b -_ ' -_ "mm-£36m STATE'UMVERSITY i __  
lEANANNT.1RE§LLY ‘. ‘
‘ . 1970. ‘

 

-—-"—"~—'
. . u . o - -‘ ' " ' ' ‘~
I ' _. .
. . , , .
o. I - .‘ I ~"""| ' ‘

 

.....

}   . ._ ThesisforthehDegrée Of'MAQ”   '

momma»: OFINSTRUCTIONALEMPHASIS OF .  
SPEED, accumcv, AND SPEED AND ACCURAGYPUPON  1‘  ' ;  
ms PERFORMANCE or mg BEGINNING FENGER. .

V‘HP’R' “

 

'fif"‘!"1mm e‘"

 

F‘“"’“ “‘"L
‘ LIBRARY @-
Mkhingtatc {

Uni 'ff, Sif)’ I.

 

ABSTRACT
A COMPARISON OF INSTRUCTIONAL EMPHASIS OF
SPEED, ACCURACY, AND SPEED AND ACCURACY

UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF
THE BEGINNING FENCER

BY

Jean Ann Theresa Reilly

The intent of this study was to compare the effect of
instructional emphasis in regard to Speed, accuracy, and
speed and accuracy upon the performance of the beginning
fencer in terms of (a) the ultimate execution of a particular
fencing skill, and (b) fencing ability in a realistic setting
of bout fencing.

Seventy female students originally enrolled in three
beginning fencing classes at Michigan State University served
as subjects. Each class received different instructional
emphasis: Group 1 was taught for Speed, Group 2 was taught
for accuracy, and Group 3 was taught with equal emphasis on
speed and accuracy together. After a five week period, the
subjects were measured in.a skill with the use of an appara-
tus constructed by the investigator. Three measures were
recorded for each subject; two concerning speed of movement
and one of accuracy. A fencing tournament was held during
.which the subjects from each group fenced subjects from the

other groups to determine which instructional method, if any,

Jean Ann Theresa Reilly

produced the most.successful fencer.

Three one-way analyses of variance were run to deter-
mine if any significant difference in performance existed
between the groups as a result of the initial instructional
emphasis. A significant difference was obtained at the .01
level between the groups on Response Time 1 and Response
Time 2 measures. A Duncan Multiple Range Test was computed,
and it was determined that the speed group was significantly
different from the accuracy group and the speed and accuracy
group on Response Time 1. The speed group was superior to
both groups, and the speed and accuracy group performed bet-
ter than the accuracy group on Response Time 2.

Four one—way analyses of variance were calculated to
determine the existence of significance among the means of
the criteria measures as a result of the fencing tourna-
ment. No significant difference was found between the means
of the group performance on the criteria scores.

A chi square analysis of the fencing tournament per-
formance of the subjects within each group on the four
criteria were computed with respect to the number of fencers
scoring in the upper, middle, and lower one-third groups.
'No significant difference was found between the various
group performances in the fencing tournament.

A correlation matrix was arranged to determine the
relationship among the four fencing bout criteria and the
three skills tests. Significance was obtained between

Response Time 1 and Response Time 2, and between Response

Jean Ann Theresa Reilly

Time 2 and accuracy. No significant relationship was found
to exist between the performance measures and the fencing

bout criteria.

A COMPARISON OF INSTRUCTIONAL EMPHASIS OF
SPEED, ACCURACY, AND SPEED AND ACCURACY
UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF

THE BEGINNING FENCER

BY

Jean Ann Theresa Reilly

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation

1970

I A
H ‘ r
j' ‘1} .’ ' 1

To my mother whose love and encouragment

will always be a source of motivation.

To my father who gave me the strength and cour-

age to pursue what often seemed impossible.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to express her gratitude to Dr.
Robert N. Singer who, as an advisor and friend, provided the
patience, encouragement, guidance, and constructive criti-
cisms which led to the completion of this manuscript and the
enrichment of my graduate program.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to all
who participated in this study.

Special thanks goes to Sheila and those men and women

fencers who assisted in collecting the data.

\

iii

DEDICATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O 0

LIST OF FI

Chapter

I. INT

GURES. O O O O O O O O O

RODUCTION O O O O O O O 0

Statement of the Problem
Hypothesis . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms. . .
Limitations of the Study

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . .

III. EXP

Theoretical Implications.

Research Findings on Speed

Fencing. . . . . . . . .
ERIMENTAL PROCEDURES . .

Subjects . . . . . .
Grouping . . . . . .
Equipment. . . . . .
Instructional Aids .
Teaching Locale. . .
Class Instruction. .
Apparatus. . .

Technical Description of

mffeessoeo

Portion of the Apparatus.

Testing Locale . . . . .
Testing Procedures . . .
Fencing Tournament . . .

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . .

Movement Analysis. . . .

Fencing Tournament Analysis.
Correlational Analysis of Variables. . .

iv

ossstflsoso...

Accuracy.

sooomoooosoo
0

escort-sees...
H

OOOIPOOOOOO.
0

see-moses...
[.1

Page
ii

iii
vi

vii

H

\lU‘l-bub

10

10
15
20

22

22
22
23

26
26
30

31
33
35
38

41
41

45
51

Page

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS s 0' s s s s s o s o o s s s o 5 3

Summary. . . . 53

conCIuSionSO O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 55
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

BIBLIOGWHY O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 60

APPENDIX 0 e o d o e o o o ' o e s o e o o o o o s o o 65

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.

LIST OF TABLES

Means and Standard Deviations of the
Apparatus Scores . . . . . ... . . . . . . .

Summary of Analysis of Variance for Reaponse
Time J. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Summary of Analysis of Variance for Response
Time 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 0

Summary of Analysis of Variance for Accuracy. .

Duncan Multiple Range Test on Ordered Means of
Response Time 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Duncan Multiple Range Test on Ordered Means
Of Response Time 2 s s o e e o s e o '0 o s 0

Means and Standard Deviations of Criteria
Measures 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 0

Summary of Analysis of Variance of Criteria I .
Summary of Analysis of Variance of Criteria II.
Summary of Analysis of Variance of Criteria III
Summary of Analysis of Variance of Criteria IV.

Comparison of Fencing Performance on
criteria I O O O O O O I O C O O O O O O O 0

Comparison of Fencing Performance on
criteria II. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Comparison of Fencing Performance on
criteria III 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Comparison of Fencing Performance on
Criteria IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fencing Tournament Analysis . . . . . . . . . .
Correlation Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

41

42

43
43

44

44

46
47
47
47
48

49

49

50

50
51
52

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Block Diagram of the Apparatus . . . . . . . . 32
2. Schematic Drawing of the Apparatus . . . . . . 34

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The learning of a motor skill is the end result of
guided instruction and diligent practice. The dependency
of the learner on the learned placed the success of the
ultimate performance, to a large extent, on the methods
employed in implanting the skill. Methods of instruction
that facilitate the learning of a motor skill should be the
primary concern of the instructor. Within motor skill
learning, one of the instructional decisions usually con-
cerns initial emphasis on speed, accuracy, or both speed
and accuracy equally. This problem becomes evident when
one realizes that many skills demand speed and accuracy in
movement for ultimate proficiency.

In past decades, the general tendency in the instruc-
tion of motor skills requiring both speed and accuracy in
their execution has been the emphasis of accuracy first.
The assumption is that it is easier to speed up movements
than to correct inaccurate ones (Viteles, 1932). POppel-
rueter's law of practice has strongly influenced the learn-
ing process employed in the acquisition of a motor skill.

According to this law, as stated by Solley (1952):

...the best results in motor learning

are found when speed is retarded

until a reasonable level of accuracy

has been obtained and then is

gradually increased.
The hypothesis made is that accuracy is better learned at
a slow rate of speed than at a quickened pace and is bet-
ter maintained as speed is increased than learning for
speed first and then for accuracy.

On the other hand, Fulton (1942), Hartson (1939), and
Knapp and Dixon (1952) are among those investigators who
state that speed should receive initial emphasis in the
learning of skilled movements.- They found that movement
patterns differ at different rates of speed. Therefore,
they recommended that the initial practice concentration of
a motor skill should be placed upon that level of Speed{
required to execute the task during a realistic situation.
"Steadiness and the cultivation of soundness first

and speed afterwards is standard teaching in America"
(Knapp, 1963). The existence of this trend can be seen in
the sport of fencing. Since the opening of the first
school of fencing in the fifteenth century, master, Olympic,
and amateur fencers have maintained "tradition" within the
fencing realm. Tradition lies in the finesse, style, and
form used by the fencer in maneuvering his foil. Beginning
fencers, in the past, have generally been trained for form,

rather than for speed. In observing today's fencing

classes, the same type of instructional emphasis is evident.

This method of instruction is supported by the concept that
the foil is a practice weapon used to develop accuracy
(Castello and Castello, 1962). Beginning fencers are
taught to execute fencing skills at a slow rate of speed

in order to develop a "kinesthetic" awareness of body posi-
tioning and precise, controlled movement patterns of the
foil, rather than being taught at.a rate of speed which
could be useful in a bout situation.

