33...... 11111111111111 ““11“” 1-11 .1111 1:111? 1:121 1111 11.11::1-111-111 T WWW ED '1‘ it 111““ .11131‘E1’1“.3 {15' ’11"? 1‘11“FL ‘3 WE $1761 1311 1.111 11111 .11‘ "‘1‘.. 1'1. "‘13.: :\ :gzntg r3. E: 313M: 07:11:- E u H} E!“ mi“. fi'ifln‘! ‘pr-‘J‘; hi ’3 ‘1 ‘ r J: u} 11 . “b. ’Qtd‘cf' MSU LIBRARIES “ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF METHODS FOR TEACHING UNSKILLED SUBJECTS, ROUTINES OF THE PARALLEL BARS by Harry Jahn Frowen Statement of the Prdblem The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of learning routines by teaching sequences of skills versus individual skills to unskilled subjects on the parallel bars. Methodology Twenty—two unskilled subjects were chosen from the beginning gymnastics classes at Michigan State University. The subjects were equated as to strength and balance and placed into two groups accordingly. A flip of the coin deter- mined which group was to be the experimental group and which was to be the control group. The experiment was conducted three days a.week for a period of six weeks. Each subject was given five attempts each day for the first fourteen days until all skills or sequences were executed to the satisfaction of the instructor. The last days were spent developing the skills as a complete routine. The judges gave each subject a score for his performance of the completed routine. All data were statistically treated using the difference between means and the "t" test was applied to check for statistical differences. Limitations of the Stug1_ l. Subjectiveness of the judges. 2. The specific skills used in the study. 3. Harry John Frowen Confined to men having a prerequisite of no previous instruction on the parallel bars. Some of the Significant Findings Within the limitations of the study, the following conclusions were found: 1. There was a statistical difference between the two groups in favor of the control group which was taught by the traditional method of one skill at a time. The control group acquired the skills at a slightly faster rate. The experimental group felt they could have done better if the experiment would have run longer. Defense of the Study Physical education instructors should be constantly experimenting and seeking new methods and techniques of instruction. This is necessary if physical education is to progress in the future. Recommendations 1. In developing a study of this nature in the future, it should be done for a longer period of time. Subjects with some gymnastics background should be used. With ex- perience they may already have developed a "feel" for the apparatus and learn faster by the sequence method. More than one trial should be used when judging the subjects. The average score will be more reliable than if only one is used. In future studies more subjects should be used to insure greater significance. Body size and weight should be taken into consideration in future studies. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF METHODS FOR TEACHING UNSKILLED SUBJECTS, ROUTINES OF THE PARALLEL BARS BY Harry John Frowen 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 1967 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincerest gratitude to Dr. Randolph W. webster and Mr. Thomas Tillman for their interest and help in aiding the author in the preparation of this thesis. Acknowledgements are also given to all of the subjects of this experiment for their part in making the collection of this data possible. HJF ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page AMWDMNTSOOO0.00000000000000000IOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.0000000000011 TABI‘E OF CONTENTSOOOOOOOOO0.0COO....0...0......0.0.00.000000000000111 LIST OF TELESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00......0.0.0....1v LIST OF CHARTSOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.00.0000000000000000V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTIONOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000...0.0.0.0000000000000001 statemnt Of the PrOb 1cm. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 Purpose Of the Study. 0 O O O O O O O O O O Q I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 Mfinition Of Term 0 O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O Q I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .4 Limitations 0f the Study. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .5 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATUREOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00....0.0.00.000000000007 CHAPTER III mmomLmYOQOOOOCO0.00.00.00.000..O....0.0.00.00.00.0000000000012 Emerimtal Procedure. 0 O Q C 0 Q C O O O C C O C O O O O O O O I O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 12 Test Item......OCOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOO0......0.0.0.0000000000012 statistical mthOds O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 14 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. 