Skort Title: Robert Eric Berlaua, Pros;ruaed Iutructioa !,!!! 2!, !eachi!c 2! Baalretball Skil.l.a Robert E. Berkman
An Experimental Study of the Use of the Principles of Programmed
Instruction to the Teaching of Basketball Skills
Department of Education Master of Arts
AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE USE OF THE PRINCIPLES
OF PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION TO THE TEACHING
OF BASKETBALL SKILLS
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the Graduate School
of McGill University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
by
RobertE. Berkrnan
October 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The writer of this thesis would like to extend his gratitude to
Professor Reginald Edwards for his valuable assistance in this under taking. A note of thanks is also in order to the boys who participated in the experimentas well as to the statisti.cians who helped in the tabulating of the re sults. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODU CT!ON. • • • • • • • • • • . . 1
II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE • 10
A Brief History of Programmed Learning • • 10
Princip1e s of Programmed Instruction 10
Size of Step • • • ...... 13 Logica1 Sequence • • . . . . 16 Constructed Re sponse s • . . . . . 18 Immediate Feedback ...... 19 Reinforcement • • ...... zo Wor k at Own Pace ...... zz
1 Summary •••• •• ...... Z3
Common Practices in Basketball
Coaching • • • • • . • ...... Z3
Attempts to Use Programmed Instruction to
Teach Physica1 Skills • • • • • • • • • Z7
m. THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
PROGRAMMED LEARNING TO THE
TEACHING OF AN OFFENSE PATTERN
IN BASKETBALL • • • • • • . • • Z9
A Review of the General Princip1es . . . Z9 iv
CHAPTER PAGE
Small Steps--Few Errors ...... Z9
Logical Sequence • 30
Overt Responses • ...... 31 Immediate Feedback ...... 31 Reinforcement • ...... 33
Self -Pacing • . . .• . • .• • • • . • • • 34
A One-Three-One Continuity Offense • • 34
Training the Wing Man to Receive the
Pas s . . • • ...... 37
Individual Offensive Moves of the Wing Man • 43
The cross-over • ...... 43 The up and under ...... 45
The rocker step • • • • • 46
The reverse • ...... 48 The back-door ...... 49
Training the Passer • • • • • • • • • • . • 50
Training the Point Man...... 53
Pas sing From the Wing Position • • • • • 58
Coordination of Move s Between the Wing
Man and Point Man • • • • • • • • • • • 59 v
CHAPTER PAGE
Training the High-Post Man • • • • . . . . 59
The high-post man as a picker • • 60
Offensive moves of the high-point m.an •• 63
Pas sing to the High-Post Man . . • • • 67 Training the Low-Post Man •• ...... 68
Offensive moves of the low-post man. • • 68
Passing to the Low-Post Man • • • • • • • 70
The Coordination of the Team • . . . 71 Sum.mary • • • • . • • • • • • ...... 71 IV. DESIGN OF THE ·EXPERIMENT • ...... 72 Equalization of Groups. • ...... 73 Training Procedures • • . • • ...... 75
Criteria for Measurement. of Sucees a •• 76
Equalization of Offensive Opportunity • • • • 80 Measuring the Criteria of Performance • . . 81
Statistics and their Operation • • . • • • • 82
v. RESULTS: THEIR INTERPRETATION AND
DISCUSSION • • • • • • • • • • • 81
Table of Re sults • • • • • • • • • • 83
Analysis of Resulta • • •· . • • • 84 vi
CHAPTER PAGE
Number of Shots Taken • • • • • • • • 84
Number of Shots Within Fifteen Feet of
the Basket • • • • • • • • • 85
Number of Baskets Scored •• • • • • • 87 Number of Losses of the Ball • • ...... 88 Implications of Resulte • • • • • . . 89 Weaknesses in the Experimentation • • • 91
The Ro1e of Intelligence • • • . . . 91 Retention of Learning • • • . . . ., . . . 92 The Factor of Height • • • • • • • • . . . 94
Sugge etions for Improvement and for
Extension • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 94
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • • • • • 97
BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . 101 APPENDIX A. Basketball Shot Chart • . . . . 110 APPENDIX B. Basketball Standard Chart • . . . . 111
INDEX Glossary of Terme • • • • • • • • 112 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Many claims have been made in recent years of the success of programmed instruction in increasing the rate of learning, or in decreasing the amount of time necessary for the mastery of facts, or in securing the retention of the knowledge of a given set of facts for a longer period of time. Sorne of the results claimed have depended upon the use of teaching machines, or other deviees; sorne have depended upon the use of programmed texts. In the early stages of the develop- ment of such teaching machines, and programmed texts, the programs constructed were produced by the psychologists who were respons- ible for the development of the machines or the texts. Gradually it was accepted that the best programs were those constructed by individuals who were expert in the subject matter which the machines or programs purported to teach. This stress on subject matter has tended to grow, and there has been a corresponding lack of interest in the con- struction of programs for the teaching of physical or motor skills.
It is interesting to note, however, that one of the earliest programs 1 produced for use with the Tutor Teaching Machine was one designed to
1Tutor Machines, U. S.l. Western Design & Electronics, Goleta, California: U. S. I. Western Design & Electronics. z teach golfers how to improve their game. It must also be noted that z the earliest deviee developed by Pask was one for the teaching of key- board skills, whilst a later one was concerned with aspects of airplane control during bombing attacks. On the whole, however, there bas been a serious neglect of the use of such methods for teaching physical ski.lls.
If, as its supporters claim, there are principles of programming which can be stated, and utilized for the construction of programs, as 3 for example the Ruleg system advocated by Glaser, then it is legiti- mate to assume that sorne, or all, of these principles should be appli- cable to the teaching of skills not necessarily requiring verbal know- ledge. If the principles are not applicable to the development of physi- cal skills, then the possibilities of programmed instruction must be correspondingly restricted. As a first step, therefore, in the attempt to apply the principles of programmed instruction, there must be an attempt to find, and to state the se principle s. It is equally important that the expert who relates the principles of programming to physical
2 G. Pask, 11 Electronic Keyboard Teaching Machines," in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: ASourceBook(Washington: D.A.V.I., N.E.A., 1960), PP• 336-348. 3 R. Glaser, "The Ruleg System for Programme Writing, 11 (Pittsburg, Pa.). (Mimeographed.) 3
skills should have detailed knowledge of the physical skills which are
to be taught. If the skills are to be related to performance in one of
the athletic fields, it is necessary to be able to state the aims and
purposes of the particular skills sought in that particular athletic
field.
lnterest in basketball, and its coaching, led to the present
inquiry into the feasibility of applying the principles of programmed
instruction to the coaching of certain skills required in playing basket
baU. From the whole range of activities possible in this game, it was
decided to concentrate on those activities directly related to what is
conventionally known as an "offensive pattern" in basketball, and from
within the many such patterns which have been extolled, and used, by
nationally known coaches, one such offensive pattern was selected, the
teaching of which one might apply the principles of programmed learning.
It would be naive to assume that if it becomes possible to apply
such principles to the coaching of an offensive pattern in basketball that
all aspects of that pattern would be improved. It would be necessary to
specify those ar.eas in which improvement would be shown, and even more importantly, in which improvement could be measured in some
quantitative terms. Certain criteria for success must therefore be determined. If the se could be determined by some one not taking part 4 in the experiment, so much the better. In an experiment which may be the first of its kind, and certainly one which is very much a pilot investigation, this is not always possible. Therefore, attempts will be made to demonstrate that criteria which are based upon the number of shots taken, the number of shots within fifteen feet of the basket, the number of shots made, are good positive criteria for any measure of success, while a low number of losses of the baU due to bad passes, and the number of losses of the baU due to violatians might also be related to criteria of success.
For the purposes of experiment, it is necessary to have two groups, an experimental group and a control group of boys each of the same general characteristics, and closely matched in those character istics known to be related to success in basketball, the matching being made, preferably by some one not taking part in the investigation. As this is not possible, the method of matching will be clearly stated, and the attempts at objectivity of matching will be shown. The boys in ques tion will all be between twelve and fifteen and will be volunteers in a summer basketball coaching program. They will all have had previous knowledge and experience of the game.
If many such groups were available, and many teachers, it would be possible to randomize the methods of teaching among the various 5 teachers. When a single teacher must separately teach two groups, each by a different method, and even more, when that teacher has already hypothesized that one program of teaching might well pro duce better resulta than the other, a great deal of subjective bias might enter into the experiment. Conclusions, even striking conclu sions, based upon such an experiment must, therefore, be treated with the necessary amount of caution and reserve, but this caution
~hould not preclude the attempt from being made.
The control group would be taught by a conventional method, that ià, one with which the teacher was already familiar and which had been used many times in the past, and in the technique of the teaching of which he may be considered quite proficient. In this method, the offensive pattern is learned in its entirety as a single operation, and it is practiced in this way from the beginning of the training period.
To the experimental approach, based upon the principles of program med instruction, the experimenter, as teacher, may bring less skill, certainly less previous experience, but possibly more enthusiasm.
Equal time will be given to the two groups for the learning of the offensive pattern, and to the testing of the results of this learning. ln the whole summer coaching program, however, there will be 6
acti.vities other than this particular offensive pattern, and the distribu
tion of time for these other activities must be equal for the two groups
in question. Sorne time will be spent on supplementary drill activities
which form a traditional part of a coaching program and which are
necessary for the development and maintenance of a high leve! of per-
formance.
In order that the effect of the offensive pattern may be deter
mined, it would be desirable to put it into operation against a number
of defensive squads in sorne random order. However, with only one
defensive squad available, it may be that only one experience of the
pattern should be sampled, that is, each offensive squad, control and
experimental, would have the same length of time to operate against
the same defensive squad, and that the order in which this was done
would be determined by the tossing of a coin. The assumption must be
made that the defensive squad performs equally effectively, within its
own limits and training, on each occasion, and that the effect of
defending against a given offensive pattern on one occasion does not
affect its performance against a similar offensive pattern on a second
occasion. Again, possible weaknesses in this argument should increase the caution with which the results are treated.
In summary, therefore, it is proposed to make a pilot investi.ga- 7 • tion seeking to discover whether there are principles in programmed instruction which might be applied to the teaching of a series of physi-
cal skills, such as found in athletic and games performance, in this
case, a single offensive pattern in basketball. Taking the following
definition of programmed instruction as a guide,
Programmed instruction is a kind of learning experience which leads a student through a set of specifie behaviors that are designed and sequenced to make it more probable that he will behave in a given way in the future. 4
a search of the literature will be made to identify these principles.
The modification, or application to the sequencing of the specifie
beha.viors, will then follow. Two groups, matched on certain known
characteristics believed to be related to basketball proficiency will be
selected, the member ship being allocated on the toss of a coin. Rou-
tine drills will be provided for each group, in addition to the training
believed specifie to the particular offensive pattern being employed.
Certain criteria for the measurenient of the success of an offensive
pattern having been set up, there will be a final criterion trial
for each group against the same defensive squad, the order of
4 Wilbur Schramm, Programmed Instruction: Today and Tomorrow (New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education, November, 196Z), p. 98. 8 trial being determined by chance, and the assumption made that the defensive squad functions equally effectively on each occasion. The resulta will be presented in a single table, and the comparisons eval uated by means of the chi square statistic. Because of the subjective bias introduced by the experimenter, caution will be urged in the interpretation of the re sults obtained. Suggestions for an improved experiment, utilizing the present results as a guide, will then be made. CHAPTER II
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
As has been indicated above, there are two major endeavours: to review what has been written about programmed learning, in sui- ficient detail to derive the major principles which are relevant, and to review the writings of the major coaches and authorities on basket- ball to discover what aspect or aspects of the game might well be improved by an approach to its coaching which will employ the required principles of programmed instruction. Perhaps, before we begin the first of these, it might be of interest to briefly sketch the history and development of programmed learning.
I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF PROGRAMMED LEARNING
Programming theory is as old as the Greeks. Deviees to aid teaching, and in a sense self-instructional deviees, are also by no means 1 a modern invention. However, the use of deviees designed primarily for these purposes did not become widespread until fairly recent years.
The first truly mechanical deviee putto widespread use for self-
1 Charles Foltz, The World of Teaching Machines (Washington, D. C.: Electronic Teaching Laboratories, 1961), pp. 3-4. 10
• instructional purposes was one designed to teach a proper trigger 2 squeeze to U. S. Army recruits in 1918. In the middle of the 1920's,
Dr. Sidney L. Pressey of Ohio State University, designed a much more
sophisticated deviee primarily for testing and scoring. It was only
when subjects who had used his machine scored higher at the end
of the terms test that he discovered that the machine could also 3 teach. Although Pressey felt that his discovery would cause a revolu-
tion in the field of education, 4 little notice was taken of his findings.
B. F. Skinner was more of a behavioral psychologist than was
Pressey. He gained prominence for his success in training various
animais to perform extremely complicated tasks using a sophisticated
type of conditioning. When his technique was applied to the teaching of
children and an article describing his metb.od was published, 5 educators
2 lbid. , p. 4. 3 Reginald Edwards, "Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction," Canadian Education and Research Digest, December, 1963, p. 263. 4 S. L. Pressey, 11A Third and Fourth Contribution Toward the Coming 'Industrial Revolution' in Education," in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book(Washington: D.A.V.I., N.E.A., 1960), p. 47. 5 B. F. Skinner, "The Science of Learning and the Art of 11 became interested. Sldnner1 s technique is called a linear program; this type of program has been successfully incorporated both in 6 machines and textbook formats as devised by Glaser.