Some fencing coaches, for instance Kaplan (1950) and
Yonkee (1955, 1957), stress speed of movement as the es—
sential element necessary for a successful fencer. This
stress for speed in executing fencing skills, however, is
for the advanced or competitive fencer who has already
developed body form and foil control. The fencing coach
at Michigan State University, Charles Schmitter, drills his
fencers for form first, speed afterwards. His position is
that proper form gives a fencer an added advantage in
executing a fencing maneuver. For example, the complete
extension of the back leg in executing the lunge provides
the fencer with a thrust power needed to reach his Opponent.
On the other hand, there are fencing instructors and coaches
who now believe that the development of speed in executing
a fencing movement is more essential for the beginning _
fencer than the development of accuracy. It was reasoned
that if ultimate success in fencing is dependent upon who
scores the necessary touches first, then initial instruc-

tional emphasis should be placed upon speed in executing a

fencing skill.

Controversy exists within the sport of fencing as to
the initial instructional emphasis for the learning of
fencing skills. It would be desirable if those involved in
teaching fencing would begin to develop the most effective
methods of instruction according to supportive research
data.

This study was designed to discover which instruction-
al method, speed, accuracy, or speed and accuracy, should
be used during the initial stages of skill acquisition to

produce the most successful fencer.

Statement of the Problem

 

The purposes of this study were twofold. The-first
was to make a comparison of instructional emphasis-in re-
gard to speed, accuracy, and speed and accuracy upon the
ultimate execution of a particular skill in fencing. The
second purpose was to determine that instructional method
which produced the most successful fencer in a realistic

setting of bout fencing.

Hypothesis.

 

It was hypothesized that a particular type of in-
structional emphasis used during the early stages of-learn-
ing would yield a significant effect on the performance of
the beginning fencer. More specifically, the group that

had an initial instructional emphasis on Speed was

expected to be more successful in ultimate performance than

the speed and accuracy group, which, in turn, was conjectur-

ed to be superior to the accuracy group.

Definition of Terms

 

Accuracy

a. In Instruction — the ability of the
fencer to execute a fencing skill with
precise form and control while thrusting
the foil into a designated target.‘

b. In Testing — the ability of the
fencer to strike the center of her op-
ponent's target.

Beat - "a sharp, controlled blow against
the middle or weak portion of the Oppon-
ent's blade with the object of opening a
line or provoking a reaction." (Castello
and Castello, 1962)

Bout --"a combat between two opponents in
which the experience and skill of the ad-
versaries are brought into play with the
purpose of scoring touches." (Vince, 1940)
Director - the individual who is in charge
of the bout, controls the action by tell-
ing the fencers when to begin and stop
fencing, and makes decision in awarding

the touches.

10.

“Good" or "Valid" Touch - the point of
the foil'that goes into the target,
striking a valid target area.
Loss - a fencer having four touches
scored on her by her opponent (accord-
ing to women's fencing rules).~
Parry - "a defensive action made with
the blade to deflect an attack."
(Castello and Castello, 1962)
Right of Way - a rule which states that
the first fencer who advances her foil
in a forward movement by extending her
foil arm will be awarded the touch if
a hit is made on her opponent's valid
target area. The opponent must either
parry or retreat to gain the right of
way before she can score a touch.
Riposte - a counter attack of a lunge
used to reach an opponent whose attack
has been successfully parried.
Speed

a. In Instruction - the ability of
the fencer to execute a fencing skill as
quickly as possible.

b.' In Testing - the ability of the

fencer to respond as quickly as possible

ll.

12.

13.

l.

was.done

with a parry to her Opponent's beat
(Response Time 1). Also, the ability
of the fencer to execute the parry
riposte as quickly as possible (Re-
sponse Time 2).

Strip - a rubber mat measuring six
feet by forty feet upon which the
fencers fence. The mats were used

as a safety precaution against slip-
ping and sliding on the gym floor
while fencing.

Valid Target - the t0p of the collar
of the jacket extending to the waist,
both front and back, excluding the arms.
Win - a fencer scoring four touches

on her Opponent.

Limitations of the Study

The grouping of subjects, in the form of classes,

through registration procedures at Michigan State

University and, therefore, was not random.

2.

The scheduled class meetings were not affected

as much by the different days of the week on which they met,

but rather by the time of the day. It was observed that

'the Tuesday - Thursday class that met at 10:30 A.M. lacked

iflhe vigor possessed by the other two groups, which met at

312:50 P.M. on Monday - Wednesday and Tuesday - Thursday.

3. A pretest to determine each subject's entering
level of response time and accuracy in fencing movements
should have ideally been obtained. In this way, their
post-test performance scores could have been better evalu-
ated in terms of instructional method and entering level
of response time and accuracy performance.

4.~ All absences were re-scheduled by the instructor.
However, this did not always guarantee the same exposure
for the absentees to the material as for those subjects
who attended the regular class.

5. The instructional phase of the study was limited
to five weeks, two hours each week. For more adequate
development of fencing skills, Castello and Castello (1962)
recommend twenty hours.

6. It was observed that the eXperienced fencers
serving as opponents during the testing phase had some.
effect on the performance of the subject in the manner in
which she manipulated the testing foil, e.g., the amount of
pressure exerted by the tester's foil against the subject's
foil.

7. Due to the large number of subjects (n=70), a
three-hour evening session was the only time slot conven—
ient for all concerned to participate in bout fencing com-
petition. The day's activities manifested themselves in

the form of fatigue and lack of interest for some subjects.

8. The bouts were arranged according to the avail—
ability of-fencing strips.' As a result, the amount of time
that each fencer had between bouts varied.

9. Fencers had to move from one strip to another de-
pending upon the location of a ready strip. This caused
some amount of confusion.. Separate fencing pools with.
fifteen fencers in-each pool, five from each group, should
have been set up at each strip to eliminate the confusion

of moving from one place to another.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter will contain a review of literature per-
taining to the theoretical implications of speed and ac-
curacy and research findings on speed and accuracy in in—
dustry and motor skill performance. A section relating to
the emphasis of speed and/or accuracy in fencing will also

be presented.

Theoretical Implications

 

In performing a task, an individual possesses the
capacity to regulate the level of accuracy at which he
wishes to operate in conjunction with the rate of work that
is required of him (Fitts and Posner, 1967). This is
known as the ability to trade speed for accuracy or accura-
cy for speed. Empirical research on the effects of payoff‘
conditions and criterion times upon speed and accuracy
tradeoff have been done by Fitts (1966), Parchella and Pew
(1968), and Pew (1969). Fitts (1966) had three groups of
subjects perform sixteen identical choice reaction time
tasks, the difference being in the incentive provided.

The experimental speed group received extra points for

fast responses while the experimental accuracy group

10

11

received penalties for incorrect responses. The control
group practiced for both speed and accuracy and received no
feedback. He found that a decline occurred in the rate of
information that was transmitted as the number of errors
made increased above ten percent. The results showed that
the accuracy group, with ten percent errors, performed
better than the speed and accuracy group, with thirteen
percent errors,and the speed group with twenty—two percent
errors. He states, however, that the performance of the
speed and accuracy group was the most desirable. Pitts
and Posner (1967) related these findings to everyday tasks
in that individuals do not perform "slowly enough to avoid
all errors, but at a speed which will allow effective com-
munication despite some error." Fitts (1966) also stated
that the use of a payoff matrix plus immediate feedback in
sets for speed and accuracy in a reaction time task are
more beneficial to the subject than the use of verbal in-
structions alone.

Using the payoff matrix designed by Fitts (1966),
Parchella and Pew (1968) studied the relationship between
speed and accuracy performance under a wide variety of task
conditions. The tasks consisted of responding to four
lights, occurring in fifteen combinations, with the middle
and the index fingers of each hand. Those performing under
speed conditions made faster responses with more errors

than those performing under accuracy conditions. In

12

studying interactions between the payoff matrix, Parchella
and Pew suggested that speed coupled with practice caused
eventual accuracy improvement and vice versa. Therefore,
regardless of the initial combination of instructional
stress, e.g., Speed first, then accuracy, or accuracy fol—1
lowed by speed, both speed and accuracy will ultimately be
improved.

In discussing various studies on the speed versus
accuracy tradeoff, Pew (1969) stated that the findings of
a non-existent relationship between speed and accuracy is
not due to the task itself but to the performance limita-
tions Of the subject. Individuals work within boundaries
of performance, and the quality of these boundaries is
based upon error feedback. Of the studies discussed by
Pew, average reaction time of error responses was found to
be faster than that for correct responses, thus making
these boundaries scattered as Opposed to being strictly
controlled. This suggests that the subject, to some de-
gree, controls the speed and accuracy level at which he
wishes to work.