0 O O O O Q 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .15 CHAPTER V SUMRY’ CONCLUSION, AND RECOMNDATIONS O O O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 18 SW”...O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.00.0000000000000018 Conc1u81°n80oooooooooeooooooooooooososo00000000000000.000000018 RecmndationBQQOCOOOICQOOOOQOIOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.0000000018 BIBLIOGWHYQOOOOOOOOOOOOO0..0.0...O.O0..OO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZO APPENDICES ACCOQCCOOOOCCCQOOQOIQQOOQO0...0....0...0.000......0.0.000000000024 BCQQOQQQOOOOOCOCOQOQQC.QOOQOOQQOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0...0.0.0.0000000026 CQQOQOQOQ.OOOQQOOOCCQQQIOOOQOO0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO000.00.00.000028 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Difference between Means and "t" Test Results.................16 iv LIST OF CHARTS Chart Page I. Graph Showing Progress of Groups by Mean of Day Achieved l7 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the sport of gymnastics, as it is known in this country today, come petition requires that a contestant perform.not one skill at a time, but rather to perform a sequence of skills usually referred to as an "exercise" or "routine". Upon completion of an exercise each contestant is scored, by a battery of judges, on the relative quality of his performance according to established rules and standards. In gymnastics, then, we are faced with the prdblem.of devising better teaching methods to obtain the highest score in the shortest possible time. There has been a great deal of research done on increasing the effi- ciency of learning individual skills in gymnastics, part versus whole, but there have been no attempts at developing more efficient methods of learning whole routines. One of the important criteria used to determine the relative quality of performance of a routine is concerned with the manner in which each skill in the routine blends with the following skill. The ideal being where the finishing movement of a preceding skill literally becomes the preliminary movements of the next skill with no distinguishable break (pause in performance) between them. Kunzle states, "Every alteration in the body's position must be prepared for the preceding one, and prepare in turn the following one."1 This raises a rather interesting point relevant to the coaching of the sport. Since gymnastics is a sequence of skills, would it 16. C. Kunzle and B. W. Thomas, Olzgpic Gymnastics Vol. 1 Freestanding, (London: James Barrie, 1956), p. 9. 1 not be more efficient to teach complete routines, in units of two skills simultaneously, rather than teaching in the traditional method of one skill at a time? . The present trend, in this country, is to develop a gymnast by teaching him (or her) one new skill at a time and to have him acquire mastery of it by practicing the single skill by itself. Later, after a variety of skills have been learned, and only then, an attempt is made to have him perform a routine incorporating those skills in following practices. Despite the fact that this approach has proven successful and has been so commonly used for a long period of time, certain observations seem to indicate that it may not necessarily be the best from either the standpoint of safety or of total learning time involved. ' Gymnastics is a sport of variation such that variation between skills may be nothing more than variation in starting or finishing points or both. Two adjacent skills in a routine may overlap each other such that a separation of the two is primarily a matter of definition. As an example, a defined starting point of one skill may actually occur at the mid-point of the pre- ceding skill. Putting two such skills together then, so that they blend one into the other, is no prdblem. In performing two such skills in sequence there is a factor involved which does present a problem. Simply, the momentum gained in the first skill can alter the performance of the following skill either helpfully or detrimentally. The prdblem.then is, that if a person learns to perform a single skill he has to learn the skill under one set of conditions, and to have him perform that skill in a routine is asking him.to perform the skill under a different set of conditions. To clarify this, let's say a subject is learning a front uprise on the parallel bars. In order for him to acquire this skill individually, he must travel from.an upperarm support forward and upward to-a support on his hands. When he has has done this, he has acquired the skill. When he tries to incorporate the skill into a routine, he must learn the skill differently; his shoulders must be further forward or backward, his hips must be higher, he must assume his final position sooner or later, etcetera, in order for him to immediately begin the next skill in the sequence. Therefore, he must learn the skill over again under this second set of conditions. Because of the speed