A comparative study of the concentrated and rotated methods of teaching five track and field events
546 63 4MB
English Pages 129
Polecaj historie
Citation preview
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE CONCENTRATED AND ROTATED METHODS OF TEACHING FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Education
by Lee Simmons February 19^2
UMI Number: EP55352
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publ sh»ng
UMI EP55352 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
o
+t»
jjPJT92.
T h is thesis, w r it t e n u n d e r the d ir e c t io n o f the C h a ir m a n o f the c a n d id a te fs G u id a n c e C o m m itte e a n d a p p r o v e d by a l l m em bers o f the C o m m itte e , has been p resen ted to a n d accep ted by the F a c u lt y o f the S c h o o l o f E d u c a t io n o f T h e U n iv e r s it y o f S o u th e rn C a l i f o r n i a in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the re q u ire m e n ts f o r the degree o f M a s t e r o f Science in E d u c a tio n .
..........
Dean Guidance Com m ittee
Wm. R. LaPorte C hairm an
Pauline M. Irederick
D. Welty Lefever
As?7& W L
■
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I.
PAGE
I N T R O D U C T I O N ..................................
1
Nature of the investigation .................
1
Introduction
• • .
..........
1
Type of s t u d y ..........
1
Factors involved
2
.
.....................
The subjects of the e x p e r i m e n t ...........
2
...............
3
.................
3
The importance of the investigation ........
4
Present practices .........................
4
Possible conclusions
5
Purpose of the investigation Statement of the issues
.....................
The expert pursuit of knowledge ...........
5
Scope of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n .................
6
Experimental subjects Experimental procedure Experimental steps
...................
6
.....................
7
.......................
7
Equating the g r o u p s ..................... Making the changes
.......................
•
7 8
Measuring and recording conditions after the changes
.....................
8
Calculating and comparing improvements in the g r o u p s .............. Estimating the significance of the
9
ill CHAPTER
PAGE difference
..............................
9
Related studies ..............................
10
A recent development
.....................
Evaluating teaching procedures
...........
10
Methods of
teaching track and fieldevents
Methods of
teaching basketball
..........
14
Methods of
teaching g o l f ................
16
Methods of
teaching playground baseball . .
18
........
20
Organization of remaining chapters II.
10
PRELIMINARY TESTING AND MEASURING
...........
10
21
Equating the g r o u p s .........................
21
Need for e q u a t i n g .........................
21
Various methods of equating . . . . . . . .
21
Choosing and applying a procedure ........
2k
Results of the equating .
26
...............
The preliminary tests in the track and field e v e n t s ..............................
27
Rotated groups
28
...........................
Concentrated groups .............
. . . . .
Combined groups ............................ Summary of c h a p t e r .......... III.
MAKING AND RECORDING THE C H A N G E S ............. The instruction procedures
.................
Training program for one hundred yard dash
30 32 32 3k 35 33
iv CHAPTER
PAGE Training program for the one hundred ten yard low hurdles
37
Training program
for
eight pound shot . . .
38
Training program
for
the broad jump. . . .
40
Training program
for
the high jump . . . .
4l
The final test results Rotated groups
IV.
. ........ . . • .
. . . . .
............................
4l 42
Concentrated groups .......................
44
The combined g r o u p s .......................
46
Summary of c h a p t e r .........................
47
COMPARING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL TESTS . . .
50
................................
50
Introduction
Improvement shown in each event at each s c h o o l ....................................
51
School one
53
.
School t w o ................................
5^
School three
56
..............................
Improvement shown at each school by each g r o u p ......................................
58
School o n e ................................
58
School t w o ................................
59
School three
60
..............................
Improvement shown by each group for combined schools
............................
6l
CHAPTER
V.
PAGE S u m m a r y ....................................
64
COMPARING AND EVALUATING THE DIFFERENCES . . .
66
Introduction ................................
66
Evaluating the differences between the initial and the final tests for each event
67
..................................
Rotated group
............................
71
Concentrated group .......................
71
Evaluating the differences between the final 75
tests for the twog r o u p s .................. One hundred yard d a s h ................ ..
.
Low h u r d l e s .............................. High j u m p ............................. ..
74 75
.
76
Broad j u m p ................................
77
Shot p u t ..................................
78
Evaluating the reliability of the differ ences between the final tests for the two g r o u p s ................................
79
One hundred
yardd a s h .............
80
One hundred
ten yard low h u r d l e s ........
85
High j u m p ................................
85
Broad j u m p ................................
87
Shot p u t ..................................
88
Comparing the gains made by each group for
vi CHAPTER
PAGE the various events
. . ..............
89
One hundred yard d a s h ..............
92
One hundred ten yard low hurdles . . . .
92
Broad j u m p ......................... High jump
95
.......................
95
Shot p u t ................................ Summary of c h a p t e r ................... VI.SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• 9^ 95
. .
96 96
..............................
Summary
Making and recording the changes . . . .
98
Comparing the preliminary and final t e s t s .............................
100
Comparing the differences between the mean s c o r e s ......... ..................
102
Comparing the differences between the mean g a i n s ....................... Conclusions
..............................
Recommendations....................... BIBLIOGRAPHY
108
....................................
109 115
116
LIST OF TABLES TABLE I.
PAGE Showing Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Error of Means for the Two M e t h o d s ....................................
II.
13
Mean and Standard Deviations; Pretests-Five Track and Field Events; Rotated G r o u p s ...............................
III.
29
Mean and Standard Deviations; Pretests-Five Track and Field Events; Concen trated G r o u p s ..............................
IV.
31
Mean and Standard Deviations; Pretests-Five Track and Field Events; Combined S c h o o l s ....................................
V.
33
Mean and Standard Deviations; Final Tests-Five Track and Field Events; Rotated Groups .
VI.
..................................
43
Mean and Standard Deviations; Final Tests-Five Track and Field Events; Concentrated G r o u p s ...................
VII.
45
Mean and Standard Deviations; Final Tests-Five Track and Field Events; Combined S c h o o l s ...................
VIII.
48
Comparative Scores in the Five Track and Field Events for Both Groups at School One .
32
viii TABLE IX.
PAGE Comparative Scores in the Five Track and Field Events for Both Groups at School Two
X.
. . ; . . ............... -.............
55
Comparative Scores in the Five Track and Field Events for Both Groups at School T h r e e ......................................
XI.
57
Comparative Means and Standard Deviations for the Five Track and Field Events for the Rotated and Concentrated Groups. Combined Schools .................
XII.
. . . . .
63
Number of Cases, Means, ^(dis)-> and Differences Between the Means of the Two Groups for EachE v e n t ...................
XIII.
70
Mean Gains, Number of Cases, Standard Deviations, and Differences Between the Mean Gains inEach Eventby Each Group . . .
91
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I.
NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION
Introduction.
Mere guessing or depending upon previ
ous experience to determine whether or not one procedure is better than another Is an easy way out of a dilemma, but it is not the way the modern scientific minded individual ar rives at conclusions. One needs only to read the current magazines to real ize that much has been written on the subject of how to teach track and field, but a careful perusal of the litera ture reveals the fact that only a few of the writers offer evidence to support their views.
Professional writers
merely indicate what they consider to be the proper way, but few mention the starting point for the beginner. The controlled experiment represents an attempt to discover, by means of teaching and testing, whether one method of instruction in track and field is better than another. Type of study.
This was an equivalent or equated
group study, the object of which was to measure and compare two methods of teaching track and field events.
The skills
and knowledge elements were presented to the two groups by
2 two procedures.
The results in each case were measured and
compared to offer a basis for the judging of each procedure. This type of study is well stated by Good when he says: The fundamental assumption underlying a parallelgroup method of procedure is that two or more groups are approximately equal in all respects. With care fully controlled conditions, only a single variable should be present and that is the given factor which the experimenter varies for the two groups and the effect of which he seeks to measure.^Factors involved.
Since in this study the factors
of group and activities were constant and the variable factor was the method employed, any difference in results would seem to be the effect of the procedure employed.
The
effects of the procedure over a definite period of time were measured and compared.
To make these comparisons
possible one group was presented the factors involved in five track and field events in a rotated procedure.
The
other group was presented the factors involved in a concen trated procedure.
These procedures are spoken of hereafter
as Rotated and Concentrated methods. The subjects of the experiment.
In this study two
equated groups of students of high school age were used. To get a more accurate measurement of the effects produced,
^ Carter V. Good, How to do Research in Education (Baltimore, Maryland: Warwick and York, 192877 p. 148.
3 two equated groups from each of three high schools were used. II.
PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
Statement of the •issues.
The purpose of this study
was to test two theories of learning:
(l) The learning of
track and field events takes place most readily with the Rotated Method;
(2) Track and field events are learned most
readily with the Concentrated Method. Opinions vary.
Some teachers claim that one method
is best, while others maintain that it is foolish and a waste of time to use any than the other method.
If it can
be shown by this study that the two methods produce equal results, then either method may be used.
If, however,
either method can be shown to be markedly superior, then that form of procedure should be the one employed in a well planned program.
Educators, too often, do not know what
method of procedure is best in varying situations.
Encour
agement in the use of certain procedures cannot be given because they do not know which give best results. Another purpose of this study is well stated by Almack: The graduate student who prepares his thesis wisely and accurately adds a share to the body of science. He performs a special type of research, resulting in (l) laws and principles, (2) norms and standards, or (5) historical probability. For the purpose of satisfying
4 academic conditions, pure and applied science or re search are recognized, and a variety of motives may he presumed to predominate at different times and with dif ferent persons. The work of the student investigator becomes one with all those who have engaged in all forms of scientific endeavor.2 If this study shows that one procedure or method of handling track and field events is superior, it will have served one of the purposes for which it was intended.
If
it shows the results to be equal, then the experience gained by the writer will still have been sufficient to warrant the making of the study. III.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INVESTIGATION
Present practices.
There has been and still is a
lot of wasted time and energy in the teaching of physical education.
In a great many instances there is no evidence
in regard to the efficiency of various methods of instruc tion.
Teachers of physical education should be able to
tell about this as a result of investigation.
It was with
the hope of eliminating some of this lost time and energy that this study was attempted.
It is worth-while at any
time to make a study and comparison of various methods of teaching in the hope that better outcomes will result.
2 John C. Almack, Research and Thesis Writing (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930), pp. 23-247
Possible conclusions.
The data secured in this
study may lead to some important conclusions.
(l) They may
show that with high school boys one or the other of these methods of procedure produces best results.
If this should
be the case, then it would be possible to point out to ad ministrators the importance of providing leadership and facilities to promote such a procedure.
(2) They may show
that one of the methods is superior in only some of the phases of track and field events.
This would suggest
further study to determine the procedure necessary to secure best results in those activities.
(5 ) The study may
produce data that show no significant differences in the results obtained.
In such a case the teaching procedure
employed would be a matter of choice. The expert pursuit of knowledge. critical minded.
Teachers should be
They should experiment and find out from
a study of the facts as to best methods.
Almack suggests a
point which bears on the importance of investigation.