Hale (1969) presented a more realistic situation in
his study of speed-accuracy tradeoffs in a three choice
serial reaction task. No immediate payoffs or criterion
times were used. Each subject practiced a task similar to
the one used for the study until a level of stability was
:reached. In the first experiment, speed and accuracy were

alternately and separately emphasized. The results showed

13

that skilled subjects could adapt their performance to
either criteria, speed or accuracy, without payoffs or
criterion times since errors and correct reSponses pro-
gressed by the same amount. Total sequence time was re-
duced by the subject at the expense of more errors when
correct responses were faster, when error responses were
faster, and when more and faster errors were made.

Howell (1963) found that subjects were primarily
concerned with accuracy, and that they would choose the
accuracy criteria when instruction was lacking. There was
a critical accuracy level of ninety percent or better that
subjects were unwilling to go below. It was, therefore,
reasoned that speed must be adjusted to a level which per-
mits the accuracy level to be maintained. If, however, a
subject was presented with a speed task, he would lower his
accuracy criteria so as not to fall below a critical speed
level. Howell also stated that "accuracy remains at a
fairly constant level throughout learning; nearly all im-
provement comes about as a result of increased response
speed."

Research on the utilization of a payoff matrix in a
choice reaction time task has indicated that the subjects
who stress both.3peed and accuracy Obtain better results
than speed subjects or the speed and accuracy subjects.>
.In fact, it was stated that a combination of the utiliza-

‘tion of payoff matrix and immediate feedback in teaching

14

would prove to be more advantageous to the student than the
sole use of verbal instruction. Further investigation on
the effect Of a payoff matrix on speed and/or accuracy
during performance indicated that neither initial stress

of speed or accuracy was more beneficial than the other.
Therefore, it was suggested that practice coupled with
either initial emphasis on speed or accuracy eventually
caused both Speed and accuracy to improve.

On the other end of the spectrum, it has been stated
that the incorporation of a payoff matrix for speed and
accuracy tasks has no effect on performance. In fact, it
was stated that skilled subjects could adapt their per-
formance to whatever was required of them without.the use
of either a payoff matrix or criterion times. It could,
therefore, beconcluded that the use of a payoff matrix or
criterion times in teaching is of questionable value.v

Other research, however, would indicate that such a
decision is not made by the instructor but by the in-
structed. The results of an investigation on speed versus
accuracy tradeoff indicated that the outcome of a task was
not due to the task itself but to the performance limita-
tions of the subject. It has been reasoned that the per-
formance level of speed and accuracy is controlled by the
subject. Furthermore, another report has shown that the
' subject selects for himself an accuracy criteria and a

£3peed criteria. It has been suggested that these criteria

15

are responsible for the Speed and accuracy level at which
the subject performs a Specific task. Therefore, it would
seem that a combination of individual limitations and
personally-set criterion levels would overpower the effect

of a payoff matrix and externally-set criterion times.

Research Findings on Speed and Accuracy

Management must concern itself with training person-
nel to produce goods with accuracy and efficiency. With
costly production expenditures and labor salaries, errors
and wasted time cannot be tolerated. According to W.
Douglas Seymore (Fraser, 1962), a researcher in manual
skills in industry, a worker must first be trained for ac-
curacy. Training for speed is a "catch up" process which
begins with the start of the actual job. Meyers (1925) did
a study with thirty-six colored cubes that had to be plac-
ed inva certain pattern. Two groups were used, one per-
forming for accuracy, the other performing for speed. At
the end of sixty days, Meyers found that the accuracy
group was performing "practically perfect" at a faster
rate than the speed group.

With task executions requiring both speed and pre-
cision, a decision must be made as to how much each as-
pect should be stressed during training. Sdeahl (1966)
stated that thoroughness in performing a task should be
stressed over speed during the initial training stages.

Gilmer (1961), however, claimed that the decision to train

16

for either speed, accuracy, or Speed and accuracy depended
upon the difference which existed between performing the
ultimate task at a fast or a slow rate. If this differ-
ence is great, the speed task should receive initial empha—
sis during training.

In a study involving muscular activity in typing,
Sturt (1921) found that it was better to insist upon ac-
curacy because Speed did gradually increase. Southward,
as stated by Sturt (1921), believes that it is impossible
to obtain speed unless correct movement patterns are first
established. Ussell's (1955) study of different approaches
to the teaching of typewriting yeilded no significant
differences in the amount of errors made by the speed group
and those made by the accuracy group. Therefore, he recom-
mends that speed be taught first since the speed group
produced an average of eight to ten words more a minutes
than the accuracy group. A similar study done by Kamnetz
(1956) showed no significant difference in typing perform-
ance between the speed group and the accuracy group.

Within the area Of motor skill performance, accuracy
has, in the past, received initial emphasis when both Speed
and accuracy were the desired outcome (Viteles, 1932).
Fulton (1942), however, stated that speed should receive
initial instructional emphasis in learning skilled move--
ments whether ballistic (free of muscular tension and car-
ried by momentum), or non-ballistic (a continuous action

that can be stopped or modified in progress). She found

17

that the group placing initial instructional emphasis on
Speed develOped accuracy to a higher degree than the group
initially trained for accuracy. Fulton (1945) again in-
vestigated speed and accuracy in learning movements, with
the results showing that the accuracy gained at low speeds
was lost when the task was performed at a higher Speed.
This was due according to Fulton, to "the changes in move-
ments which result from changes in speed."

Knapp and Dixon (1952) stated that slower movements
fail to build up kinesthetic sensitivity which is essential
for good performance in motor skills. In their study in-
volving the task of juggling ping pong balls, little trans-
fer value was noted when the subject was instructed to move
from performing at a slower speed to performing at.a faster
Speed. Hartson (1939) stated that initial emphasis should
be placed upon speed in performing a ballistic movement
since such a movement cannot be made slowly. He cited an
observation from Gilbrith (Hartson, 1939) that when an ex-
pert demonstrates a movement in slow motion, "the movement
changes its character" because of the difference in motor
patterns involved at different Speeds of performance.

Knapp (1963) said that ballistic movements should be taught
at a speed which would be of use to the performer when he
executed the ultimate task. This initial Speed should be
slow but suitable for use during future performance.

A motor Skill consisting of stepping forward over a

18

distance equal to the subject's height and striking a fixed
target was used by Solley (1952) to study the effect of
verbal instruction of speed and/or accuracy upon learning.
Little evidence was found "to support the contention that
levels of accuracy gained at low rates of Speed are main-
tained when the rate of Speed is increased." Therefore,
Solley suggested that Poppelreuter's law of practice,

which stresses initial emphasis on accuracy, be replaced.
Skills in which Speed and accuracy are the factors neces-
sary for successful performance should have initial empha—
sis placed upon both. In a thrusting experiment by Garrett
(1922), it was concluded that any simple coordinated move-
ment would show an inverse relationship between speed and
accuracy. In other words, as Speed increased, accuracy
decreased.

The effect of varied instructional emphasis on the
forehand tennis stroke was investigated by Woods (1967).
The results of his study showed that the equal instruction-
al emphasis of speed and accuracy contributed to a better
forehand tennis stroke than the instructional emphasis on
accuracy. In turn, accuracy emphasis was less beneficial,
and the instructional emphasis on speed was least benefi-
cial. Johnson's (1957) study on the tennis slice serve of
advanced women players showed no relationship between Speed
and accuracy. No difference was found between the speed
group and the accuracy group in performing the tennis slice

serve. It_is the Opinion of Singer.(l969) and Updyke (1970)

19

that sacrificing accuracy in the early stages of learning
is better than sacrificing speed. Updyke stated that
movement patterns differ at different speeds. To avoid
learning two separate skills because of this difference in
performance standards, Speed Should be practiced from the
beginning, since further practice would result in accuracy
improvement. Lawther (1951) claims that too much speed
might cause a loss of control resulting in loss of accura-
cy.

Some researchers have claimed that in learning for
Speed, incorrect movement patterns are develOped; there-
fore, initial emphasis should be placed on accuracy. Once
the skill pattern is learned with beginning emphasis on
accuracy, speed will gradually increase. On the other
hand, there were those who stated that since movement pat-
terns differ at different rates of Speed, speed Should re-
ceive initial emphasis. If-a fast rate of skill execution
is essential for ultimate performance, speed should receive
initial instructional emphasis. The placement of initial
stress on Speed, accuracy, or speed and accuracy seems to
vary with the desired outcome. A task requiring accuracy
for its successful execution Should receive beginning in-
structional emphasis on accuracy; a task requiring speed
should receive beginning instructional emphasis on Speed;
and those requiring speed and accuracy should receive be-

ginning instructional emphasis on both.

2O

Fencing

Discrepency in the sport of fencing lies in the type
of initial instructional emphasis of speed, accuracy, or
speed and accuracy essential for ultimate proficiency in
a fencing bout. Vince (1940) stated that precision in
executing a fencing Skill is more important than the speed
at which it is executed. If speed was introduced first,
"inaccurate and inefficient fencing" would be the result.
Therefore, initial instructional emphasis Should be placed
on accuracy with speed injected after precision and con-
trol have been reached. Lidstone (1952) is in agreement
with Vince in that precision of movement is a necessary
base for fencing skills. Lidstone added alertness, anti-
cipation, and concentration on the part of the fencer as
other components necessary for a fencing foundation.
Shulman (1967) believes that the necessary control and pre-
cision of the fencer lies in the prOper grip of the foil.

