Blomqvist, M., Luhtanen, P., & Laasko, L. (2001). Comparison of two types of instruction in badminton. European Journal of Physical Education, 6, 139-155.
Background: There is a need to assess the added value of incorporating teaching if strategy and tactics alongside isolated motor skills in order to improve game play. Purposes: Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of two types of instruction, ‘traditional’ and ‘traditional’ plus video-based strategy instruction (strategy-orientated) on students’ knowledge, game understanding, skill and game performance, and to compare these groups with a control group not receiving any badminton instruction. Methods: Participants were 30 college students who were randomly assigned to one of the three aforementioned groups (n = 10). The two experimental groups received 20 badminton lessons over a six-week period with the traditional plus strategy group receiving eight lesson of video-based tactical instruction. Participants were tested on a) badminton knowledge using a 36-item knowledge test; b) game understanding using a video-based assessment consisting of 15 badminton sequences; c) skill tests (for serve, clear and drop) and d) game performance assessed by players playing 15 minutes of singles badminton before and after the treatment period.. A 3 x 2 (Group x Time) ANOVA for repeated measures and an ANCOVA with the pretest scores acting as the covariate were applied to analyze the effects of the two different treatments on badminton performance. Results: For badminton knowledge both the treatment groups improved their badminton knowledge but the control group did not, with the difference between the strategy-orientated group and control group being significant. Furthermore, treatment groups improved their game understanding more than the control group, with the strategy-orientated group improving the most, with the difference between strategy-orientated group and the control group being significant for selected argument options. In terms of skill, the traditional group improved its serving skill most when compared to other groups, but skill levels for both treatment groups were significantly different to the control group. No significant main or interaction effects existed for the game performance scores. Conclusions: Findings from this article demonstrate that teaching strategy can improve overall game knowledge and understanding, although the application of this understanding may still be limited by the acquisition of the skills needed to play the game.
Background: There is a need to assess the added value of incorporating teaching if strategy and tactics alongside isolated motor skills in order to improve game play. Purposes: Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of two types of instruction, ‘traditional’ and ‘traditional’ plus video-based strategy instruction (strategy-orientated) on students’ knowledge, game understanding, skill and game performance, and to compare these groups with a control group not receiving any badminton instruction. Methods: Participants were 30 college students who were randomly assigned to one of the three aforementioned groups (n = 10). The two experimental groups received 20 badminton lessons over a six-week period with the traditional plus strategy group receiving eight lesson of video-based tactical instruction. Participants were tested on a) badminton knowledge using a 36-item knowledge test; b) game understanding using a video-based assessment consisting of 15 badminton sequences; c) skill tests (for serve, clear and drop) and d) game performance assessed by players playing 15 minutes of singles badminton before and after the treatment period.. A 3 x 2 (Group x Time) ANOVA for repeated measures and an ANCOVA with the pretest scores acting as the covariate were applied to analyze the effects of the two different treatments on badminton performance. Results: For badminton knowledge both the treatment groups improved their badminton knowledge but the control group did not, with the difference between the strategy-orientated group and control group being significant. Furthermore, treatment groups improved their game understanding more than the control group, with the strategy-orientated group improving the most, with the difference between strategy-orientated group and the control group being significant for selected argument options. In terms of skill, the traditional group improved its serving skill most when compared to other groups, but skill levels for both treatment groups were significantly different to the control group. No significant main or interaction effects existed for the game performance scores. Conclusions: Findings from this article demonstrate that teaching strategy can improve overall game knowledge and understanding, although the application of this understanding may still be limited by the acquisition of the skills needed to play the game.