He
says: The scientific study of any problem is the substitu tion of certain ways of ‘’making sure” about it for the common and lazy habit of.“taking it for granted,11 and for the worse habit of making irresponsible assertions about it. The classification of facts and the forma tion of judgments upon the basis of facts--judgments independent of the idiosyncrasies of the individual mind--essentially sum up the aims and methods of modern science. . . . The scientific method is not peculiar to one class of phenomena or to one class of workers. It
6 can "be applied whenever and wherever there are problems to solve and facts available which bear upon the solu tion. In addition to extending our knowledge of the world about us, the scientific method can be profitably applied in adding to man's knowledge of himself, of his mind and how it operates, and of his social relation ships and their history.5 IV.
SCOPE OP THE INVESTIGATION
Experimental subjects♦
In this study it was thought
advisable to use two groups of boys in each of three high schools.
Such a plan, it was felt, might eliminate the
possibility of some one teacher leaning or emphasizing one or the other of the methods.
A greater number of boys were
thus made to be the subjects of the experiment.
Boys in
different schools might be of such natures that one type of procedure would produce best results there, while in anoth er school a different type of procedure might be the one to get best results. The boys used in this study were students at the three Salt Lake City high schools.
A total of 358 boys
made up the experimental groups used.
Of these 358 boys
171 of them were in the Rotated Group and 167 were in the Concentrated Group.
The mean age of the Rotated Group was
l6.ll years and that of the Concentrated Group was 16.05 years.
^ Ibid., p. 59.
Five of the track and field events were included in this study.
The five selected were 100 yard dash, 110 yard
low hurdles, 8 pound shot put, running broad jump, and run ning high jump.
These events were chosen because they
offer a combination which can be taught and practiced in groups and represent a fair sampling of the events on the average track and field program with the exception of the quality of endurance.
It was thought best not to include
events which tested endurance with these groups. V.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Experimental steps.
The steps involved in an experi
mental study, according to Almack, are: (l) Measuring and recording conditions before the changes are made; (2) making changes; (3) measuring and recording conditions after the changes; (4) the calcula tion of the difference between (l) and (3); and (5) estimating the significance of the difference.^ The above steps are to be applied when but one group is to be measured.
If, as in the case of this study, two
groups are to be studied and compared, then it is first necessary to equate the groups.
The steps indicated above
were followed in this study after the groups were equated. Equating the groups.
^ Ibid., p. 159.
It was assumed in this study
that the groups were equal in mental ability.
The physical
skill tests employed to equate them were those developed by Brace.
These tests indicate the present level in motor
ability.
Each group was also tested at the beginning in
the track and field events and a record kept of their per formance.
Weight, height, and age records were also made
and included as a basis for the equalizing of the groups. Making the changes.
The changes were produced by
administering the program as follows:
(l) One procedure
known as the concentrated method took the five track and field events in turn, each event being alloted one fifth of the time;
(2) In the rotated method five of the events were
rotated throughout the entire time, one event.each day of the week.
The procedure in both groups included individual
instruction, correction, lectures, mass drills, and indi vidual practice. Measuring and recording conditions after the changes. To measure the improvement of each group, the tests given in the events at the beginning of the experiment were also given at the conclusion.
The conditions for these measure
ments were kept as nearly uniform and identical as they
5 David K . ,Brace, Measuring Motor Ability (New York: A. S. Barnes and qompany, 19^0)7 P- lo5'. ..
could be made.
Careful records were again made.
Calculating and comparing improvements in the groups. Mean scores of the initial tests were compared with the mean scores of the final test.
It is desirable, according
to Bovard and Cozens, ,!to find a single score or measure which may be taken as representative of all scores made by the groups.1 A comparison of the mean scores, while valuable, does not take into account the spread or variability, or the tendency to scatter.
To show variability in the scores,
or the kind of scattering the scores have made away from the mean, a comparison of the standard deviations was made. Estimating the significance of the differences. When two or more groups or procedures are compared, there are at least two methods of procedure possible:
(l) compar
ing the gains made by the groups or procedures, and (2) com paring the differences between the final tests.
Both of
these methods are based on the assumption that the groups so compared are equated to begin with.
Both of these
methods of comparing differences were used in this study.
^ John F. Bovard and Frederick W. Cozens, Tests and Measurements in Physical Education (Philadelphia: V. B. Saunders Co.,"”1931), P . 1
10 VI.
RELATED STUDIES
^ recent development.
Skill tests to measure stu
dent progress and teaching procedures are a development of recent years in the field of physical education. A review of recent related studies was included here to show the relationship- and the contribution to the prob lem in question.
Such a review involved a rather compre
hensive study of the literature bearing directly or in directly on the problem.
The purpose of the study was to
obtain suggestions and to prevent duplication of effort. Recent investigations relating to the problem are usually listed under two headings:
(l) Studies that attempt
to standardize and validate game testing procedures; and (2) studies that measure and evaluate teaching procedures. It is with the second of these groups that this study was concerned. Evaluating teaching procedures.
Studies that evalu
ate teaching procedures included in this study were: methods of teaching track and field events; teaching basketball;
(1)
(2) methods of
(J>) methods of teaching golf; and (4)
methods of teaching playground baseball. Methods of teaching track and field events.
Cozens
^ Frederick W. Cozens, nA Comparative Study of Two
7
11 has made a study of two methods of teaching track and field events at the University of California at Los Angeles. Purpose of study.
It was the purpose of his
study to show the relative effectiveness of two types of training in certain track and field events. 2.
Experimental groups.
The groups with which his
experiment was conducted were Freshmen in eight of his classes: four during the spring semesters of 1927-28 and four during the fall semesters of 1927-28.
The events in
cluded in his study were: 100 yard dash, 120 yard low hurdles, half-mile run, running "broad jump, 12 pound shot put, and the discus. Methods of procedure.
Teaching Method One, the
concentrated method, consisted of testing all men in all six events during the first three class periods of the semester and recording the scores.
The remainder of the
semester was then divided into six equal periods of prac tice and instruction and the same amount of time allowed for each event.
At the conclusion of the definite period
of time set aside for instruction and practice a test was given in that event.
In such events as the broad jump and
shot put, the best of three trials after a warm-up period
Methods of Teaching Track and Field Events,11 The Research Quarterly of the American Physical Education Association, II (December,“ 1951), 75-79.
12 was recorded.
In the other events hut one trial was given
after their warm-up period. Teaching Method Two, the rotated method, employed the same technique in the testing period before instruction was observed.
The events in Method Two were rotated through
out the semester according to a given schedule which took into consideration arm and leg work.
In other words, the
study consists in the evaluation of a method where practice periods occur in sequence as against a method where the same number of practice periods were scattered throughout the semester. Study of data.
A glance at Table I shows that
In each event with the exception of the discus throw there was a substantial increase of improvement by Method Two over Method One. 5.
Summary.
The evidence presented is not as con
clusive as it would have been if the experimental groups had been equal in average ability at the start of the train ing period.
The greatest relative improvement was made in
the discus throw, probably because of the fact that most of the men had never before attempted this event.
The greatest
net improvement of Method Two over Method One was shown In the half-mile run.
The short but frequent practice periods
must have been of great advantage here.
Apparently, short
but frequent training periods for runs involving endurance
TABLE I SHOWING MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND STANDARD ERROR OF MEANS FOR THE TWO METHODSa Method I
Method II
Mean
S.D.
S.E. of M.
12.524 12.215 •311
.647 .615
17.95 6 17 .0 8 9 .867
1 .5 5 8 1 .2 5 6
Mean
S.D.
S.E. of M.
.048 .046
12.685 12.204 .479
.744 .754
.000 .050
.109 .102
18.592 17.12 1 1.271
1 .6 5 6 1 .5 2 0
.112 .091
100 yard dash--seconds Before practice After practice Actual differences 120 yard low hurdles-seconds Before practice After practice Actual differences 880 yard run— minutes and seconds Before practice After practice Actual differences
2:44.04 2:56.84 7 .2 0
10.14 9.95
.852 .854
2:49.59 2:55-45 14.14
1 5 .8 0 12.25
•959 .851
a Frederick W. Cozens, 11A Comparative Study of Two Methods of Teaching Track and Field Events,” The Research Quarterly of the American Physical Education Associa tion, II (Decemher, T 9 JTJT
14 show great advantage over the same amount of time spent in long infrequent periods. o
Methods of teaching basketball.. Thomas J. Cross has made a study of the results from various methods in volved in teaching basketball to ninth-grade boys. 1.
Methods and source of data.
The experiment was
conducted in the Junior High School, Jefferson City, Mis souri, during the school year, 1932-53*
Boys were divided
into three groups, each group meeting two times per week. Each group was assigned a method of learning: the first hour class, the whole method; the second hour class, the minor game method; the third hour class, the whole-part method. These groups were given basketball tests worked out by Edgren and by Brace, and some additional ones devised by Cross himself.
There were in all seventeen fundamental
skills tested with a number of tests for each skill. The procedure used in teaching the whole method was to give the group a basketball and let them play the game. In the second group the minor game’method was used by play ing games such as indoor baseball, dodge-ball, volleyball,
® Thomas J. Cross, 11A Comparison of the Whole Method, the Minor Game Method, and. the Whole Part Method of Teach ing Basketball to Ninth-Grade Boys," The Research Quarterly of the American Association for HealtK,~"“PhysicaX~"Education, and Recreation, VIII (December, T957T7 49-54.
and relay games in the gymnasium classes.
In the third
group the whole part method was used by dividing the game into the fundamental skills and teaching these skills. 2.
Interpretation of results.
The mean of the
scores of the boys taught under one method was compared with the mean of the scores of those taught under the other methods.
A test of significance was made to see if the
difference between the means is probably larger than that caused by the experimental error.
The critical ratio Is
used to determine whether or not the difference between the two sets of results is statistically significant.
The
formula for this critical ratio is: Critical ratio
=
M, -
Where M, is the mean of the first distribution Mz. is the mean of the second distribution (J, is the standard deviation of the first distribution is the standard deviation of the second distribution N/ is the number of cases in the first distribution is the number of cases in the second distribution. To be significant the critical ratio should be ap proximately 2.5 or more.
16
3.
Conclusions.
Cross arrived at the following
conclusions in his study. 1. The simpler unitary skills (visual and hand co ordination of catching the hall, muscle coordination of passing hall, and changing from catch to throw) are best taught by the whole method. 2. The most complex skills and those that are in tellectually complex, as well as complex from a motor point of view . . . are hest taught hy the whole part method. Skills of intermediate degree of complexity and ones easily carried over from simpler games in iden tical form . . . are best taught hy the minor game method.° Methods of teaching golf.
Clevett^0 has made a
study by means of experimentation to discover whether one method of instruction in golf is better than another. 1.
Purpose of study.
Briefly stated the purpose of
this study was to test two procedures and see which gave the better results in acquiring skill in golf. methods are:
The two
(l) Psychological procedure which starts the
instruction with the putter followed by the mashie, the midiron, and the brassie;
(2) Logical procedure which
starts the instruction with the brassie followed by the 9
Cross, loc. cit.
