp. 120-135). Berkeley: McCutchan. Biscan, D.V., & Hoffman, S.J. (1976). Movement analysis as a generic ability of physical education teachers and students. The Research Quarterly, £7(2), 161-163. Borko, H., Cone, R., Russao, N.A., & Shavelson, R.J. (1979). Teacher's decision making. In P.L. Peterson &H.J. Walberg (Eds.). Research on Teaching, (pp. 136-160). Berkeley: McCutchan. Brophy, J.E., & Gocd, T.L. (1985). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching. (3rd edition, pp. 328-375). New York, NY: Macmillan. Carlisle, C.A. (1981). An analysis of the relationships between selected teacher process variables, selected skill learning time variables, and student achievement in physical education classes, grade five through eight. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4783-A. (University Microfilms No. DA 8209806). 109 110 Chamess, N. (1979). Components of skill in bridge. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 33, 1-50. Chase, W.G., & Simon, H.A. (1973) Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, A, 55-81. Cheffers, J.T.F. (1973). The validation of an instrument designed to expand the Flanders system of interaction analysis to describe nonverbal interaction, different varieties of teacher behavior and pupil responses. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Temple University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 17, 282. (University Microfilms No. DGJ 73-23327). Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sterenberg (Eds.). Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawtence Erlbaum. Chiesi, H., Spilich, G.J., & Voss, J.F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257-273. Conant, J. (1963). The Education of American Teachers. No t York: McGraw Hill. Corrigan, D. (1983). Quality in teacher education. Man, Society Technology, 2, 6-10. Cremin, L. (1977). The 19th annual Charles W. Hunt lecture: The Education of the Educating Profession. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. DeGroot, A. (1965). Thought and Choice in Chess. The Hague: Mouton. Doyle, W. (1979). Classroom tasks and students' abilities. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds.). Research on Teaching: Concepts, Findings, and Implications, (pp. 183-20). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Druva, C.A., & Anderson, R.D. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher behavior and student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 20, 467-479. Dunkin, M.J., & Biddle, B.J. (1974). The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Eaton, J., Anderson, C., Smith, E. (In Press). Students' misconceptions interfere with science learning: Case studies of fifth grade students. Elementary School Journal, in press. Egbert, R. (1985). The practice of preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, January-Fehruary, 16-22. Ill Evertson, C.M., Anderson, L.M., & Brophy, J.E. (1978). Texas junior high school study: Final report of process-outccme relationships. (Report No. 4061). The University of Texas at Austin. Fishman, S., & Tobey, C. (1978). Augmented feedback. In W.G. Anderson & G.T. barrette (Eds.). What's going on in gym and descriptive studies of physical education classes. A Special Monograph of Motor Skills; Theory into Practice. Newton: Conn. Frey, P.W., & Adesman, P. (1976). Recall memory for visually presented chess materials. Memory and Cognition, 4^, 541-547. Flanders, N.A. (1970). Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fukushima, S., 6c Russell, W. (1980). Men's Gymnastics. London: Faber 6c Faber. Gage, N.L. (1978). The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. Teachers College, Columbia University: New York. Gage, N.L. (1979). The generality of dimensions of teaching. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds.). Research on Teaching (pp. 264-288). Berkeley: McCutchan. Gage, N.L. (1984). What do we know about teaching effectiveness? Phi Delta Kappan, 10, pp. 87-93. Gay, L.R. (1976). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Columbus, OH: Charles Merril. George, G.S. (Eds.). (1985). Gymnastics Safety Manual. Indianapolis, IN: USGF. Getzels, J.W., & Jackson, P.W. (1963). The teacher's personality and characteristics. In N.L. Gage (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Teaching, (pp. 574-591). Chicago: Rand McNally. Girardin, Y., & Hanson, D. (1967). Relationship between ability to perform tumbling skills and ability to diagnose performance errors. The Research Quarterly, 38(4), 556-561. Graham, G. (1983). Review and inplication of physical education experimental teaching unit research. In T.J. Templin 6t J.K. Olson (Eds.). Teaching in Physical Education. (pp. 244-253). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Green, T.F. (1971). The Activities of Teaching. U.S.P. McGraw-Hill. Greeno, J.G., & Riley, M.S. (1981). Process and development of understanding. In F.E. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.). Learning by Thinking. Stuttgart, West Germany: Kohlhanmer. 112 Hoffman, S., & Sembiante, J. (1975). Experience and imagery in movement analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of Federation Europeene de Psychologie des Sports et des Activities Corporelles, Edinbourgh, Scotland. Hoffman, S.J. (1977). OVrord a pedagogical kinesology. Quest, 28, 38-48. Hoffman, S.J. (1983). Clinical diagnosis as a pedagogical skill. In T.J. Templin & J.K. Olson (Eds.). Teaching in Physical Education, (pp. 35-45). Champaign: Human Kinetics. Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group, Inc. Howsam, R., Corrigna, D . , Denmark, G., & Nash, R. (1976). Educating a Profession. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Hult, J.S. (1968). Relationships among selected levels of attainment of physical education teachers and students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California. Inwold, C.H. & Hoffman, S.J. (1983). Visual recognition of a gymnastics skill by experienced and inexperienced instructors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 54(2), 149-155. Johanson, B.L., & Nelson, J.K. (1986). Practical Measurements for Evaluation in Physical Education. Ohms Lane Edina, MN: Burgess. Joyce, B., & Clift, R. (1984). The phoenix agenda: Essential reform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 4_, 5-18. Kerlinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of Behavioral Research. No t York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kniffen, M. (1985). The effects of individualized videotape instruction on physical education majors1 ability to analyze select sport skills. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University. Kounin, J. (1977). Discipline and Classroom Management. No t York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Larkin, J.H. (1979). Processing information for effective problem solving. Engineering Education, 7£(3), 285-288. Larkin, J.H. (1981). Enriching formal knowledge: A model for learning to solve textbook physics problems. In J.R. Anderson (Ed.). Cognitive Skills and their Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 113 Las ter, F.K. (1973). Teaching skills in mathematics instruction. In R.L. Turner (Ed. ). A General Catalog of Teaching Skills. New York: School of Education, Syracuse University. Leinhardt, G. (1983). Novice and expert knowledge of individual student's achievement. Educational Psychologist, 18(3), 165-169. Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D.A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject natter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247-271. Locke, L.F. (1972). Implications for physical education. Research Quarterly, 43, 374-386. Loken, N.C., & Willoughby, R.J. (1977). The Complete Book of Gymnastics. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Manahan, J.E. (1972). Formulation of the motor plan. Quest, 17, 46-51. McDonald, F. J., & Elias, P.E. (1976). The effects of teaching performance on pupil learning. BTES Phase II Final Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. McLeish, J. (1981). Effective teaching in physical education. Report presented to the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia. Medley, D.M. (1979). The effectiveness of teachers. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds.). Research on Teaching. (pp. 11-27). Berkeley: McCutchan. Medley, D.M., & Mitzel, H.E. (1958). A technique for measuring classroom behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 86-92. Murdock, T. (1979). Gymnastics for Girls. Boston: Plays, Inc. National Ccittnission for Excellence in Teacher Education. (1985). A call for Change in Teacher Education. C. Peter McGrath, Chair. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Colleges for TEacher Education. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1982). Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: NCATE. Newell, A. (1973). Production systems: Models of control structure. In W.G. Chase (Ed.). Visual Information Processing. No t York: Academic Press. Nixon, J.E., & Locke, L.F. (1973). Research in teaching education. In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.). Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. 114 Oliver, B. (1983). Direct instruction: An instructional model frcm a process-product study. In T.J. Templin &J.K. Olson (Eds.). Teaching in Physical Education (pp. 298-309). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers. Phillips, DA., & Carlisle, C.S. (1980). Teacher effectiveness as perceived by University professors in health, physical education, and recreation. Manuscript submitted for publication. Phillips, D.A., & Carlisle, C.S. (1983). A comparison of physical education teachers categorized as most and least effective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2(3), 55-67. Phillips, D.A., & Carlisle, C.S. (1983). The physical education teacher assessment instrument. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2(2). Pieron, M. (1981). Research on teacher change: Effectiveness of teaching a psychomotor task study in a microteaching study. Paper presented at The A.A.H.P.E.R.D. National Convention, Boston. Resnik, L. (1980). The role of invent on in the development of mathematical competence. in R.H. Kluwe & H. Spada (Eds.). Developmental Models of Thinking. (pp. 213-244). Na* York: Academic Press. Rink, J.E. (1985). Teaching Physical Education for Learning. St. Louis, MO. Rosenshine, B. (1974). Teaching behaviors and student achievement. In M.J. Dunkin & B.J. Biddle. The Study of Teaching. Natf York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rosenshine, B.V. (1979). Content, time and direct instruction. In P.L. Paterson and H. Walberg (Eds.). Research on Teaching. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Samuels, D.D., & Griffore, R.J. (1980). Students perceptions of the characteristics of "good teachers." Journal of Instructional Psychology, 1_, 28-34. Sands, B. (1984). Coaching Women's Gymnastics. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Sands, B., & Conklin, M. (1984). Everybody's Gymnastics Book. New York: Scribner's. Schwartz, S. (1972). A learning-based system to categorize teacher behavior. Quest, 17, 52-55. 115 Sherman, M.A. (1983). Pedagogical cognition in physical education: Differences between expert and novice teachers. In T.J. Templin & J.K. Olson (Eds.); Teaching in Physical Education. (pp. 19-34). Champaign: Human Kinetics. Shulman, L.S. (1974). The psychology of school subjects: A premature obituary. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(4), 319-339. Shulman, L.S. (1985). Paradigms and research programs for the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching. (3rd ed., pp. 3-36). New York, NY: Macmillan. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 2, 4-14. Siedentop, D. (1983). Research on teaching in physical education. In T.J. Templin & J.K. Olson (Eds.). Teaching in Physical Education, (pp. 3-15). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D. (1983). Developing Teaching Skills in Physical Education. Palto Alto: Mayfield. Siedentop, D. (1984). The great teacher education legend. Paper presented at the 2nd National Conference on preparing the Physical Education Specialist for Children. Orlando, FL. Siedentop, D., Birctoell, D., & Metzler, M. (1979). A process approach to measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Paper presented at the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance National Convention. New Orleans. Siedentop, D., Mand, C., & Taggart, A. (1986). Physical Education: Teaching and Curriculum Strategies for Grades 5-12. Palto Alto, CA: Mayfield. Siedentop, D., Tousignant, M. and Parker, M. (1982). Academic Learning Time-Physical Education-1982 Revision Manual. Columbus: School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. The Ohio State University. Siegel, M.A. (1977). Teacher behaviors and curriculum packages: Implications for research and teacher education. In L.R. Rubin (Ed.). The Handbook of Curriculum. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Simon, D.P., & Simon, H.A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In R. Siegler (Ed.). Children's Thinking: What Develops? Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Smith, B.O., Cohen, S., & Perel, A. (1969). Teachers for the Real World. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. 116 Smith, B.O., Silverman, S., Borg, J . , & Fry, B. (1980). A Design for a School of Pedagogy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Spilich, G.J., Vensonder, G.T., Chiesi, H.L., & Voss, J.F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275-290. Stadulis, R.E. (1972). Motor skill analysis: Coincidence anticipation. Quest, 17, 70-73. Stallings, J. (1975). Implementations and child effects of teaching practices in follow through classroom. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40/7-8), 50-93. Taggart, A. (1985). Fitness-direct instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4/2), 143-150. Tousignant, M.G. (1982). Analysis of the task structure in secondary physical education classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH. Tikunoff, W.J., Berliner, D.C., & Rist, R.C. (1975). Special study A: An ethnographic study of the forty classrooms of the beginning teacher evaluation study known sample. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, CA. United States Gymnastics Federation. (1981-1984). Junior Olympic Age Group Ccmpulsories for Boys. Indianapolis, IN: USGF. Weinstein, R.S. (1983). Student perception of schooling. Hie Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 290-312. Wilkinson, S. (1986). Effects of a visual discrimination training program on the acquisition and maintenance of physical education students' volleyball skill analytic ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University. Yerg, B.J. (1977). Relationships between teacher behaviors and pupil achievement in the psychcmotor domain. Doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh. Yerg, B.J. (1982). Relationship of specific instructional teacher behaviors to pupil gain on a motor skill task. Presentation to Association Internationale des Ecoles Superieres d1 Education Physique World Convention, Boston. Yerg, B.J. (1983). Re-examining the process product paradigm for research on teaching effectiveness in physical education. In T.J. Temp.len, & J.K. Olson (Eds.). Teaching in Physical Education, (pp. 310-317). Chanpaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers. v xicttsaaw Experts Gymnastics Background Teacher Competitive Coaching Experience Judging Preparation State National Expert Gymnastics College Youth Experience Experience Gymnastics Gymnastics No. Background Education Years Years Years Committees Conmittees 1 3 Ph.D. 20 6 20 24 X 2 4 Ph.D., course 26 4 Certified Judge 6 X Vice Pres., work completed USGF Olympic Committee Member 3 4 B.S. 9 XX 4 4 Ph.D., course 7 7 X work completed 5 4 B.S. 3 10 10 X 6 4 Ph.D., course 20 20 9 XX work completed 7 4 Ph.D., course 20 20 4 X X work completed APPENDIX B 119 120 D e a r ______: Please read carefully the gymnastics knowledge test and write your carments according to the following directions: 1. Use a pencil on the test sheets. 2. On the left side of each question, write whether the question is easy or hard (for non-professionals). 3. If you find any errors in granmar or terminology, feel free to correct them on the original page or on the back of that page. 4. If you have any additional questions that you consider to be important, please write it on the back of the last page. 5. If you find unclear or ambiguous questions, please write your conments and, if you can, suggest an alternative question. 6. At the end of the knowledge test you can find a table which surrmarizes the weight given for each section. Please write your comments about the point system. Sincerely yours, Israel Harari AFPEMDIX C 121 122 GYMNASTICS KNOWLEDGE TEST (8points) 1. TERMINOLOGY: Write the name of the skill under the picture (use the correct terminology). a. b. \' !i ! 'HI ^ 1 . 60 0 v L 4 - - c. d. f. 123 CONTINUE - Write the name of the skill under the picture (use the correct terminology) k. 1. 