involved in the performance of routines, a person must develop a finely conditioned set of reflexes. Only rarely are the mental processes associated with conscious control of movement adequate to perform these skills and routines. Therefore, an individual taught to perform single skills at a time develops the reflexes to perform the single skills, but he does not develop the reflexes needed for the transition from one skill to the next. Instead he develops reflexes to stop his performance which may easily hinder the conditioning of the required transitional reflexes. There may be other factors which are in effect as well, but those pre- viously mentioned have been chosen because of their applicability to the situation presented. From these factors alone it would seem.that it might be better to teach an individual sequences of skills (two skills simultaneously) rather than single skills individually, since the ultimate goal is not per- formance of any single skill by itself, but rather the ability to perform a sequence of skills. It is the conviction of this writer that by teaching two individual skills simultaneously, as a unit, the learning time of routine will be shortened, teaching efficiency will be increased, and it will allow the gymnast to maintain a high level of execution of his routine. Statement of the Problgg To determine the effects of learning routines by teaching sequences of skills versus individual skills to unskilled subjects on the parallel bars. Purpose of the Study_ In the past there has been much theorizing about the best methods for the coaching and teaching of gymnastic skills. The data that has been come piled, and the methods observed, seem to imply that it is necessary for individual skills to precede the learning of complete routines. The present study was undertaken to see if a combination of two skills could be learned simultaneously, thus shortening the learning time of complete routines. The results should be of interest to every gymnastic coach and gymnast who has a desire to develop his routine in a faster and in a more proficient manner. Definition of Term§_ unskilled'Subjects Any individual who has never been exposed to instruction on the parallel bars. Front Upgise Swing in upper arm support. Flex the hips at the peak of rear swing. Extend the hips on the downward swing. Push downward with upper arms, drive the hips forward and upward to a lower arm support. Shoulder_§gl§nce Upper arms are placed on the bars with elbows out. Hips are then raised over the head and extended. Piked Roll From the shoulder balance position flex the hip and bring the head for- ward until upper arm.hang has been obtained. (Legs straight) Back Uprise From an upper arm support, hips in piked position above the bars, cast legs forward to a straight body position. As the body passes below the bars and begins to rise, push downward with the hands until a lower arm support is reached. Oneegplf Turn to Straddle Sepg From a lower arm support, swing rearward and execute a one-half turn to sitting position, one leg on each bar, in a lower arm support. Lay-Awgz From a slight swing in lower arm support, lay backward to upper arm hang and swing forward. Giant Back Shouldeeroll From a swing in upper arm support, swing forward pushing hips upward through shoulder balance position and swing down to an upper arm hang. Elementapz Kip From an upper arm support, the hips are flexed to a deep piked position above the bars. The legs are then snapped forward, lifting the shoulder by pushing with the hands, to a lower arm support. Front Dismount From a lower arm support, swing rearward so that the feet are above the bars. Transfer weight so that both hands are placed on one bar and movement is outward. Assume standing position parallel to the bars. LowegkArm Suppogg In the lower arm support, the weight of the body is resting on both hands with arms straight. Upper Arm Sppport In the upper arm support, the weight of the body is resting on both upper arms with arms bent.2 Limitations of the Study 1. Subjectiveness of the judges. 2Tom DeCarlo, Handbook of Progressive Gzppastics, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc. 1963). 2. The specific skills used in the study. 3. Confined to men having a prerequisite of no previous instruction on the parallel bars. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In reviewing the literature, nothing was found pertaining to this exact study. However, in some ways this study may be looked upon as a "part versus whole" experiment. In determining whether the study is part versus whole, the author felt that this would be a matter of definition. Johnson in his discussion of whole-part teaching methods states: In practicing a skill by the "whole method", the skill in question is practiced over and over again in its entirety. If the'part method" is used, a skill is broken down into separate phases and these individual phases are practiced separately. After considerable practice of each, {he parts are put together and the whole skill is attempted. This experiment is undertaken to see which one of two different teaching methods, learning one skill at a time or learning a sequence of two skills at a time, would be more efficient in learning complete routines in gymnastics. The experimental group was taught by the two skill sequence method. This would be considered the "whole" method. The control group was taught by the traditional method of one skill at a time. This method would be considered the "part" method. Kunzle states, "When starting off on the parallel bars, you should spend at least your first year learning only these fundamental elementary movements. As on the pommel horse, a sound basis will mean that you will move much faster as you go on to the basic movements and difficulties."2 1Perry B. Johnson, et. al., Physical Education A Problem Solving Approach to Heplth and Fitness. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. l966)pp. 191—192 2G.C. Kunzle, glympic Gymnastics Vol. 4 Parallel Bars, (London: Barrie and Rockliff 1964) p. 37. Hughes suggests that gymnastics should be taught by routines as has been done in this study, but the stunts should be presented individually first before they are practiced as units. He further states, "Considerable time should be devoted to the practice of individual stunts before they are combined."3 In any learning situation, however, we find that individuals learn by the methods best suited to themselves. In DeCarlo's book he mentions: Basically, instruction usually proceeds from the psycho- logical to the logical, from the whole to the part...Individua1 students will make individual interpretations of the logical sequence of education. At this time they are given the oppor- tunity to apply their thinking by participating in the practicing of the skill. The degree to which the pupil can make a motor translation of his interpretation will determine to what extent the accompanying whole-or-part method of learning is employed. The very concept of progressive gymnastics makes it possible for teachers to approach each new stunt from the whole method of instruction. If the pupil cannot grasp the skill in its entirety, then and only then should the part method be employed - approaching each skill from a positive point of view.4 Knapp and Hagman state, "It is probable, as a number of writers have suggested, that more intelligent persons, or fast learners, profit most from the advantages of whole methods."5 In their report to the Fifty-Fifth Annual Proceedings of the College Physical Education Association, Lawther and Cooper stated many steps con- cerning the teaching methods of early learning. The step most emphasized was number seven. "Direct the learner's attention to the total act, and not to details of movement. He learns a pattern act, not a piece chain of move- 3Eric Hughes, Gymnastics for Men: A Cgppetitiye Appropch for Tegcher and Coach. (New York: The Ronald Press Co. 1966) pp. 9-10. 4Tom DeCarlo, Handbook of Progressive Gymnastics. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1963) pp. 10-12. 5Clyde Guy Knapp and Patricia E. Hagman, Teaching Methods for Physical Education. McGraw-Hill Series in Health, Physical Education and Recreation. (New York: MtGraw‘Hill Book Co. Inc. 1953) p. 386. ments. The polish for nicety of parts or specific movements can well be left for later development."6 In a study by Shay he stated, "The results of this study indicate that the whole learning method is superior to the part method in learning 7 the upstart on the horizontal bar." He further concluded, "(1) Attention was not distracted from the whole by the necessity for perfecting each part before proceeding to the next as was the case in the progressive-part method. (2) Meaning or 'satisfyingness' was never violated by forced pauses. (3) Timing, an essential factor in learning gymnastics, favors the whole method. . ."8 Many studies have been done in psychology concerning part versus whole methods of learning. In an article by'Woodworth he made a summary of these findings. The net result of all the studies (in psychology) of part and whole learning seems to be something like this: The parts are easier to learn than the whole and the learner is often happier and better adjusted to the problem when beginning with the parts. He carries over some of the skill and knowledge gained in learning the parts into the subsequent learning of the whole performance. But he finds that putting together the parts is a serious prdblem.requiring much further work. In the end he may have saved time and energy by commencing with the parts - or he may not - much depending on the size and difficulty of the total task and on the learner's poise and technique. If he can adjust himself to the whole method and handle it properly, he can learn quite complex performances effectively by the whole method. In a practical situation it is probably best to start with the whole method while feeling free to concentrate at any time on a part where something special is to be learned. 