In later year s, Crowder introduced the 11Scrambled Textbook" into the area of programmed instruction. This method made use of the multiple -choice response whereby errors are explained before another attempt at the correct response u. ma d e. 7 Since this time, many researchers have further developed, refined and improved on the founda- tions established by Pressey, Skinner, Glaser, and Crowder. The 8 Research gives a complete summary of the experimentation in the
Teaching, 11 in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book (Washington: D .. A. V. I., N. E. A. , 1960), PP• 99-113. 6 R. Glaser, L. E. Homme, and J. L. Evans, 11An Evaluation of Textbooks in Terms of Learning Principles, 11 in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction: A Source Book(Washington: D.A.V.I., N.E.A., 1960), PP• 437-451.
7 Edwards, -2.E.! cit., p. 265. 8 Wilbur Schramm, The Research ~ Programmed Instruction (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Wei fare, 1964). r
12
field of progra.m.med instruction since 1959. Lwnsdaine and Glaser 9
have compiled a collection of the important writings in the field.
Now nearly two hundred private companies are producing, or
planning to produce, teaching machines, programmed books, or both,
for schools, industries, the armed forces, government agencies and
the home. A review of the current trend is presented clearly by 10 Davies. Other sources of a more complete swnmary of the history 11 12 and development of this field are presented by Edling, and Gram.
II. PRINCIPLES OF PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION
In reviewing the works of the various protagoniste and research-
ers in the field of programmed instruction, it becomes evident that there
are certain basic principles that, when implemented, best produce the
9 A. A. Lwnsdaine and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Pro grammed Learning: A Source Book (Washington: D. A. V. I., N. E. A., 1960). 10 1. K. Davies, 11 The Present State of the Art, 11 Tutor Age, Vol. I, No. 1, February, 1966.
11 Jack Edling, Arthur W. Foshay, J. R. Ginther, Wilbur Schramm, and Herbert Thelen, Four Case Studies of Programmed Instruction (New York City: Fundfor th_e Advancement of Education., 1964}.
12 n. Gram, Explaining Teaching Machines and Programming (San Francisco: Fearon Publications, 1962). 13 desired results, namely, the change in sorne form of behavior. Early sets of principles were re-examined under varying conditions and these findings were used to firmly establish the reliability of early studies, or to replace earlier principles with new findings. The principles to be described and discussed in the following sections are those which have established themselves as basic to any program.
Size of Step
The first and most basic principle of programmed instruction is that the program should proceed in short steps. Glaser points out that Skinner, in his early works and also in later statements on the subject, has made it quite clear that consistent gains can be made by breaking the program into small steps.
The student must pass through a carefully designed sequence of steps. Each step must be so small that it can be taken. 13
By breaking the material into small segments or frames, it can be presented a step at a time so that it may be easily understood. The increase of difficulty between steps is kept slight so that the total
13 Robert Glaser, "Christmas Past, Present and Future: A Preview and Review, 11 irt A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book (Washington: D. A. V .1., N. E. A., 1960}, p. ZS. 14
sequence ensures full preparation for complex and difficult material.
What is meant by the size of the step is not quite clear in all the literature and different researchers use different definitions to fit their experimentation. Schramm points this out clearly when he states:
Size of step has never been quite satisfactorily defined. In sorne cases it has been expressed as the reciprocal of the num ber of steps used to cover a given body of material, but a pro gram with fewer steps does not necessarily require longer steps; it may merely have less practice or fewer examples. Size of steps has also been measured as the amount of material in a frame or an item •••• In other cases, step size has been mea sured in terms of the average number of errors made in the program; this is apparently based on the circular argument that long steps shou1d produce more error s, and therefore if there are more errors there must be long steps. 14
Using any of the definitions as a basis, evidence points to the fact that, by using small steps in the program, a higher degree of success is achieved than when large steps are used. Evidence has come from varied sources using varied experimental procedure s. Significant 15 studies by Evans, Glaser, and Homme and by Coulson and Silber-
14 Wilbur Schramm, The Research ~ Programmed Instruction (Washington: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1964}, P• 7. 15 James L. Evans, Robert Glaser, and Lloyd E. Homme, 11An Investigation of Variation in the Properties of Verbal Learning Sequences of the Teaching Machine Type, 11 in Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book, ed. by A. A. Lumsdaine and Robert Glaser (Washington: D.A. V.I., N.E.A., 1960}, pp. 446-461. 15 16 17 man clear1y point this out, as does a survey by a recent periodica1. 18 Campbell showed that there was sorne advantage in having the student
bypass certain steps when able. Work was also done in allowing the
student to set the size of the steps. 19 It is a1so pointed out in this
study that it appears that the greatest learning takes place when the size
of the steps is gradually increased rather than maintaining either very
short or very long steps. They found graduai deterioration of perform-
ance when the steps remain small.
What has then been found in recent work does not weaken Skin-
ner1 s original hypothesis, that small steps best produce a successful
program. There have been modifications and additions to the original
16 John E. Coulson and Harry F. Silberman, 11 Effect of Three Variables in a Teaching Machine," Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, August, 1960, pp. 135-143. ·
1711 The Txuth About Those Teaching Machines," Changing Times Magazine, February,. 1962,. pp. 16-18.
18 Vincent N. Campbell, Studies of By-Passing !:_S !:_ Way of Adapting Self-Instructional Programs to IndividualDifferences (San Mateo, California: American Institute of Research, 1962), p. 68. 19 Gaxry .J. Margolius and Fred D. Sheffield, "Optimum Methods of Combining Praetice with Filmed Demonstration in Teaching Complex Response Sequences: Seriai Learning of a Mechanical Assembly Task, 11 in A. A. Lumsdaine and Robert Glaser, Teaching Machines and Program med Learning: A Source Book (Washington: D. A. V. I., N. E. A., 1960), ·pp. 33-53. 16
formulation, but they still point in the same general direction.
One of the prime factors in setting the steps so small is the
reduction in the rate of errors produced in this fashion. In devising a
program, researchers in instructiona.l programming do major revi-
sions in the developmental stages so that errors produced by the learner
can be reduced to a minimum. "Error-free learning is not only simp- 20 1er, but its effects improve morale, motivation, and retention."
Logical Sequence
One of Skinner 1 s basic formulations in the development of pro-
grammed instruction was the fact that the program should be "a care- 21 fully ordered learning sequence. 11 ' "Steps must be arranged in a 22 plausible developmental order. 11 By this, it is meant that the program
20 nonald Cook and Francis Mechner, "Fundamentals of Pro grammed Instruction, 11 in Stuart Morguiles and Lewis D. Eigen, Applied Programmed Instruction (New York: John Wiley and Sons, !ne., 1962, p. 4. 21 A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, 11Skinner 1 s Teaching Machines and Programming Concepts," in Lumsdaine and Glaser, Teaçhing Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book (Washington: D.A.V.I., N.E.A., 1960), p. 97. 22 B. F. Skinner, 11 Teaching Machines," in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book (Washington: D. A. V. 1., N. E. A., 1960), p. 156~ 17 should follow a logical cour se of development. Each step should be the next logical part of the entire behavioral scheme. Edling and 23 others point this out clearly in their discussion of the principles of
Skinner 1 s work. However, this idea was rejected by Epperson and 24 Schmuck, who felt it was an impossible task to implement because what is logical for one individual need not be logical to another individual.
Experimental evidence to support this principle has been mixed. 25 26 Studies by Roe and by Gavurin and Donahue have provided evi- denee that logical sequencing produces greater learning, while other 27 studies by Levin and Baker have shown no significant increase in learning.
23 Edling, op. cit. 24 oavid C. Epperson and Richard A. Schmuck, An Experi mental Critique of Programmed Instruction, University of Michigan, April, 1962. (Mimeographed.}
25 K. V. Roe, Scrambled Vs. Ordered Sequences in Auto Instructional Programs, Report 48 (Los Angeles, California: Depart- ment of Engineering, University of California, 1961), p.lO. {Mimeographed.) 26 Edward L. Gavurin, and Virginia M. Donahue, 11 Logica1 Sequence and Random Sequence Teaching Machine Programs, '' Auto mated Teaching Bulletin, 1, 1960, pp. 3-9.
27 Gerald R. Levin, and Bruce L. Baker, 11ltems Scrambling in a Self-lnstructional Program, 11 Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 3, 1963. 18
Constructed Responses
One of the principles that is felt to be of major importance to good programming is the student should make active responses to the program rather than be fed the information and accepting it in a passive fashion. Lumsdaine and Glaser state that, "continuous active student response is required, 1128 while Menchner, Cook, and Margulies say that programming becomes most effective when the student "is not a passive recipient of information, but actively exercises new knowledge 1129 30 as this new knowledge is being built. 1. K. Davies also includes this factor in his list of the essentials of programmed instruction.
Experimentation in the field has produced inconsistent results. 31 Experimenta done by Cummings and Goldstein showed that active
28 A. A. Lumsdaine, 11 Teaching Machines: An Introductory Over view," in A. A. Lumsdaine, and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Pro grammed Learning: ~ Source Book (Washington: D. A. V. I., N. E. A. , 1960}, p. 6. 29 Francis Menchner, Donald Cook, and Stuart Margules, An Introduction to Programmed Instruction (Washington: Basic Syste~s !ncorporated, 1962), p. 4. 30 . DaVles, ~· cit., p. 3. 31 Allan Cummings, and Leo S. Go1dstein, The Effect of Overt and Covert Responding 2.n Two Types of Learning Tasks (New York: The Center for Programmed Instruction, 1962). (Mimeographed.) 19 32 responses were of great value. Hovland, Lumsdaine, and Sheffield reported after their experiment that the procedure of actively re spond- ing was significantly more effective, as shown by both oral and written tests. The measured advantage of the active-response procedure was greater for more difficult than for easier material, for less intelligent than for more intelligent learners, and for less motivated classes than for tho se which had the incentive of knowing in advance that they would 33 be tested. However, experimentation by Silverman and Alter and by . 34 Burton and Goldbreck found no significant difference no matter what kind of response was made.
Immediate Feedback
11 When each response gets quick appraisal, learning is enhanced.
32 carl I. Hovland, A. A. Lumsdaine, and Fred D. Sheffield, Experimenta ~n Mass Communication (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949).
33 RobertE. Silverman, and Millicent Alter, "Notes on the Response in Teaching Machine Programs, 11 Psychological Reports, 7, 1960. 34 Benjamin Burton. and Robert A. Goldbreck, The Effect of Response Characteristics and Multiple-Choice Alternatives ~n Learning During Programmed Instruction {San Mateo, California: American Institute for Research, 1962), p. 16. 20
K.nowing the correct answer rewards the behavior, gives the learner 35 confidence and encourages retention." This statement by Cook and
Mechner summarizes the feeling of most researchers in the area of programmed instruction. Most experimentera and writers on the sub- ject feel that immediate knowledge of the resulta produces better learning than does withheld knowledge. Skinner points out that one of the important aspects of teaching machines is the fact that reinforce- 36 37 mentis immediate. Work done by Feldhusen and Birt, and by Meyer have further substantiated the original formulations concerning the role of immediate feedback.
Reinfor cement
A reinforcement may be defined as any event that take s place that strengthens the behavior it foÜows. ln the field of programmed
35 Cook and Mechner, ~ cit., p. 4.
36 John F. Feldhusen, and Andrew Birt, "A Study of Nine Methods of Presentation of Programmed Learning Material, 11 Journal 2_f Educational Research, 55, 1962, pp. 46-66.
37 susan R. Meyer, "Report on the Initial Test of a Junior High School Vocabulary Program, 11 Teaching Machines and Programmed 21 instruction, this usually means a confirmation of a correct response.
When this response is rewarded, the possibility of repeating the 38 response is increased. lt has been demonstrated by Skinner that broad learning can be shaped by reinforcing specifie behaviors which are correct and withholding reinforcement following incorrect responses.
1t appears that reinforcement serves two major purposes. First, it sustains motivation, and second, it provides information. "Accord- ing to some writers, this feedback or information value of reinforce ment is the only function which the consequences of behavior serve. 1139
The amount and type of reinforcement is also important. Skinner points out that 11 the human organism is reinforced by any simple gain 40 in competence. '' Other experimentation has also shawn that the reinforcement should be positive rather than negative and constructive 41 rather than destructive.
Learning: A Source Book (Washington: D • .A. V.l., N. E.A., 1960), pp. 299-246. 38 ski nner, ~~··t p. 100 • 39 Robert M. Gange, and Robert C. Balles, A Review of Factors in Learning Efficiency, ed. by Eugene Ga1anter {N;; York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959), p. 28.
40 ski nner, ~~~•t p. 140 • 41 Gange and Balles, .2E· cit .• p. 28. 22
Part of the function of reinforcement may include review as
part of the process. "Correct behavior once emitted must be main-
tained in some strength, so that on subsequent occasions there is even
greater probability of its emission. Opportunities must be provided
for its display. In practical terms, he (the programmer) must 1 seed' 42 review terms into the program. 11
Work at Own Pace
Many workers in the field of programmed instruction such as
43 44 Fry, and Mechner and Cook, view individual pacing as an impor-
tant facet of programmed instruction. By this, it is meant that the
student is allowed to follow a speed he finds comfortable. Those who
need to work slowly and need a greater amount of time to complete a
program are allowed to do so, while those who can work at a greater
rate of speed are able to do so.
42 Edwards,~ cit. • p. 264. 43 Edward B. Fry, Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction: An Introduction (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963), P• 3. 44 ' Cook and Mechner, ~ cit. , p. 5. 23
Surnmary
In the foregoing review of sorne of the contributions to the litera
ture on programmed learning which have been concerned with the princi
ples underlying the construction and application of programs, we
have found that there is consensus on the following principles: size of
step, logical sequence, constructed rather than selected responses,
feedback, proceeding at one 1s own pace, and most important, rein
forcement. Before these principles can be applied to some aspect to
basketball; it will be necessary to examine the literature in that field,
relative to aspects of coaching, to the teaching of offensive patterns,
and to the selection of particular skills which apply to the above men
tioned principles in sorne form suitable to their learning and teaching.
m. COMMON PRACTICES IN BASKETBALL COACHING
A review of the pertinent literature dealing with the coaching
of basketball brings to light common practices that are used by a great
many coaches. Although each coach has his own particular method of
coaching and places more stress on certain areas, a great majority of
the top coaches rely on certain basic procedures for teaching basket- • 24 45 ball techniques. In his book, Winter lays down the following steps for teaching an offensive pattern: fir st, the coach must explain the main points of execution to the team. By this, he means that the coach explains the entire offensive pattern to the team. He then explains any part of the pattern that he feels may be difficult to per • form. He may also emphasize those parts of the offensive pattern that he feels are most vital to the proper execution of the pattern.
