The comparison of command teaching style with reciprocal teaching style on the performance and learning of Basketball shoot based on Gentile’s Model

Goharrokhi, S.; Saberi Kakhki, A.; Sohrabi, M.; Jabbari Noughabi, M.

doi:10.22061/jte.2018.3489.1881

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

¹ Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

² Department of Statistics, Faculty of Math Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/jte.2018.3489.1881

Abstract

Background and Objective:Specialists in education divide teaching methods into two main categories: traditional methods and active teaching methods. In traditional methods, the teacher is versatile and students are passive and accepting, and one-way teaching is done by the teacher. Active teaching method refers to methods in which students play an active role in the teaching process and gain experience using teacher guidance and learning has a two-way flow. Teaching methods seem to be on a spectrum, ranging from teacher-centered to student-centered. The command method is a teacher-centered method. In this way, expectations and goals are clear to students and are more suitable for use in large classrooms. Different teaching styles are used by the trainers, but there is not any theoretical agreement on the style that will have the most productivity. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effect of command and reciprocal teaching styles on the performance and learning of basketball throw with emphasize to Jentile Model.
Materials: This is a quasi-experimental study conducted in pre-test and post-test phases. Participants included 43 volunteer teenage girls who were selected by available sampling. The participants were randomly divided into three groups: command, reciprocal and control. Participants practiced basketball free throws in accordance with the Gentile’s model and their performance was measured in four steps including pre-test, immediate retention and delay retentions. For analysis of data, mixed ANOVA with repeated measures and Bonferroni tests were used.
Findings: Both command and reciprocal styles had a significant effect on participants' performance (P≤ 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between these styles (P≥ 0.05). Based on the results, it can be said that both styles can have a positive effect on the training process and improve this skill.
Conclusion: The general results of the present study indicate that there is no significant difference between the two teaching methods in teaching and learning a basketball fixed shot, which means that both command and two-way methods can have positive effects on the teaching process. Although some researchers today have paid more attention to active teaching methods and emphasized it more, but the results of the present study showed that command teaching method causes the same progress in the learner that students in both teaching methods are likely to have related benefits. These methods have been used, some of which were mentioned in the discussion, and no significant difference was observed between the two teaching methods. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers manipulate other constraints in their research to clarify the hidden angles of the effectiveness of teaching methods.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1398.13.3.19.4

Main Subjects

Modern Educational Approaches

COPYRIGHTS
©2019 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

References

[1] Hoseimni L. The effect of self-regulation and external focus of attention on distance learning in young girl’s badminton service. Research Journal Al-Zahra University in Motor Behavior. 2013; 1: 1-10. Persian.

[2] Hossein Pour A. Investigation of teachers’ knowledge about active teaching methods (master’s thesis). University of Tehran, Tehran; 1996. Persian.

[3] Doherty J. Teaching styles in physical education and Mosston’s spectrum. Kahperd Journal. 2010; 48(1): 4-6.

[4] Dicke T, Elling J, Schmeck A, Leutner D. Reducing reality shock: The effects of classroom management skills training on beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2015; 48: 1-12.

[5] Garekhani H, Solemani M, Solemani A. (2015). Identification of effective factors on utilization of teaching active methods among Ilam Physical Education Teachers. Motor Behavior and Management Journal. 2015; 11(22): 169-76. Persian.

[6] Khan Mohamadi R. Evaluation of teaching Physical Education barriers from Ahwaz physical education teachers perspective (master’s thesis). Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz; 2007. Persian.

[7] Porter JM, Landin D, Hebert EP, Baum B. The effects of three levels of contextual interference on performance outcomes and movement patterns in golf skills. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 2007; 2(3): 243-55.

[8] Jarus T, Goverover Y. Effects of contextual interference and age on acquisition, retention, and transfer of motor skill. Perceptual and Motor skills. 1999; 88(2): 437-47.

[9] Landin D, Hebert EP. A comparison of three practice schedules along the contextual interference continuum. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport. 1997; 68(4): 357-61.

[10] Azizi H, Hosseini F. Effect of external and internal focus of attention instructions in field dependence and independence on performance and learning of dart throwin. Motor Behavior. 2015;7(22): 131-48. Persian.

[11] Magill RA. Motor learning: Concept and application. USA: McGraw Hill; 2011

[12] Bonnie P. Physical education methods for classroom teachers. USA: Human Kinestics; 1999.

[13] Armourand KM, Yelling M. Professional edevelopmentí and Professional eLearningí: Bridging the gap for experienced physical education teachers. European Physical Education Review. 2004; 10(1): 71-93.

[14] Portman PA. Who is having fun in physical education classes? Experiences of sixth-grade students in elementary and middle schools. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 1995; 14(4): 445-53.

[15] Hewitt M, Edwards K. Self-identified teaching styles of junior development and club professional tennis coaches in Australia. ITF Coaching and Sport Science Review. 2011; 55: 6-8.

[16] Snoxell E. The effect of teaching styles upon skill improvement and perceived enjoyment in Badminton in year 7 boys; 2014.

[17] McCormack A. Classroom management problems, strategies and influences in physical education. European Physical Education Review. 1997; 3(2): 102-15.

[18] Khandaghi MA, Farasat M. The effect of teacher’s teaching style on students’ adjustment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011; 15: 1391-4. Persian

[19] Lassonde CA, Galman S, Kosnik CM. Self-study research methodologies for teacher educators. US: Sense Publishers; 2009.

[20] Hillyard C, Gillespie D, Littig P. University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2010; 11(1): 9-20.

[21] Macfadyen T, Bailey R. Teaching physical education. London: Continuum; 2002.

[22] Mawer M. Effective teaching of physical education. New York: Routledge; 2014.

[23] Dinkelman T. Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 2003; 54(1),6-18.

[24] Hadi-Tabassum S. Language, Space and Power: A Critical Look at Bilingual Education. Language. 2007; 11(1): 1-4.

[25] Mirzaei M, Azizian F. Assessment of interactive and Task-Based Learning (TBL) methods compared to the conventional method of undergraduate teaching. Journal of Medical Education and Development. 2012; 7(1): 10-17. Persian..