6John D. Lawther and John M. Cooper, "Methods and Principles of Teaching Physical Education," Fifty-Fifth Annual Proceedings of the College Physical Education Association. (Wash. D.C. n.n. 1952) pp. 127-131. 7Clayton T. Shay, "The Progressive-Part vs. the Whole Methods of Learning Motor Skills, "The Research Quarterl , 5:62-67, December 1934. 3111111 9Robert S. Woodworth, Experimental Psycholog, (New York: Henry Holt and Co. 1938) P- 223' 10 Wickstrom.noted another observation that applies to the whole method, and substantiates the results of studies in psychology of the part method of learning. There appeared to be a different learning process with the addition of each new part of a stunt. Some interference was involved as the subjects demonstrated a temporary loss of learning of the part or parts previously learned when a new part had been added, until that new part had become integrated ‘with them. The amount of interference varied with the difficulty of the stunt and, as a whole, became a further problem. Where increased speed was necessary in executing the whole stunt, this frequently caused errors in executing the part previously learned at a slower tempo. Thus, there appeared to be wastedléime and motion in the part learning of some gymnastic stunts. Bucher says that traditional methods emphasize the mastery of funda- mentals.11 Laporte and Renner emphasize each step within the progression helps to develop the correct fundamentals for the execution of the most important one, which would be at the end of the series.12 The Cotteral's point out that in the learning of complex stunts it is always necessary for a selected progression of stunts to precede the learning of any complex stunt. This would in turn prove to be faster, safer, and more proficient.13 In Ryser's book he states, "Use the 'part method' of teaching whenever it is feasible. Some stunts can be broken into parts and each part taught 1'Ollalph Lee Wickstrom, "A Comparative Study of Methodologies for Teaching Gymnastics and Tumbling Stunts." (University of Iowa, 1953). -11Charles A. Bucher, Methods and Materials in Physical Education and Recreation. (St. Louis, Mo., C.V.Mosby Co. 1954) p. 28. 12William R. Laporte and Al G. Renner. The Tumbler's Manual. (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1938) pp. 3-5. 13Bonnie and Donnie Cotteral, The Teaching of Stunts and Tumbling. (New York: A. S. Barnes and Co., 1936.) 11 independently. Then all of the parts can be put together and the stunts taught as a whole. It is advisable to show the entire stunt first, however, so that the pupils will have a clear picture of the stunt they are working toward."14 In an early article by Reed, he reports on a study in psychology: An experiment conducted with 113 college students in memorizing poetry showed that part progressive method was the shortest, that the whole method was the longest, and that the part method was between the other two.....The reason for the superiority of the part method is that it adjusts the material more adequately to the learner's span of attention..... The most economical method of learning is in the last analysis a question for the individual 1earner..... Most individuals find the part method superior. In reviewing the previous literature it was found that the majority of the material supporting the part-method of teaching is from the earlier studies. The most recent studies and articles seem to support the whole method of learning. The following statement by Johnson and his colleagues indicates that the whole method of teaching is most frequently practiced today. "Apparently most motor activities are best learned by use of the “whole' method rather than a strict 'part' approach. Practice of a logical 'whole', with occasional emphasis on a 'part' followed by an immediate return to 'whole' practice, is probably the best general approach to skill learning."16 14Otto E. Ryser, A Teachers Manual for Tumbling and Apparatus Stunts. (Dubuque, Iowa. William.C. Brown Co. 1948) p. 17. 15H. B. Reed, "Part and Whole Methods of Learning", The Journal of Educatiopag. ngchology. 15:107-115, February, 1924. 6 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Because of the need to seek new methods of teaching gymnastics, the author set out to find a more efficient way to decrease the time needed to develop a complete exercise. This was done by using ten fundamental skills on the parallel bars, and combining them into a ten part routine. It was hypothesized that by learning these skills in sequences of two skills at a time the performers would execute the complete routine faster, and to a higher degree of proficiency, than those individuals who had trained by the traditional method of one skill at a time, and then combining these skills into the complete routine. Twenty-two unskilled subjects were chosen from the beginning apparatus course at Michigan State University. They