Second, the action must start. It is desirable to have as much active participation as possible. The players should continue to run through the offensive pattern until they are able to perform the pattern with a 46 high degree of competence. McCracken feels that the continuous pattern should be run at the same speed in practice as it is in agame.
The third step is correction. It is up to the coach to stop play and make corrections whenever he sees a mistake being made. He can correct either by demonstrating the proper technique or by simply explaining the mistake that was made.
Almost all coaches feel that fundamentals are the most impor-
45 Fred Winter, The Triple-Post Offense {Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1962), p. 178. 46 Branch McCracken, Indiana Basketball (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1955), p. 104. 25 tant factor in the development of a good offense. This is generally accomplished by using drills to strengthen fundamental sk.ills the coach 47 feels are weak. Pinholster feels that the drills should be used to 48 11 make movements automatic, 11 while Julian states, "the best way to 49 acquire fundamental basketball sk.ills is by drill. " Kowlack feels the most important thing a coach can do at the beginning of the season is to use well organized fundamental drills. The basic ideas on the subject may be summarized in the following way:
If the proper training of basketball players is to be achieved, a major portion of the practice time should be devoted to well organized drills which are designed to teach fundamentals.5°
It should be noted here that the reason that an offensive pattern was chosen as the median for testing whether improvement could be achieved using the principles of programmed instruction to teach
47 Garland F. Pinholster, Encyclopedia C!! Basketball Drills (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne., 1958), p. 9. 48 Alvin Julian, Bread and Butter Basketball (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne.,) p.l76.
49 Clayton J. Kowlack, "The Fundamental Outlook," Athletic Journal, Vol. XLVI, No. 1, September, 1965, p. 18. 50 Louie Julian, "Fundamental Drills to Develop a Winning Team at a Small School, 11 Seal-0-San Basketball Coaches Digest, 1964-1965, p. 6. 26
physical skills is that an offensive pattern is built on a variety of indi-
vidua1 skills such as passing, shooting, and cutting. An improvement
in the performance of an offensive pattern by an individual player may
re sult from improved performance in any of the se areas. This allows
greater chance of improving aU-round basketball skill than if we chose
one specifie sldll and tried to improve only in this area.
The particular pattern was chosen for sever al rea sons. Fir st,
the experimenter was most familiar with this pattern as it was the one
that he taught to his high school basketball team. Second1y, the pattern followed a continuous pattern and allowed for 1ogica1 sequencing of
steps. Third, the pattern and patterns similar to the one chosen were
51 2 53 quite commonly being used. Articles by Harldns, Griffin~ Lindsley, 54 and Baker describe various patterns being used that are quite similar
to the patterns used in the experiment.
51 Mike Harldns, 11 1-3-1 Al1.Purpose Attack, 11 Scholastic Coach, December, 1962, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 34-35. 52 Tom Griffin, 11 1-3-1 Shuffle, 11 Seal-0-San Basketball Coaches Digest, 1964-1965, pp. 23.:..26. 53 Herbert Linds1ey, "Moving 1-3-1 Offensive Pattern, 11 Athletic Journal, Vol. XLIV, No. 2, pp. 20-24. 54 Paul M. Baker, "Revolving Continuity, 11 Scholastic Coach, 34:8, November, 1964, p. 8. 27
IV. ATTEMPTS TO USE PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION
TO TEACH PHYSICAL SKILLS
"Little has been done to explore the potentialities of program- 55 med instruction in the area of health and physical education. 11 This
quote by an authority in the field of physical education expresses
clearly what has been done in an attempt to use the principles of pro 56 grammed instruction to teach physical skills. Skinner has shown
that skills generally applicable to basketball such as rhythm and timing
can be improved by using programmed instruction; however, no one 57 has taken this basic formulation any farther. Skinner also has shown that competition could be taught when he had two pigeons playing a modified form of ping -pong.
Apparently without realizing it, several basketball coaches have incorporated a principle of programmed instruction into their teaching
55 Thomas W. Evual, "The Automated Tutor, 11 Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Vol. 35, No. 4, March, 1964, p. 27.
56 Skinner, ~· cit., p. 95. 57 B. F. Skinner, "The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching," in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book (Washington: D.A. V.I., N.E.A., 1960), p. 101. 28 techniques. In several basketball books, there is the mention of the use of ·various principles that have been identified as principles basic to programmed instruction, but none of them use the term programmed 58 instruction or programming. For example, Toomasian says that any system should be broken down into small segments and taught in 59 this fashion. Winter feels that basketball can be taught in a logical fashion. Other coaches have made reference to certain practices sim- ilar to sorne of the principles of programmed instruction, still none have moved in the direction of incorporating more of these principles into a complete system of teaching an offensive pattern.
"Indications are that this technique (the use of programmed instruction) will have a profound effect on education. The use of this deviee in health and physical education may do rouch to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of teaching and learning. The challenge 60 is to develop the potentialities of the technique in our field. 11
58 John Toomasian, Developing ~ Winning Offense for High School Basketball (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne., 1963), p. 5. 59 winter, op. cit. , p. 178. 60 . Evual, ~· c1t., p. 80. CHAPTER m
THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF PROGRAMMED
LEARNING TO THE TEACHING OF AN OFFENSIVE
PATTERN IN BASKETBALL
1. A REVIEW OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Having observed the principles of programmed learning which appear most often in the literature, and having decided that an offen sive pattern would be that aspect of basketball on which such principles might be adapted or modified, it now becomes necessary to show in what way these principles could be modified for the particular purpose of this experiment.
Small Steps--Few Errors
The principle of programming requiring the program to be broken into small steps is as important in the teaching of an offensive pattern in basketball as it is to any learning situation. By breaking the offensive pattern into small steps, the same advantage is gained in this field as in any field. The student is better able to comprehend the whole by dividing it into its component parts. Toomasian states,
"offensive drills should be broken down into small segments or combin- 30 1 ations. 11 In this fashion, it becomes possible for the coach to pinpoint individual difficulties that might not be evident if the offense were not broken down into these small sections. The player is also more aware
of his individual weaknesses and is able to work on these, particularly in his spare time. There are also fewer errors made in this fashion and this leads to greater confidence by the player in his abilities. 2 This "confidence is one of the prime reasons for practice. 11
Logical Sequence
By having the offense develop in a logical fashion, the players are better able to see the value of individual drills. Not until they are able to see the value in a particular drill will the players give complete1y of themselves. 11P1ayers wi111earn !aster and are more like1y to retain what they learn when they see clear1y in their own minds the reason or 3 purpose of what the coach wants them to learn. 11 By having the offense
1 John Toomasian, Developing.! Winning Offense for High School Basketball (Eng1ewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1963), p. 6. 2 Garland Pinholster, Encyclopedia of Basketball Drills (Engle,.. wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1958), p. 9. 3 Lyle Brown, Offensive and Defensive Drills for Winning Basket bali (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1965), p. 193. 31 taught through logical steps. the player is learning simple fundamental skills thoroughly before he is forced to use them in complex patterns.
Similarly, he learns simple fundamentals needing a minimum of ability before he is forced to attempt to master more difficult fundamental drills and patterns. In this fashion, the player develops confidence in his abilities and is better able to see the intricacies of the overall pattern.
Overt Responses
In the teaching of an offensive pattern in basketball, it would be almost impossible to use anything but an overt response .. In order to test the learning of any particular aspect of the entire pro gram, the student must be able to perform the skills needed to master each situa tion. The important word is "perform." This means that the student must display some physical reaction. A response can be no more overt than this.
Immediate Feedback
Feedback in the basketball situation can be given in two ways.
First, the player is often able to determine whether or not his response was correct by seeing if the response produced the desired result 32
intended as part of the pattern. If the situation requires a pass be
thrown from a player standing in the corner to a player cutting under
the basket and this pass is made successfully, the player then knows
that he has made the correct response to the situation. Similarly, if
the player is required to dribble from one area of the court to another,
and he is able to do so, again he may then be fairly sure that he has
responded in the desired fashion. Further, if a player is required to take a shot under a certain condition and he is able to take a good shot from this area, once again the response must have been the appropriate
one.
A second feedback, and one of greater importance because it is
generally more accurate, is the verbal feedback given by the coach.
Alllearning situations are closely supervised by a coach who can
clearly determine whether a response is correct. It is possible for the final result of a series of steps to come out correctly even if one or more of the steps leading to the final step is reacted to incorrectly. It is the responsibility of the coach to be able to identify and point out the errors that might not be clearly evident to the players. The coach is able to stop play and prompt the players as to the appropriate responses.
This prompting technique has proven to be an effective method of correc- 33 4 tion in many types of programming experimenta. ln this way, the
coach performs an operation so complex that no machine or text could
do a similar job in a similar situation.
Reinforcement
Reinforcement, like feedback, may be given in two ways. As in all programs, the student is reinforced by the pleasure of making a correct response. This pleasure or feeling of accomplishment is increased in the basketball situation as the student is working against another individual rather than an inanimate object such as a machine or a text. The learner is in a competitive situation, and this would tend to heighten the reinforcement that is inherent in a correct response.
Skinner made this point clear when he states, "Those who advocate competition as a useful social motive may wish to use the reinforcement 5 which cornes from excelling over others. 11
The second reinforcement is obtained by the encouragement given by the coach. The coach is the one individual who determines how much any particular player will play during a season. Since it is the
4 Schramm, op. cit. , p. 14.
5 Skinner,~ cit., p. 108. 34 desire of every player to play as muchas possible, it is only natural that the player will try to please the coach as much as possible. This can be done by responding correctly to the various situations.
Self-Pacing
Experimentation previously described states that where there are unequal abilities and intelligence, self-pacing becomes a very 6 important aspect. However, a study by Frye showed that when groups are homogeneously grouped, pacing became a less important variable. ln the case of a basketball team, the group is of a very homogeneous nature. AU players fall within a very narrow ability range. It is nec- essary for all of them to reach a minimum ability range to make the team. With this fact in mind, the principle of pacing becomes of minor importance to this study. It is justifiable to assume that a group so homogeneously grouped would be able to finish a program by the end of a spe cified length of time.
n. A ONE-THREE-ONE CONTINUITY OFFENSE
In developing a program to teach an offensive pattern in basket-
6 Charles H. Frye, Group Vs. Individual Pacing in Programmed 35
ball, no written program is being used. The shaping of behavior is
being done by the coach. In the past, coaches have used short sequences
of training in their routine, but the extent to which this is used is gen-
erally limited to small portions of the overall pattern. The program
designed is one in which every portion of the pattern is sequenced, not
only into small steps that provide great opportunity for success, but
also along a completely logical path from start to finish. No evidence
could be found that this has been done before. Of equal importance is
the fact that reinforcing contingencies are present throughout the pro-
gram. The coach has many reinforcements within his control; he is
therefore in an excellent position to shape behavior. To be most effec-
tive, however, the coach must use these reinforcements in a consistent
fashion as indicated in the principles of programmed instructions. The
desire to please the coach is inherent in all coaching situations; so one
strong reinforcement is praise by the coach. In the early shaping of behavior. praise is given for each correct response. As the pattern
is developing and becoming more complex, reinforcement operates on
a reduced schedule with only the successful performance of a new task
Instruction, Oregon State System of Higher Education, 1963. (Mimeo graphed.) 36 reinforced. There is little or no reinforcement for the performance of previously learned tasks that are part of a larger more complex task. Advancement from one step to the next with the knowledge that successful performance on the previous steps is necessary for this advancement acts as a secondary reinforcement. At the completion of the program, the student becomes one of the group that is allowed to use the offensive pattern in its entirety in scrimmage sessions.
This inclusion into the "select" group acts as a terminal reinforce ment. A definite pattern of reinforcement based on the findings of the researchers in programmed instruction has been used in the development of this program.
This offense derives its name from the basic alignment of players (Diagram #1) as the offense begins and from the pattern which may be followed in a continuous fashion until the desired result, namely, a good shot at the basket, is obtained. The pattern evolves in the fol lowing fashion: #1 (point man) passes the ball to the man who is on the opposite side of the court from IfS (low-post man), in this case #3
(wing man). Hl then cuts on either side of #4 (high-post man) and receives a return pass from #3 for a shot (Diagram HZ). If #1 is not free to receive a pass, #4 rolls to the basket to receive a pass from 37
DIAGRAM # 1 DIAGRAM # 2
1 (.;\ z J 1
5 s
#3 (Diagrar.n #Z.). If #4 cannot receive the ball, #5 cuts to the foul line "' area and receives a pass from #3 (Diagrar.n #4). If #5 is not free for a pass, #3 passes to #2, who has moved to the top of the foul circle (Dia- grar.n #5). The players are now once more in a one-three-one alignment, and the pattern may be continued to the other side with #2 pas sing to # 1.
The following is the breakdown of the offensive pattern into its component parts with its re-assembly following a logical series of steps gradually increasing in complexity and difficulty.