124 CONTINUE - Write the name of the skill under the picture (use the correct terminology) m. n. T <3 i|k yf - \\ V ft /'> // o. 125 POMMEL HORSE 2. Identify parts - write in names of pommel horse parts (2 points) a . ______ b. ______ c. ______ d. 3. Match the following stunts to their main apparatus by putting the corresponding letters. (8 points) EX = Floor exercise PB = Parallel Bars PH = Poirmel Horse HB = Horizontal Bar R = Rings BB = Balance Beam V = Vault UB = Uneven Bars (several can be done on more than one apparatus) 1. Muscle up 9. 1/2 on 1/2 off 2. Double leg circle 10. Fran stand: cast to upper arm support 3. Dive roll 11. Free hip circle 4. Moor 12. Aerial 5. Assamble 13. Front hip circle 6. Handspring 14. Back handspring 7. Dislocation 15. Straddle sole circle underswing dismount 8. Front scissors 16. From upper arm support: cast to back uprise 126 PARALLEL BARS 4. Place correct letter in front of description (3 point) 1. Cross stand frontways at end of bar 2. Cross stand right sideways 3. Cross stand between the bars / a 4 a 4. Side stand rearways B -0 5. Cross stand left sideways 6. Side stand frontways (the tail of the "T" represents the face of the learner. GENERAL KNOWLEDGE 5. TRUE or FALSE: Tor F (8 points) a. ____ Trampoline is one of the Olympic gymnastics apparatus. b. All six individual scores count tcward team score. c. Floor ex, vault, parallel bars, and beam are the Olympic women's events. d. Balance beam is exclusively for wcmen at competitive meets. e. The Remans are usually credited with the origin of the concept of gymnastics. A mixed grip hang would have both palms away from the performer. Long horse vault, floor ax, parallel bars, rings, horizontal bar, and pommel horse are men's apparatus. Floor ex and vault are used by men and women as competitive events. 127 SKILL TECHNIQUE List the stunts in the order you would teach them, simple to complex. Use letter proceeding stunt to list. 6. FLOOR EXERCISE (FX) 1. (1st) A. Front handspring 2. (2nd) B. From stand: backward Sc 3. (3rd) C. Handstand 4. (4th) D.Forward roll 5. (5th) E. Headstand 6. (6th) F. Round-off 7. VAULT (HV) (3 points) 1. (1st) A. Handspring 2. (2nd) B. Squat flight vault 3. (3rd) C. Jump-on, tuck jump-off 4. (4th) D. Tsukahara tucked 5. (5th) E. Stoop 6. (6th) F. Curve tucked UNEVEN BARS (UB) (3 points) 1. (1st) A. Glide kip 2. (2nd) B. Back pullover 3. (3rd) C. Stalder backward on high bar 4. (4th) D. Cast - back hip circle 5. (5th) E. Forward hip circle 6. (6th) F. Dismount: straddle sale circle underswing 128 9. PARALTET, BARS (PB) (3 points) 1. (1st) _____ A. Glide kip 2. (2nd) _____ B. Rear vault dismount 3- (3rd) _____ C. Front support: swing forward and backward 4. (4th) _____ D. Front stand: cast to support 5. (5th) _____ E. Back uprise and straddle cut to support 6. (6th) _____ F. Straddle sit: straddle press to shoulder stand CRITICAL ELEMENT - is one specific movement in a series of movements combined in a particular time - space sequence to forma sport skill. Identify the critical elements of the following gymnastics skills. 10. Back extension roll (FX) (4 points) a. ______ b. ______ c. ______ d. ______ e . ______ 11. SQUAT VAULT (V) (4 points) a. ______ b. ______ c. ______ d. e. 129 12. BACK HIP - CIRCLE (UB) (4 points) a. ______ b . ______ c. ______ d. ______;______ e. ______ 13. FROM UPPER ARM SUPPORT: CAST TO BACK UPRISE (PB) (4 points) a . ______ b. ______ c. ______ d . ______ e. ______ 14. A ccrnnon error in performing the handspring vault is (circle the correct letter, a-e): (1 point) a. Touching with the head on the mat b. Take-off with both feet from springboard c. Touching with both hands siiru ltaneous ly d. All of above e. None of above 15. Which of the following statements is not true when executing the stutz layaway to front support on the parallel bars? (1 point) a. Releasing both hands at the same time b. The turn is done in the second phase of the swing c. The stutz layaway is an advanced skill d. The stutz layaway is a B part e. The stutz layaway can be performed through momentary handstand 130 16. What body parts contact the bar in the execution of the hip circle forward? (1 point) a. Thighs, hands, and hips b. Hips and hands c. Hands d. None of above e. Hips, hands and knees 17. Circle the one that does not belong: (1 point) a. Cartwheel b. Arabesque c. Assemble d. Seat circle e. Squat on 18. The most critical error ccrrmitted when executing the headstand is which of the following? (1 point) a. Arched back b. Moving up with one leg at a time c. Poor base d. Bent legs