were grouped by matching pairs following a test of simple balance and strength skills. This test was devised to include similar movements to those in the exercise used in the study. The raw scores of these tests are located in Appendix B. The mean score for the experimental group (Group I) was 22.27 and the mean score for the control group (Group II) was 22.45. The test items were as follows: 1. Dips (10 repetitions) 10 pts. 2. Front Swinging Dips (5 repetitions) 5 pts. 3. Back Swinging Dips (5 repetitions) 5 pts. 4. Plexed Upper Arm Support (3 repetitions) 3 pts. 5. Shoulder Stand Leg Raises (5 repetitions) 5 pts. After being equated and divided into groups, the experimental group was decided by a flip of a coin. 12 13 The experiment was restricted to three days a.week for a period of six weeks due to the fact that it is virtually impossible to collect the number of subjects desired any time other than during a regularly scheduled class period. The first fourteen days were used for the learning of the skills and sequences. Each subject was given five attempts each day until he executed the skill or sequence to the satisfaction of the instructor. With the accomplishment of each skill or sequence, each subject would con- tinue with the next progression until he acquired all the movements of the routine. The last four days were spent in working the whole series of skills as a complete routine. During this time a record was kept of the progress of each subject. An average of day achieved for each skill or sequence for each group was taken. This information is shown in Chart I at the end of this chapter. This was to see if either of the groups would progress at a faster rate. At the end of the learning period each subject was given a score for his routine by four members of the Michigan State University Varsity Gym- nastic Team. In order to arrive at an average score, the extreme high and low scores were dropped and the middle scores were averaged. The raw scores are found in Appendix A. These judges were naive to the experiment and therefore gave unprejudiced scores for the execution of the routine. Each skill in the routine was given a point value as is done in a compulsory exercise in gymnastics. The routine used in the study was as follows: 1. Front Uprise 1.0 2. Shoulder Stand (2 seconds) 1.0 3. Pike Roll 1.0 4. Back Uprise 1.0 l4 5. Swing Forward .5 6. 1/2 turn to Straddle Seat (2 seconds) 1.0 7. Lay-Away 1.0 8. Giant Back Roll 1.5 9. Elementary Kip 1.0 10. Front Vault Dismount 1.0 Total W The data collected from the scoring of the routines was computed by the difference between means and the "t" test was applied to check for significant differences.1 These results will appear on the following pages. Statistical'Formulas 2X2 5 t_M-M’ 5“ N-I SM=\/N‘ " SM 1Henry E. Garrett, Statistics 1p:Psychology‘and Education, (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1958). pp. 191-192. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The effectiveness of the two methods of instruction, "one skill versus sequence of the two skills", were determined by four judges. There was a significant difference between the groups which could be attributed to the method of instruction used. Below in Table I are the results of the computations of the raw scores in Appendix A. Table I Statistical Analysis of Data Group I Group II Mean t Experimental Control Difference 5.86 1.6523 7.03 1.6462 The level of significance chosen was five percent. At this level the t score is 2.10. It was expected by the author that the data would be sig- nificantly in favor of the experimental group. However, the opposite occurred. The statistical analysis showed that it would be better to teach routines on the parallel bars by the traditional method of one skill at a time. A record was kept of each individual's progress as he acquired each skill or sequence (Appendix C). It was thought that the experimental group would acquire the complete routine at a faster rate. However, this did not take place. At no time during the study did the experimental group attain any of the skills faster than the control group. This is substantiated by Chart I. 15 16 Although the group was equated as to balance and strength, there was no attempt at equating the group as to motor ability. This factor may have played an important part in causing the control group to acquire the skill faster and combine them.more proficiently. Another factor that was not taken into consideration was body structure and weight. Those individuals who were greater in size and weight progressed at a slower rate and with less proficiency than the others. Throughout the experiment the subjects in the experimental group stated that they felt they were learning faster because the method of learning two skills at a time gave them an insight as to what was expected of them in a complete routine. This could mean that if the study were carried over a longer period of time the psychological aspect of