Knapp (1963) stated that whenever Speed is essential
for successful performance, speed Should be taught as a
part of form. He therefore suggested that equal emphasis
on speed and accuracy be incorporated in teaching fencing
skills. Crosnier (1951) also stressed a combination of
Speed and accuracy in teaching fencing skills. Fencing
skills, such as the lunge, require quickness and accuracy
in their execution (Ehrlich, 1943).

Fencing has been considered by some as a "modern

liigh-speed game" (Castello and Castello, 1962). In the

21

past, fencing coaches such as Nadi (1943) and Yonkee (1955,
1957) stressed Speed of movement as an important component
for fencing success along with accuracy and shrewd, stra-
tegic judgement. Kaplan (1950) stated that by keeping the
foil in the correct position, "semi-extended and aligned
with the torso so that it covers the right flank from a
front view," accuracy was guaranteed. Therefore, a major
emphasis on accuracy is not necessary. Lawther (1951)
”cited an experiment of Ragsdale which also indicated that
"fencing Skill is acquired more rapidly if practice for
speed precedes practice for accuracy,"

In a study done by Singer (1968), the assumption
that the mastering of Speed and accuracy would produce
superior fencers was put-to a test. A slight correlation
was found to exist between reaction time, response time,
and movement accuracy in relation to foil fencing success.

Authoritative Opinion varies on the type of initial
instructional emphasis placed on the fencer. The coaches
of the past and present decades have usually stressed
Speed first followed by accuracy. This method, however,
has been reported as being used with the advanced and/or
the competitive fencer, not the beginning fencer. Re-
search is lacking on the effect of initial emphasis of
Speed, accuracy, or Speed and accuracy on the ultimate

performance of the beginning fencer.

CHAPTER III

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

This study was undertaken to make a comparison of
instructional emphasis in regard to Speed, accuracy, and
speed and accuracy upon (a) the ultimate execution of the

parry-riposte, and (b) fencing ability in a tournament.

Subjects

Seventy female students enrolled in three beginning
fencing classes at Michigan State University served as
subjects. Only two students had had any previous fencing
experience. Their exposure was so minimal that their en—
tering skill level in fencing was slight, with no differ-
ence existing between them and the remainder Of the class

after the first two weeks of instruction.

Grouping
Instructional emphasis was determined among the
classes through a randomized selection procedure. The
following represents the groups that were formed: the
Monday - Wednesday class met from 12:50 to 1:50 and served
as Group 1 (n-23), with initial instructional emphasis
being placed upon speed; the Tuesday - Thursday class met
from 10:30 to 11:30 and served as Group 2 (n=21), with

22

23

initial emphasis placed upon accuracy; and the Tuesday -
Thursday class met from 12:50 to 1:50 and served as Group
3 (n=26), with initial emphasis placed upon speed and ac-

curacy.

Equipment

 

Jackets

The jackets used for the study were made Of white
army duck, cut to the waist, which buttoned up the side.
Jackets from both Santelli and Castello were provided by

the Women‘s Physical Education Department.

See.
Each subject was assigned a foil to be used through-
out the study. The Santelli Regulation Foil.and the Cas-
tello French International Foil were made available to the
subjects, both right and left handed, by the Women's

Physical Education Department.

Masks

 

Each subject was fitted for a foil mask made by
either Santelli or Castello, to be used throughout the

term.

Gloves
All subjects were instructed to wear either an old
cotton or leather glove for the protection Of their fenc-

ing hand.

24

Instructional Aids

 

The following instructional aids were used for ten
minutes at the beginning and ten minutes at the end of
each lesson. They were used by each of the three groups
to emphasize particular class emphasis: Speed, accuracy,
or speed and accuracy. These instructional aids provided
each subject with additional practice drills to improve

their Skill level in fencing.

Practice Target,

 

Four square—padded targets covered with white canvas
were purchased from the Santelli Company. Each target was-
16 1/4 inches long, 11 1/2 inches wide, and approximately
2 1/4 inches thick. A 5 3/4 inches by 4 1/2 inches red
plastic heart was centrally located on each one. The in-
vestigator placed a circle made of green tape with a cir-
cumference of 1 inch in the center of the heart.

The height at which the target was to be placed on
the wall was determined first by taking the average height
of all the subjects. A subject with this average height
of 5 feet 5 1/2 inches was asked to lunge against the wall.
The point at which the tip of the foil hit the wall during
the execution of the lunge was used as the mid-point of
the practice target. The base of the target was approxi-

mately 3 1/4 feet from the floor.

25

Jacket Target

Since the fencing jackets used by the subjects in
this study were also used by other students, targets that
could easily be removed and again replaced were necessary.
Circles cut from terry cloth material were used because of
the ease with which they could be pinned to the jacket.
Each of the twelve circles had a circumference of 3'1/2
inches outlined in dark blue marker to provide a contrast
between the cloth and the jacket. A small colored circle
with a circumference of 1 1/2 inches was located in the

center Of the cloth.

Floor Markings

Two tape markings were placed in front of each prac-
tice target; line #1 was 6 1/2 feet from the wall and line
#2 was 7 1/2 feet away. Each subject was instructed to
use that line or a point between the lines as the position-
ing point for her back foot which enabled her to reach the
target.when executing a lunge. With each session, the
same line was to be used as.a guide for the distance to be
maintained between herself and the target. In keeping
this distance constant, the scores obtained from the prac-
tice sessions would not be the result of a distance vari-
able, but rather, the result of the subject's Speed, ac-
curacy, or Speed and accuracy in executing the lunge.
This distance was also used for testing purposes at the

end of the term.

26

TeachingALocale

 

All classes were held in the assigned fencing room
of the Women's Intramural Building at Michigan State

University.

Class Instruction

 

The classes met for sixteen sessions, each lasting
one hour.- The first and second lessons were used as physi-
cal conditioning sessions to prepare the subjects for fenc-
ing. Exercises that would "limber up" and strengthen those
muscles vital for fencing were introduced. Foil handling,
positioning, footwork, and the lungs were presented during
the next two sessions. Differentiation among the classes
began at this point with the drills that were utilized.

The pace of the commands of the drills depended upon the
group with which they were used. Form was stressed with
Group 2 (accuracy), Speed Of execution with Group 1
(speed), and a combination of both with Group 3 (speed and
accuracy). ‘

The initial emphasis phase prevailed from the fifth
through the ninth sessions, with stress being based upon
class assignment to either speed, accuracy, or speed and
accuracy. Warm-ups at the beginning of each class period
consisted of a series of exercises coupled with lunge and
footwork drills. The tempo Of each drill was set for each
class by the instructor, who was the inveStigator. Group

1 (Speed) performed at a much faster pace than did Group 2

27

(accuracy); while Group 3 (speed and accuracy) performed
at a faster rate than Group 2, but at a Slower rate than
Group 1. For example, Group 1 practiced the execution of
the lunge in its entirety as quickly as possible with no
emphasis on form. Group 2 practiced the lunge with a
separation between the extension and the actual lunging
phase of the execution for emphasis of form. Group 3
practiced for both Speed of execution and form.

I Every day, each subject would pin a card to the back
of her jacket to record her scores as an incentive for im-
proving and as a means of reinforcing the method she was
being taught. For sessions 5 and 6, practice targets
(described under Instructional Aids) were used by the
groups.

Group 2 was instructed to aim at the cirlce on the
heart, scoring two points for hitting the circle and one
point for hitting the heart.- A count of the number of
lunges executed was also taken. A lunge which lacked pro-
per form, e.g., back foot on the ground, arm fully extend-
ed, etc., was not counted. The points scored on that
lunge were not counted. This procedure stressed form
rather than speed. Therefore, the subjects tried to score
high on one lunge instead of scoring low on several lunges.
A thirty-second time interval was set to accomplish the
task. Group 3 aimed at the specifically marked area and
was scored in the same manner with as many points as pos-

sible. The number of lunges made within a thirty-second

28

time interval was recorded. Group 3 was instructed to
execute as many lunges as possible, and that their score
would be the number of points scored divided by the number
of lunges. This method provided practice for speed and
accuracy simultaneously in attempting to improve.both.
scores. Group 1 had no markings on the target, and, there-
fore, nothing specifically at which to aim. This resulted
in the execution of the lunge as quickly as possible with
no concern for accuracy. The subjects in this group were
asked to record.the number of lunges executed within a
thirty-second time interval.

From sessions seven through nine, each fencer, re-
cording scores as indicated above, performed a beat-lunge
against her Opponent. Groups 2 and 3 used jacket targets.
A score of two points was recorded for hitting the smaller
circle and one point for hitting the larger one. One Op-
ponent stood against the well, while the student perform-
ing executed the beat and lunged into the circle to score.
Group 2 recorded only those points made with precisely
executed lunges. Group 3 recorded the number of lunges
made and points scored as previously described. Group 1
did not use jacket targets. The subjects of this grOup
were instructed to count the number of beat-lunges they
could execute against their opponent. The scoring was the
same-as that used during the previous practice sessions.