e. Fall on back 19. When first learning the back walkover on the beam, which factor is jpast important? (1 point) a. Slow controlled move backward b. Leg bent c. Flow of bodyparts d. Splitting the legs as wide as possible e. Bending of the arms in the first phase. SPOTTING AND SAFETY PROCEDURES 20. Circle the important safety concerns that need to be addressed to people involved in gymnastics. (1 point) a. Equipment properly spaced b. Consideration for traffic flew in the gym c. Appropriate lighting during activity periods d. Setting rules and standards for equipment use e. All of above 21. Choose the most important safety procedure from the list written below: (1 point) a. Insurance b. Using new equipment c. Warm-up d. Prevention should be the key e. Start the lesson on time 22. Which one of the following is least related to the process of choosing the appropriate gymnastics apparatus? (1 point) a. Quality b. Durability c. Adjustibility d. Flexibility e. Gonvertability 132 23. Which of the following statements is not true regarding mat selection? (1 point) a. Any mats are adequate for beginners b. The nature of the skill to be performed c. The apparatus on which the skill are to be performed d. The level of gymnastics activities e. The existing skill development of the participant 24. Which of the following equipment items is least important to the gymnast's personal success? (i point) a. Insurance b. Chalk (magnezium carbonate) c. Spotter d. Clothing that allcws freedom of movement e. Handgrips 25. The starting body position for the cartwheel should be the same as for the: (1 point) a. Forward roll b. Salto sideways c. Back handspring d. Handstand — from lunge e. Dive roll 26. What is the right sequence of the 5 parts of the vault (1 point) a. Flight,- push, technique, flow, landing b. Run, push, second flight, flow, land c. Run, take-off, pre-flight, second flight, landing d. Take-off, push, pre-flight, second flight, landing e. Run, pre-flight, puse flew, landing 133 SPOTTING 27. Circle the skill and knowledge which an effective spotter should possess: (1 point) a. A thorough understanding of how the performer initiates the skill b. An awareness of the more critical aspects of the skill c. Knowledge of spotting technique d. An ideal model concept of the skill (promotes effective spotting behavior) e. All of above (a-d) 28. Circle the one that does not belong: (1 point) a. Handgrips b. Overhead rig c. Standard spotting belt d. Above ground training pits e. Hand spotting 29. Circle the correct spotting technique for the backward roll: (1 point) a. Hie spatter may support the stomach and thigh area up to the roll b. Guide the performer's head and support the neck area as he or she bends both arms for the roll c. Lift and guide the performer! s hips or legs as they pass overhead d. Grasp performer's legs at the knees as he or she shoots upwards e. This skill is best spotted with a safety belt 134 30. What should be the spotter's position during the cartwheel spot? (1 point) a. The spotter would stand to the left of the performer if he or she is to perform a left-hand down first cartwheel b. The spotter would stand to the left of the performer if he or she is to perform a right-hand down first cartwheel c. The spotter will kneel at the side of the performer d. Stand to the kicking leg side of the performer e. Stand to the right side of the performer 31. Circle the inaccurate statement regarding basic guideline for effective spottings. (1 point) a. Be sure that the difficulty level of the skill is appropriate to the capabilities and experience of the performer b. Learn to spot effectively the most advanced skills first c. In order to provide the appropriate kind and amount of assistance, the spotter should maintain close physical contact with the performer d. Establish a clear accurate contnunication link with the performer e. Be alert (aware) of errors c a m o n to the stunt you are spotting. 