^ M. A. Clevett, nAn Experiment in Teaching Methods of Golf,1’ The Research Quarterly of the American Associa tion f o r .Health and Physical Educa^ion, II (December, 1931)> '
17 midiron, mashie, and putter. 2.
Experimental groups.
Group I, the Psychological
Group, consisted of twenty-five students in the Department of Physical'Education of the Chicago Young Men*s Christian Association College.
Instruction started with the putter.
Group II, the Logical Group, consisted of twenty-six stu dents, most of whom were not majoring in physical education at the same College.
Instruction started with the brassie.
Group III, the Control Group, consisted of twenty individu als, part of whom were students and part of whom were mem bers of the faculty of the same College.
They received no
instruction, did no practicing, and practically no playing during the time of the experiment. 3.
Testing.
Three series of tests were given: The
preliminary tests were held in October before the players received any instruction; the second tests were held at the end of the fourth week; and the six-month test was held in the latter part of April.
The tests were held indoors to
assure uniformity of conditions.
The same set-up of equip
ment was used*for all tests. k.
Interpretation of results.
The limited time of
instruction and the limited number of cases of this experi ment make it impossible to arrive at positive conclusions, but the results seem to point on the following directions. The psychological method seems to be best.
It
18
starts the individual with the simplest elements of the game and carries him along hy progressive steps to the more complex.
The gain of the psychological group though only
ten per cent greater than that of the logical group seems to show that it possesses merit as a method of teaching. After six months of no golf activity the loss of ability in the psychological group was greater, but the net gain was sufficiently large to warrant the interpretation stated above. Methods of teaching playground baseball.
Young,
11
in an unpublished Master’s thesis, has made an experimental study of methods in teaching playground baseball. -*-•
Purpose of the study.
The purpose of this study
was to test suppositions relative to the learning of the game of playground baseball.
These suppositions were:
(l)
The game is learned best by teaching the elements of the game in a well planned instruction program;
(2) The learn
ing of the game takes place most effectively by practicing the game skills in game situations. 2*
Subjects and factors.
The experimental subjects
were fifty-one freshmen college girls registered for
^ Ivan W. Young, 11An Experimental Evaluation of Certain Procedures Involved in the Teaching of Playground Baseball,11 (unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 192*0*
19 physical education at Snow College.
Thirty-four of this
number were in regular playground baseball classes.
These
thirty-four were equated into two similar experimental groups.
Seventeen control group members were selected from
the class in clog and gymnastic dancing. 5.
Experimental procedure.
In this study the groups
were equated in both skill and mental ability.
The experi
mental changes were produced by teaching the elements to the instruction group.
The play factors were administered
to the play group as an informal free play method of pre senting the factors of playground baseball.
Ho factors
were given the control group. 4.
Experimental results.
The results indicate that
the instruction procedure, as used in this study, was dis tinctly superior to the informal play procedure in not only gains made in the skills tested, but in the playing of the game as well.
The results of the eight tests combined show
an average improvement of 3 6 .3 1 per cent for the instruc tion group as against 1 5 .6 2 per cent for the play group, and .7 P©3? cent for the control group. The ability to score runs and to prevent the scoring of runs shows greater improvement for the instruction group. The instruction group teams won five games and scored one hundred fourteen runs.
The play group teams won three
games and scored seventy runs in eight intergroup games.
20 VII.
ORGANIZATION OP REMAINING CHAPTERS
Chapter Two is a study of the methods used to equate the groups.
The records of their preliminary tests are
also included here. Chapter Three is a description of the methods used to produce the changes in the subjects as well as a record • of their final test results. Chapter Pour compares the pretest records with the final test records and shows the improvement made in each event by each school and by each group for the combined schools. Chapter Five compares the initial and final test re sults of this experiment.
It also evaluates the differences
between the initial and final tests for each group and de termines the reliability of the differences.. Chapter Six contains a summary of the study followed by some conclusions aiid recommendations based upon the results.
CHAPTER II PRELIMINARY TESTING AND MEASURING I.
EQUATING THE GROUPS
Need for equating.
If studies and comparisons of
groups are to be made, it is essential that the groups be . as nearly equal in ability as it is possible to get them. If methods and procedures are to be applied to groups of young people and a comparison made of the effects of these methods and procedures, it would be useless unless these groups were equal in ability at the start.
No one would
assume that a worth-while measurement was being made if two groups of people were to be subjected to a teaching process and the outcomes measured at the finish unless something was known about the comparative abilities of the two groups at the start. A comparison of the progress made by different groups is unscientific unless the point from which the groups started as well as the point reached by the group is known. There are many factors which might operate to make a com parison anything but meaningful unless an equating or equalizing of the groups is taken into consideration. Various methods of equating.
Many methods of equat
ing are to be found in practice today.
The usual procedure
22 in classes in physical education is too often on the “basis of class or grade rather than on the hasis of ability and skills in the activities. Reilly1 in his scheme for "Rational Athletics for Boys and Girls" has set up what he feels is a classifica tion scheme so that boys and girls may be fairly matched for competitive purposes.
The scheme has become known as
the Age-Grade-Height-Weight Plan. 2 The California Decathlon classifies high school boys on a basis of grade, age, height, and weight.
The
chart which is used groups the boys into four classes, with a different standard of achievement or distribution of points being given for each of the groups.
Under such a
plan students are grouped for competition and practice into classes according to the sum of the exponents or numbers which represent the grade, age, height, and weight. Bovard and Cozens, describing Rogers1 Strength Index, have this to say about it as an equating device: . . . it is a highly valid measure, being over two and one-half times as accurate as weight, and nearly twice as accurate as the best combination of age, height and weight. It is economical of time, . . .
^ Frederick J. Reilly, New Rational Athletics for Boys and Girls (New York: D. C. Heath, l9l7yi 2 State Board of Education, California Manual in Physical Education (Sacramento: State Board of Education, l$l8), p. l20.
23 "boys are fascinated by the procedure. The tests are well adapted to the age and sex of the subjects; they are easily and accurately scored in mathematical terms; they are objective, and the strength index is probably more reliable than any valid composite mental test available. The strength index score is obtained by adding the following items: 1.
Number of cubic inches in lung capacity.
2.
Number of pounds pressure in right grip.
3.
11
11
11
"
11 left
11 .
4.
Number of pounds lifted using the back.
5*
Number of pounds lifted using the legs.
6.
Strength of arms calculated thus: Pull-ups plus push-ups plus (height - 6 0 ).3
plus 10
Brace has developed, by means of scientific pro cedures, a scale of motor ability tests consisting of twenty events of a stunt nature for which the following claims are made: 1. Motor ability scale scores may be used as the basis for determining an accomplishment quotient for the activities of physical education. 2. The scale of tests should form a valuable ele ment in a scheme, of classification of pupils for class work in physical education. This should be especially valuable in programs which favor individual development of pupils.
^ John F. Bovard and Fredrick W. Cozens, Tests and Measurements in Physical Education (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1931} / P* 60/
24 5* Diagnosis of special performance disabilities may be assisted by the study of individual reactions to these tests. 4. Experimental-studies in physical education which require the equating of groups of pupils have been greatly handicapped by the lack of standardized tests of general motor ability. The Scale of Tests proposed in this study would be 'an invaluable aid in experimental studies using equivalent groups. 5. Finally, the Scale of Tests should stimulate other scientific efforts in the field of tests and measurements in physical education. Leads thus far established should assist other research on the nature of motor ability.4 Choosing and applying a procedure.
After a study of
the various methods used for equating groups it was decided that Brace’s Scale of Motor Ability Tests was best adapted for this particular study.
These tests were simple and
easy to administer, requiring no expensive equipment; the tests were scored either as passed or failed; and they were quickly administered and easily scored.
The validity of
the tests as measures of general motor ability was assured by the fact that the tests finally selected to comprise the scale had a correlation of .5 8 with the judgment rating criterion.
Coefficients of correlations for scores on the
Motor Ability Tests with scores on athletic events ranged from .7 0 to .8 0 and reliability and objectivity of the
^ David K. Brace, Measuring Motor Ability (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1920), p. 99•
t
25 Motor Ability Tests were assured as a result of the stand ardized techniques employed and reported as follows: 1. The mean net difference between the first and second trials on jfche tests is small, .6 2 5 , for one of the groups of college women. 2. When a group of 27 sixth grade boys scored the same individuals the average agreement among their scores was 86 per cent. In order not to influence this experiment, part of the instructions regarding scoring were eliminated. For an identical group of college women, the mean net difference between two sets of scores on the Motor Ability Tests separated by approximately one year was .99 6 where a difference of 30 was possible. 4. The mean net difference between two forms of the tests was 1 .06l. 5. Reliability is shown by self correlation as follows: (a) Form A with Form B, r equals .71* (b) Scores one year with scores one year later for college women, r equals .6 6 . (c) Scores one year with scores one year later for children, r equals .7 1 for one group and r equals .82 for another group. (d) Failures on first trial with failures on a second trial of the same tests, r equals .9 0 . 6 . Objectivity is partly established by its rela tion to reliability as measured by coefficients of cor relation of .6 6 , .7 1 * *73 and .9 0 . 7 . Objectivity was further established by a coef ficient of .7 2 for self-scored tests by fifth and sixth grade boys, with the identical pupils and tests scored by an examiner. 8 . As shown by a comparison of the mean scores there was a slight tendency for pupils to score
26
themselves more severely than did the examiner.^ Directions for the application of the tests were first explained to the teachers at the three schools in volved in. this study.
In addition to this explanation each
teacher was given written instructions in regard to the tests and a copy of the tests as developed by Brace was supplied to each teacher.
The directions given in this
copy of the tests were followed carefully.
Each boy was
given both forms of the test. Results of the equating.
After the Motor Ability
Tests were given the table for converting the test scores into Scale Scores was used which gave a score for each boy. This score made it possible for boys and groups to be matched or equated for this study.
This was done with the
result that the Concentrated Group had a total score of 9,956.
The sum of the scores of the boys in the Rotated
Group was 10,003.
Since there were 167 boys in the Concen
trated Group and 171 in the Rotated Group the difference in the total scores is accounted for.
The boys of the Concen
trated Group had an average score of 56.9 and the boys of the Rotated Group an average score of 38.5*
The average
number of tests passed were: Concentrated Groups, 14.1;
5 Ibid., pp. 95-96.
Rotated Groups, 14.5* On the basis of these preliminary testings and group ings the boys were now asked to take the pretests in the five track and field events selected for this study. II.
THE PRELIMINARY TESTS IN THE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS
The events selected for this study were the 100 yard dash, the 110 yard low hurdles (high school), the eight pound shot put, the running high jump, and the running broad jump.
There were many reasons for the selection of
these five events, some of which are listed here.
Perhaps
the first consideration given in the selection was the fact that they were easy of measurement.
They were not very
dangerous and the preliminary tests would not involve the use of any great amount of endurance.
Their measurement
is objective in nature, all the scores being in terms of seconds, feet, inches.
The events selected are enjoyable
for most high school boys who are anxious to improve them selves in the skills involved in these events. No preliminary training was permitted; but, because the boys had just completed their winter schedule of ac tivities, they were in fair physical condition.