Training the Wing Man to Receive the Pass
The first step in the program is the development of the proper fundamentals of the wing man receiving the pass. In the receiving of 38
DIAGRAM # 3 DIAGRAM # 4
1
2 1 \ 1 ~· DIAGRAM # 5
.. the pass, the wing man must not stand and wait for the ball, but must mak.e a move or a series of moves that will allow him to receive the 39 7 pass in the area where the offense starts most effectively. This area for this particular offense is approxi.mately even with the foul line, three to !ive feet from the side line (Diagram #f6). By starting from this are a. congestion is avoided in the free throw lane where most of the cutting will be taking place. It also gives the wing men, #f2 and #f3, a good cutting angle to the basket for individual offensive moves. If the defensive man is playing over five feet from the wing man, he may simply stand in this area and receive the pass. However, most of the time the defensive man will be playing closer than five feet and it becomes difficult to receive the pass, in the prime area, without first making sorne type of move to make the defensive man move further
DIAGRAM # 6
7 John W. Bunn, Basketball Techniques and Team Play (Engle wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne., 1964), p. 182. 40 8 away. The best method is a simple change of direction. This is accomplished by the wing man faking towards the basket, changing direction and cutting quickly to the prime receiving area (Diagram H7).
The footwork for this maneuver is most important, for it will be used many times throughout this offense and as part of almost every type of offense. It is a fundamental basketball move. The first eut is made towards the basket. When the defensive man is moving backwards at a speed where it is difficult for him to stop, the wing man stops quickly by stamping his inside foot {the one closest to the end line) down in
DIAGRAM # 7
8 stan Watts, Developing ~Offensive Attack in Basketball (Engle wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Ha.ll Inc., 1959), p. 184. 41 front of him. He then makes a 180° pivot and cornes back to meet the ball pushing off on his pivot foot? This aspect, as well as all other aspects of the offense, will be practiced from both sides of the court so that a player will be proficient in going to his left side as well as his right. When the wing man has mastered the footwork described, a defensive player is then employed to guard the potential receiver. The wing man must now react to the distance at which the defensive player is guarding him to determine which move best fits the situation. The defensive player is allowed to play any distance from the wing man and is urged to vary his position constantly so as to provide the offen sive player with varied situations. When the wing man can consistently get to the prime receiving area in a position to receive the ball, it is possible to go on to the next step.
Once the wing man has moved to the receiving area, the next important aspect is his body position as he receives the ball. Here, once more, footwork is of prime importance. By obtaining sound fund amental proficiency, preparation is being made toward the reception of a pas s in any area as part of any offensive pattern. Whenever possible, the wing man should receive the ball facing toward the center of the
9 Ibid., p. 185. 42 court. This allows the player to be alert tQ all changing positions on the court and allows him to take advantage of any quick-scoring oppor- tunities that may exist. Being in this position also allows him to observe the exact position of his defensive man and decreases the chances of an offensive foul for backing into a stationary defender.
Once again, the wing man must come to meet the pass instead of trying to receive it in a stationary position. This movement decreases the chance of an interception by the defensive player. The move that was shown in Diagram #7 was just a specifie technique following the basic fundamental of coming to meet the hall on all passes. The bali should be received at the end of a short jum.p step. The player must land on both feet simultaneously and maintain a balanced body position: knees flexed, weight on the halls of the feet. hall at chest level, and head up.
This type of landing is desired for a specifie purpose. By landing on both feet simultaneously, the player bas declared neither foot as his pivot foot; therefore, he can use either foot as his pivot foot. This obviously gives him twice the number of offensive moves available to him than he would have if restricted to only one pivot foot. This would 10 be the case if he landed on either foot first.
10 Robert Samaras, "Pivot Moves Complete," Scholastic Coach, 32:11, December, 1962, p. 11. 43
Individual Offensive Moves of the Wing Man
Alter the wing man has perfected the moves needed to receive the ball, the next phase is the development of individual offensive moves.
These will be determined mainly by the position of the defensive player.
If the defensive player maintains a position of more than five-feet dis tance, the wing man may take a shot immediately from that position.
By receiving the passin the manner described above, the player is in
a perfect position to take a shot both quickly and accurately. If the defensive player assumes a doser guarding position, the wing man may attempt an offensive move that will result in a drive to the basket for a lay -up shot.
The cross-over. There are several maneuvers that may be used in this situation. One move is called the cross-over step and here again the footwork is of great importance. The move is made in the following fashion: upon receiving the ball, the player fakes toward the top of the foul circle. The fake is made by using the foot closest to the basket as pivot foot and extending the outside foot towards the top of the foul circle. The ball is also slightly extended in that direction and care must be taken to protect it from the reach of the defensive player trying to get it. When the defensive player leans in the direction 44 of the fake, the offensive player crosses bis outside leg in front of the 11 defensive man and drives to the basket for a lay-up. The cross-over step must be made low and as close to the defender as possible. This enables the player to move quicker, to maintain better body balance, 12 and to stop suddenly witb.out committing a violation. The ball must be held firmly as it is crossed in front of the defensive player. The inside shoulder must be lowered to bring better body balance and body control and avoid the possibility of an offensive foul for charging. When the shoulder is past the defender, no charging violation may be called.
Sorne critics might urge that all this technique involves is good footwork and balance, and that the coach has deviated from his pro- grammed approach to teach sorne fundamental footwork skills. In addition to requiring good footwork, it is felt that the offensive pattern is definitely being developed. To the boy who has the footwork, the pattern is the most important consideration. To the boy not so skilled, the pattern still is the most important consideration and incidental foot- work practice may be considered as no more .than a slight branching
11 Frank Ramsey, Pressure Basketball {Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1963}, p. 118.
12 Samaras, op. cit. , p. 11. 45
effect in the program. Of course, if all the time were devoted to the
footwork to the exclusion of the offensive pattern, the criticism might well be founded. But this is not the case here, nor in other similar
situations to be described below, as for example, in the turn around jump shot.
The~ and under. Another offensive move that may be used from this position is called the up and under. In this move, the offen-
sive player fakes as if he were going to shoot a jump shot. The fake is made by raising the ball to a shooting position and faking up with the head. As the defender jumps, or even rises to his toes, the offensive player pushes off with his outside foot and takes a long, low stride with 13 his inside foot. Once again, the shoulder closest to the defender is lowered and the fir st dribble is made as far past the defensive player as possible. Obviously, the longer and quicker the stride, the better is the chance o:f getting past the defensive player. Often, in both the cross-over step and the up and under, and in fact any offensive rnove toward the basket, the offensive player may find the area under the basket too congested to continue all the way to the basket for a lay-up
13 Joseph Hutton, and Vernon Hoffman, Basketball (Mankato, Minnesota: Creative Educational Society !ne., 1962), p. 98. 46 shot. In these cases, he may stop anywhere along his intended path and take a jump shot or make a pass. In working on these moves, the head of the offensive player is always held up, rather than looking down at the ball. In this position, he will be best able to see any opening that may occur and react to it. In stopping for the jump shot, we use the same principles learned in receiving the pass. The player is to stop on both feet, shoulders square to the basket and in a balanced posi- tion. This body position has been found to be the best for producing 14 accurate shooting.
The rocker step. The third and final move taught from this particular situation is called the rocker step. The move is started by faking direct!y at the defensive player. The fake is made by extending the inside foot and the bail towards him. A second fake is made by bringing the ball, head and shoulders back. This should lead the defen- sive player to believe that the offensive player is going to shoot from that position. As the defensive player moves or leans forward, the offensive player pushe s off hard with his pivot foot and goes by the 15 defensive player in the same manner as he did in the up and under.
14R amsey,~ ~~·t p. 1Z6. 15 Ibid., p. 119. 47
Once the footwork has been perfected for these three moves, defensive players are added and the moves are practiced as specifie reactions to the position of the defensive player. It should be noted here that these offensive techniques are not successful every time a player handles the baU from that position. If this were the case, basketball would be a one-against-one game rather than the team game that it is. More often than not, these opportunities will not lead directly to a score. In fact, if a team scores more than six baskets during agame on these particular moves, they are doing very well.
Often, the defensive man will be quick enough to recover his balance and floor position intime to prevent a good shot at the basket. Sorne times, other defensive men will move into a position to stop this kind of a move. However, unless each player has these moves available to him, he possesses no threat to the defense and becomes a liability rather than an asset to the offensive team. His defensive man need not worry about him and can concentrate on helping stop other offensive players who are threats to score. The moves described here are not the only offensive moves possible in this situation; however, it is felt that the se are the basic move s each player should be able to perform.
The perfecting of new and more diversified moves are left to the initia tive of the individual player, and he may advance with these at any rate 48 he is able. He should not attempt them, however, until he is able to perform the three basic moves with a high degree of competence.
The reverse. The preceding section describes various offen sive maneuvers that could be used when the offensive player is able to receive the ball facing the basket. Receiving the ballin this position, however, is not always possible •. Sometimes, no matter what evasive actions are taken, the defensive man will stay sufficiently close so that any pass will be in jeopardy of being intercepted. In this situation, two alternatives may be used. In the first method, the offensive player may receive the pass with his back to the basket. By doing this, he is protecting the ball with his body by keeping his body between the ball and the defensive man. Any aggressive attempt on the part of the defensive man to gain possession of the ball would lead to a foul.
In this instance, the inside foot (the right foot on the right side of the court} would be extended towards the back court with the other foot being used as the pivot foot. Reception of the ballin this fashion leads directly to another kind of offensive move called the reverse. If the defensive man lunges toward the ballon the side from which the pass is thrown, the wing man may make a 200°- 230° pivot and drive to the bas 16 ket for a shot. Once again, the body position learned in the other
16 watts, ~ cit., p. 180. 49 offensive moves is carried over to the new situation.
The back-door. The second alternative arises when the defen- sive player assumes a position between the passer and the wing man.
In this situation, any direct pass would be in jeopardy of interception and any evasive action that would ultimately bring the receiver toward the passer would bring hlm too far towards the center of the court and out of the prime receiving area. When this happens, an attempt is made to take advantage of the overly aggressive play to score a quick basket. This is accomplished in the following manner; the wing man moves towards the passer as if he were trying to receive the pass. When he finds the defender leaning toward the passer, he changes direction and cuts directly to the basket. This is accomplished by stopping on the outside foot, and pushing off on this foot. The pass is made either over the head or behind the defender and should result in a quick score.
When the defensive player is caught once, he must be more cautious of his floor position and passes to the wing man can be made in the normal fashion. This type of offensive maneuver is commonly called a back- door move, as the offensive player goes behind the defender rather than in front of hlm.
All the moves that have been described are now attempted with 50 defensive players. At first, the defensive players are placed at various distances to see how the offensive player will react. When he is able to react in the desired fashion to the stationary player, the defensive player is allowed to use any method of guarding he wishes. The offen- sive player must now react to the varying situations. This sets up a realistic game situation where the player must react almost automati- cally if the offense is to succeed.
Training the Passer
A vital part in the reception of a pass is the manner in which ·the pass is thrown to the receiver, and this must be included as an integral part of the overall offensive build-up. No matter how hard the receiver works to free himself, unless the pass is thrown accurately, chances for interception will remain high. The passer must watch both the 17 receiver and the receiver 1s defensive man in order to anticipate the moves of the receiver and make the pass where it is expected. Three basic passes must be learned to match the three types of moves made by the wing man, namely, receiving the pass facing the basket, receiv- ing the pass with his back to the basket, and going back-door. In the
17 Bunn, ~· cit., p. 41. 51 first case, when the wing man is able to receive the pass facing the basket, the pass is made at shoulder height towards the outside shoul der. A two-hand chest pass is best here. The pass should be crisp yet easily handled by the receiver. The re should be a slight amount 18 of backspin. When the receiver must catch the pass with his back to the basket, the same type of pass is used, but it is thrown far enough in front of the receiver so that he must reach to catch it. This is done for two reasons. First, the fact that the wing man is facing away from the basket means that his defender is guarding him closely and a pass of this ldnd makes it very difficult for a defender to intercept the ball. Secondly, a defensive man who still tries to intercept the ball would be drawn out of good defensive position and be extremely vulnerable to the reverse move described previously. So then, this pass not only cuts down the chance of interception but also sets up a possible offensive move. The third passing situation arises from the back-door move. This is the most difficult of the three to complete.
Two basic types of passes may be used, the bounce pass and the lob pass. The one to be used is determined by the court position of the wing man. H the play is started even with the foul line or doser to
18 Ramsey, ~ cit., p. 110. 52 the passe:J;, the lob pass is used. The pass must be thrown over the head of the defender and far enough ahead of the receiver so that he need not slow down or stop to receive the pass but can catch the pass 19 in full stride going toward the basket. When the play is initiated closer to the basket than the foul Une, a lob pass as described above would have to be thrown dangerously close to the end-line and even if the pas s could be caught before it went out of bounds, the angle to the basket would not lead to an accurate shot. In this case, a bounce pass must be used. The pass should be thrown so as to land to the side of the feet of the defender and approximately two-thirds the distance to 20 the receiver. This is the defender1 s most vulnerable area, and a bounce pass there stands the least chance of interception. Also, a pass bouncing in this area will reach sufficient height to be easily handled by the receiver.
Progression has now been made from individual moves to those requiring the coordination of the movements of two players. These are installed basically in the same manner the individual moves were
19 Philip S. Fox, and H. Usilander, "Ball Handling Specifies, 11 Scholastic Coach, 33:42, October, 1963, p. 42.
20 Ibid. , p. 42. 53 incorporated. First, the two offensive men work together until their movements become coordinated. A defensive man is then used to guard the passer. The passer must then not only be cognizant of the pass receiver but must also protect the baU from the man guarding him and still be able to make an accurate pass. Next, a guard is used on the receiver and game conditions are simulated as closely as possible. The defensive players are once again instructed to put as much pressure as possible on the offensive players, making them use all the options that they have learned. It should be noted here that the pairings of offensive and defensive players is not done ran domly. Pairings are matched as closely as possible so that there is a good opportunity for success while still presenting a realistic chal lenge. Either over-matching or under-matching greatly inhibits the principles and goals towards which the program is geared.
