The Effect of Two Specific Practice Environments on The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 76-19,419 | ROBERTS, Betty Ruth, 1940- THE EFFECT OF TWO SPECIFIC PRACTICE ? ENVIRONMENTS ON THE FOREHAND I AND BACKHAND BALL PLACEMENT ABILITY OF BEGINNING TENNIS PLAYERS. I I The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Ed,D., 1975 Education, physical Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 THE EFFECT OF TWO SPECIFIC PRACTICE ENVIRONMENTS ON THE FOREHAND AND BACKHAND BALL PLACEMENT ABILITY OF BEGINNING TENNIS PLAYERS by Betty Ruth Roberts A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Greensboro 1975 Approved by Dissertation Advis< APPROVAL PAGE This dissertation has been approved by the following committee of the Faculty of the Graduate School at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. / Dissertation Adviser /" Committee Members \2 v I i fps Date of Acceptance by Committee ROBERTS, BETTY RUTH. The Effects of Two Specific Practice Environments on the Forehand and Backhand Ball Placement Ability of Beginning Tennis Players. (1975) Directed by: Dr. Rosemary McGee. Pp. 89. It was the purpose of this study to determine the effects of two practice environments on the forehand and backhand ball placement ability of beginning tennis players. The subjects were 32 female students enrolled at Stonewall Jackson High School. They were divided into two groups. During the first 3 days of the study three tennis skills tests were ad ministered: the Shepard Modification of the Broer-Miller Tennis Drive Skills Test, the Hewitt Revision of the Dyer Backboard Test and a Stationary Test which was a modification of the Broer-Miller Tennis Drive Skills Test. The subjects then received 2 days of instruction on the forehand and backhand strokes. Fol lowing the instruction, Group I practiced 12 days in a stable environment; Group II practiced 12 days in an unstable practice environment. Ball-Boy machines were used in both environments. The same three skills tests were then re-administered. The null hypothesis of the study stated that there will be no significant differences in the final forehand and backhand ball placement ability of beginning tennis players who experience an unstable practice environment in which balls vary in trajectory, speed and direction and those who experience a more stable practice environment in which balls are more consistent in trajectory, speed and direction. Analysis of variance techniques were used to examine the posttest scores on each skills test. No significant differences were disclosed between the •A two groups on any of the tests, thus the null hypothesis was accepted. 2 Three sub-questions were also investigated in the study. Sub-question one attempted to determine whether either environment tended to develop more skill in the forehand than the backhand or vice versa. An analysis of variance design was used to analyze the data on the Stationary and Shepard Tests. The findings disclosed that neither practice environment developed more skill in the forehand than the backhand or vice versa. Sub-question two attempted to identify the ball placement ability of players experiencing the unstable environment. A t test for significance of the difference between two means for related samples was computed on each skills test, utilizing pre- and posttest total scores. Significant improvement occurred on the Shepard Test. In order to determine in which of the four scoring areas of the Shepard Test the improvement had occurred, a t test for significance of the difference between pre- and posttest scores was calculated for each area. Significant im provements occurred in areas two and four. Sub-question three attempted to identify the ball placement ability of players experiencing the stable environment. A t test for significance of the dif ference between two means for related samples was computed on each skills test, utilizing pre - and posttest total scores. Significant t ratios were dis covered on the Stationary and Shepard Tests. In order to determine in which of the four scoring areas of the Shepard and Stationary Tests the improvement had taken place, a t test for significance of the difference between pre- and posttest scores was calculated for each scoring 3 area in each test. A significant difference occurred in area six on the Shepard Test; no significant differences were found on the Stationary Test. Within the limitations of the study, it was concluded that there were no significant differences in ball placement ability of players experiencing the un stable environment and those experiencing the more stable environment. Neither environment developed more skill in the forehand than the backhand or vice versa. Players in the unstable practice environment made significant improve ment on the Shepard Test; players in the stable practice environment made significant improvement on the Shepard and Stationary Tests. Dedicated to Mom, Dad, Lois, Suzanne and Curly iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express her sincere appreciation to Or. Rosemary McGee for her guidance, patience and understanding throughout this study. Appreciation is also extended to Miss Beverley Conklin for her interest and invaluable assistance. To the students at Stonewall Jackson High School who so eagerly parti cipated in the study, the writer wishes to express her gratitude. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . 1 Statement of the Problem 3 Hypothesis for the Study 3 Definition of Terms 4 Scope of the Study 5 Significance of the Study 6 Assumptions 7 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8 Gross Motor Skills 8 Gross Motor Skills and Environments Structure 13 The Learning of Tennis Skills 14 Practice Conditions 18 III. PROCEDURES 21 Selection of Subjects 21 Selection of Tests 22 Description of the Tests 23 Hewitt Revision of the Dyer Backboard Test 23 Shepard Modification of the Broer-Miller Tennis Drive Skills Test 25 Stationary Skills Test 29 v CHAPTER Page Administration of Tests 32 Instructional Programs 33 Practice Sessions 36 Treatment for Group I 37 Treatment for Group II 37 Ball Projection Schedules for Group II 38 Angles on Machine's Projection Plate 40 Location of Machines and Central Control Box 40 Management of Machines During Practice Sessions . 42 Treatment of Data 45 IV. TREATMENT, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA . 47 Treatment of Data 48 Analysis and Interpretation of Data 49 Analysis of Hypothesis 49 Analysis of Stationary Skills Test Data 50 Analysis of Shepard Skills Test Data 50 Analysis of Hewitt Skills Test Data 53 Discussion 53 Analysis of Sub-question One 55 Discussion 56 Analysis of Sub-question Two 56 Discussion 59 Analysis of Sub-question Three 61 Discussion 64 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 66 Summary 66 Conclusions 68 Recommendations 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY 71 APPENDICES 77 vi APPENDICES Page Appendix A 78 Appendix B 79 Appendix C 80 Appendix D 82 Appendix E 83 Appendix F 87 Appendix G 88 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Partial Example of Coordinated Machine and Projection Schedule As Used in Group II Practice Session 41 II. Partial Written Schedule As Furnished to Assistants in Group II Practice Session 44 III. Two-Factor Analysis of Variance With Repeated Measures on the Stationary Posttest Scores, Utilizing Forehand and Backhand Strokes in Group I and Group II 51 IV. Two-Factor Analysis of Variance with Repeated Measures on the Shepard Posttest Scores, Utilizing Forehand and Backhand Strokes in Group I and Group II 52 V. One-Way Analysis of Variance on the Hewitt Revision of the Dyer Backboard Test, Utilizing Forehand and Backhand Strokes in Group I and Group II 54 VI. t Test for Significance of the Difference Between the Pre- and Posttest Total Scores of Group II on the Three Tennis Skills Tests 58 VII. t Test for Significance of the Difference Between the Pre- and Posttest Scores of Group II in the Specific Scoring Areas .of the Shepard and Stationary Tests 60 VIII.