The pro
gram was carried on as a part of the physical education pro gram for the Spring of 1939.
Ten weeks were devoted to
r
28
this part of the program. The results for each event ingare shown here the groups.
in this preliminary test
for each of theschools and for each of
The schools are referred to from here on as
schools one, two, and three respectively. Rotated Groups.
Table II, shown on the following
page, gives the mean and standard deviation in each event at each of the schools for the Rotated Groups.
School two
had the best record in the 100 yard dash with a mean score of 12.5 seconds and a standard deviation (S.D.) of .821. This meant had
that 68 per cent of the
scoresbetween the limits of 1
the mean, that is, between 1 2 .5 i
cases in this test group sigma on each side of .82 1 seconds or between
1 1 .6 2 seconds and 12*2 8 seconds. The best mean score in the low hurdles was made by the group at school three.
Their average or mean score was
1 6 .6 2 seconds with a standard deviation of 1 .8 6 seconds. This meant that 68 per cent of that group had scores be tween the limits of 14*76 seconds and 18.48 seconds. School one made the best preliminary record of the Rotated Groups in the high jump.
Table II shows their mean
score to be 5 2 .6 7 inches with a standard deviation of 2 *5^ inches.
This meant that 68 per cent of that group were to
be found within the limits of 49*12 inches and 5 6 .2 1 inches.
TABLE II MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS PRETESTS--FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS ROTATED GROUPS
100 yard dash Mean S .D7
110 yard hurdles Mean S.D.
High jump Mean £>.D.
Broad jump Mean S.D.
Shot put Mean S.D.
School one
15.55
.951
18.07
I .83
52.67
5.54
14.25
1.96
52.25
3.46
School two
12.5
.831
20.49
2.27
50.69
5.70
15.46
1 .6 0
32.41
4.93
School three
15.55
.966
1. 6 .6 2
1 .8 6
52.15
4.04
14.14
1 .3 8
55.57
4.09
!Y>
VO
50 The "best record in the broad jump was the mean of 15*46 feet at school two. group was 1.60 feet.
The standard deviation for this
The scores, then, of 68 per cent of
this group were found to lie between the limits of 15*46 feet i 1.60 feet. The best average for the preliminary test in the eight pound shot for this group was 35*57 feet. was established at school three. was 4.09 feet for this group.
This mean
The standard deviation
This showed that 68 per cent
of all the scores in this group were found between the limits of 29.28 feet and 57*46 feet. Concentrated Groups.
Table III shows the mean and
standard deviations.in the preliminary tests of the five track and field events for the Concentrated Groups at the three schools. The table shows that the best mean for the 100 yard dash in this group was 12.63 seconds. tion (S.D.) was .864 seconds.
The standard devia
The low hurdles, a difficult
event for most of the high school boys, gave a best mean for this group of 16.89 second^ with a standard deviation of 1.46 seconds.
The mean of 54.52 inches with standard
deviation of 3*42 inches was the best made by the Concen trated Groups in the high jump.
The best mean for the
broad jump for these groups was 15*36 feet, and the best
TABLE III MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS PRETESTS--FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS CONCENTRATED GROUPS
100 yard dash Mean S.D. School one
13.35
School two
1 2 .63
School three
1 3 .1 8
1 .0 5 .864 1 .0 6
110 yard hurdles Mean S.D.
High jump Mean S.D.
Broad jump Mean S.D.
Shot put Mean S.D.
17 .86
I .69
53.39
3.50
14.54
1.79
31.18
3.96
20.49
2 .0 8
52.53
3.34
15.36
1 .2 6
32.32
5.12
16 .89
1.46
54.52
3.42
14.18
1-53
34.33
4.56
H
32 mean for the eight pound shot was 34.33 feet. Combined groups.
Table IV shows the means and stand
ard deviations of the Rotated and Concentrated Groups for the combined schools. The table shows how nearly equal the groups were in the preliminary tests.
The only significant difference was
found in the high jump in these preliminary tests.
The
Rotated Groups combined had a mean score of 51*88 inches with a standard deviation of 3*89 inches, while the Concen trated Groups combined had a mean score of 53*57 inches and a standard deviation of 4.26 inches.
In all other events
the differences between the mean scores were so small as to be negligible. III.
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER
Preliminary testing and methods of and equating the two groups were the purposes of this chapter.
The equating
procedures and the preliminary tests in the track and field events both show how evenly matched the two groups were in each of the schools.
TABLE IV MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS PRETESTS--FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS COMBINED SCHOOLS
100 yard dash Mean Rotated Groups
13.3
Concentrated Groups
13.12
S.D.
•747 1.05
110 yard hurdles
High jump
Broad jump
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
18 .1
2.29
51 .88
3.89
14.5
1.73
5 2 .6
4.13
18.07
2.16
53.57
4.26
Ik. 75
1 .6 0
32.65
4.62
Mean
S.D.
Shot put Mean
S.D.
CHAPTER III MAKING AND RECORDING THE CHANGES The preliminary testing as described in Chapter II "being completed the next step was to produce changes in the groups as a result of applying certain techniques and pro cedures to each of the groups.
As stated before, the
groups used in this study were known as the Concentrated Groups and the Rotated Groups.
They differed from each
other only in the method in which the training was done in each group. After the pretests were finished the remaining time of the training period for the Concentrated Groups was divided into five equal parts and one of the five events was taken up during each of these five periods for practice and instruction.
At the conclusion of that definite period of
time set aside for instruction and practice, a final test was given in that event.
A second event followed the com
pletion of the first and this was continued during the peri od of time given to this study. The Rotated Method used the same techniques during the pretesting period before instruction began as were used by the Concentrated Groups.
The events in this method were
rotated each day throughout the period of instruction.
For
example, a five day program for this group was: first day,
35 the high jump; second day, the one hundred yard dash; third day, the shot put; fourth day, the low hurdles; and fifth day, the broad jump.
Each five day period following the
first used the same order of instruction and practice as that followed in the first five day period.
No final tests
were given in this group until the close of the instruction period. I.
THE INSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
To eliminate as far as possible any chance, that cer tain techniques might be over-emphasized while others might be neglected and not receive sufficient emphasis a training program for each of the five events was developed.
This
training program is not mentioned here as a model to follow by others or with the thought that it is the very best that might have been used by these groups.
The only reason for
its use was that, if certain skills were to be developed and taught and then tests and comparisons made of the two methods of teaching, the procedures involved in the teach ing process with the different groups should be as nearly uniform as was possible to make them. The procedures followed by each group and for the various events are described here as activities. Training program for one hundred yard dash.
In this
36 program four activities were used. Activity 1.
Preliminary warm-up period of jogging,
swinging, bouncing, et cetera. Activity 2.
Five minutes each day.
The start.■ Divide the group into
squads: each squad to consist of the same number of boys as there are lanes on the track.
Give instructions to each
squad in proper position for f,on your marks,11 nget set,11 and “go.”
When the gun is fired, instruct the boys to
drive off their marks with the greatest possible speed and run for a distance of thirty yards.
While one group is
coming back another group is to be started.
This starting
practice is to be continued until each group has engaged in this activity five times each practice period. Activity 3..
The body of the one hundred yard dash.
The directions to each squad for this activity were: Take a running or flying start so that maximum speed will have been reached when you cross the starting line; when approxi mately thirty-five yards of the one hundred have been run, lower your arms, relax, and run forty yards in this relaxed condition without reducing the speed; then begin the drive for the finish line.
The entire group engaged in this
activity for ten minutes each day of the practice period. Activity 4.
The finish of the one hundred yard dash.
The directions to each group for this activity were: Take a running start and run through sixty-five or seventy yards
37 at three-quarters speed; then concentrate all of your power and drive into a final hurst of speed that will carry you several strides beyond the finish line.
The entire group
engaged in this activity for ten minutes each day of the practice period. In addition to these activities instruction and prac tice were given in striding, arm action, coordination be tween arm and leg action, body position, et cetera. Training program for the one hundred ten yard low hurdles.
The regulation low hurdles for the high schools
were used in this study.
Five hurdles were used, the first
one being twenty yards from the starting line and the dis tance between each hurdle being eighteen yards.
This, to
gether with an eighteen yard finish after the clearing of the last hurdle, made for a distance of one hundred ten yards, which it was felt was a sufficient distance for boys in physical education classes to run.
The training program
used to insure as much uniformity as possible is described below. Activity 1.
Form in clearing the hurdle.
Set up
three flights of hurdles and divide the class into as many groups as there are hurdles across the track. will work on the same activity.
Each group
Have each boy run from the
starting line to the first hurdle, clear it with either leg
38 that is most natural for him, and continue on to the next hurdle. sized.
The correct form over the hurdle is to be empha Continue the activity for ten minutes. Activity 2.
The start.
The groups are started with
the same starting form as was used in the hundred yard dash. Some experimenting will need to be done to find out which foot is to be on the line.
Make the start and run with
nine or eleven strides to the first hurdle, clearing the hurdle on the tenth or twelvth stride.
Clear the hurdle in
stride and with correct form and then take seven or nine strides to the next hurdle.
This will enable the boy to
clear each hurdle with the same natural hurdling foot.
Five
starts to be taken each practice period. Activity 3•
The body and finish of the low hurdles.
Have the groups run over four hurdles and continue with a sprint for a distance of thirty-five yards beyond the regu lar finish line.
Repeat four times each practice period.
Training program for eight pound shot.
The eight
pound shot was used in this study because of the immaturity of many of the boys in the classes.
Instructions for this
activity were as follows. Activity 1 .
Holding and releasing the shot.
The
shot is to be held with the first, second, and third fingers behind the shot, with the little finger to the side or in
back of the shot. times.
The thumb is in front of the shot at all
The weight of the shot rests on the base of the
fingers.
The shot is held in the crotch of the neck and
the shoulder in this grasp.
The right elbow is at a right
angle with the trunk of the upright body, and the left arm is extended straight out to the side of the body.
With the
shot held in this position have each boy take a position in the front of the circle with the left side in the direction in which he is to release the shot.
From this position
°putn the shot with a turn of the body such that the right foot is brought up,to the front of the circle as the release is made.
Ten trials each practice period should be provided
for. Activity 2.
Putting drive into the 11put.,f Have
each boy take a position in the middle of the circle facing in the direction in which the shot is to be released.
He
then steps forward on the left foot to a position near the front of the circle, bends right knee slightly, and puts the shot.
A continuation of this movement is the reversing
of the feet, which brings about the same finish as that in Activity 1. through.
This reverse will give the proper follow
Ten trials each practice period should be taken.
Activity 3.
Using the full circle.
Have the boys
take a position in the back of the circle with the left side pointing in the direction of the put.
The feet should be
4o fairly wide apart and the right knee slightly bent.
With a
shift or a jump of the feet place the right foot near the middle of the circle and the left foot into a position near the front of the circle and from this position put the shot as from the second position of Activity 2.
Ten trials each
practice period should be taken. Training program for the broad jump.
Three activi
ties were followed in this program. Activity 1.
The warm-up.