All groups practiced fencing movements with equal

emphasis on Speed and accuracy for the following five

29

sessions. Due to the limited number of sessions devoted
to the initial emphasis of speed, accuracy, or speed and
accuracy concentration, it was decided that the instructor
would continue to stress the practice technique unique to
each group throughout the remainder of the term during the
instructional phase of each lesson.. Equal emphasis of I
Speed and accuracy was stressed during drill practice and
during the use of the different targets. This procedure
provided the subjects with the needed additional practice
on their assigned instructional emphasis of speed, accura-
cy, or Speed and accuracy and also exposed them to the
combination of Speed and accuracy in preparation for bout
fencing.

During the tenth and eleventh sessions, all subjects
used the practice targets with the heart and circle showing
on each, scoring as Group 3 had in previous sessions.
Jacket targets were used by all subjects in executing the
parry-riposte during practice sessions from the twelfth to
the fourteenth meeting. For example, one student would
stand against the wall with a jacket target. She executed
a beat while her partner, standing on the markings used
before, executed the parry and thena.riposte into the tar-
get area to score. A third student counted the number of
points scored, while a fourth student observed the number
of lunges. Both scores were recorded.

All students worked in the same sub-groups of either

five or six during the practice sessions to insure

30

continuity in scoring and use of the same target. Only
once was absenteeism a problem. In that case, the subjects
used the same target but had other subjects outside their
sub-group help with the scoring.

All subjects received instruction on the same basic
skills. An outline of classroom procedures and the skills
taught can be found in the Appendix. The pace of the
drills along with different areas of emphasis were the only

instructional differences among the groups.

Apparstgs

 

Equipment

 

The testing apparatus consisted of two Singer, .01
second chronoscopes, a French electrical foil with a
Leon Paul Bayonette Socket by Santelli, a Leon Paul body
cord by the same cOmpany, and a Castello, French Interna-

tional FOil.

General Description

An electrical foil, called the subject's foil (SF),
was connected by a body cord to a wired, Wooden socket to
the timers. A clip attached to the regular foil, called
the testing foil (TF), connected the TF to the chrono-
scopes.

A tripod with a fifteen-inch wooden platform attach-
ed to the tOp served as the supporting base for the TF

fencer's arm. The purpose Of this platform and tripod

31

was to minimize fatigue and to insure a constant level of
arm height for each subject. A wooden door stop on top of
the platform, covered with a towel, provided comfort and
freedom of wrist movement for the fencer.

A circle, having a circumference of six inches and
made of heavy-duty white plastic, was used as the target
for the accuracy scores. Two smaller circles were imposed
upon the target with a difference of two inches in circum-
ference between each.

A .01 second chronOSCOpe was initiated when TF beat
against SF, and terminated when SF parried TF (Response
Time 1.) The second .01 second chronOSCOpe began at the
same time as the other timer and recorded when SF hit the
target (Response Time 2.) The apparatus is illustrated in

Figure 1.

Technical Description of the Electrical Portion of the

 

Apparatus

 

A ring counter is a logical system having several
outputs, only one of which may be "on" at any given time.
Initially, a pulse of current at the "set" input turns on
output #1. Each pulse at the "shift" input then shifts
the ring counter to the next output. Normally, the ring
is closed: when the last output turns off, the first
switches on.'

A three-position Open ring counter was formed using

two silicon-controlled switches (SCS) and one NPN

32

 

      

...v. 0—7
07%

 

   
  

Tunes " I

CLUTCH
INPUT

CLUTCH
I "UT

DC POWER

SUPPLY
('It 0 -IO VDC)

 

 

“mac"
soup - STATE
ac smrcu

 

 

POSITION

 

memos '3 our

 

 

.l 3 POSITION RING COUNTER

7 "SET" "sun-'1'"

INPUT INPUT

\ K FOIL ‘I (INVESTIGATOR) TF

 

 

 

flq\b NONIALLY CLOSED SWITCH

FOIL": (meet) as

 

 

_—|£m.uc sou.
mas mos «moss

SWITCH COCTACT

FIGURE 1. Block Diagram of the Apparatus

3": cream—*—

HI

33

transistor. A shift pulse is generated each time contact
is made between the two metal foils. Assuming output #1
is on, the first such pulse turns on output #2, starting
both timers via two AC Solid state switches (TRIAC). The
second contact between the foils switches on output #3.
In-this position, only the second timer is left running. ’

Further shift pulses resulting from accidental contacts

 

have no effect because of the "Open" construction of the
ring (no connection is made between output #3 and output
#1). However, when the normally closed switch in the end
of foil #2 opens upon contact with the target, a "set"
pulse is generated which turns on output #1, stopping the
second timer.

A power supply was constructed to provide Operating
voltages (—12 volts, D.C and -18 volts, D C) for the ring
counter and TRIACS.* A schematic drawing of the apparatus

appears in Figure 2.

.TestingLLocale

 

The testing apparatus was arranged in the same fenc-
ing room in-which class sessions were held.. A roOmin the
basement of the Women's Intramural Building was used by

the subjects as a waiting room.

 

* The-design and technical description of the apparatus
were dOne by Bob Wells of the Health, Physical Education

and Recreation Department at Michigan State University.

34

MOTOR MOTOR CLUTCH CLUTCH

40429 40429
(TRIAC) (TRIAC)

  
   
  
 
   

 

 

 

 

I00 mo

470

 

 

 

 

 

 

I8 k 2N2926
- I2

 

 

 

 

III

'
CONTACTS FOIL
*2 u n 2
l BREAK " -;
.7 CONTACT

SWITCH T

 

FIGURE 2. Schematic Drawing of the Apparatus

35

The fencing tournament was held in the upper gymnasi-

um of the Women‘s Intramural Building.

Testing Procedures

 

The testing apparatus, already described, was de—
signed tO produce scores of two measures of response time
as well as one measure of accuracy for all fencers.

Three experienced fencers, all having participated
in competitive fencing, were used to hold the TF. Each
was randomly assigned to a class. All three fell within
the mean range Of the heights of the three groups, 5 feet
5 inches to 5 feet 5 1/2 inches; thus, providing the sub-
jects with a target.that was similar in height to the tar-
gets used during practice sessions. The fencer's arm was
strapped into position on the tripod at three points so
that the execution of the beat came from the wrist only.
The experienced fencer was stationed the same distance
away from the Subject as the targets used during class
meetings.

The-parry-riposte was uSed to measure speed for
three reasons. First, a fencer must be able to success—
fully protect herself from being hit before.she can at-
tempt to score on her Opponent. Second, the more success-
ful a fencer is at exposing her opponent's target area,
the more likely she is to score. Third, the faster the
execution of the parry by a fencer, the more apt she is to

control the scoring.

36

The TF moved in three patterns: beat, disengage-
beat, and double disengage-beat. Three patterns were used
to eliminate anticipation Of the beat action by the sub—
jects. AnOther reason for their usage was to provide as
realistic a setting as possible for the parry-riposte
execution. A fencer does not use the same pattern when
she is aware that her opponent is anticipating the move.

Three body cords were used, one for the subject
being tested and two for those waiting outside the fencing
room. After the fencer's body cord was attached, the in—
vestigator read the following instructions:

"These two lines on the floor represent the lines
that you used during the target practice sessions in class.
Position your back foot in the same place as you position-
ed it during class practice.

Your Opponent will execute a beat against your foil.
You are to parry her beat as quickly as possible and
quickly riposte into the circle target on her jacket. Try
to be as accurate as possible by hitting the smallest
circle.

You will be given ten trials."

One practice trial of a beat was administered to
determine if the subject understood the directions; if
not, another trial with the same action was permitted.

Three, 4 by 6 inch index cards, each describing a

TF pattern, were used. Before each trial, the

37

investigator held up one of the three cards for the fencer
using the TF, but without the subject being able to see
it. After three seconds, the card was lowered, and the

TF began the action. The sequence of :he foil patterns
was randomized for each.consecutive fencer. A table of
random numbers was used to elicit two sequences consisting
of ten foil patterns each: 4 beats, 3 disengage-beats,
and 3 double disengage-beats. This was done to avoid the
possibility of the waiting subjects organizing a sequence
of sound patterns evoked by the timers that could be used
as an anticipation device for their own performance when
being tested.

An assistant recorded the times on a score sheet
while the investigator recorded the accuracy scores, a
score of five was awarded for a touch in the smallest
circle, three for the middle one, and one for the outside
circle. A zero was recorded if the circle target was
missed. When-the assistant reset the clocks, an index
card was raised for three seconds, and the next trial be—
gan when it was lowered.

No comments were made during the testing unless a
"mis-trial“ occurred. A mis-trial was called when either
of the two timers failed to stOp. This happened when the
TF made a second cOntact with SF or when SF failed to
touch the target and stop the second timer. A new trial
was given so that all subjects had scores for all ten

trials.