32. Circle the wrong cue for landing technique. (1 point) a. Land first on the balls of the feet and then the heels b. Emphasize bending sufficiently at the ankles, knees and hips to absorb the land shock. c. Stress proper use of arms for balance d. Land with locked knees and good body posture in order to get a high score e. Start take-offs from lew levels and move gradually to elevated surfaces 135 33. Circle the correct skill progression: (1 point) a. Forward roll: headstand: handstand: backward roll b. Jump on - tuck jumpoff: squat vault: straddle vault: handspring (side horse): round-off back salto (tsukhara) c. Back pull over: back hip circle: glide kip: stride circle forward: sole circle dismount d. Glide kip: glide back kip into a straddle cut: seat circle forward to grasp the high bar: free hip circle to handstand: dismount under swing with a 180 turn from high bar e. Fran upper arm hang: swing forward to straddle front uprise: L support: press to handstand: swing forward from support with half turn either direction to a cross stand outside the bars 34. In question number 33 above, stunts performed on the parallel bars is described by: (circle the correct letter, a-e) (1 point) 35. Which of the following statements is not true? (1 point) a. Certain dive roll skill variations require unreasonable high risk and carry with them a dangerous high potential for catastrophic injury and even death b. The forward somersaulting skills are more difficult to master than the back layout with a full twist c. The teacher or coach should stop training whenever the learner shows undue fatigue or any sign of injury d. The backward somersaulting skills are characterized by greater risk than forward somersaulting e. Always provide competent spotting according to the need and ability of each performer RULES AND OFFICIATING — (Circle the correct answer) 36. The optional exercise is composed of three main parts: (1 point) a. Flow, difficulty and evaluation b. Difficulty, harmonious and rhythmical movements, execution (technically correct) c. Combination, flow, difficulty d. Combination, difficulty, rhythmical movement e. Difficulty, combination, execution (technically correct) 37. The women1 s competitive gymnastics apparatus are: (1 point) a. Beam: vault: floor: trampoline: floor exercise b. Vault: uneven bars: floor exercise: rings c. Uneven bars: vault: floor ex: trampoline d. Vault: uneven bars: balance beam: floor ex e. Floor ex: balance beam: parallel bars: vault 38. According to the F.I.G. code of pints the number of judges on each apparatus should be? (1 point) a. One superior judge and four judges b. One superior judge and two judges c. Pour, judges d. Ti?o judges e. One superior judge and three judges 137 39. How is the final score of a gymnast arrived at? (1 point) a. The final score is the average of the two middle scores of the judges b. The final score is given by the superior judge after consulting with the other judges c. Hie final score is the average of the two judges scores plus the superior judge score d. The final score is the average of the four judges 40. In men's horse vaulting, hew many attempts are permitted? (1 point) a. 2 b. 3 c. 1 d. the gymnast can decide 41. In women's compulsory horse vaulting, how many attempts are considered by the judges to arrive at the final score? (1 point) a. 1 b. 3 c. The average of the two d. Hie better of two 42. Circle the one that does not belong: (1 point) a. R.O.V. b. A:B:C:D c. Compulsory d. Combination e. Execution Arrange the order of these form deductions from serious to mild (circle the correct answer). (1 point) a. Toes not pointed - fall on floor - bent legs on leap b. Fall on floor - bent legs on handspring - toes not pointed c. Bent legs on leap - toes not pointed - fall on floor d. All of above e. None of above APPENDIX D 139 140 D e a r ______: The gymnastics skills listed below were taken from the Junior Olympic group cctnpulsories for boys (Class 5 to Class 2) and girls (Class 4 to Class 2) for the year 1981-1984 and 1984-1988. I need your cooperation and "expertise" in order to select a representative sample of competitive gymnastics skills for the visual analysis test. Please read carefully the list of skills and write your comments according to the following directions: 1. Circle the numbers of the ten most important skills on each apparatus. 2. Order your list according to the teaching progression (from simple to complex). 3. Be sure that the skills you select will represent the different "families" (rolls, kips, underswings, saltos, handsprings, etc.) of the skill spectrum. 