Run easily from some
point on the runway and from any convenient point take off for an easy jump into trials of
the pit. Five
practice or warm-up
this nature should be taken each practice period.
Activity 2.
Getting the take-off.
The length of
the run in the broad jump is approximately ninety or a hun dred feet.
The length of the running stride into the take
off will need to be known, after which the point from which the boy will start can be determined.
A check mark should
also be established either five or six strides from the take off.
The
period to
boys should engage in five runs each practice check their take-off.
Activity 3.
The jump.
Take a fast rim, being sure
of each check marl^ and then with a last short stride "stamp down" on the take-off board and drive out and up using the arm and the body in the drive.
Land on the' feet and fall
41 forward if necessary.
Five jumps for each practice period
are enough for physical education boys in high school. Training program for the high jump.
There were only
two activities in this program. Activity 1.
Approaching the bar and the take-off.
Establish a take-off mark about three feet in front of the cross-bar. off mark.
Take a six or eight stride run up to the take Approach the bar at about a forty-five degree
angle from the side which is most convenient to jump from. The last stride is longer and during this stride the body is gathered for an explosive spring from the take-off leg, which should be the leg nearest the bar. lifted vigorously forward and upward.
The other leg is
The cross-bar for
these practice periods should be at a height easily cleared by each boy.
Ten easy jumps of this nature should be taken
each practice period. Activity 2.
The lay-out.
Have another light cross
bar held three feet above the regular cross-bar.
The boys
will lay-out between the two bars without touching either. The landing foot is the foot from which the take-off was made.
Ten trials for each boy each practice period should
be provided for. II.
THE FINAL TEST RESULTS
The training program described above was engaged in
42 by each of the groups, i.e., the Concentrated and the Rotated Groups, at each of the high schools, for a period of approximately ten weeks.
After the training period,
tests were given in each of the events and in each of the groups to see what the effects of the training program had been. As was expected, each group showed marked improvement in the final test records over the pretest records. The results of these final tests for each event and for each school and group are shown in the tables which follow. Rotated Groups.
Table V, shown on the following
page, gives the mean and standard deviation in the final tests for each event for this group at each of the schools. This table shows that at school one the mean time for the Rotated Group in the hundred yard dash on the final test was 12.98 seconds, with a standard deviation of .8 3 7 * This same group at school one had final test scores in the other events as follows: one hundred ten yard hurdles, mean 16.48 seconds, standard deviation 1.33; high jump, mean 5 3 *8 7 6 inches, standard deviation 4.04; broad jump, mean 15.04 feet, standard deviation 1 .6 5 ; shot put, mean 3 3 *6 1 feet, standard deviation 3*66. At school two the final mean scores and standard deviations for the Rotated Group were: one hundred yard
TABLE V MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FINAL TESTS— FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS ROTATED GROUPS
100 yard dash
110 yard hurdles
High jump
Broad jump
Shot put
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
School one
1 2 .9 8
.837
16.48
1-33
53.876
4.04
15.04
I.65
33.61
5 .6 6
School tvo
12 .05
.972
18.79
1.93
54.05
3.86
16.18
I .38
37.48
5.34
School three
13 .07
1.131
16 .27
1.23
54.6
3-98
15.07
1.49
35.66
3.96
44 dash, mean 12.045 seconds with standard deviation of .9 7 2 ; one hundred ten yard low hurdles, mean 1 8 .7 9 seconds with standard deviation of 1.93; high jump, mean 5^*05 inches with a standard deviation of 3 *8 6 ; broad jump, mean 1 6 .1 8 feet with standard deviation of 1 .3 8 ; and shot put, mean 3 7 *^ 8 feet and standard deviation of 5*34. School three had mean scores and standard deviations for its Rotated Group in each of the events as follows: one hundred yard dash, mean 1 3 *0 7 seconds with standard devia tion of 1 .1 3 1 ; one hundred ten yard low hurdles, mean 1 6 .2 7 seconds and standard deviation 1.23; high jump, mean 54.6 inches and standard deviation of 3*98; broad jump, mean 1 5 .0 7 feet and standard deviation of 1.49; shot put, mean 3 5 *6 6 feet and standard deviation of 3 *9 6 . Concentrated Groups.
When the Concentrated Groups
at the three high schools were tested, the results were as shown in Table VI.
This table, shown on the following page,
shows the mean and standard deviations for this group in their final tests at each of the high schools in each of the five track and field events used in this study. * The table shows that school one had the following mean scores and standard deviations in each of the track and field events: one hundred yard dash, mean 13.025 seconds and standard deviation of 1.04; one hundred ten yard low hurdles,
TABLE VI MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FINAL TESTS--FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS CONCENTRATED GROUPS
100 yard dash Mean
S.D.
110 yard hurdles Mean
High jump
Broad jump
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Shot put Mean
S.D.
School one
13.025 1.04
1 6 .5
1.34
54.21
5.22
14.83
1-57
32.6
3.76
School two
1 2 .184
.787
19.56
1.32
53-42
3.70
15.89
1.48
34.26
4.20
School three
12 .611
.930
16.34
1.33
57.09
3.46
15.14
1 .5 8
3 7 .0 6
4.45
4=" Ul
46 mean 1 6 .5 seconds and a standard deviation of 1.34; high jump, mean 34.21 inches and standard deviation of 5*22; broad jump, mean 14.83 feet with standard deviation of 1.57; eight pound shot put, mean 32.6 feet with standarddeviation of 3 *7 6 . This same table shows that school two had mean scores and standard deviations of: mean for the one hundred yard dash 12.184 seconds and standard deviation of .7 8 7 ; mean for the one hundred ten yard hurdles 19*56 seconds and standard deviation of 1.32; mean for the high jump 53.42 inches and standard deviation of 3 *7 0 ; mean for the broad jump 15*89 feet and standard deviation of 1.48; and mean for the shot put of 34.26 feet and standard deviation of 4.20. School three as shown by this same table had the following scores on the track and field events in their final tests: one hundred yard dash, mean 1 2 .6 1 1 seconds, standard deviation .9 3 0 ; one hundred ten yard low hurdles, mean 16.34 seconds, standard deviation 1.33; high jump, mean 5 7 .0 9 inches, standard deviation 3*46; broad jump, mean 15*14 feet, standard deviation 1 .5 8 ; shot put, mean 3 7 *0 6 , standard deviation 4.43* The combined groups.
When the Rotated Groups from
the three high schools were combined into one group and a
study made of the records, the results were as shown in Table VII on the following page*
This same table shows the
results of the combined Concentrated Groups of the three high schools.
The table shows that the mean scores for the
combined Rotated Groups of the three schools were as follows one hundred yard dash, mean 12*8 seconds, standard deviation 1.02; one hundred ten yard low hurdles, mean 17*03 seconds, standard deviation 1*92; high jump, mean 54.14 inches, standard deviation 4.05; broad jump, mean 15*31 feet, stand ard deviation 1.6l; and shot put, mean 54.47 feet and stand ard deviation 4.28. Another glance at the table shows that the combined Concentrated Groups of the three high schools had scores and records as follows: mean for the hundred yard dash of 12.59 seconds and a standard deviation of 1.09; mean for the one hundred ten yard low hurdles of 17*19 seconds with a standard deviation of 1.98; mean for the high jump of 55.12 inches and a standard deviation of 4.57; for the broad jump the mean was 15*3 2 feet with a standard devia tion of 1.66; for the shot put the mean was 3^*55 feet with a standard deviation of 4 .6 2 . III.
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER
This chapter has been concerned with an explanation of how the changes and differences between the initial and
TABLE VII MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FINAL TESTS— FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS COMBINED SCHOOLS
100 yard dash Mean Rotated Groups
12.8
Concentrated Groups
12.59
110 yard hurdles
High jump
Broad jump
Shot put
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
.1.02
17-03
1.92
54.04
4.03
15-31
1.61
34.47
4.28
1.09
17-19
1.98
55-12
4.57
15-32
1.66
34.55
4.62
4=r
00
final scores were brought about, as well as the figures which give the final scores.
The following chapter will
make some comparisons between the initial and the final scores in each event at each school and also between the different groups at each school.
It will also make some
comparisons between the combined groups of the three schools.
CHAPTER IV COMPARING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL TESTS I.
INTRODUCTION
The progress of individuals and of groups may be noted by testing at the beginning of a period of time and again at the end of that period of time and comparing the results of the testing.
The teacher, or investigator, is
enabled by such procedure to ascertain what the progress has been, and if the progress in one of the groups has been the equal of or greater than that in other groups. The average or mean score ,fis the best known measure of central tendency”'*' used for the purpose of comparison. It is useful in that it is a single measure which repre sents all the scores made by the group, and as such gives a description of the performance of the group as a whole and enables one to compare two or more groups or individuals in terms of typical performance.
Rogers upholds such a point
of view when he says: When averages are compared, administrators have fairly reliable measures by which to estimate the rela tive value of contrasted programs, methods of treatment, and even of teacher e f f i c i e n c y . 2 H. E. Garrett, Statistics in Education and Psy chology (New York: Longmans, Green andCo., 3 ) * pTo. ^ F. R. Rogers, Physical Capacity Tests (New York: A. S. Barnes and Co., 193^)V""P«" 5^*
51 The average or mean, together with the standard deviation, gives a picture of the performance of 68 per cent of the class or group being studied.
It was with this
thought in mind that this study was made to include both the average or mean and the standard deviation of the five track and field events at the three schools and with the two groups of boys at each school. Even though comparisons are sometimes invidious, they are quite necessary if the changes that have taken place during a particular time, as a result of techniques applied to effect them, are to be known.
It would be of
little value to produce changes unless these changes were measured with some instrument. Changes were effected in this study as a result of the procedures employed and explained in a previous chapter. It is the purpose of this chapter to study these changes and make comparisons of the changes which were brought about by the two methods of procedure. II.
IMPROVEMENT SHOWN IN EACH EVENT AT EACH SCHOOL The boys at each school were tested in the various
events at the beginning of the study and again at the end of the study for the purpose of seeing what changes had been brought about by the two methods of training they were subjected to; Table VIII, shown on the following page,
TABLE VIII COMPARATIVE SCORES IN THE FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS FOR BOTH GROUPS AT SCHOOL ONE
Pretest
Final test
Differences in mean scores
Rotated Group
Coneentrated Group
Rotated Group
Concentrated Group
Mean scores 100 yard dash
13.55
13 .55
1 2 .92
12.97
Mean scores low hurdles
18.07
17.86
16.48
16 .50
1.59
Mean scores shot put
32.25
3 1 .1 8
33.61
5 2 .6 0
1 .3 6 ft.
1.42 f t .
Mean scores high jump
52 .67
53 .39
53-88
54.21
1.21 in.
.82 in.
Mean scores broad jump
14.25
14 .54
15.04
14.83
•79 ft.
•29 ft.
Rotated Group
Concentrated Group
.63 sec.
•38 sec.
n
1.36
11
ui f\)
53 regarding scores at school one, gives a picture of what these changes were. School one.