Training the Point Man
More times than not, the wing man will be unable to make an offensive move that willlead directly to a basket. It should take him no more than three seconds to attempt his offensive move. If, at this time, he finds no scoring opportunity, the pattern continues. The next part of the pattern involves the man who made the original pass, 54
the point man. He is called the point man because of his position at
the beginning of the offensive pattern. The pattern calls for him to eut
to either side of the high-post man and look for a return pass. There- fore, foliowing the logical sequence of the offense, this is where the program continues. Here, as in most offensive moves, the course of action taken is largely determined by the play of the defenders. First, he may eut past the high-post man on the same side as the bali.
Secondly, he may eut past the high-post man on the side away from the ball. Thirdly, he may fake a eut and stop directly in back of the high- post man. Here, as before, the footwork is vital to the success of the move. The point man should eut to the same side as the bali when his defensive man is playing directly in front of him or over-playing to the side away from the bail. The eut is never made in a straight line.
The point man cuts as if he were going to the side away from the ball.
When he reaches the high-post man, he changes direction and goes to the same side as the bali (Diagram #8). The change of direction is basically the same maneuver as the one used by the wing man to receive the pass. The eut should be made as close to the high-post 21 man as poss1b. 1e. T h e best poss1b. 1e eut is one in which the point
21 Paul M. Baker, "Revolving Continuity, 11 Scholastic Coach, 34:8, November, 1964, p. 8. 55 man slightly brushes against the high-post man. If these two offensive players are that close together, it will be impossible for the defender to fit in between and maintain good defensive position. The eut should be made in as low a position as possible with the point man anticipating a passas soon as he get by the high-post man. The eut to be made to the side away from the ball is made basically in the same manner.
This time, however, the point man starts his eut towards the ball and then cuts to the side away from the ball when he gets to the high-post man (Diagram #9). The cutter should not expect a return pass in this
DIAGRAM # 8 DIAGRAM # 9
2. ' '
s 56 situation until he has reached a position near the basket. The delay in this case is required by the fact that a different passing lane must be used because of the positi9n of the high-post man between the passer and the cutter (Diagrams #10 and #11). Because of the narrower passing lane, this pass is more difficult and must be made with more accuracy.
The point-man must slow down as he reaches the basket or his forward momentum will carry him too far under the basket; therefore, the pass must be timed to reach him just as he stops. The shot must be taken immediately as the defensive player can often recover quickly enough
DIAGRAM # 10 DIAGRAM # 11 57 to make a shot difficult. The pass should reach the receiver at shoulder height. This eliminate s the adjustment of the ball before the shot. The third alternative occurs when the defensive player anticipates the cutting moves and drops back to a position under the basket {Diagram #12}.
Onder these conditions» the point man will not continue his eut as he had on the previous plays. Instead, he will fake the same move, but stop in front of the high-post man and receive the pass for a shot from there
{Diagram #13}. The defensive man who had gone to the position near the basket must now somehow get around both the high-post man and the man defending the high-post man in order to regain good defensive posi- tion; this is very difficult. Once again, after the players become compe-
DIAGRAM # 12 DIAGRAM # 13 58
tent in these three moves, defensive players are added and game con
ditions are simulated as closely as possible.
Pas sing From the Wing Position
The next step is complementary to the preceding step. In order
for the play to operate efficiently, it is not only important that the
point man make the proper eut but also that the pass to him be made
accurately. A different type of pass is most advantageous for each of
the three cuts. In the case of the cutter going on the same side as the
ball, the best pass is the bounce pass as it best allows the receiver to
continue with a dribble to the basket. The pass should be thrown so as
to come up to the hip area of the receiver and slightly in front of him,
so that he need not alter his movement to the basket. As stated before,
the pass used when the man cuts to the side away from the ball must be
thrown quickly and accurately. The best pass in this situation is the
two-hand overhead pass. ZZ To insure that this pass is not deflected,
the passer should first fake a dribble so that the defender must drop his hands in order to defend against the drive move. In the last case,
when the cutter moves to the back of the high-post man to receive a
22 John Barry, Offensive Basketball Techniques. {Mimeographed.) 59 pass for a jurnp shot, the two-hand chest pass is used. This pass, as are all passes, is preceded by a fake, and in this case, in the opposite direction towards where the pass is intended. The pass should reach 23 the receiver at the chest level. Coordination between the cutter and the passer is worked on until they are able to operate smoothly with the minimum of errant passes. A defender is then used first on the cutter, thenon both the passer and cutter.
Coordination of Moves Between the Wing Man and Point Man
After the completion of the work between the cutter and the passer, the next step is to integrate the two basic two-man maneuvers, namely, the pass to the wing man and the pass to the cutter. This is done once @,gain by running through these moves without a defense until a fair degree of competence is reached. Defensive player s are then added one at a time so that the difficulty increases in graduai stages.
The most difficult task, namely, working against three aggressive defenders, is attempted on1y after success on the less difficult steps.
Training the High-Post Man
The next stage in the progression involves the work of the high-
23 Fox and Uslander, ~ cit., p. 42. 60 post man. Particular interest is placed on his· individual moves and his work with the cutters. These situations are generally broken down into basic variations: when the cutter recei~es the pass and when the cutter does not receive the pass.
The high-post ~ ~ ~picker. The first thing the high-post man must concern himself with is getting into the proper position to set the pick for the cutter. As the cutter goes by, the high-post man must be perfectly stationary or he may be charged with an offensive foul. The high-post man sets the pick by facing almost directly at the basket only slightly favoring the side towards the bali (Diagram #14).
This accomplishes several objectives. By having the player face in that
DIAGRAM # 14
·J 61
direction, he is less likely to be injured if run into by a. defensive
pla.yer. Secondly, a.s the play goes by hlm, he is better able to
see wha.t is happening and thereby ta.ke a.dva.ntage of any openings
that may occur. While having his back to the cutter, he is instructed to ta.ke up as much room as possible. This is done by
assuming a wide stance, slightly crouched, with the arms and elbows 24 held away from the body. This increases the chances of the defen-
sive player running into him or having him reduce the effectiveness
of his defensive position by going around him. After the cutter
receives the pass, there is one thing that the high-post man must be aware of and be able to react to and that is the switching of defensive men. This occurs when the defensive man guarding the high-post man
switches and picks up the cutter after he bas received the hall. In this case, the high-post man must move directly towards the basket 25 . where he should expect a pass from the cutter. (D1agra.m #15). The high-post man must identify the situation immediately and react in the proper fashion. If this is not done quickly, it will give the cutter1 s
24 Rex L. Gray, "The Low Post, 11 Athletic Journal, XLlV:lZ, October, 1963, p. 12. 25 Robert H. Joer, 11 The Pick and Roll Components and Varia- tions, 11 Athletic Journal, XLV:24, October, 1964, p. 25. DIAGRAM # 15 62
...... J
defensive man an opportunity to gain good defensive position on the high-post man. If he does react intime, he can keep the cutter1s defensive man in back of him and have an unobstructed drive to the basket. Obviously, the cutter must also be aware of this situation.
As soon as he is picked up by the defensive man guarding the high post man, he should realize that the high-post man must be free and pass to him. The pass should be a bounce pass because it has the leaat: chance of being intercepted in this situation. Work is now done on coordinating the moves of the cutter and high-post man. Defensive players are added first on the cutter, thenon the high-post man, and finally on both. After completion of this, the pattern is run from the beginning through our current stage of development, again starting with one defensive man and progressing until three defensive men are used. 63
Offensive moves of the high-point man. The next portion of our overall pattern evolves when the cutter is unable to receive the ball on his roll to the basket. In this situation, the high-post man has not yet made a move to the basket, he is still basically in the same position he was in when the cutter moved by. After he sees that the cutter will not receive the pass, he will start to make moves to get himself in good offensive position. He must, however, be certain that the cutter will not receive the pass. If he moves while the cutter still has an oppor tunity to receive the ball, he will increase the possibility of an inter ception by bringing his defender into the passing lane. This is espec ially so when the cutter goes to the side away from the ball. Once it becomes evident that there will be no passing opportunity, the moves of the high-post man must be made quickly before his defensive man has an opportunity to adjust into good defensive position. While the cutter is moving through, the man guarding the high-post man must play fairly loose in case it becomes necessary for him to pick up the cutter. Most often, the man on the high post will fake before he makes his move to the basket. The fake· and the moves to the basket are iden tical to two of the individual offensive moves learned previously, but this time they are done without the ball. The first is the cross-over step where the high-post man fakes away from the baU, crosses his 64 outside leg in front of the defender and moves to the basket. The second is merely a change of direction where the high-post man once again fakes away from the baU, makes a 90° inside pivot and moves to the basket. The roll to the basket again should be made using the same basic position as the drive --inside shoulder low, long, low first step, etc. In these situations, the high-post man has more leeway in his moves as he need not worry about a walking violation since he does not have the baU in his possession.
When the high-post man receives the baU, he should be in a prime shooting area. The moves that he must use from this position are quite different fr,om those used by the wing man, mainly because the ball is being received with his back to the basket, the ball is being received much closer to the basket, and it is being received while cut ting to the basket. If the high-post man is able to get in front of his defender, there is no difficulty'as far as the shot is concerned. A simple lay-up shot will be taken. However, most of the time the high post man will not be able to gain that rouch of an advantage on his defen sive man, so another type of shot must be used. The moves described will again be from the right side of the basket although it should be understood that the same moves can be used just as easily from the left side. ~ 65 (a) The Hook Shot. The first shot ,t may be taken is the
right-handed hook shot. For this shot, the receiver may or may not
shoot without a definite stop. The player must at least slow down to
increase the accuracy of the shot. The last step should be one in which
the player jumps up rather than continue toward the basket at the
same speed. The shot is made with a sweeping motion of the right
hand, taking off on the left foot. The backboard is always used on this
s h ot. 26 If the shot ts. taken a f ter a stop, th en a fake is necessary.
With the ball held tightly at chest height and his back to the defender,
the fake is first made to the right with the head and shoulders. A 90°
pivot is made on the left foot so that the body is now perpendicular to
the basket. A dribble may or may not be taken depending on the player1s balance at the time. The shot is taken basically in the same fashion as
the one taken when moving.
(b) The Turn Around Jump Shot. The next shot from this spot is called the turn around jump shot. In this shot, once again, the eut- ter has received the ball with his back to the defender. He fakes as if he is going to take a right-handed hook shot then makes a 180° pivot
26 Alvin F. Julian, Bread and Butter Basketball (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne. ,1960), p. 32. 66 using the right foot as the pivot foot. As his pivot is completed, he 27 jumps and shoots over the head of the defender. Body balance is very important in this shot and cannot be achieved until the pivot is done properly. The shot should not be taken until the player has pivoted sufficiently to see the basket. A blind shot at the basket should never be taken as chances for success are extremely limited.
( c) The Reverse and Left-Hand Hook. The next shot in this progression of offensive moves is the most difficult and should not be tried until the others have been thoroughly learned. This move is called the reverse and Ieft-hand hook. As evident from the name, this move requires a shot with the left hand. This proves to be a difficult task for normally right-handed players. ln leading up to this, extra work must be done so that a player can shoot with either hand with some degree of proficiency. This shot is taken when the defensive player is overplaying to the inside. the side nearest the basket. As the cutter receives the ball, he immediately stops by jamming his left foot down as the pivot foot. The right foot is swung back so that it points directly at the basket. At the same time, the ball is bounced with the right hand so that it lands near the right foot.
27 Grady, 2f.• cit., p. 12. 67
With the right foot dawn, and the body facing the basket, the ball i s 28 switched to the left hand for the shot. If the move is made quickly, the defender will be caught in back of the shooter with no chance of interfering with the shot. The way that the dribble is made with the right hand is especially important. The dribble should be made with a back-hand motion, palm facing the basket. This bri~gs the ball in a direct line with the basket and allows the player to move more easily in that direction.
Mter the players become sufficiently adept at these maneuvers, stationary defenders are placed so that the offensive players are forced to react to the position of the defenders in deciding what offensive move to use. When they can successfully cape with this problem, the defen sive players play as they would in a game and have the offense react accordingly.
Passing to the High-Post Man
In order for the high-post man to complete these maneuvers successfully, it is necessary that the pass made to him be a good one.
The one general rule that we follow and ,practice in the next stage of our progression is that the pass made to the high-post man moving to the
28samaras, .:œ_. cit. , p. 11. 68
basket is always thrown away from the defender. This means that if
the defender is playing directly behind the high-post man, the pass
should be made directly at his chest. If the defender is overplaying
to either side, then the pass is made to the side away from the 29 defender.
Training the Low-Post Man
The next step is the final one for this particular offensive pat-
tern. If there is no clear pass to the high-post man, the low-post man
cornes up to take the place previously occupied by the high-post man.
The footwork used to receive the pass is basically the same as that of
the wing-man soit is necessary only to review these moves with the
players to be sure that they can still perform them. Basically, what
is desired is to have the low-post man receive the hall facing the passer
at the foul line area. He must not receive the hall inside the foullane
as the risk of losing the hall on a three second violation is too great.
He should, again, receive the hall landing on both feet simultaneously.