38

The subjects were not informed of their performance
scores. This was done to avoid any discussion of scores
that might take place among the students of the different
classes resulting in the forming of premature pessimistic
or Optimistic attitudes about the tournament outcome. The
subjects within each group were not aware of the instruc-
tional emphasis used with their group or any other group.
This naivety was allowed to continue until after the

tournament.

Fencing Tournament

 

A bout fencing situation was arranged with each
fencer fencing five bouts each with subjects from the
other two classes. Opponent selection was based upon
systematic assignment. Within each class, the subjects
were placed in alphabetical order. The list was consider-
ed circular by moving from the top of the list to the bot—
tom and back to the top, and SO on. An assigned interval
of five was used in selecting the ten opponents for each.
fencer from the list. The investigator moved through the
list in the prescribed manner until each subject in Group
1 had five subjects to fence from Group 2. This procedure
was repeated between Groups 1 and 3, and Groups 2 and 3.
When each fencer was assigned ten fencers as Opponents,
five from each class, a table of random numbers was used
to establish the order in which she was to fence each one.

If the number of an assigned opponent for subject one, for

39

example, appeared in the table, that opponent was sched-
uled to fence her first bout with subject one. Subject
two was scheduled, and this process was continued until
all bouts were finished. Two conflicts existed at the end
of the list when one fencer was scheduled to fence two Op—
ponents during the tenth bout and none during the ninth.
The table was again used to reassign the two Opponents so
that a ninth.bout was scheduled.

A time table was set up listing the different strips.
The names of the fencers and their opponents were posi-
tioned on the time table so that all fencers fenced their
first bout before the second one began. Consideration was
taken in arranging each bout to make sure that no fencer
was scheduled to fence two bouts within the same time slot.
The amount of time between each bout.varied for each fen-
cer. Fencing films and a video tape playback machine were
set up to occupy the fencer's time between bouts. Un-
fortunately, neither served its purpose due to technical
difficulties. The bouts took place on one evening so that
all subjects could be present.

Four rubber fencing strips were used to avoid slip—
ping on the waxed gymnasium floor. A varsity fencer was
positioned at each strip to act as a director and scorer.
The directors were instructed not to re-enact the action
that scored the touch for the fencer. This was done to
avoid one fencer acquiring strategy from an outside source

that would place her Opponent at a disadvantage.

 

40

The valid target area ranged from the tOp of the
collar to the waist line on the front and back, excluding
the arms. A touch was awarded to the fencer who made the
first on-target hit after having the "right of way." The
first fencer to score four touches on her opponent was
credited with the win.

Score Sheets were placed at each strip to record the
fencer, her Opponent, class section, touches made, touches
against, and a win or loss for each bout.

Due to absentees and other difficulties which arose
(listed under limitations), no fencer participated in the
desired ten bouts. Since a competitive fencing match con-
sists of each fencer fencing four bouts, all fencers fenc—
ing less than four bouts were eliminated from the tourna-
ment portion of the analysis of the data. Thus, an n of
50 was used in analyzing the tournament results with Group
1 having an n of 17, Group 2 having an n of 15, and Group
3 having an.n of 18. An average of six bouts was fenced
by the subjects in each of the groups. Although this
average fell below the expected number of ten bouts, the
investigator felt that the available data were still an
acceptable measure of a fencer's performance ability in a
fencing tournament.

Due to student withdrawals from the class, sixty
subjects remained to be tested on the testing apparatus.
Group 1 had twenty-one subjects, Group 2 had eighteen sub-
jects, and Group 3 had twenty-one subjects whose data were

analyzed in the skills tests.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The statistical analyses of the data collected on
three performance measures and on the outcome of a fenc-
ing tournament appear in this chapter. A correlation

analysis of all the variables also appears.

Movement Analysis
The mean scores and standard deviations of each
group on Response Time 1, Response Time 2, and accuracy

are found in Table 1.

TABLE 1

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE APPARATUS SCORES

 

 

 

 

 

Response Time 1 Response Time 2 Accuracy
Groups* M SD M SD M SD
1 0.2834 0.0594 0.6302 0.1703 2.2000 0.5950
2 0.3955 0.9806 0.9878 0.1251 2.7889 0.9461
3 0.2990 0.0708 0.8560 0.0969 2.6381 0.8145

 

 

TGroup 1 I Speed
Group 2 - accuracy
Group 3 - speed and accuracy

41

42

Three one-way analyses of variance were computed to
discover any possible significant differences among the
means of the different groups with respect to the test
measures. These data are summarized in Tables 2, 3, and
4, respectively. The rejection value to determine signifi—
cance was set at the .05 level. The results in Tables 2 A
and 3 indicate that both performance measures of response
time far exceeded the .05 level of significance. NO
significant difference was found for accuracy scores be-
tween the three groups.

In order to determine which of the three groups were
Significantly different from each other, the Duncan Multi-
ple Range Test was computed. The results of this analysis
can be found in Tables 5 and 6. There was a significant

difference between the speed group and the accuracy group

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RESPONSE TIME 1

 

 

 

Source df SS MS F P
Between groups 2 0.1397 0.0699 14.1541 (0.0005
Within groups 57 0.2813 0.0049

 

Total 59 0.4210

 

 

43

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RESPONSE TIME 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df SS MS F P
Between groups 2 1.2901 0.6450 35.5548 (0.0005
Within groups 57 1.0341 0.0181
Total 59 2.3242

TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ACCURACY

 

 

 

 

Source df 88 MS F P
Between groups 2 3.7387 1.8693 2.9958 0.058
Within groups 57 35.5673 0.6240
Total 59 39.3060

 

 

and between the speed group and the speed and accuracy
group in favor of the speed group on Response Time 1
(Table 5). Table 6 shows a significant difference between
all groups on Response Time 2, with the speed group per-

forming better than the speed and accuracy group and the

44

accuracy group. In turn, the speed and accuracy group was

superior to the accuracy group.

TABLE 5
DUNCAN MULTIPLE RANGE TEST ON ORDERED MEANS

OF RESPONSE TIME 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3
.2834 .2990 .3955
.0156 .1121
.0965
Rejection
value (.05 level) 2.83 2.98
(Rej.) (Sef' .0255 .0268
dSe = .009
TABLE 6

DUNCAN MULTIPLE RANGE TEST ON ORDERED MEANS

OF RESPONSE TIME 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3‘
.6302 .8560 .9878
.2258 .3576
1 .1318

Rejection
value (.05 level) 2.83 2.98
(Rej.) (Sef' .0481 .0507

 

 

QSe = .017

45

Fencing Tournament Analysis

 

Four criteria measures were used to evaluate the re-
sults Of the fencing tournament.

Criteria I: Total # of Wins

 

# of Bouts

Criteria II: Total # of Touches Made

 

# of Bouts

Criteria IIIzTotal # of Touches Against

 

# of Bouts

Criteria IV: Total # of Touches Made

 

Total # of Touches Against

The selection of these criteria was based on the investi-
gatorksprevious competitive fencing experience and on the
scores recorded during a fencing match. These criteria
were established to provide further insight into individ-
ual differences among the groups. When a fencer scores
four touches on her Opponent in competitive fencing, she
has won the bout. Through the application of these crit-
eria, a fencer who was able to score three touches before
her Opponent could score four would be rated a better fen-
cer than a second fencer who scored one touch on the same
opponent before losing the bout. Thus, a broader scale
was used to determine which instructional emphasis pro-

duced the better fencer.

46

Table 7 lists the mean scores and the standard de-
viations of the performances on the four criteria for each

group.

TABLE 7

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF CRITERIA MEASURES

 

 

Criteria I Criteria II Criteria III Criteria IV

 

GP. M SD M SD M SD M SD

1 0.5912 0.2508 2.9794 0.7430 2.4759 0.9303 1.9171 2.3742

 

 

2 0.4433 0.2876 2.5367 0.8547 2.9120 0.8719 1.0513 0.6731

3 0.4739 0.2665 2.6494 0.9626 2.7489 0.8046 1.1511 0.6947

 

 

The four one-way analyses of variance summaries pre-
sented in Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11 yield the data collected
on the subjects for the fencing bouts. No significant
difference was found among the means of the groups in
their bout fencing performance as measured by the four
criteria.