Table VIII shows the pretest and final
test means and differences.at school one for each of the groups and for each of the events used in this study. The average or mean time for the pretest in the one hundred yard dash at this school for the Rotated Group was 13*55 seconds.
The mean for the final test for this group
was 12.92 seconds.
The improvement in the performance
record for this group at the school was .6 3 seconds.
The
mean score for the one hundred yard dash for the Concen trated Group was: pretest 13*35 seconds, final test 12.97 seconds.
The improvement in performance for the group was
.3 8 seconds. The pretest in the low hurdles for the Rotated Group at school one was 18.07 seconds.
The final mean score for
the same group and school was 16.48 seconds.
The differ
ence or improvement record in this event was 1.59 seconds. For this event the Concentrated Group had a pretest record of 1 7 .8 6 seconds and a final test mean of 1 6 .5 seconds with a difference between the pretest and final test of 1 .3 6 seconds. The Rotated Group at this school had a pretest aver age in the shot put of 3 2 .2 5 feet and a final test average
5^ of 33-61 feet. 1.36 feet.
The difference between the two scores was
The record for the Concentrated Group in this
instance: pretest 31-18 feet, final test 32.6 feet.
The
difference between the two means of the tests was 1.42 feet. In the high jump the Rotated Group had a mean score of 5 2 .6 7 inches for the pretest and a final test mean score of 55-88 inches. inches.
The improvement for the group was 1.21
The Concentrated Group at this School had a pre
test mean score of 5 3 -5 9 inches and a final test mean score of 54.21 inches.
The group difference w a s . . 82 inches be
tween the pretest and final test in the high jump. In the broad jump the Rotated Group had a pretest average .of 14.25 feet and a final test average of 15-04 feet.
The improvement for the group in this event was .79
feet.
The Concentrated Group had a pretest average of
14.54 feet and a final test average of 14.83 feet.
The dif
ference between the two tests was .2 9 feet. School two.
Table IX, shown on the following page,
shows the pretest and final test means and differences at school' two for each of the groups and for each of the events used in this study. The Rotated Group at this school had a mean pretest score of 1 2 .5 seconds in the one hundred yard dash and a final mean score of 12.04 seconds.
The improvement for the
TABLE IX COMPARATIVE SCORES IN THE FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS FOR BOTH GROUPS AT SCHOOL TWO
Rotated Group Mean scores 100 yard dash 12.50 sec. if
Difference in mean scores
Final test
Pretest Concentrated Group 12.65 sec. 2 0 .4 9
I?
Rotated Group 12.06 sec. 11
Concen trated Group
Rotated Group
Concentrated Group
12.18 sec.
.46
.45
1.69
.95
ft
Mean scores low hurdles
20.48
Mean scores shot put
52.41 ft.
5 2 .3 2 ft .
37-48 ft.
34.26 ft.
5.07
1.94
Mean scores high jump
50.69 in.
52 .53 in.
54.05 In.
53-42 in.
5.56
.89
Mean scores broad jump
14.14 ft.
15.36 ft.
16.18 ft.
15.89 ft.
2.04
.55
18.79
19.56
ui U1
56 event for this group was .46 seconds.
The Concentrated
Group had an initial mean score of 12.63 seconds for the one hundred yard dash and a final test mean score of 12.18 seconds; the improvement for the group in this event was .45 seconds. Further study of Table IX, page 55> shows that the Rotated Group made an improvement of 1.69 seconds in the one hundred ten yard low hurdles while the Concentrated Group made an improvement of .95 seconds in the same event. The Rotated Group made an improvement of 5*07 feet in the eight pound shot put; the Concentrated Group, an improvement of 1.94 feet in the same event.
The Rotated Group made an
improvement of 5*56 inches in the high jump and the Concen trated Group made an improvement of .8 9 inches for this event.
In the broad jump the improvements were as follows:
Rotated Group, 2.04 feet; Concentrated Group, School three.
.53 feet.
Table X, shown on the following page,
shows the pretest and final test means and the differences between them at school three for each of the groups con cerned in the five track and field events. The improvement in the one hundred yard dash for the Rotated Group was .46 seconds.
The improvement for the
Concentrated Group in the same event was .7 7 seconds. The low hurdles must have been rather difficult to
TABLE X COMPARATIVE SCORES IN THE FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS FOR BOTH GROUPS AT SCHOOL THREE
Pretest Rotated Group
Difference in mean scores
Final test Concentrated Group
Rotated Group
Concentrated Group .77
.35
.55
57 .06 ft.
2.29
2.73
5 4 .60 in.
5 7 .0 9 in.
2.45
2.57
15.07 ft.
15.14 ft.
. .93
.96
15.18 sec.
Mean scores low hurdles
16.65
16.89
Mean scores shot put
33.37 ft.
34.53 ft.
55 .66 ft.
Mean scores high jump
52.15 in.
54 .52 in.
Mean scores "broad jump
Ik.Ik ft.
14.18 ft.
13.07 sec. 16 .27
11
12.41 sec.
Rotated Group .46
Mean scores 100 yard dash 13-53 sec.
it
Concen trated Group
16.34
ft
58 master for the groups at this school.
The Rotated Group
showed an improvement of "but .35 seconds while the Concen trated Group showed an improvement of ,55 seconds. Although the hurdles showed but little change, the shot put showed a rather important degree of change.
The
Rotated Group had a pretest average of 33*37 feet, and a final test average of 35*66 feet. record of 2.29 feet.
This gave an improvement
The Concentrated Group*s pretest
average was 3^*53 feet and the final test average was 37*06 feet.
The improvement was 2.73 feet for this group. The Rotated Group made an improvement of 2.^5 inches
- in the high jump during the period of instruction as shown by the table.
During the same time the Concentrated Group’s
improvement amounted to 2.57 inches. Improvement in the broad jump in the two groups at this school was quite alike.
The Rotated Group made an im
provement of .93 feet and the Concentrated Group made an improvement of .9 6 feet. III.
IMPROVEMENT SHOWN AT EACH SCHOOL BY EACH GROUP
School one.
If one looks again at Table VIII, page
52, it is easy to see that at school one the Rotated Groups made better improvement records in four of the five events. The only event in which the Concentrated Group had the better improvement record was in the shot put.
In the one
hundred yard dash
the Rotated Group made an improvement of
.6 5 seconds while
the
seconds.
Concentrated Group
improved hut .5 8
The improvement in the low hurdles was also hest
at this school for the Rotated Group.
The improvement for
the Rotated Group
was 1.59 secondswhile the improvement
for this event by
the Concentrated Group was 1.^6 seconds.
As was pointed out above the Concentrated Group showed its only superiority at this school in the shot put; the im provement was: Rotated Group, 1 .36 feet; Concentrated Group, 1.42 feet.
The high jump showed improvement again to be in
favor of the Rotated Group.
The records of improvement
were: Rotated Group, 1.21 inches; Concentrated Group, inches.
.82
The Rotated Group was best at school one in the
broad jump, having an improvement of .5 feet or 6 inches more than the Concentrated Group.
The differences between
the pretest and final tests at this school were: Rotated Group,
.79 feet; Concentrated Group, School two.
.29 feet.
The Rotated Group had best results in
the different events at school two according to the informa tion revealed by Table IX, page 55?
The differences shown
by this table give the Rotated Group the advantage in each of the five events, although in some of the events the advantage or improvement was almost negligible.
The dif
ferences ranged from .01 seconds in the one hundred yard
6o dash to 3*13 feet in the shot put.
Other differences were:
Low hurdles: Rotated Group, 1.69 seconds; Concen trated Group,
.93 seconds;
Shot put: Rotated Group, 5»07 feet; Concentrated Group, 1.-94 feet; High jump: Rotated Group, 3*36 inches; Concentrated Group,
.89 inches; Broad jump: Rotated Group, 2.04 feet; Concentrated
Group,
.33 feet. School three.
Another glance at Table X, page 57 >
reveals quite a contrast to the records produced by tables VIII, page 52> and IX, page 55*
At school three the im
provement in each event except the one hundred yard dash was in favor of the Concentrated Group.
While there was
improvement in each of the events by both groups, the Con centrated Group showed greater improvement than did the Rotated Group.
The improvements shown by each group were:
One hundred yard dash: Rotated Group, Concentrated Group,
.46 seconds;
.27 seconds;
One hundred ten yard low hurdles: Rotated Group, seconds; Concentrated Group,
.35
.55 seconds;
Shot put: Rotated Group, 2.29 feet;. Concentrated Group, 2.73 feet; High jump: Rotated Group, 2.45 inches; Concentrated
Group, 2.57 inches; Broad jump: Rotated Group, Group,
.93 feet; Concentrated
.9 6 feet. IV.
IMPROVEMENT SHOWN BY EACH GROUP FOR COMBINED SCHOOLS
Statistics can he made to prove almost anything that it is wished for them to prove, someone has said, and the differences shown by the various groups at the three schools might lead one to believe that something of that sort had been attempted here.
That was not true, however, as no
attempt was made to make one or the other method the better. The study was made with no preconceived idea as to what the ultimate result would be. Each group had its ups and down at the three schools involved in the study.
However, it was not intended that
there should necessarily be a comparison made between the schools but rather that it should be a comparison of re sults made by two methods of teaching. It was planned to have three Rotated Groups of stu dents and three Concentrated Groups of students in the make up of the study groups.
This was done and the results of
the testing in each of the Rotated Groups at the three schools were all united into one combined Rotated Group. The same was done for the Concentrated Groups.
62
The results of the records for the combined groups are shown in Table XI, which appears on the following page. This table shows the means and standard deviations of the five events for both the pretest and the final tests and also shows the differences between the means and standard deviations for the pretests and the final tests. The Rotated Group had differences between the mean scores of pretest and final tests of .5 seconds for the one hundred yard dash; 1.07 seconds for the one hundred ten yard low hurdles; 2.16 inches for the high jump;
.8 1 feet
for the broad jump; and 1 . 8 7 feet for the shot put. The Concentrated Group had differences between the mean scores of pretest and final tests of .55 seconds for the one hundred yard dash;
.88 seconds for the one hundred
ten yard low hurdles; 1.55 inches for the high jump;
.57
feet for the broad jump; and 1.90 feet for the shot put. The differences shown by Table XI gave the Rotated Group greater improvements in the low hurdles (1.07 seconds to .88 seconds), high jump (2.16 inches to 1.55 inches), and broad jump (.81 feet to *57 feet).
The Concentrated
Group showed greater improvement than did the Rotated Group in the one hundred yard dash (.55 seconds to .5 0 seconds), and the shot put (1.90 feet to 1 .8 7 feet). The same table also shows that the differences be tween the standard deviations were not always uniform.
For
TABLE XI COMPARATIVE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE FIVE TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS FOR THE ROTATED AND CONCENTRATED GROUPS. COMBINED SCHOOLS Rotated Groups Mean S.D. 100 yard dash Pretest Final test Actual difference
Concentrated Groups Mean S.D. 1 .0 5 1 .0 9 •04.