learning would aid the subject in learning faster. The experiment could not be continued because of the length of the school term. They also felt they should be scored more than once and an average of their scores be taken. This would be more reliable and.would erase the possibility of anyone being scored on a "bad day". Again, this was not done because of the length of the school term. SKILLS 10 E. A - Control 0 - Experimental 17 4 O A t’ 0 is. . ._ -unm a ,1 r, l‘ \. [m 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DAYS CHART I AVERAGE DAY SKILLS ACHIEVED 1 skill 1/211 3/8" 1 day Summagy CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Twenty-two unskilled subjects were selected from the beginning apparatus course at Michigan State University. They were paired, grouped, and trained on the parallel bars for a period of six weeks. At the end of the training period, the group was tested and scored by four members of the Michigan State University Gymnastic Team. Their scores were treated with the "t" test to check for statistical differences. Conclusions 1. There was a statistical difference between the two groups which was taught by the traditional method of one skill at a time. 2. The control group acquired the skills at a faster rate. 3. The experimental group felt they could have done better if the experiment would have been longer. Recommendptigpg 1. In developing a study of this nature in the future, it should be done for a longer period of time. 2. Subjects with some gymnastics background should be used. With experience they may already have developed a "feel" for the apparatus and learn faster by the sequence method. 3. More than one trial should be used when judging the subjects. The average score will be more reliable than if only one is used. 18 19 In future studies more subjects should be used to insure greater significance. Body size and weight of the subjects should be taken into consideration in future studies. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Bucher, Charles A., Methods and Mpterials in PhysicglyEducation and Recreation. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co., 1954. Cotteral, Bonnie and Donnie. The Tepching:of Stunts and Tumbling. New York: A. S. Barnes and Co., 1936. Cowell, Charles C. and Hilda M. Schwehn. Modern Principles_gnd Method§_ in High School Physical Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 1958. DeCarlo, Tom. Handbook of Progressive_§ymnastics. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc. 1963. Garrett, Henry E. Statistigs in Psychglpgy and Education. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1958. Hughes, Eric. _§ymnastics for Men: A Competitive Approgch fggiTeacher and Coach. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1966. Johnson, Perry B., et. a1. Physical Education A Problem-SoJIyin roach to Health and'Fitness. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc. 1966. Knapp, Clyde Guy, and Patricia E. Hagman, TeachipgyMethods for Physical Education. McGraw-Hill Series in Health, Physical Education and Recreation. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1953. Kunzle, G. C. and B. W. Thomas, Freestanding. Vol. I of Olympic Gyppastics. 4 Vols. London: Barrie, 1956. Kunzle, G. C. Parallel Bars. Vol. IV of Olympic Gymnpptics. 4 Vols. London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1964. Laporte, William R. and Al G. Renner, The Tumplers Mannuel. New York: PrenticeéHall, Inc., 1938. Lawther, John D. Psychology_of Coaching. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1951. Ryser, Otto E. A Tepchers Mannuel for Tumbling and Apparatus Stunts. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., 1948. Woodworth, Robert S. Eyperimental Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1938. 21 PERIODICALS Lawther, Jahn D. and John M. Cooper. "Methods and Principles of Teaching Physical Education," Fifty-Fifth Annual Proceedings of the College Physical Education Association, Washington, D.C. n.n. 1952. McGeoch, Grace 0. "Whole-Part Problems", The Psychological Bulletin, 28:713- 739, December, 1931. Reid, H. B. "Part and Whole Methods of Learning", The Journal of Educational Psychology, 15:107-115, February, 1924. Shay, Clayton T. "The Progressive-Part vs. the Whole Method of Learning Motor Skills," The Reseggch Quarterl , 5:62-67, December, 1934. Wickstrom, Ralph Lee, "A Comparative Study of Methodologies for Teaching Gymnastics and Tumbling Stunts," University of Iowa, 1953. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Claus, Marshall Rubert, "A Comparative Study of the Part Method Versus the Whole Method in the Learning of a Fly-Away From the Horizontal Bar.” (Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1961.) Niemeyer, R. "Part versus Whole Methods and Massed Versus Distributed Practice in the Learning of Selected Large Muscle Activities." (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1958.) 