The fencing tournament performance of the subjects
within each group on the four criteria was analyzed by
applying the chi square statistic. It was expected that
the subjects within the speed group would be superior in
performance to the accuracy group and the speed and ac-

curacy group, and that the speed and accuracy group would

47

TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF CRITERIA I

 

 

Source

 

Between Groups

Within Groups

 

df SS MS F P

2 0.2007 0.1004 1.3990 (0.50

47 3.3713 0.0717

 

 

 

 

Total 49 3.5720
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF CRITERIA II
Source df SS MS F P

 

Between Groups

Within Groups

 

2 1.7347 0.8674 1.1711 (0.50

47 34.8111 0.7407

 

 

 

 

 

Total 49 36.5459
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF CRITERIA III
Source df SS MS F P
Between Groups 2 1.5698 0.7849 1.0393 (0.50

Within Groups

 

Total

47 35.4964 0.7552

49 37.0662

 

 

48

TABLE 11

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF CRITERIA IV

 

 

Source df SS MS F P

 

Between Groups 2 7.4666 3.7333 1.6752 (0.20

Within groups 47 104.7397 2.2285

 

Total 49 112.2063

 

 

perform better than the accuracy group. Tables 12, 13,
14, and 15 represent a comparison between expected and
observed outcome of fencers within each of the three
groups with regard to the number of fencers scoring in
the upper, middle, and lower one—third groups. NO rela-
tionship was found between the type of initial instruc—
tional emphasis and overall fencing ability as measured
by the four criteria.‘ The chi square analysis is locat—
ed in Table 16.

A X2 of 9.49 or above was necessary for each of the
criteria to be significant at the .05 level. NO Signifi-
cant difference was found between the various group per-

formances as measured by the four criteria.

49

TABLE 12

COMPARISON OF FENCING PERFORMANCE ON CRITERIA I

 

 

Fencing Performance

 

 

 

 

 

Groups Upper Middle Lower
l 6 9 2
(5.4) (7.5) (4.1)
2 4 5 6 (V
(4.8) (6.6) (3.6) '“11
3 6 8 4
(5.8) (7.9) (1.3)
TABLE 13

COMPARISON OF FENCING PERFORMANCE ON CRITERIA II

 

 

Fencing Performance

 

 

Groups Upper Middle Lower

l 12 5 0
(10.9) (4.4) (1.7)

2 8 6 l
(9.6) (3.9) (1.5)

3 12 2 4

(11.5) (4.7) (1.8)

 

 

50

TABLE 14

COMPARISON OF FENCING PERFORMANCE ON CRITERIA III

 

 

Fencing Performance

 

 

 

 

Groups Upper Middle Lower
l 2 7 8
(0.7) (7.5) (8.8)
2 0 7 d 8
(0.6) (6.6) (7.8)
3 O 8 10
TABLE 15

COMPARISON FENCING PERFORMANCE ON CRITERIA IV

 

 

Fencing Performance

 

 

Groups Upper Middle Lower

l 1 2 14
(0.3) (0.7) (16.0)

2 0 0 15
(0.3) (0.6) (14.1)

3 0 0 18

(0.4) (0.7) (16.9)

 

 

51

TABLE 16

FENCING TOURNAMENT ANALYSIS

 

 

Criteria X2
1 9.18
2 7.83
3 3.88
4 .98

 

 

Correlational Analysis of Variables

 

The correlation matrix in Table 17 was arranged to
ascertain the relationships among the four fencing bout
criteria and the three performance measures. A .69 correla-
tion, which is Significant at the .01 level, was found be-
tween Response Time 1 and Response Time 2 measures. Re—
sponse Time 2 and accuracy were significantly related at the
.05 level, with a correlation Of .32 obtained.

At the .01 level, Criteria I correlated significantly
with Criteria II (.91), Criteria III (-.90), and Criteria
IV (.66). Criteria II exhibited a significant relationship
at the .01 level with Criteria III (-.83) and Criteria IV
(.60). A correlation of -.78 was found between Criteria III
and Criteria IV, which is significant at the .01 level.

It should be noted that in some instances a better

score is a higher score, while in other instances, a low

score is more desirable.

52

Therefore, some negative correla-

tions were expected in reference to Criteria III, as well as

Response Times 1 and 2, in which a low score is a better

score.

No significant relationships were found between the

performance measures and the fencing bout criteria.

TABLE 17

CORRELATION MATRIX

 

 

Response
ReSponse
Accuracy
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria

Criteria

Time 1

Time 2

II
III

IV

.69
.10
-.15
-.O8
.21

-.19

_2_ __§_ _‘1_ _§_ _§__ _7_
.325
-.16°‘ -.25

-.18 -.22 .91‘L
.20 .24 -.9o -.83

-.13 -.14 .66 .60 -.78

 

 

isignificance greater than .01 level
bsignificance greater than .05 level

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION

and RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
The purposes of this study were twofold. The-first

was to make a comparison of instructional emphasis in regard
to Speed, accuracy, and speed and accuracy upon the ultimate
execution of a particular skill in fencing. The second pur-
pose was to determine that instructional method which pro-
duced the most successful fencer in a realistic setting of
bout fencing.

Seventy female students originally enrolled in three
beginning fencing classes at Michigan State University serv-
ed as subjects. Each class received different instructional
emphasis: Group 1 was taught for speed, Group 2 was taught
for accuracy, and Group 3 was taught with equal emphasis on
speed and accuracy together. After a five week period,
the subjects were measured in a skill with the use of an
apparatus constructed by the investigator. Three measures
were recorded for each subject; two concerning speed of
movement and one of accuracy. Each subject was given ten
trials. A fencing tournament was held during which the

subjects from each group fenced subjects from the other two

53

54

groups to determine which instructional method, if any,
produced the most successful fencer.

Three one-way analyses of variance were run to deter-
mine if any significant difference in performance existed
between the groups as a result of the initial instructional
emphasis. A significant difference was obtained at the .01
level between the groups on Response Time 1 and Response
Time 2 measures. A Duncan Multiple Range Test was computed
and it was determined that the speed group was significant-
ly different from the accuracy group and the speed and ac-
curacy group on Response Time 1. The speed group was supe-
rior to both groups, and the speed and accuracy group per-
formed better than the accuracy group on Response Time 2.

Four one—way analyses of variance were calculated to
determine the existence of significance among the means of
the criteria measures as a result of the fencing tournament.
No significant difference was found between the means of
the group performance on the criteria scores.

A chi square analysis of the fencing tournament per-
formance of the subjects within each group on the four
criteria was computed with respect to the number of fencers
scoring in the upper, middle,and lower one-third groups.

No significant difference was found between the various
group performances in the fencing tournament.

A correlation matrix was arranged to determine the
relationship among the four fencing bout criteria and the

three skills tests. Significance was obtained between

55

Response Time 1 and Response Time 2, and between Response
Time 2 and accuracy. The following criteria were signifi-
cantly related with each other at the .01 level: Criteria
I and II, I and III, I and IV, II and III, II and IV, and
III and IV. No significant relationship was found to exist
between the performance measures and the fencing bout cri-

teria.

Conclusions

 

Within the limitations of this investigation, the
following conclusions were reached:

1. The initial instructional emphasis of speed, ac-
curacy, or speed and accuracy exhibited no significant dif-
ference on the performance of the subjects in the fencing
bout tournament.

2. The group receiving initial instructional emphasis
on speed was superior to the other two groups on one measure
of speed of movement.

3. The speed group was also superior to the speed and
accuracy group and the accuracy group on the other speed
measure, while the speed and accuracy group performed better
than the accuracy group.

4. All groups performed equally well in accuracy.

5. The fencing skills tests and the criteria used to
evaluate the bout performance appeared to be independent
measures.

6. The four criteria used in this study were found

56

to be highly related among themselves.

Discussion

 

The results of this study indicated no significant
difference between the type of initial instructional empha—
sis employed within each group and the performance of the
subjects in the fencing tournament. However, the signifi-
cance found in favor of the Speed group on Response Time 1
and Response Time 2 indicates that the speed group executed
the parry-riposte skill faster than either of the other two
groups. This investigator contends that the faster a fenc-
er can defend herself against her opponent's attack by
parrying, the less likely she is to be hit, and the more
attempts a fencer has at hitting her opponent's unprotected
target on a riposte, the greater the probability of her
scoring the four touches first. The lack of significance
found between the three groups on the accuracy measure
signifies that initial instruction stressing form of execu-
tion and control of the foil has no additional influence on
the performance of the beginning fencer. The investigator,
however, does feel that a larger sample or a prolonged
initial instructional emphasis phase might have proven the
accuracy group to be better on this skill test since the E
ratio on this task just missed the acceptable .05 level of
significance set for this study.

The investigator noticed that the speed group was

more aggressive than the speed and accuracy group. The

57

accuracy group demonstrated less aggressiveness than the
other two groups. This aggressiveness was exhibited in the
form of enthusiasm and effort in learning a new skill in-
troduced in the classroom and in participating in fencing
bouts. The maneuvers of the speed group followed by the
speed and accuracy group in fencing bouts involved more
footwork with advances, retreats,and lunges and more at-
tempts to score on the opponent's target. These fencers
possessed a certain degree of confidence in their fencing
ability and were, therefore, not hesitant in trying new at-
tacks. On the other hand, it was noticed that the majority
of the fencers in the accuracy group lacked the mobility as
well as the confidence possessed by the other groups. The
accuracy group tended to limit their fencing tactics to
such skills as the beat and disengage, even when they fail-
ed to work, instead of utilizing other attacks that were
taught. All subjects demonstrated a degree of "leppiness,"
for example, an excessive amount of double touches and jab-
bing due to insufficient distance between the two fencers,
which was credited to their lack of experience and an in-
adequate amount of instructional time of five weeks.