.747 1.023 .276
13.13 sec. it 12.59 it •54
2.29 1.92 .37
18.07 17.19 .88
5 1 .8 8 in. 54 .04 2 .1 6 11
3-89 4.03 .14
53-57 in. ti 55-12 If 1.55
4.26 4.57 • 31
1 4 .5 0 ft. 11 1 5 .5 1 .81 ii
1.73 1 .6 1 .12
14.75 ft. it 15.32 it • 57
1 .6 0 1.66 .06
4.13 4.28 • 15
3 2 .6 5 34.55 1.90
1^.5 1 2 .8 .5
sec. i! 11
110 yard lov hurdles Pretest Final test Actual difference
1 8 .1 0 17 .03 1 .0 7
II 11 n
rt
« tt
2 .1 6 1 .9 8 .18
High jump Pretest Final test Actual difference Broad jump Pretest Final test Actual difference Shot put Pretest Final test Actual difference
3 2 .6 0 3 4 .4 7 1 .8 7
it 1! It
« it it
4.62 4.62 .00
CT\
64 example, the pretest mean for the one hundred yard dash: the Rotated Group was 13*3 seconds with a standard devia tion of .747 while the final test mean was 12.8 seconds with a standard deviation of 1.023*
In other words as the
mean score grew better the standard deviation became larger.
The same dispersion existed between the standard
deviations in this event for the Concentrated Group al though the difference in this case was not so large, namely,
.04. In the one hundred ten yard low hurdles the actual
difference between the mean scores of the pretest and final test for the Rotated Group was 1.07 seconds.
The difference
between the scores for the Concentrated Group for the same event was .88 seconds.
The standard deviations in this
event followed what seemed to be a more logical order, i.e., as the scores became better the standard deviations became smaller or the dispersions became less.
This same condi
tion existed in several of the events as can be seen by a study of the table. V.
SUMMARY
This chapter has made comparisons of the preliminary and final tests for the various events at each school as well as for the two groups concerned.
These comparisons
disclosed that differences existed, and raised the question
as to whether these differences were of any significance. The significance of these differences is the problem of the following chapter.
CHAPTER V COMPARING AND EVALUATING THE DIFFERENCES I.
INTRODUCTION
When the two groups or procedures of this study were compared, there were four things it was necessary to find out about them.
First of all, it was highly desirable to
know the degree of improvement made by each group, i.e., the difference between the initial and the final test scores in each event and for each group.
Secondly, it was
necessary to know the improvement made by one group over that of the other group or procedure as revealed by the differences between the final tests of each group.
Thirdly,
it was necessary to know the gains made by each group or procedure, i.e., the gain made by each boy in each group and for the various events.
Fourth, it was necessary to
find out if these differences and gains were statistically significant. All these were necessary and useful but valueless unless the groups so compared were equated groups.
All of
the above procedures were used in this study to determine whether the Rotated or the Concentrated Group Method of teaching produced better results. That there were differences between the initial and
67 the final tests within each group has already been pointed out in Chapter IV of this study.
These differences were *
expected, the important thing being the degree or signifi cance of the differences.
This is shown on the following
pages. II.
EVALUATING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INITIAL AND THE FINAL TESTS FOR EACH EVENT It is often necessary to evaluate differences which
are obtained experimentally in order to decide whether these differences are significant ones, i.e., that they are real differences and not due to chance factors.
Measures
of reliability of differences serve as an index by which one knows how much faith to have in obtained means and their differences.
These measures take into account such
factors as the spread of the scores, their overlap, the number of cases entering into the calculation, and other factors which determine the significance of differences. The average difference secured in a test or an experiment is always stated with a measure which indicates its trustworthiness.
This is best expressed by a measure
of variability which, if large, says that the difference might be expected to fluctuate greatly if the experiment or the test were repeated; if the variability of the differ ence is small, it means that the difference is fairly
68 dependable. Two measures of variability of differences are com monly used, the standard deviation (O') and the probable error (P.E.).
A difference is interpreted by dividing it
(D) by its variability (its (T or P.E.). or
D
is known as a critical ratio.
7
7
E
.
This ratio of D ~7T When this ratio is
-------------------------------
high, the difference is more significant than when the ratio is low; but there is, however, no absolute value of the critical ratio guaranteeing that a difference is entire ly satisfactory, according to statistical experts.'1' The following statements are, however, accepted by most of them: (a) A critical ratio obtained by dividing the ob tained difference by the
of the difference should be at
least J>.00 in order to show reasonable guarantee that a difference in the same direction would be obtained if the test were repeated; (b) A critical ratio obtained by dividing the ob tained difference by the P.E. of the difference should be at least 4.00 in order to give a reasonable assurance that a difference in the same direction would be obtained if the experiment or test were repeated.
■** H. E. Garrett, Statistics in Education and Psy chology (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1933)> PP*
T2W-~JS:
These values of 3*00 and 4.00 for critical ratios obtained from the (T‘s and the P .E.‘s are based on proper ties of the normal curve.
Within a range of plus or minus
3-00 is "the standard error of the second obtained average and d (diff) is the standard error of the difference between the two averages. Thus to find the reliability of the difference between two averages, we must first know the reliability of the averages themselves.^ Using material from Table XII, page 70, for the one
2 Ibid., pp. 128-33.
hundred dash, it was seen that the difference between the two averages was .21 seconds in favor of the Concentrated Group.
Since the groups, however, were relatively small,
171 and 1 6 7 * the question arose as to whether this was a reliable difference.
Would further testing of other groups
of like nature in various parts of the country give the same difference?
Was it possible and probable that the dif
ferences would be reduced or even reversed in favor of the Rotated Group?
To answer these questions ”we must,” accord
ing to Garrett, ”find the reliability of the averages” of the Rotated and the Concentrated Groups ”and from these determine the reliability of the differences between the 3 averages. The formula for the standard error of an average is ®(av) _
^(dis) l/T-
One hundred yard dash.
Using the data from Table
XII, page 70, and substituting this data in the above formula gave: For Rotated Group
100-yard dash
G(av) =
1-023
y
171
Garrett, loc. cit.
=
•°780
For Concentrated Group 6 (av)
100-yard dash
=
=
* 0845
V l67 Substituting these values in the formula for calcu lating the reliability of an obtained difference = ,/ 6 Z, > . 6 s-, T” V (av,) + (ava ) gave ®(dif f )
= ^ ( . 0780)2 + (.0843) 2
=
>11^8
Since the actual difference between the two averages was .2 1 seconds and the standard error of their difference was .1148, it may be said that the chances were 68 in 100 that the obtained difference of .21 did not not diverge from the true difference by more than
— .1148 and that the
chances were 99 in 100 that this difference (.2 1 ) did not differ from the true difference by more than 3 X — .1148 or by more than ± .3444.
In other words, it was almost certain
that the true difference between the average of the Rotated and Concentrated Groups for the one hundred yard dash was between the limits .2 1 i .3444 or between -.1344 and +.5544. The negative limit showed that there were chances that in some cases the average of the Rotated Group would be higher than the average of the Concentrated Group. To determine the chances that the true difference between these two groups was greater than zero,
.2 1 was
82 divided by ,1148 and the quotient, 1,83
showed how far
the zero difference was below the mean in 6 terms.
Con
sultation with a table which gives the “fractional parts „2l of the total area under the normal probability curve showed that in the normal curve 4,664 cases in 1 0 ,0 0 0 lie between the mean and 1.83
Adding the 5>000 cases below
the mean, it was seen that the chances were 9>664 in 1 0 ,0 0 0 that the true difference between the averages of the Rotated and Concentrated Groups was greater than zero.
It
is practically certain that when Rotated and Concentrated Groups are compared, in 96 times in 100 the difference be tween the average scores will be in favor of the Concen trated Group when the same conditions as those in this study prevail. Although the obtained difference (.21 seconds) was large enough to insure considerably more than an even chance that the difference would be in favor of the Con centrated Group, it was not large enough to guarantee that this group would always score higher than the Rotated Group. To guarantee this for the Concentrated Group the zero dif ference would have to be shifted down to a -.1344 and the mean difference would have to be .1344 -f.21 or .3444. new difference (D) divided by '
4
Ibid, p. 91*
*
This
would be .3444 or 3 6 TTX4U
then, and the chances would then be 9 9 8 6 .5 ih 1 0 ,0 0 0 that the true difference between the two groups would always be greater than zero. Since, for all practical purposes, all cases in a normal distribution lie within three sigma on each side of the mean, it is certain, according to Garrett, "that an obtained difference has complete reliability when P
=
°(diff) In this particular case D so that
— 1.83.
-
.21 and
= .11^8
It is apparent then that a _ _ -R----
•l l 4 y
of I .8 5 is I .8 3
< W f )
or about 6 l per cent of what it should be
— T"
to insure a difference always greater than zero, or a dif ference always in favor of the Concentrated Group over the Rotated Group. One hundred ten yard low hurdles.
Using data from
Table XII, page 70, for the one hundred ten yard low hurdles and applying the same techniques as were used above for the one hundred yard dash, a difference between the two mean scores of .1 6 seconds, this time in favor of the Rotated Group, was obtained. Again, using the formula for the standard error of
5 Ibid., p. 154.
84 an average, ^(av) =
^(dis)* V
page 7 0 ,. gave:
taking data from Table XII,
N
For Rotated Group ^
105 study prevailed for another study. Although the obtained difference (.21 seconds) was large enough to insure considerably more than an even chance that the difference would be in favor of the Concen trated Group, it was not large enough to guarantee that this group would always score higher than the Rotated Group. To guarantee this for the Concentrated Group the mean dif ference would have to be .5444.
This new difference, if
divided then by the tf(diff) (.1148), would give 5 6 and the chances would then be 9936.5 in 10,000 that the true differ ence between the two groups would always be greater than zero. The critical ratio of 1.91 was about 6l per cent of what it should be to insure a difference always greater than zero, or a difference always in favor of the Concen trated Group. 2.
One hundred ten yard low hurdles.
The differ
ence of .1 6 seconds between the mean final scores for the low hurdles was in favor of the Rotated Group.
Using this
difference in the calculation of the critical ratio and the standard error of the difference gave 1 . 0 6 and .2121 re spectively.
This meant that the chances were but 7*7^4 in
10,000 that the true difference between the means of these1 two groups was greater than zero and that only in 77 times in 100 under the same conditions as those of this study
106
would there he a difference between the two groups in favor of the Rotated Group.
The critical ratio of 1.06 was about
35 per cent of what it should be to insure that there would be a difference greater than zero, or that there would be a difference every time in favor of the Rotated Group. 3.
High jump.
The difference between the mean
scores of the two groups in their final tests for the high jump for this study was 1.08 inches in favor of the Concen trated Group.
Dividing this difference by the standard
error of the difference gave 2.3
which showed that there
were 9*893 chances in 10,000 that the true difference be tween the mean scores for these groups was greater than zero and that it was practically a certainty that, when Rotated and Concentrated Groups were compared under the same conditions as those of this study, the difference be tween the groups in this event would be in favor of the Concentrated Group.
The critical ratio for the two groups
of 4.9 vas also sufficiently high to insure that a differ ence greater than zero existed and that there would be a difference every time in favor of the Concentrated Group under the conditions such as those of this study. 4.