Offensive moves of the low-post ~ Receiving the hall with
29 Fox and Usilander, op. cit., p. 42. 69 his side facing the basket, he is neither in the position of the wing man who received the ball facing the basket, nor the high-post man who received the ball with his back to the basket, so his moves must be slightly different from theirs •. The move he makes will again be deter- mined by the position of the defensive player. The first move is made when the defender assumes a position of four or more feet from the low-post man. In this case, the offensive player uses the inside foot as the pivot foot, turns to face the basket and takes a jump shot. The shot should be taken in a balanced position and should not be attempted unti.l the player bas completed his pivot and is facing the basket. A shot attempted while turning tends to be much more inaccurate than one 30 taken while facing the basket. When the defender is playing more closely, but still in a direct line to the basket, a cross-over step may be used. It is the same as the one used by the wing man earlier, but slight modifications must be added because of the location and the body position. .Aiter receiving the ball, the low-post man pivots towards the passer using his le.ft foot as the pivot foot. He then takes a long stride towards the right corner with his right leg. As the defender move s toward the fake, the right leg is crossed in front of the defender and a
30 J u 1.1an, op.~·,•t p. 31 • 70 move is made to the basket. The next move is made when the defender overplays slightly to the inside. ln this case, we use the same reverse and left-hand shot as we did with the high-post man. The only difference here is that it may be necessary for the low-post man to take a few more dribbles as he is farther from the basket. The final move is used when the defender anticipates a direct eut to the foul line and overplays greatly in this direction. In such a case, we use a back-door eut very similar to the one used by the wing man. The low-post man fakes as if he were coming to the foul line area. As he approaches, he stamps his right foot down as a pivot foot, makes a 90° pivot and goes directly to the basket.
Passing to the Low-Post Man
The passes that are made to this player are basically the' same as the ones that we have previously used. The pass to the foul line should be made away from the defender and at shoulder height. The pass for the back-door eut should be thrown high and quickly so that the cutter may shoot immediately upon receiving the pass. After the low-post man has completed his moves to the point of competence, a coordination between the passer and cutter is worked on. As before, a defender is first introduced on the cutter, thenon the passer, thenon 71 both the passer and cutter.
The Coordination of the Team
The offensive pattern has now been completed. It will now be run through completely from beginning to end without a defense. The timing of the individual players working as a team will be of great importance. Defensive players are introduced one at a time until the final stage is reached. This final stage is having five defensive players against the five offensive player s. This scrimmage situation clos ely simulates game conditions.
Summary
In summary, a sound offense bas be en developed by using an orderly progression of small steps. It started with relatively simple situations using only one player doing one thing, to a complex network of movem·ents involving five player s moving in different ways. Built in bas been a thorough grounding in fundamentals and a carryover of basic techniques learned in easy tasks needed to perform more difficult tasks. This furnishes a built-in reviewing system. The player is able to proceed at his own rate and only goes to the next difficult step after the successful completion of an easier step. The player is immediately aware whether or not his re sponse is the correct one at each step. Rein forcement contingencies as described at the beginning of the chapter are used. The essential principles of programmed instruction have been used. CHAPTER IV
DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENT
The formulations o.f the previous chapter were an attempt to apply sorne of the potentialities of programmed instruction to a series of sldlls which may be varied. In order to evaluate the usefulness of this particular method of teaching basketball sldlls, it is necessary to design an experiment to test it. "Only applied evaluative experimenta- tion can determine the usefulness of a given approach of using princi- 1 ples of programmed instruction."
A sequence of exercises having been produced using the princi- ples of programmed instruction, it became possible to conduct a routine inter-group experiment, using two groups within the control of the experimenter. Criteria of success were decided upon. The two matched groups were given equal training times at their respective training programs and then an experiment was conducted to measure the relative success of the programs on the criteria established.
It should be noted that the setting up of the experiment, the allocation of individuals to groups, the decision about criteria, the as sumptions concerning the measuring of the criteria. as well as the
1 John S. Abma, "Theory and Research in Programmed Instruc tion," U.S.A.F. andA.M.R.L., Memo, 1964, No. P-74, p. 13. 73 actual training of both groups, (as well as the training of a third group involved in the measurement of the scores which yield the criteria for judging the effect of the training), all involved a single individual--the experimenter--who was interested in the results, and who had drawn up the hypotheses being tested. In such a case, the results obtained may always reflect the bias of the experimenter. lt must be urged in extenuation that something of this nature is always Ukely to be present in pilot studie s such as this. It must also be noted, as will be shown below, that every opportunity possible was taken to remove this sub jectivity from the experiment. To the extent that it remains, caution must be urged in the interpretation of the results.
Equalization of Groups.
In practice, each summer, children in the local area attend a sum mer school. One of the cour ses offered is devoted to the learning of bas ketb all skills. As the Director of this cour se, it therefore became possi ble for the experimenter to assign boys to groups and to provide balanced programs for them. ln setting up the groups to be used in the experiment, many factors were taken into consideration. Previous basketball exper ience or the lack of it in a group could greatly influence the resulta. 74
This would cause a great dispa:rity in group ability at the start of the experiment and would necessitate the experimenter trying to determine what part of the results was due to the factor of previous experience.
The boys enrolled in the summer program ranged in age from thirteen to fifteen year s old and all had considerable pr~vious basketball exper ience. Because of the number of boys enrolled and because of the other class schedules, the group was divided into two classes. The first class had an enrollment of eight boys while the second was composed of twelve boys. The separation of the two groups was made in a completely random fashion. As only the second group contained a sufficient num ber to establish two full basketball teams, it was necessary to use them for the experiment. This group was divided in half as evenly as possi ble on the basis of basketball experience and ability. The preliminary decision of grouping was made by the Director who had knowledge of the ability and experience range from previous contact with the students.
Final grouping was established after considering recommendations of other coaches also familiar with the students. The decision as to which would be the experimental group and which would be the control group was decided by the flip of a coin. By setting up the groups in this manner, many of the difficulties previously mentioned have been overcome and there is a justification to believe that previous exper- 75 iences and abilities have been neutralized to the< extent that any differ- en ces in ..re sults can be attributed to the approach used.
It was also necessary to make sure that each team played against a team of equal def~nsive ability. This does not necessarily mean that the defensive team playing against the experimental group must be equal in ability to that group, but means that the defensive team playing against the experimental group must be equal in ability to the team playing against the control group. This was accomplished by using the class of eight boys not taking part in the learning experiment as the defensiv~ team for both groups. In this manner, both groups have been provided with equal defensive teams to work against and any ' factor that might re sult from the teams playing against defensive units of varied abilities have been removed.
Training Procedures
The experiment was divide.d into two parts. First, there was the learning by the use of the two different methods and then there was the te sting of the sucees s of the two methods. The learning period was set at two weeks. During this time, each group had the opportunity to learn the offensive pattern de scribed in the previous chapter. The experimental group used the method described in the previous chapter, 76 while the control group would use the more traditio:nal method. By this, it is meant that the control group would be shown the offensive pattern as a whole and would start by practicing it in its complete form right from the beginning. Mista.kes were corrected by the stop ping of play and the demonstration of the proper method by the instructor.
Both groups used half of their one and one -half hour period to work on the offensive pattern, while the other half of the period was devoted to fundamental drills such as rebou:n.ding, passing, shooting, and dribbling.
Each group performed the same fundamental drills each day. By set ting up the learning situation in this manner, each group was given an equal period of time to learn the offensive pattern and all supplemental learning experiences were equalized.
Criteria for Measurement of Sucees s
It became necessary to establish effective criteria for the success of the two programs. The following were adopted: number of shots taken, number of shots taken within .fifteen feet of the basket, number of baskets scored, losses of the ball by violations, and losses of the baU by intercepted passes. In establishing these criteria, certain con siderations were taken into account. It was postulated that a team that gets a shot at the basket more often than its opponent has a great 77 advàntage. No matter what offensive pattern is used, the ultimate objective is to get a shot at the basket. This is the only way a team can score. "It is difficult to win games when a team loses possession 2 of the ball before getting a shot. 11 It is apparent that a well learned offensive pattern should produce more shots at the basket than a poorly learned one.
Not only are ,the number of shots taken important, but of even greater importance is where the shots are taken from. Shot difficulty increases as one moves further from the basket. The doser to the basket, the better is the chance of making the shot. Therefore, a good offense should produce most of its shots from within fifteen feet from the basket as this area is considered good shooting rail-ge. If an offensive pattern is consistently able to produce shots from within the fifteen foot radius of the basket, it must be considered superior to an 3 offensive pattern that seldom produces this type of shot.
The most important statistic in determining the success of a
2 Stanley Watts, Developing ~Offensive Attack in Basketball (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne., 1959), p. 59. 3 . Fred Taylor, 11 0h1o State 1 s Patterned Front Court Movements, 11 The Best of Scholastic Coach {Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne. ~62), p. 124. 78 particular offensive pattern must be the number of shots made, for 4 this is the final product of any and every offensive pattern. It should be remembered, however, that this figure, the number of shots made, is in reality strongly dependent on the number of shots taken and from what area these shots are taken. An increase in the first figure allows a team to score more baskets while keeping the same shooting percent- age. ln other words, a team that shoots 40 per cent from the floor will make forty baskets out of every one hundred attempts but will make forty-eight out of one hundred and twenty attempts. Those twenty extra shots at the basket have resulted in eight more field goals or six- teen more·points. As already stated, the closer to the basket a field goal is attempted, the greater is the chance for success. It should be expected that a team that shoots closer to the basket more often than another team will shoot a higher percentage thaJi that other team. If the same number of shots were taken, this would result in a greater number of field goals being made by the team that shoots the greater percentage.
The final two statistics are actually very similar to the statistic
4 Branch McCracken, Indiana Basketball (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice Hall Inc., 1955), p. 7 3. 79 measuring the number of shots taken. These statistics deal with the number of times the ball is lost without a shot being taken. lt is obvious that the more times a shot is taken, the fewer times the ball will be lost on bad passes and other yi.olations. This statistic is con-
sidered separately because it is felt that it is better for the offensive team to lose the ballon violations than to lose iton a pass intercepted by the defense. The reason for this can be traced to the rules of the game. When a team loses the baU because of a violation, the team gaining possession of the baU takes the ball out-of-bounds at the point 5 nearest the violation with the referee handling the ball. ln all these instances, the team that has committed the violation is given the oppor- tunity to set themselves in their defensive position before the offensive team attacks. This is not the case for an intercepted pass. The team now in possession of the ball can attack immediately, often catching the defensive team before it can recover. This often resulta in an easy basket. With this in mind, it is felt that a good offensive pattern, if it is going to lose the ball at all, should do so via violations rather than intercepted passes.
5 . Basketball Rules 1965-1966, National Federation of State High School Athletic Associations, U.S.A., 1965, p. 27. 80
In swnmary, it was felt that a well learned offensive pattern
will increase the number of shots taken at the basket, increase the
number of shots taken within fifteen feet from the basket, reduce the
nwnber of losses of the baU, especially by intercepted passes, and
finally produce a higher shooting percentage which will result in more
baskets scored.
Equalization of Offensive Oeportunity
The next consideration was to make sure that each group bad an
equal opportunity to use the offensive pattern. This means that each team would be in possession of the ball an equal number of times.
This was accomplished by using a half court scrimmage rather than a
regular game. Each team bad possession of the ball twenty-five times
each day for a period of fifteen days, or each team bad a total of two hundred and twenty-five possessions of the baU. Any one possession was ended with the taking of a shot or the losing of the ball by having it
stolen by the defensive team, having a pass thrown out of bounds, or by an offensive violation such as walking, double -dribble, three second violation, or an offensive foul. In the case of a defensive foul, the play would start over unless a basket was scored on the foul, in which case, the basket would count and that possession would be over. By using 81 this method, such factors as rebounding and defensive stalling have been eliminated in evaluating our offense and have left only that part of the game situation that deals almost entirely with the offensive pattern.
Measuring the Criteria of Performance
The measurement of the criteria used as a basis for successful performance was done by the experimenter and two assistants. The assistants were experienced in this procedure as they had both recorded similar statistics for a high school basketball team during the previous basketball season. A fairly common form of shot-chart was used to measure the number of shots taken, the number of shots taken from within fifteen feet of the basket, and the number of shots made. (Appen dix--Table !). This me rely is a chart containing a diagram of a basket bail court. When a player takes a shot, the recorder places his num ber on the chart showing where the shot was taken and circles this number if the shot is made. In this fashion, it is easy to tabulate the number of shots the team took, where the shots were taken, and how many shots were made. The other criteria are marked also on a fairly standard chart. (Appendix--Table ll). The recorder merely places a mark in the appropriate column to match what has occurred on the court. The experimenter who has had long experience in refereeing 82 basketball games acted as the referee and called violations that occur red.
Statistics and their Operation
In the comparison of the results obtained, which are simple fre quencies, the chi-square test was used. It was postulated that the con trol group would be typical of similar groups of high school students who would participate in a basketball program. They were ·an of high school age and had enough previous basketball experience to qualify them to make most high school basketball teams. The scores were used as the base line, i.e., as the expected frequencies, in the sense that these scores would be expected from a typical coaching procedure of the kind mentioned on pages 75-76. ln presenting the results, the corresponding value of chi-square will be given for each set of frequen cies, expected (control) and observed (experi:rp.ental). CHAPTER V
RESULTS: THEIR INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
At the conclusion of the experiment which lasted one and a half hours a day for a ten-day period of time, tests were given in the form of the scrimmage sessions described in Chapter IV --the performance of the defensive groups against both the control group and the experi- mental group being equal. Results for all the criteria established were taken and the final results appear in Table 1.
TABLE I
TABLE OF RESULTS
Con- Experi- Chi- Signifi- trol mental Square gance
No. of times in possession 375 375
No. of shots taken 286 313 2.51 N.S.
No. of shots within 15 ft. 213 274 17.4 1%
No. of baskets scored 97 121 5.93 2o/o
No. of !osses by bad passes 38 14 41.4 1%
No. of !osses by violations 51 48 0.18 84
I. ANAL YSIS OF RESULTS
The resulta of the experiment indicate that teaching an offensive pattern using the principles of programmed instruction improves the performance in severa! but not all areas established as the criteria of a successful basketball pattern. Those areas, namely, the ones having a significance above the five per cent level, are number of shots taken within, fifteen feet of the basket, number of baskets scored, and number of losses of the baU by bad passes. Those areas that did not show a significant improvement were number of shots taken, and number of losses of the baU by violations.