22 APPENDIX APPENDIX A Raw Score of Group I Group 1 Judge Judge Judge Judge Average Egp’ erimentajli ' I II III IV Coleman 4 . 4 4 . 0 M M 4 . 2 Gilman M 4 . 7 6 . 0 M 5 . 35 Grimm 3 . 9 M M 1 . 9 2 . 9 James 8.9 8. 8 M M 8. 85 Lauer 6 . 1 M 6 . 0 M 6 .05 Maki 544' 5 . 3 5 . 0 M 5 . 15 Noths tine 548’ M 6 . 5 6 . 0 6 . 25 Skotarek M M 7 . 0 7 . 0 7 . 0 Steffel 5.3 .64 540' 6.0 5.65 Tuchscherer* --- -—- --- --- ---- Vallender 7.4 M 7.0 M 7.2 * - Was not scored because of injury. 24 25 APPENDIX A (continued) Raw Score of Group II Group 11 Judge Judge Judge Judge Average Control_ I II III IV Hodges jhdr 8.4 8.5 ‘942' 8.45 Pauly 8.6 M 8. 7 942' 8.65 Pentz 8.8 8.4 M 345’ 8.6 Plaisier ‘147’ 8.2 8.0 Jldr 8.1 Smieska 6.2 5.6 M M 5.9 Smith 5 . 1 M M 5 .0 5 .05 Sparks 6.0 5(2’ 5.5 66’ 5.75 Straebel M M 6.0 4.5 5.25 "agar 6 . 1 4.9 M M 5 .5 Webber ,9v5’ 8.9 Jfidr 9.1 9.0 Harvey* --- --- --- --- --- * - Dropped course . 26 APPENDIX B Protest Raw Scores Group I Dip Front Back Flexed Shoulder Total Swinging Swinging Upper Arm Stand Dips Dips Support Leg Raises 10 5 5 3 5 28 Coleman 6 4 2 0 5 17 Gilman 10 3 2 0 3 18 Grimm 10 4 5 O 2 21 James 10 5 5 3 5 28 Lauer 10 5 5 2 5 27 Mski 10 5 5 1 4 25 Nothstine 10 5 S 1 5 26 Skotarek 10 5 5 0 5 25 Steffel 10 S 5 2 5 27 Tuchscherer 10 5 5 3 5 28 Vallender 10 4 4 0 5 23 Moan - 22.27 APPENDIX B (continued) 27 Pretest Raw Scores of Group II Dip Front Back Flexed Shoulder Total Swinging Swinging Upper Arm. Stand Dips Dips Support Leg Raises 10 5 5 3 5 Hodges 10 5 5 l S 26 Pauly 10 5 5 3 5 28 Pentz 10 5 5 0 5 25 Plaisier 10 5 5 2 5 27 Smieska 10 4 5 0 O 19 Smith 10 5 5 O 5 25 Sparks 10 5 4 1 5 25 Straebel 10 3 4 O 5 22 Wager 7 2 3 0 5 l7 Webber 10 5 5 3 5 28 Harvey 10 5 5 O 5 25 Mean - 22.45 APPENDIX C 28 Day When Individual Acquired Sequence, Group I Sequence 1 2 3 4 5 Coleman 13 13 14 14 14 Gilman 10 12 13 14 -- Grimm, 13 14 14 -- -- James 4 6 10 12 13 Lauer 4 6 10 13 14 Maki 6 10 12 14 14 Nothstine 6 9 12 13 13 Skotarek 4 8 12 14 14 Steffel 4 5 7 13 14 Tuchscherer 4 8 10 12 13 Vallender 7 8 9 14 14 Ave. Day 6.8 9.0 11.2 13.3 13.7 29 APPENDIX C (continued) Day When Individual Acquired Skill, Group II Skillg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hodger 5 6 9 9 10 10 10 12 13 13 Pauly 5 6 7 9 10 10 10 12 13 13 Pentz 5 6 7 9 9 10 10 12 13 13 Plaisier 4 5 9 9 9 12 12 13 13 13 Smieska 7 8 9 9 10 12 12 -- -- -- Smith 5 7 9 9 10 10 12 12 13 13 Sparks 5 6 7 9 10 10 10 12 14 14 Straebel 5 6 9 10 10 10 10 12 14 14 Wagar 4 5 6 7 10 10 10 -- -- -- webber 1 2 5 7 9 10 10 12 13 13 Harvey — - - - - -- -- -- -— -- Ave. Day 4.6 5.7 7.7 8.7 9.7 10.4 10.6 12.1 13.3 13.3 ABSTRACT A WW sum 0? METHODS FOR TEACHING UNSKIILED 8W, worms 0! m PM]. BARS by Kerry John Proven W 'lhemeeeefthiestudyietodeternine theeffects oflserning roetinee by teething seen-noes of skills verses individul shine to unskilled sijests en the parallel here. new: Twenty-tee mulled subjects were chosen free the beginning unsetiu eissses st luehigss Itste university. the subjects vere ousted so to strength end hnlenee end pissed into two groups esoordingly. A flip of the coin deter- ninedvhiehgreepees tehetheenperinentelgreqsndvhiehm tebethe eentrol grew. themed-unmounted“ threeesys eeeeh foreveriodofsin seeks. Inch subject nee given five etteeste each In, for the first fourteen days util on skills or eeqeeneee were ersseted to as satisfaction of the ineueetor. he lest deys vere spent developing the shins se e «plots routine. the judges gsve eeeh subject e eeore for his perfornenoe of the unload routine. A11 dete sore stetistioeliy treeted using the difference between sens end the "t" test was epplied to check for stetistiesl differences. te of t 1. Ifijeotivensss of the judges. 2. be specific skills need in the study. 3. 8 f Berry John Prune Confined to use hsving e prerequisite of no previous instruction on the psrsllel hers. . Si i t Within the limitations of the study. the following conclusions were feud: l. 2. 3. there one s etetisticel difference hotness the too groups in fever of the control grog which use tsught by the traditionel nethodofoneohilletstiu. the control grew secured the skills or s slightly foster rate. The experimental group felt they could. have done better if the euporinent mid hove rm longer. Efme of the 8m Physicsl educetion instructors should he coast-nip erpsriuenting end seeking new usthods and techniques of instruction. this is neceesery if physicel educetien is to progress in the future. W l. 3. 4. 3. Indevelepingsotudyofthisnetureinthofuture.itshouldhedone foreloegerperiedoftins. segue- with sons gyneetios background should he and. run on- perieeeetheyneyslrsdyhevedovelopode"feel” forthenperetus ssdleers festerhy thereon-nos netted. lonthnonotrielshsuuheuoeduhonjedgilgthosuhjeeto. the ssersgsseoreuillhensrereliehlothsnifonlponsioueed. Infuturestudiesleneijectssheuldhoueedtoinsuregreeter oignificenee. iody eise sud ueight should he token into consideration in future studies. — ‘1‘: ~ . ,. 15.”; N“ uNJfio ‘g‘i Cfi‘ 519. (MO 2 N. £000“ on Hf]: Prow en . MIA”. . 1967.