Broad jump.
The difference between the mean
scores of the final tests for the two groups for the broad jump was but .01 feet in favor of the Concentrated Group. This negligible difference meant that there were only 199
107 chances in 10,000 "better than even that the difference would again "be in favor of this group for this event.
The
Rotated Group has an almost even chance that the differ ence would be in its favor if the same conditions existed in another study.
The critical ratio of . 0 7 also shows
that the chances were almost equal that a difference in favor of the Rotated Group might he expected if another study under the same conditions were attempted.
The ratio
is 2 per cent of what it should he to insure that there would he a difference greater than zero, or that would he a difference every time in favor of
there
the Concen
trated Group. 5.
Shot p u t . The difference between
scores of the final tests for the two groups in favor of the Concentrated Group.
the mean was .0 8 feet
This small difference
meant that there were ahout 987 chances in 10,000 better than even that the difference would again he in favor of the Concentrated Group.
The Rotated Group has an almost
even chance that a difference would be in its favor were the two groups tested again under the same conditions as those of this study.
The critical ratio of .39 vas ahout
19 per cent of what it should have been to insure that the same results would he obtained if the two groups were tested again.
108 Comparing the differences between the mean gains. The gains made by each group in each event and a comparison and evaluation of these gains were techniques employed in this study to assist in discovering if either group made a significant gain over that of the other group. Table XIII, page 91 , points out clearly that there were gains made by each group for each event, and the pages following that table, appearing under the heading t!Comparing the gains made by each group for the various events,11 show clearly how much difference existed between these gains for each group and the significance of these differences. An analysis of the pages cited above shows that with the exception of the broad jump and the shot put the differ ences between the mean gains for the two groups were not highly significant. Evidently the training program of the Rotated Group for the broad jump and the training program of the Concen trated Group for the shot put were quite suited to the boys of this age so far as gains were concerned.
The difference
between the mean gains of the two groups in the broad jump was 1.248 inches in favor of the Rotated Group.
The dif
ference between the mean gains of the two groups in the shot put was 3*864 inches in favor of the Concentrated
2 Supra, p. 89 ff.
109 Group.
The critical ratios were 3*32 and 21.4 respectively
for the two events and groups.
Since a critical ratio, ob
tained by dividing the obtained difference by the standard deviation of the difference, of 3.00 is considered a guarantee of reliability, these two are from 110 to TOO per cent greater than that necessary to insure reliability. II.
CONCLUSIONS
The data in this study were of such a nature that the following conclusions seem justified: 1.
The groups used in this study were evenly matched.
The equating procedure was effective. 2.
The methods and procedures employed in this
study assisted in producing the changes shown between the initial and final tests for each of the events and for each of the groups. 3*
The improvement shown between the initial scores
and the final scores in each event was a significant im provement . 4.
The difference between the mean final scores for
the groups in the hundred yard dash was in favor of the Concentrated Group.
While the difference was not great
enough to insure that a difference always in favor of the Concentrated Group would be secured if another study were to be made, it did show that daily concentrated practice
periods produce the best results for this event under condi tions such as those for this study. 5.
The difference between the mean final scores for
the one hundred ten yard low hurdles was in favor of the Rotated Group.
"While not as significant as it should be to
insure that there would be a difference every time in favor of the method, the difference ( . 1 6 seconds) was sufficient ly large to show that in 77 times in 100 under the same conditions as those of this study there would be a differ ence in favor of the Rotated Group.
Practice periods of a
class period length, followed by three or four days of activity in other events, is indicated for
the hurdles
by
the data available from this study. 6.
The difference between the final scores in the
high jump was in favor of the Concentrated
Group. The
centrated Group was superior in this event
and the data
Con
were significant enough to insure that there would be a difference in favor of this method every time under the conditions which prevailed for this study.
Daily practice
periods are best for teaching high jump skills to high school boys under the conditions which prevailed for this study. 7. broad jump
The difference between the final scores for the was in favor of the Concentrated
critical ratio
between the means of the two
Group.The groupsin this
Ill event was so small (.07) that its significance is lost. The chances are almost equal that the Rotated Group would have a difference in its favor if the same groups or other groups under the same conditions were tested. periods may he rotated or
concentrated and
Practice produce equal
results according to thi3 study. 8.
The difference between the mean final scores of
the groups in the shot put was in favor of the Concentrated Group.
The difference (.08) was not statistically signifi
cant, however; i.e., the chances were almost equal that, if the two groups were tested again, the Rotated Group would have the better score.
Daily practice periods (coneentrated
procedures) or practice periods of the practically equal results
rotated type produce
according to the
findingsof this
sjbudy. 9-
The Rotated Method had a better record for mean
final scores in but one event, the one hundred ten yard low hurdles. 10.
The Concentrated Group had the better record for
mean final scores in four of the five events: the one hun dred yard dash, the high jump, the broad jump, and the shot put. 11.
The difference between the mean gains for the
one hundred yard dash was in favor of the Rotated Group. The critical ratio between the mean gains of the two groups
112 in this event was so small (.3 6 ) that it does not have much statistical significance.
Evidently It does not make a
great deal of difference which method of procedure is used so far as gains are concerned. .12.
The critical ratio (.55) between the gains made
by the two groups in the one hundred ten yard low hurdles was not sufficiently high to warrant a claim that the Con centrated Group would again have the best record if another study of this nature were attempted.
The findings seem to
indicate that either method of procedure produces approxi mately equal gains. 13.
The critical ratio of 3*32 for the gains made by
the two groups in the broad jump justifies the conclusion that under conditions such as those of this study, the Rotated Group or Method of instruction produces the greatest gains. 14.
The difference between the mean gains of the two
groups in the high jump (.127 inches) was not great enough to have much statistical importance. was .63*
The critical ratio
With the conditions prevailing for this study
either method of procedure produces approximately equal re sults so far as gains are concerned. 15-
The critical ratio of 21.4 for the shot put in
favor of the Concentrated Group indicates that the Concen trated Method of procedure produces best results under the
113 conditions which prevailed for this study. 16.
The results obtained through the use of the vari
ous evaluating procedures used in this study were so con flicting that a general claim favoring either method of pro cedure was,impossible. 17*
The techniques employed in this study for evalu
ating the reliability and significance of the differences seemed to be efficient evaluating devices. -**8•
Training methods alone are not the powerful
factors they were once thought to b e .
Such factors as in
terest, enthusiasm, readiness, and a feeling of a need in solving a problem are probably more powerful as factors than the method employed. 19•
The events used in this study are much alike,
i.e., they are events in which speed, strength, and power are the important factors and are events in which strategy, meeting changing situations, et cetera, are not so impor tant . Ill.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Some of the procedures and practices used in this study need to be investigated further, and study by those interested in methods of teaching is recommended.
Among
the problems left unanswered and which need further study are:
114 1.
Would an equating procedure other than the ones
employed produce the same or equal groupings of the boys? 2.
Would a climate unlike that of early spring in
Salt Lake (sometimes quite cool) make possible other re sults than those obtained? 3.
Would a longer training period be advantageous
to either or both methods of procedure?
Would a longer
training period produce the same differences as those of this study; or greater differences in favor of the groups as in this study; or differences in favor of the group other than the one favored by the training period employed here? 4.
Would some training program, other than the one
employed here, have produced more significant differences in favor of the groups? 5.
Would it be possible to use the mean and standard
deviation alone as efficient measures of group superiority? Which of two groups is the better if they have the same mean, but have different standard deviations? 6.
Would it be possible to measure in some way the
changes produced in the attitudes, interests, et cetera, through the use of the two methods employed in this study? That is, would one method of procedure produce greater changes in the interests of the boys than the other method? 7.
Would other events, either in track and field or
in activities of a team game type, yield results similar to the results obtained here?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY A,
BOOKS
Almack, John C., Research and Thesis Writing. Houghton Mifflin Company, T$30."
Boston:
An excellent text hook emphasizing the technique of thesis writing and scientific research. Brace, David K . , Measuring Motor Ability. Barnes and Company, I93^L
New York: A. S.
A scientific procedure for the development of a scale of motor ability for measuring native motor ability. A procedure for equating groups for experimental purposes. Bovard, John F., and Fredrick W. Cozens, Tests and Measure ments in Physical Education. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1$30. A study of the history and the place of measurement in physical education, as well as the tools, theory, and practice of test administration. Gates, Arthur I., Psychology for Students of Education. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1$23• A book written to meet the needs of students of educa tion who are seeking from psychology the facts and principles that have a relation to their problem. Garrett, H. E . , Statistics in Education and Psychology. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1$33• An excellent book telling how to use statistics in edu cational measurements. Good, Carter V., How to do Research in Education. Warwick and York, 1925*
Baltimore
A fine study on how to prepare papers and problems in research. Reilly, Fredrick J., New Rational Athletics for Boys and Girls. New York: t). C. Heath, 1917*
118
A fine classification o p equating scheme so that hoys may he fairly matched for competitive purposes. Rogers, F. R.,. Physical Capacity Tests. Barnes and Company, 1938.
New York: A. S.
A plan for classifying hoys on a hasis of their physi cal capacity. State Board of Education, California Manual in Physical Education. Sacramento, California: State Board of Edu cation^ T918 . Classifies or equates hoys on a hasis of grade, age, height, and weight with a different standard of achieve ment heing given for each group. B.
PERIODICAL ARTICLES
Brace, David K . , "Testing Basketball Techniques.11 American Physical Education Review, XXIX (April, 1924), 15$. An experimental attempt to measure haskethall techniques including the measuring of teaching procedures. Cozens, Fredrick W . , 11A Comparative Study of Two Methods of Teaching Class Work in Track and Field Events," The Research Quarterly of the American Physical Education Association, II (December, 1931)/ 7^-79• Of particular interest to this study because of its close relation to the study of methods of teaching. The hoys used in the above study were not equated. Cross, Thomas J., UA Comparison of the Whole Method, the Minor Game Method, and the Whole Part Method of Teach ing Basketball to Ninth-Grade Boys," The Research Quarterly of the American Associationfor Health, PhysicalEHucalTon^ and Recreation, "Vlll (December, 1937)1 79-54". ~ An experiment in three methods of teaching haskethall. Of particular interest to this study because of the use of the critical ratio. Clevett, M. A., nAn Experiment in Teaching Methods of Golf,11 The Research.Quarterly of the American Physical Education
119 Association, II (December, 1931)* 105-12. A comparison of the psychological and the logical methods of teaching golf. Kistler, J. W . , "Basis for the Classification of Junior and Senior High School Boys into Homogeneous Groups for Physical Education,11 The Research Quarterly of the American Association for H e a l t h P h y s i c a l Education, and Recreation, VIII XDecember, 1937)$ 11• An analysis of the devices used for classifying high school boys into groups. Of particular interest to this study because of its equating possibilities. C.
UHPUBLISHED MATERIAL
Young, Ivan ¥., "An Experimental Evaluation of Certain Procedures Involved in Teaching Playground Baseball." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 193^* A study of ways and means of comparing and evaluating groups and methods of teaching baseball.