The correlation matrix displayed no relationship be—
tween the three performance measures and the four fencing
criteria. The cause for this finding could lie in (a) the
inability of the measures and the criteria to represent

what they prOposed to measure; (b) in the method of

58

administering the tests of the fencing tournament; or (c)
in the non-acceptability of the performance measures as in-
dicators of potential fencing success. A more efficiently
run tournament might have yielded a meaningful relationship
between the performance measures and the fencing criteria.
However, the possibility of the existence of an additional
factor which was not measured, but is necessary for the be-
ginning fencer must not be overlooked. Dow (1959) stated
that success in fencing lies in "quick, deliberate move-
ments and the ability to outthink and outwit one's oppo-
nent." Singer (1968) also recognized the possibility of
such a factor existing in his fencing study. Lucia (1961)
made the statement that within the sport of fencing-Wmere
physical superiority must be subordinated to the qualities
of the mind." This idea of "mind over matter" existing in
fencing might be the outcome of prolonged instruction plus
intensive practice plus adequate fencing experience which
could not be measured in a study involving beginning fenc—

ers.

Recommendations

 

The investigator feels that additional research is
needed within the area of initial instructional emphasis
and its effect on ultimate performance, especially for the
beginning fencer. Therefore, the following recommendations
are made in conjunction with the findings of this study:

1. A testing apparatus which is completely

59

mechanized should be used to avoid any variable factor that
might enter into the study from using a human to operate
the testing foil.

2. It has been suggested that factors other than
those measured by the skills tests and the fencing bout
criteria might exist in fencing. The investigator recom-
mends a similar investigation on the same measures for ad-
vanced and/or competitive fencers to see if a relationship
does in fact exist among these variables with more fencing
experience.

3. A study consisting of a comparison between be-
ginning and advanced fencers based upon the same scale for
measuring successful performance would also be apprOpriate
to establish whether or not experience brings about a
change in that which produces a successful fencer.

4. An additive step to the above recommendations
might be the incorporation of a check list upon which the
fencer records the basis for her maneuver during a fencing
bout. Such a list might reveal information concerning
strategy and/or certain personality traits that would in-
fluence a fencer's performance other than initial instruc-

tional emphasis.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

10.

11.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Castello, James and Hugo Castello. Fencing. New York:
Ronald Press Company, 1962.

Crosnier, Roger. Fencing with the Foil. New York:
A. S. Barnes and Company, 1951.

 

Dow, Elizabeth. "First Lessons in Fencing." Journal
of Health, Physical Education, and RecreatIon,
30:36-37 (1959T.

 

Ehrlich, Gerald. "A Method of Constructing Learning
Curves for a Motor Skill Involving Total Body
Speed and Accuracy." Journal of Applied Psychology,
27:494-503 (1943).

 

Fitts, Paul M. "Cognitive Aspects of Information Pro-
cessing: III. Set for Speed versus Accuracy."
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71:849-857
T1966).

 

Fitts, Paul M. and Michael I. Posner. Human Perform-
ance. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Com-
pany, 1967.

 

Fraser, J. Munro. Industrial Psychology. New York:
Pergamon Press, 1962.

 

Fulton, Ruth E. "Speed and Accuracy in Learning a
Ballistic Movement." Research Quarterly, 13:
30-36 (March, 1942).

 

Fulton, Ruth B. "Speed and Accuracy in Learning
Movements." Archieves of Psychology, 300:
7-53 (June, 1945).

Garrett, Henry E. "A Study of the Relation of Accuracy
to Speed." Archieves of Psychology, No. 56
(May 1922).

Gilmer, B. von Haller. Industrial Psychology. New
York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961.

 

61

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

62

Hale, D.J. "Speed-Error Tradeoff in a Three-Choice
Serial Reaction Task." Journal of Experimental”
Psychology, 81:428-435 (1969).

 

 

Hartson, L. D. "Contrasting Approaches to the Analysis
of Skilled Movements." The Journal of General
Psychology, 20:263-293 (1939).

 

 

Howell, William C. and David L. Kriedler. "Informa—
tion Processing Under Contradictory Instructional
Sets." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65:
39-46 (1963).

 

Johnson, Joan. "Tennis Serve of Advanced Women Play-
ers." Research Quarterly, 28:123-131 (1957).

 

Kamnetz, Harvey. "Relative Importance of Emphasis on
Speed and Accuracy in Beginning Typing." Nation-
al Business Education Quarterly, 25:36-37 (OctoB-
er, I956).

Kaplan, Robert. "The Technique and Use of the Arms in
Fencing." Athletic Journal, 31:30, 48 (November,
1950).

 

Knapp, B. Skill in Sport. -London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul Limited, 1963.

 

Knapp: Clyde G. and W. Robert Dixon. "Learning to
Juggle: II. A Study of Whole and Part Methods."
Research Quarterly, 23:398-401 (December, 1952).

 

Lawther, John D. Psychologyyof Coaching. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951.

Lidstone, R. A. Fencin . London: H. F. and G.
Witherby Ltd., 1952.

Lucia, Edward. "A Course in Foil Fencing." Scholas-
tic Coach, 31:18-l9, 54-59 (November, 196I).

 

Meyers, Garry C. "Speed versus Accuracy in the Devel—
0pment of Industrial Skills.“ Journal of Person-
nel Research, 4:20-22 (1925).

 

Nadi, Aldo. On Fencing. New York: G. P. Putnam's
Sons, 1943.

 

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

63

Pachella, Robert G. and Richard W. Pew. "Speed-
Accuracy Tradeoff in Reaction Time: Effect of
Discrete Criterion Times." Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 76:19-24 (1968).

 

 

Pew, Richard. "The Speed-Accuracy Operating Charact—
eristics." Acta Psychologica, 30:16-26 (1969).

 

Shulman, Sidney. "Guidelines to High School Foil
Fencing." Scholastic Coach,.37:14-15 (1967).

 

Singer, Robert N. Motor Learning and Humaanerform-
ance. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969.

 

Singer, Robert N. "Speed and Accuracy of Movement as
Related to Fencing Success." Research Quarterly,
39:1080—1083 (1968).

 

Sj3dah1, Lars. Elementary Industrial Psychology;
London: Longmans, 1966.

 

Solley, William H. "The Effects of Verbal Instruction
of Speed and Accuracy Upon the Learning of a
Motor Skill.“ Research Quarterly, 23:231-240
(1952).

 

Sturt, Mary. "A Comparison of Speed with Accuracy in
the Learning Process.“ British Journal of
Psychology, 12:289-300 (1921).

 

 

Updyke, Wynn F. and Perry B. Johnson. Principles of
Modern Physical Education, Health, and Recreation.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1970.

 

 

Ussell, Paul J. "A Comparative Study of the Speed and
Accuracy Approaches to the Teaching of Typewrit-
ing." National Business Educationyguarterly,
24:89-907(Oct6ber, 1955).

 

Vince, Joseph. Fencin . New York: A. S. Barnes and
Company, 1940.

Viteles, M. S. Industrial Psychology. New York:
Norton, 1932.

Woods, John B. "The Effect of Varied Instructional
Emphasis Upon the Development of a Motor Skill."
Research Quarterly, 38:132-142 (1967).

 

Yonkee, D. Y. "Advanced Techniques for High School
Fencers." Scholastic Coach, 27:22-24, 41
(December, 1957).

64

39. Yonkee, D. Y. "Primer for High School Fencers."
Scholastic Coach, 25:62-66 (October, 1955).

 

APPENDIX

66

Procedure for Classes

 

 

Meeting Time/Minutes Activity
1-2 60 conditioning
3 15 warm—up .
15 foil handing and positioning
30 footwork (on-garde, ad-

vance and retreat)

4 15 warm-up
15 review
30 distance, lunge, lunge and

footwork, extension

5 10 warm-up
10 wall target practice
10 lunge and footwork drills
20 target: closing, lines of
engagement, disengage
10 wall target practice
6 10 warm-up
10 wall target practice
10 lunge, disengage drills
20 1-2 attack, beat attack
10 wall target practice
7 10 warm-up
10 lunging at opponent
10 1-2, beat
20 parry, riposte
10 beat lunge against Opponent
8 10 warm-up
10 target practice as above
10 parry, riposte
20 parry, riposte 4 or 6
10 target practice
9 10 warm-up
10 target practice
30 testing (for grading purposes)
10 target practice
10 10 warm-up
10 target practice
30 circular parry, bout fencing

10 target practice

Meeting Time/Minutes

11 10
10
30

10

12 10
10
30
10

13 10
10
30
10

14 10
10
30
10

15-16 60

17-18-19 270
(evening session)

67

Activity

warm-up
target.practice

review, counter disengage,
bout fencing

target practice

warm-up
target practice
review, bout fencing
target practice

warm-up
target practice
cut-over, bout fencing
target practice

warm-up
target practice
review, bout fencing
target practice
machine testing

bout fencing with judges

 

:qumeItumlmsyujmm

3 1293 03142