Number of Shots Taken
The improvement in the number of shots taken did not reach the five per cent level of significance but nevertheless did show sorne improvement. It is reasonable to assume that this area would be one where less of an improvement may be expected. In reality, in order for a team to take a shot at the basket, it is not necessary for them to follow any definite offensive pattern. The minute a team gains posses sion of the baU, it becomes possible for them to take a shot at the basket. Any player may take a shot from any area of the court. The fact that a shot is taken may then have little or no relation to the type 85 of offensive pattern that is used or how well an offensive pattern has been learned. With this in mind, the fact that this area showed no significant improvement does not strongly indicate that the approach used was of little value.
Number of Shots Within Fifteen Feet of the Basket
The number of shots taken within fifteen feet of the basket showed a significant improvement. This is especially important as this criteria is one of the most important measurements of a good offensive pattern. As stated in Chapter IV, shooting percentage increase s as one gets closer ta the basket. This was emphasized recently in the American Basketball Association. In this league, three rather than two points were awarded for a shot of thirty feet or more. It is then evident that a welllearned offensive pattern should produce more shots in good shooting range. The resulte of the exper iment indicate that significantly more shots are taken in good shooting range, namely, one within fifteen feet from the basket, when the offensive pattern is taught by a method using the principles of pro grammed instruction, as described in Chapter m.
In analyzing the resulte of this facet of the game, it appears that several factors may be involved in the improvement achieved. 86
Bad shots are often taken when a player is unsure of himself and does 1 not know what to do with the ball. In sucb cases, the player is likely
to shoot the ball, often taking a long shot that has little or no chance of
success. There are several situations that may cause a player to
become unsure of himself. The first situation occurs when a player
faces a situation that is unfamiliar to h.im. By teaching the offense
using the principles of programmed instruction, all the possible situa-
tions which may face the offensive player have been covered in a logical
sequence and it is ascertained that he is able to react successfully to
each one before going on to the next. The chances of the player meet-
ing an unfamiliar situation after this type of instruction is far less
than in the more traditional approach where,unless a situation comes
up in a scrimmage session, the chance of instruction as to the proper
response to the situation .is small. Secondly, a player becomes unsure when his teammates react in an unfamiliar fashion. By building the
offensive pattern first with one man, then with another, until fina.lly all five are playing, each player knows what his teammates are doing in eve ry situation and should not be surprised by anything they do. He may be confident that if he runs into trouble, there is a safety-valve
1 Fred Winters, The Triple Post Offense (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall In.c::-1966), P• 152. 87
already arranged for him. Ail the possible moves of his teammates
are known to him and ail he must dois react to a previously learned
situation. A third situation that makes a player unsure of himself is
playing against a player who is superior to him in size or ability. The
player realizes he is at a disadvantage and if forced into a one-on-one
situation, may have difficulty maintaining possession of the bail. But,
after being taught the offensive pattern using the principles of pro
grammed instruction, the players should have a feel of his part in the
team's pattern. He is made to realize that the success of the pattern
is not determined by the relative ability of each individual against his
opponent, but rather on the interaction of the five individuals forming a unit. These factors taken together result in the significant improve
ment in this area.
Number of Baskets Scored
The statistic dealing with the number of baskets scored showed an improvement that was significant. The high leve! of significance can be traced to severa! factors. The most important factor is that more
shots were taken from within a fifteen foot area. As stated previously,
shots taken nearer the basket stand a better chance of success than those taken further from the basket, soit is natural to expect a greater 88
number of shots to be made. Another aspect that is very important is
the fact that the players know from what area most of their shots will
be taken and can prepare themselves mentally for that type of shot. A
pla.yer who knows where he will receive the ball can plan his shot in
advance and eliminate the uncertainty which often leads to a missed 2 shot• The player will also spend more time practicing these shots as
he knows that they a.re the shots required by the offensive pattern. A
player who is not sure where or when he will receive the ball must
make an extremely fast decision to shoot or not to shoot, what type of
shot to take, etc. Many times the player is not able to make the right
decision in such a short time and the result is often a poor shot or some
type of violation which resulta in the loss of the baU.
Number of Losses of the Ball
The next area deals with losses of the ball through bad passes.
This includes throwing passes that are intercepted by the defensive
tea:m and passes that are thrown out of bounds and result in the loss of
the ball to the defensive team. This area shows significant improve- ment when using the progra:mmed method of instruction. This again
2 Fred Lewis, 11A Theory of Shot Discipli:a.e," Athletic Journal, Vol. XLIV, No. 2, October, 1963, p. 9. 89
can be traced to the fact that each player thoroughly knows where his
teammates will be in every situation and a great degree of uncertainty
and guesswork is removed. The result is more accurate passing.
Another factor that influences the results is the fact that in the pro
grammed instruction method. the type of pass to be thrown is included
in the learning situation. In the more traditional approach, passing is
taught by the use of separate drills and the type of pasa to be used in a
specifie situation is left entirely to the judgement of the individual
player. This leads to more passing errors.
The final criteria is the number of losses of the ball due to
violations. As indicated by Table I. this area shows no real significant
improvement. This is not particularly bad as it is felt that it is better
to lose the ball on a violation than on a bad pas s.
II. IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS
In summarizing the results, it seems that applying the princi
ple s of programmed instruction to the teaching of baske.tball skills doe s
improve ·the performance in severa! areas. It may be surmised that
these are not the only types of skills that may be improved in this
fashion, but may be only one example of a wide range of activities that may also be improved by using programmed instruction. Previously, 90
programmed instruction has be en used primarily for academie sub-
jects a:nd other activities that rely primarily on mental rather than 3 physical activities. Programs •63 liste 363 different programs cur-
rently produced in the United States and none of them relate to physical
skills. The program described in Chapter m for this type of skill,
has not been produced in the typical machine or textbook form, but
rather in the form of a programmed manual that was used by the
instructor in the teaching situation. In this way, the instructor fulfills
some of the function of the machine. At the present time, there is no
machine available that is able to judge the correctness of a response
called for in the learning of the offensive pattern, so it is necessary
to have the instructor serve that function of producing the information as
to whether the response made was a correct one. The instructor also
has the function of producing new and varied situations if the response
is wrong, i.e., to introduce "branching" into the program. The se
new situations {branches) should make it possible for the individual to
answer the previously missed question correctly, or to react in a
satisfactory manner to the previous situation. When the correct
3 . Programs '63, ed. by L1ncoln F. Hanson, The Center for Pro- grammed Instruction, Inc. in cooperation with U. S. Department of Health Education and Welfare (Washington: · U. S. Government Printing • Office, 1963) • 91
response is made, the instructor must be able to produce the next sit
uation, i.e., return to the stem of the program. Whether another
type of program can be developed that will eliminate the need for an
instructor and allow the student to follow the entire program completely
on his own will only be learned from further research into the subject.
Whether all physical skills can be improved in this manner must also
be examined by further research.
m. WEAKNESSES IN THE EXPERIMENTATION
It has been noted that one possible source of weakness in the
experiment was that of the experimenter's own persona! involvement,
and the possible bias. There are one or two other considerations to
which attention is now drawn, in particular the role of intelligence,
the height of the boys taking part, and the question of the retention of
learning over time. These will now be considered.
The Role of Intelligence
One factor that has not been considered in the experimental
design is the role of intelligence in the learning of an offensive pattern.
A search of the pertinent literature reveals no study made to examine 92 the relationship between intelligence and the learning of an offensive pattern in basketball. It is generally considered that the most impor tant factor in the ability to learn an offensive pattern would be previous experience in basketball rather than intelligence, although it is reason able to assume that in many cases a more intelligent individual would learn an offensive pattern more quickly if basketball backgrounds were equal. Since time allocations were equalized in the experiment, intelligence becomes a factor that must be considered since there is a mutual relation between time taken in learning and measured intelli gence. It was felt that because of the relatively small number of boys available for the experiment, equalization of both intelligence and bas ketball ability would be impossible. It was decided that the equaliza tion of basketball ability was more important to the production of unbiased results than the equalization of intelligence. There is always the chance that one group might have been more intelligent than the other. but any difference would have been minoras none of the boys taking part in the experiment were of extremely high or low intelligence.
Retention of Learning
Another unexplored area in the experiment is the retention of the offensive pattern over a given period of time. It will be remembered 93 that one of the stated advantages of a programm.ed approach to learn- ing is the greater permanence of that learning. For this particular
skill, an offensive pattern in basketball, it was felt that this factor was not of great enough importance to be included in the experiment.
A team generally learns an offensive pattern at the beginning of the season and a portion of every practice session is used to review this pattern, i.e., review frames are consistently 11 seeded" throughout succeeding learning sessions. There is really no time for the pattern to be forgotten once it bas been learned at the beginning of the season.
Most coaches will vary their offensive pattern each year depending on the type of material available to hlm that particular year. An offensive pattern that best suits a small fast team will be inappropriate 4 for a large slow team so an offensive change is required. With this in mind, the period of retention is of relatively little importance in this experiment. What is important is the retention of the individual offensive skills that are a part of this and every offensive pattern.
Further experimentation could examine whether there is a carryover of the individual fundamental skills learned in this offensive pattern to other offensive patterns requiring these same skills.
4 Mike McGreevy, "Free -Four -All Attack, " Scholastic Coach, Vol. 34, No. 31 November, 1964, pp. 12-13. 94
The Factor of Height
Another factor not mentioned is that of height. A team that holds a considerable height advantage over its opponent will generally
have greater rebounding ability. 11A team that controls the offensive
rebounds, thereby getting several shots at the basket, and also con-
trols the defensive backboards limiting the opponent to one shot at the 5 basket, will generally win." However, since the experiment was designed to eliminate the rebounding aspect of the game and merely
concentrate on the offensive portion, height became an unimportant factor.
IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND FOR EXTENSION
The experiment de scribed above was a pilot experiment, using mainly the services of a single individual. If the resulta are to be generalizable, it is obvious that a much larger experiment should be made. This should be made before 'field trials' of the program are pursued. The following factors would need to be taken into account: intelligence, previous knowledge of basketball, length of coaching session, amount of verbal instruction given, the utilizati.on
5 Lyle Brown, Offensive and Defensive Drills for Winning Basket- baU {Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1965), p. 86. 95 of other teacher s using the sarne program, other methods of coach- ing than the 'usual', i.e., conventional one, more extended testing of the results of the pattern taught, and retention of the pattern against periods of non-practice. As a first step, a larger number of basket baU coaches would have to be involved. Each coach would be required to teach at least one group by his own methods, and one or more~- groups by the manual drawn up to illustrate, in detail, the steps in the programmed approach. More illustrations would be needed in the manual. It would probably be necessary to hold sorne pre-sessions for the instruction of the coaches in the correct, or at least the suggested use of the manual. A series of defensive squads would be utilized, each in turn playing against conventionally trained squads and experi mentally trained offenses, the order being randomized. Finally, sev era! observera would be needed for the obtaining of criterion scores, fo~ although the criteria are relatively objective, it would be necessary to demonstrate judgement reliability of the criteria by determining inter -observer reliability.
In general, therefore, it is proposed that several squads be taken, the matching done on the basis of previous basketball knowledge, so that there would be severallevels of ability represented. The coaches would teach by both conventional methods and by using the manual involving 96 a program.m.ed approach, their allocation to groups being randomized.
There would be sorne pre -training of coaches in the use of the manual.
Inter-observer reliability of ju~gement of criteria scores would be determined, to help decide the J!lurnber of judges of criterion per formance necessary. A nurnber of defensive squads, of various quali tatively assigned levels of competence, would be available, and the order of their play against the offensive squads would also be random ized. Finally., early, intermediate, aJ?-d delayed performance testing would be undertaken. A nurnber of analy ses of variance would then enable us to investigate the effects of the various factors of levels of previous ability, method of coaching, success against different levels of defensive ability, immediate, intermediate, and delayed effect of training programs.
Under such a program of te sting, if the re sults were still as favorable as the present pilot ones, then either a field trial, with no pre sessions for the coaches would be in order, or one could proceed to investigate the application of the principles of programmed instruction to other aspects of the skills required for successful performance in basketball. It would follow that continued support for the hypothese s of benefit from the programmed approach would increase the likelihood of generalizability to other skill areas, outside the area of basketball. CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
It was felt that although the use of teaching machines and pro
grammed learning, whether by texts or otherwise, had been shown to
increase achievement scores in various academie areas, it bad not
been demonstrated that they could be applied directly to areas of skills
such as basketball. Therefore, a sea.rch was made arnong the literature
about programmed instruction to discover a set of principles which
might be applied to the teaching of these skills. Simultaneously, a
search was made for some aspect of these skills necessary for effec
tive basketball participation. This aspect should be important as a necessary skill, and also one where improvement could be sought.
It was decided that an offensive pattern in basketball could be improved by the use of a suitably programmed method of instruction, utilizing the principles of programmed instruction.
A detailed analysis was made of the offensive patterns cur
rently employed and one was chosen as being typical. Using the prin
ciple s taken from programmed instruction, a training program was devised which would enable a test to be made for improvement. Cer tain criteria for success were established, these being a greater num ber of shots taken, a greater number of shots taken from within fifteen 98 feet of the basket, a greater nwnber of shots made, and a fewer nwn ber of !osses of the ball especially through bad passes.
Two groups of beys, ages twelve to fifteen, were. obtained to participate in the experiment. These boys were enrolled in a swnmer basketball class. Groups were devised matched for previous basket baH experience and basketball ability. The grouping was done on the evaluation of coaches who knew the boys, and who could determine their comparative abilities. One group, the experimental group, received the training program devised using the principles of pro grammed instruction, the major features being small steps, logical sequence, immediate feedback, reinforcement at each step, and built in review. The other group, the control group, was given the usual type of training. The control group was taught the offensive pattern as a whole and practiced it in that fashion. Corrections of mistake s were made when necessary. Drills were used as supplements to the offensive ·pattern. For this experiment, it was decided to hold con stant the total period of time given to training. Other parts of the pro gram that were also held constant were the supplementary learning experiences and the time spent learning the pattern each day. This refere especially to supplementary basketball drills that were equally available to both control and experimental groups. At the conclusion 99 of the program, tests were given to determine improvement in the areas established as criteria for success. The resulte were obtained by using scrimmage sessions with both groups competing against the
same defensive team, the defensive team performing equally well against both groups. The results were recorded by experienced basketball statisticians, while the experimenter, who has bad con siderable experience in the field, acted as referee.
