IDT 873: Teaching Procedural Skills

IDT 873 Abstracts: Procedural Skills Jennifer Maddrell Blakemore, C. L., Hilton, H. G., Harrison, J. M., Pellett, T. L., & Gresh, J. (1992). Comparison of Students Taught Basketball Skills Using Mastery and Nonmastery Learning Methods. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11(3), 235-247. Research Purpose and focus. Blakemore, Hilton, Harrison, Pellett, and Gresh (1992) analyzed mastery learning as a means of teaching psychomotor skills. The study’s purpose was to compare mastery and nonmastery learning methods as means of teaching basketball skills. Methodology. Three physical education classes of seventh-grade boys were randomly selected as treatment and control groups. One treatment group of 39 boys was taught using a mastery model while the other treatment group of 32 boys was taught using nonmastery methods. The control group of 33 boys was taught soccer and hockey. The same instructor taught the three classes. Instruction lasted six weeks for 50 minutes a day five days a week. Students in the mastery treatment were taught using Bloom’s mastery learning model which is based on both individual student need and group mastery. The mastery group’s routine included warm-ups (5 minutes), diagnostic tests (10 minutes), corrective and enrichment practice with feedback (10 minutes), and competitive game play (10 minutes). Each session’s diagnostic test confirmed whether or not 80% or more of the class had achieved mastery which was the trigger to move onto a new skill unit. The tests also served as a means of evaluating and providing feedback about a student’s progress toward skill attainment. Instruction in basketball skills in the nonmastery class included the same skills taught in the same order, but followed a predetermined instructional plan and schedule that included warm-ups, skill instruction, practice, and game play with timing based on the planned schedule. Both isolated skills (dribbling, shooting, and layups) and game play ability (based on shots taken, shots made, and turnover game statistics) were assessed in pretests and posts tests for students in both groups. Results and conclusions. Pretests confirmed that the groups were of equivalent starting skill ability. From pretest to posttest, only the mastery group demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the three assessed skills. The control and nonmastery groups improved only in the ability to dribble, and the nonmastery group decreased in shooting and layups. In terms of game play, there were no significant differences between groups from pretest to posttest. Heuristics The results of this experiment suggest value in incorporating periodic diagnostic evaluation and feedback when teaching skills. As is suggested by Bloom’s mastery learning model and the results of this test, frequent evaluation with corrective and enrichment feedback provides greater instructional support than simply presentation and practice alone. Critique This study is straightforward and clearly outlined in the research report … FINALLY! These findings are important as they suggest individualized feedback with information about learner performance results and suggested corrective strategies delivered immediately following skill testing may enhance skill development beyond presentation and practice alone. However, it is unclear how the results would be impacted if learners of mixed ability were combined within the mastery session. Would higher ability learners become bored waiting for lower ability learners to reach mastery? Would lower ability learners become frustrated and embarrassed about holding back the other members of the group? Page | 1 Submitted 20081023 IDT 873 Abstracts: Procedural Skills Jennifer Maddrell Harrison, J., Preece, L., Blakemore, C., Richards, R., Wilkinson, C., & Fellingham, G. (1999). Effects of two instructional models - Skill teaching and mastery learning - On skill development, knowledge, self-efficacy, and game play in volleyball. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19(1), 34-57. Research Purpose and focus. As a follow up to the 1992 study discussed above, Harrison, Preece, Blakemore, Wilkinson and Fellingham (1999) again analyzed mastery learning as a means of teaching psychomotor skills. However, in this study, volleyball skills were the subject of the instruction and Mastery Learning was compared to a Skill Teaching method. Beyond skill attainment, knowledge and self-efficacy measures were also compared. Methodology. 182 students including both males and females in six college volleyball classes participated in the study. Based on a four skill (set up, passing, serving, and spike) pretest, the students were stratified into high, medium, and low ability groups for analysis only. While all students participated in the classes as enrolled, only the high and low skilled learners (147 in total) were included in the analysis. Given prior studies in which the no instruction intervention control group showed no improvement, a control group was not included. Instruction was taught by three graduate assistants who each taught two classes, one under a Mastery Learning model and one under a Skill Teaching model. Each of the six volleyball classes was randomly assigned to one of the six courses and was taught under either the Mastery Learning model or Skill Teaching model. Instruction lasted 16 weeks with class sessions held two days a week. Students in the mastery treatment were taught using Bloom’s mastery model which is based on individual student need and group mastery. Each mastery group’s class sessions included formative testing, corrective and enrichment practice with feedback, and competitive modified game play. The formative tests confirmed whether or not 80% or more of the class had achieved mastery which was the trigger to move from Subunit I (forearm pass, set, overhand serve, spike, and mini-volley games) to Subunit II (full court games, 4-2 offense, player up defense, serve / receive, block, spike, and dive). While the focus of the Mastery Learning model was frequent diagnostic tests followed by feedback, the focus of the Skills Teaching model was hands on practice in modified game play. Instruction using the Skill Teaching model was sequenced using Rink’s system in which skills were taught using modified equipment (lower nets, non-standard balls) in classes that included warm-up, skill practice, and modified games (simplified rules and extra points for targeted skill attainment). The same skills were taught, but followed a predetermined instructional plan and schedule. Pretest, midterm, and posttest measures of isolated skills (set-up, passing, serving, and spike) were assessed. In addition, self-efficacy was assessed following the pretest, midterm, and post test assessments. A 63 item objective knowledge test on techniques, rules, and strategies was conducted at the end of the term with mastery level set at 80%. Results and conclusions. While significant pretest and posttest differences were found in both groups, the major finding was that Skill Teaching and Mastery Learning produced similar levels of improvement in the measures of isolated skill attainment, game play, self-efficacy, and knowledge. Given the few significant differences between outcomes following the use of the two Page | 2 Submitted 20081023 IDT 873 Abstracts: Procedural Skills Jennifer Maddrell models, the researchers concluded that there was no compelling finding to suggest one model over the other. Heuristics The results of these experiments suggest that designers should incorporate diagnostic evaluation followed by feedback when teaching skills. In addition, including frequent hands on practice using modified equipment and rules can help learners to build skills over time. Critique As with the first reported study, this study is straightforward and clearly outlined … yeah! These findings are important as they add to the understanding of mastery learning as a method to teach skills from the 1992 study. When considered as an extension of the 1992 study, this study suggests that both options are preferable to only presentation and practice alone. However, it is unfortunate that the researchers did not directly discuss and compare these methods and results with the 1992 study’s methods and findings. Suggestions for the similarities and differences between the two studies were not explored. Further, the researchers did not fully explore the connection between gender and skill difference and the effect that may have had on the participants in the study. The researchers noted that the majority of the high skilled group members were male and the majority of the low skilled group members were female and both groups participated together in the classes. Could gender and the comingling of skill levels within the treatment groups have played a more significant role than the researchers discussed? Did the girls (of lesser skill ability) feel intimidated playing with boys (of higher skill ability)? Page | 3 Submitted 20081023