4. Be sure that the skills you sample will represent the different quality of movement — for example, swing, strength, flexibility, etc. 5. At the end of the process check again to verify that none of the important skills are left out. If there is an additional skill that you think should be in the list, add it on the bottom of the page (use red pen). Sincerely yours, Israel Harari APPENDIX E 141 142 Random Selection of Skills frcm the List of Skills Chosen b y the Experts Floor Balance Pcaitnel Uneven Parallel Horizontal Exer. Rings Beam Vault Horse Bars Bars Bars No. (FX) (R) (BB) (HV) (PH) (UB) (PB) (HB) 1 19 2 2 7 2 17 6 11 2 35 12 25 8 11 7 14 4 3 30 4 5 APEEM5IX F 143 144 OBSERVATION FORMAT NUMBER - 1 ERROR DETECTION AND FEEDBACK PROVISION 1. Observe skill number and decide if the skill was correctly performed or not? CORRECTLY PERFORMED - Means that the learner's skill performance is PERFECTLY executed (check the appropriate answer). A. ____ YES B. ____ NO C. If not, what did you detect to be the one most serious error? 2. What specific feedback would you provide to the learner? 145 OBSERVATION FORMAT NUMBER - 2 ERROR IDENTIFICATION 1. After observing the learner's skill performance for another three times, write a list of additional errors (if any) identified in the learner's skill performance (start your first one on A and continue). Write each error under a different letter. MAJ MI B. maj m c. MAJ MI D. MAJ MI 2. Label each error identified as MAJOR or MINOR for that specific learner performance (circle MAJ as major error and MI as minor error). The symbols MAJ and MI are on the right side of the question one numbered above. 146 OBSERVATION FORMAT NUMBER - 3 FUTURE TEACHING TACTICS 1. After observing the learner's skill performance six times on videotape, what would you do next with this learner? (check the appropriate answer) A. ____ observe silently (no feedback) while the learner continues to practice the skill. B. ____ I would provide feedback and ask the learner to try again. C. ____ I would suggest a different or remedial activity for the learner to do. (Answer this question only if (C) above was your choice. ) 2. If you checked (C), describe briefly the different or remedial activity you would ask the learner to do. (Order the list in order of most to least important.) AEPBHXEX G 147 148 PERSONAL GYMNASTICS HISTORY PROFILE QUESTIONNAIRE NAME Last First Middle ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. SCHOOL CLASS in order the sports in which you have had the most experience: 1. (most) 2. ______ 3. ______ 4. ______ 5. ______ Check below the level at which you received gymnastics training: 1. Elementary school classes competitive recreational___ 2. Middle school classes ___ competitive recreational___ 3. High school classes __ competitive recreational__ 4. Club competitive recreational__ 5. College Classes - competitive recreational__ What was your highest competitive achievement in gymnastics (team or individual) Do you have any experience in teaching, coaching or judging gymnastics? a. Teaching experience? YES NO ______ b. Coaching experience? YES NO ______ c. Judging experience? YES _____ N O ____ If yes, what kind of experience? For how long? (years) Learner's age 150 Characteristics of Group Number 6 Based on the personal gymnastics history provided by the questionnaire, six: subjects frcm groups 1-5 with former competitive gymnastics experiences were grouped separately. The main reason for the separation was that these six subjects were different than the other members of the population they came from. TWo subjects came from group member 1, in addition to their competitive background as members of The Ohio State University gymnastics team they were at the last phase of the teacher preparation program (student teaching). Another two subjects were inservice teachers (group 2) with more than five years of teaching and coaching experience. In addition, they carpeted in the past for The Ohio State University women's team. One subject came from group 3 (PEM). In addition to her advanced phase in the teacher preparation program, she had a middle school and high school competitive background. The last subject came from group number 5 (PPEM B). She differed frcm the PE— 213 population because of her high school competitive background. APEEMDIX H 151 152 SAS TV I S 150 130 100 90 80 70 60 50 MO 30 20 TT T -rrT- 10 21 24 27 30 33 30 39 42 45 48 81 54 5 7 GU 6 3 GO TKNCW— The subjects score on the knowledge test TVIS— The subjects score on the skill analysis test