Re sults of the tests indicated a significant improvement in the areas of more shots at the basket from within fifteen feet of the basket, more shots made, and less losses of the bali through bad passes. Areas that showed no significant improvement were number of shots at the basket, and number of !osses of the ball through viola tions. The implications of these findings were discussed in relation to the overall aims of the offensive pattern in basketball.
It was concluded that various aspects of an offensive pattern in basketball could be improved by using principles of programmed instruction to teach the offense. lt was proposed that the teaching of other areas involving physical ski.lls might be impreved in a similar fashion. Certain weaknesses in the experiment were noted, not the least being the possible bias introduced by the experimenter. Sorne ways of overcoming these in other experimente were suggested, and 100 an improved design for the clearer testing of our hypotheses was given.
Since a pilot experiment such as this seldom shows such clear con clusions, hope was expressed that the findings could be confirmed in a larger, better controlled experiment of the type outlined above. If the resulta then prove to be equally encouraging, it was considered de sir able to seek further use of similar methods in other skill areas. BIBLIOGRAPHY 102
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ENTRIES
A. BOOKS
Brown, Lyle. Offensive and Defensive Drills for Winning Basketball • . Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne., 1965.
Bunn, John W. Basketball Techniques and Team Play. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne., 1964.
Cook, Donald, and Francis Mechner, 11Fundamentals of Programmed Instruction, 11 in Stuart Morgui1es and Lewis D. Eigen. Applied Programmed Instruction. New York: John Wiley and Sons, !ne., 1962.
Cram, D. Explaining Te~ching Machines and Programming. San Francisco: Fearon Publications, 1962.
Fry, Edward. B. Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction: kl. Introduction. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1963.
Gange, Robert M., and Robert C. Balles. A Review of Factors in Learning Efficiency. Edited by Eugene Galanter. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.
Julian, Alvin F. Bread and Butter Basketball. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne., 1960.
McCracken, Branch. Indiana Basketball. Eng1ewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne. , 1955.
Pinholster, Garland F. Encyclopedia of Basketball Drills. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne., 1958.
Ramsey, Frank. Pressure Basketball. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Halllnc., 1963. 103
Taylor, Fred, "Ohio State's Patterned Front Court Moyements," The Best of Scholastic Coach. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne. , -1962.
Toomasian, John. Developing a Winning Offense for High School Basketball. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne. , 1963.
Watts, Stanley. Dev~loping .!!1 Offensive Attack in Basketball. Engle wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne., 1959.
Winter, Fred. The Triple-Post Offense. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall !ne. , 1962.
B. PUBLICATIONS OF TIIE GOVERNMENT, LEARNED SOCIETIES, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Abma, JoP,n S, "Theory and Research in Programmed Instruction, 11 U.S.A.F. andA.M.R.L., Memo, 1964, No. P-74.
Basketball Rules 1965-1966. National Federation of State High School Athletic Associations, U.S.A., 1965.
,;. Burton, Benjamin, and Robert A. Goldbreck. The Effect of Response Characteristics and Multiple-Choice Alternatives~ Learning During Programmed Instruction. San Mateo, California: AJ:nerican lnstitute for Rese.arch, 1962.
Campbell, Vincent N. Studies of .!!I-Passing.!:!!:. Way of Adapting Self-lnstructional Programs ~ Individual Differences. San Mateo, California: American Institute of Research, 1962.
Edling, Jack, Arthur W. Foshay, J. R. Gintb.er, Wilbur Schramm, and Herbert Thelen. Four Case Studies of Programmed Instruc tion. New York City: Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1964. 104
Evans, James L., Robert Glaser, and Lloyd E. Homme, "An Investigation of Variationin the Properti.es of Verbal Learning Sequences of the Teaching Machine Type, 11 in Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Edited by A. A. Lumsdaine and Robert Glaser. Washington: D. A. V. I. , N. E. A. , 1960.
Foltz, Charles. The World of Teaching Machines. Washington, D. C.: Electronic Teaching Laboratories, 1961.
Glaser, Robert, "Christmas Past, Present and Future: A Preview and Review," in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Washington: D. A. V. I. , N. E. A. , 1960.
Glaser, R., L. E. Homme, and J. L. Evans, 11An Evaluation of Text books in Terms of Learning Principles, 11 in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction: A Source Book. Washington: D. A. V. I., N. E. A., 1960.
Hovland, Carl I., A. A. Lumsdaine, and Fred D. Sheffield. Experi mente ~ Mass Communication. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949.
Hutton, Joseph, and Vernon Hoffman. Basketball. Mankato, Minnesota: Creative Educational Society lnc., 1962.
Lumsdaine, A. A., 11 Teaching Machines: An lntroductory Overview, 11 in A. A. Lumsdaine, and R. Glaser, Teaching Machines and Pro grammed Learning: A Source Book. Washington: D. A. V. I. , N. E.A., 1960.
Lumsdaine, A.A. and R. Glaser. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Washington: D. A. V. 1. • N. E. A., 1960.
Lumsdaine, A. A. and R. Glaser, 11Skinner1 s Teaching Machines and Programming Concepts, 11 in Lumsdaine and Glaser. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Washington: D.A.V.I., N.E.A., 1960. 105
Margolius, Garry J. , and Fred D. Sheffield. "Optimum Metb.ods of Combining Practice with Filmed Demonstration in Teaching Complex Res.ponse Sequences: Seria1 Learning of a Mechanical Assemb1y Task, 11 in A. A. Lumsdaine and Robert Glaser. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Washington: D. A. V. I., N. E. A., 1960.
Menchner, Francis, Donald Cook, and Stuart Margules. An Introduction to Programmed Instruction. Washington: Basic Systems Incorporated, 1962.
Meyer, Susan R., "Report on the Initial Test of a Junior High School Vocabulary Program," Teaching Machines and Programmed
Learning: A Source Book. Washington: D. A. V. I. 1 N. E. A. 1 1960.
Pask, G., "Electronic Keyboard Teaching Machines, 11 in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Washington: D. A. V. 1., N. E. A., 1960.
Pressey, S. L., "A Third and Fourtb. Contribution Toward the Coming 1lndustrial Revolution• in Education," in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Washington: D. A. V. I., ;N. E. A., 1960.
Programs 163, ed. by Lincoln F ~ Hanson. The Center for Programmed Instruction, !ne. in cooperation with U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963.
Schramm, Wilbur. Programmed Instruction: Today and Tomorrow. New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education, November, 1962.
Schramm, Wilbur. The Research 2_n Programmed Instruction. Washing ton, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1964.
Skinner, B.F., "The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching, 11 in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Gla,ser. Teaching Machines and Pro grammed Learning: A Source Book. Washington: D. A. V. I., N.E.A., 1960.
Skinner, B.F., "Teaching Machines,"' in A. A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser. Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book. Washington: D. A. V. I., N. E. A., 1960. 106
Tutor Machines. U. S. I. Western Design & Electronics. Goleta, California: U.S.I. Western Design & Electronics.
C. PERIODICALS
Baker, Paul M. "Revolving Continuity, 11 Scho1astic Coach, 34:8, November, 1964.
Changing Times Magazine. "The Truth About Those Teaching Machines," February, 1962.
Coulson, John E., and Harry F. Silberman. "Effect of Three Variables in a Teaching Machine.," Journal of Educationa1 Psychology, 51, August, 1960. -
Davies, I. K. "The Present State of the Art," Tutor Age, Vol. 1, No. 1, February, 1966.
Edwards, Regina1d. "Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruc tion," Canadian Education and Research Digest, December, 1963.
Evual, Thomas W. "The. Automated Tutor"" Journal of Health, Physica1 Education, and Recreation, Vol. 35, No. 4, March, 1964.
Feldhusen, John F. , and Andrew Birt. "A Study of Nine Methods of Presentation of Programmed Learning Material, 11 Journal of Educational Research, 55, 1962.
Fox, Philip S., and H. Usilander. "Ball Handling Specifies, 11 Scholastic Coach, 33:42, October, 1963.
Gavurin, Edward L., and Virginia M. Donahue. "Logical Sequence and Random Sequence Teaching Machine Programs, 11 Automated Teaching Bulletin, 1, 1960. 107
Grady, Rex L. "The Low Post," Athletic Journal, XLIV:lZ, October, 1963.
Griffin, Tom. "1-3-1 Shuffle, 11 Seal-0-San Basketball Coaches Dig'est, 1964-1965.
Harkins, Mike. 11 1-3-1 All Purpose Attack, 11 Scholastic Coach, December, 196Z, Vol. 3Z, No. 4.
Joer, Robert H. "The Pick and Roll Components and Variations," Athletic Journal, XLV:Z4, October, 1964.
Julian, Louie. "Fundamental Drills to Develop a Winning Team at a Small Schoo1, 11 Seal-0-San Basketball Coaches Digest, 1964- 1965.
Kowlack, Clayton J. "The Fundamental Outlook, 11 Athletic Journal, Vol. XLVI, No. 1, September, 1965.
Levin, Gerald R., and Bruce L. Baker. "Items Scrambling in a Self-Instructional Program, 11 Journal of Educational Psychalogy, 54, 3, 1963.
Lewis, Fred. 11 A Theory of Shot Discipline, 11 Athletic Journal, Val. XLIV, No. Z, October, 1963.
Lindsley, Herbert. "Moving 1-3-1 Offensive Pattern," Athletic Journal, Vol. XLIV, No. Z.
McGreevy, Mike. 11 Free-Four-All Attack," Scholastic Coach, Vol. 34, No. 3, November, 1964.
Samaras, Robert. "Pivot Moves Complete, 11 Scholastic Coach, 3Z:ll, December, 196Z.
Silverman, RobertE., and Millicent Alter. 11 Notes on the Response in Teaching Machine Programs, 11 Psychologica1 Reports, 7, 1960. 108
D. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Barry, John. Offensive Basketball Techniques. (Mimeographed.)
Cummings, Allan,and Leo S. Goldstein. The Effect of Overt and Covert Responding ~n ~ Types of Learning- Tasks.- New-- York: The Center for Programmed Instruction, 1962. (Mimeographed. )
Epperson, David C., and Richard A. Schmuck. An Experimental Critique of Programmed Instruction.. University of Michigan, April, 1962. (Mimeographed. )
Frye, Charles H. Group Vs. Individual Pacing in Programmed Instruction. Oregon State System of Higher Edueation, 1963. {Mimeographed. }
Glaser, R. "The Ruleg System for Programme Writing. 11 Pittsburg, Pa. {Mimeographed. )
Roe, K. v. Scrambled Vs. Ordered Sequences in Auto-lnstructional Proarams, Report 48. Los Angeles, California: Department of Engineering, University of California, 1961. {Mimeographed.) .A:PPENDIX 110 APPENDIXA
,...... - / -- 1 ""' \
\ 1 "' -- /
PLAY VOUR HOME SCHEDUL.E ON A~~T'Y FINISHED FLOOR 111 APPENDIX B
PLAYBR SHOO'IDIO YTnT.&III'Tmu~ RADE -·-IIi
'
MALS llZ
INDEX
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Backcourt: the portion of the court away from the offensive team 1s basket.
Back-Door: an offensive maneuver where a player cuts behind rather than in front of his defender.
Bounce-Pass: a pas s thrown so it hits the floor before reaching the receiver.
Chest-Pass: a two hand pass thrown from the chest of the passer to the chest of the receiver.
Cross-Over Step: an offensive maneuver accomplished by faking in one direction with one leg. The same leg is then crossed in front of the defender and he is pas sed with a long, low stride.
End-Line: the out of bounds line extending under each basket to the aide boundary line.
High-Post Man: any offensive player that takes a position on or ar ound the foul li ne.
Hook Shot: a shot taken with a sweeping motion of the arm, usually directly over the head. The shooter jumps off the opposite foot to the . hand he shoots with. 113
Jump Shot: a shot taken while at the height of a jump.
Lob Pass: a pass thrown in a high arc over a defender 1s head.
Low-Post Man: any offensive player that takes a position near the basket on either side of the three se cond lane.
Over-Head Pass: a two hand pass thrown from above the passer 1 s head.
Pick: a maneuver where an offensive player stands in the path of a defensive player guarding one of his teammates.
Pivot-Foot: when an offensive player has the ball, he may legally move one foot. The other foot is deemed his pivot foot and may not be moved.
Point-Man: any player who takes an offensive position at the top of the foul circle.
0 Reverse: an offensive maneuver made by making a 90 to 180° pivot and going past a defender.
Reverse and an offensive maneuver made by an offensive Left-Hand Hook: player on the right aide of the court. First a reverse (as described above) is made and then a left hand hook is attempted. 114
Rocker -Step: an offensive maneuver where the offensiv~ player fakes by extending one leg towards the side of his defender. A second fake is made by rolling the head and shoulder s bac k. The player then drives past the defender in the direction of the original fake.
Switch: a defensive maneuver accomplished when a defender switches and picks up a teammate's opponent.
Three Second a violation occurring when an offensive Violation: player stays in a restricted area near the basket for more than three seconds.
Turn Around a jump shot taken with the back to the basket. Jump Shot: The shooter turns to the basket as he jumps and shoots.
Up and Under: an offensive maneuver where the player fake s up as if he intended to take a jump shot and then drives by the defender.
Wing Man: any offensive player that take s a position near the side line ten to fifteen feet from the basket.