Journai of Teaching in Physical Education, 2011, 30. 31-50 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Effects of Peer Mediated Instruction with Task Cards on Motor Skill Acquisition in Tennis
Peter lserbyt\ Bob Madou\ Lieven Vergauwen^, Daniel Behets^
^Katholieke Universiteit, ^Karel de Grote Hogeschool This study compared the motor skill effects of a peer teaching format by means of task cards with a teacher-centered format. Tennis performance of eighth grade students (n = 55) was measured before and after a four week intervention period in a regular physical education program. Results show that peer mediated leaming with task cards accomplishes motor goals almost as well as a teacher-centered format in a technical sport like tennis. In addition, it is discussed that peer mediated learning settings with task cards could offer a powerful leaming environment, emphasizing social as well as motor goals in physical education. Keywords: cooperative leaming, coaching, kinesiology, motor behavior, physical education, teaching The contemporary pedagogical concept of social constructivism introduced by Vygotsky (1978) assumes that human development is based on classic biological development as well as on cultural mediation. It emphasizes the importance of psychological tools in providing the means through which an individual converts social interactions into higher-order thinking. Research has tried to concretize this theoretical concept of social learning. Lave and Wenger ( 1991 ) suggested that students learn through a process of acculturation into communities and practice in real situations. Vygotsky (1978) described learning as a development from one level to another, noting that: The zone of proximal development is the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers, (p.86)

Iserbyt and Madou are with Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenHuman Kinesiology, Movement Education and Sport Pedagogy. Leuven, Belgium. Vergauwen is with Karel de Grote Hogeschool^Teacher Education, Antwerpen, Belgium. Behets is with Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenHuman Kinesiology, Movement Eiducation and Sport Pedagogy, Heverlee, Belgium.

31

32

Iserbyt, Madou, Vergauwen, Behets

Although Vygotsky emphasized asymmetrical relationships in which one interactant is more expert than the other, neo-Vygotskian researchers such as King (2002) claimed that also peers can contribute to individual learning. Several guidelines have been described for teachers to structure peer interaction and for students tofindtheir role in the interaction process, emphasizing tbe cooperation of equally capable peers (King, 2002). In contemporary interpretations of mediating processescalled cognitive partnershipsthinking, as a crucial link in solving a problem or leaming a task, is seen as being distributed between tbe one who is guiding the leaming process and the one who is appropriating knowledge or skills (King, 1997, 1998). Such cognitive partnerships are common in many hierarchical situations like adult-child and teacher-student relationships. In cognitive partnerships between peerspeer-tutoring classes, for examplethinking between peers is more equally distributed. Peer partners engage in mutual appropriation and they are in continuous interaction, sharing the cognitive demands of the leaming task. This reciprocity and interdependence between learning partners and between the partners and the task is termed transactive cognitive processing (King, 1997; 1998). Different peer tutoring formats create different ways of interaction between peers, and these forms of interaction influence leaming (Graesser & Person, 1994; Greenwood, Carta, & Maheady, 1991). In current student-centered teaching formats based on tbe theoretical structure of social constructivism, students are encouraged to cooperate in well-structured, small, heterogeneous groups to master the lesson content. They are held responsible for the acquisition of knowledge, performance, and social skills through teaching strategies characterized by positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive face-to-face interaction, interpersonal and small group skills, and evaluation of group processing (Antil, Jenkins, Wayne, & Vadasy, 1998; Cohen, 1994; Dyson & Grineski, 2001; Putnam, 1998). The reciprocal style of teaching (Mosston & Ashworth, 2002) is one of the most commonly employed peer learning formats in physical education. The extent of peer learning in the reciprocal style of teaching is specifically the provision of feedback from one learner to anotber (Byra, 2006). In this format, learners are paired and as one leamer (tutee) performs the task, the other (tutor) gives feedback to tbe tutee based on information provided by tbe teacher or on task cards (Byra, 2006). This instructional format has showed to improve skill performance in different-aged learners across various physical activities (Ernst & Byra, 1998; Goldberger & Gemey, 1986). Other formats based on the reciprocal style of teaching were developed and investigated, including class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT) and performer and coach eam rewards (PACER). CWPT involves the whole class in reciprocal roles of tutor and tutee. It allows all members of a class to benefit from direct partner feedback, providing a form of individualized instruction in student pairs (Jobnson & Ward, 2001). CWPT showed beneficial results in regular and special education (Greenwood et al., 1991). A 20-lesson CWPT striking unit witb third grade students showed that children performed fewer total trials but a higher percentage of correct trials compared with typical teacher-centered instruction (Johnson & Ward, 2001 ). In PACER, teams consisting of four students received a short task presentation by the teacher and practice time with task cards (Barrett, 2005). During practice time, teams worked in pairs, in reciprocal roles of performer and coach. After the

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis

33

teams reached a predetermined goal, the teacher assessed each member individually and rewarded teams with extra game play. Results with sixth grade children showed significantly higher percentage of correct trials in an 18-day handball unit compared with children who received teacher-centered instruction. The implementation of student-centered instructional formats requires a conceptual shift in teacher functioning (Fullan, 1999), resulting in altered management, instruction and planning (Dyson & Rubin, 2003). These formats sometimes force teachers to operate outside their comfort zones, with possible negative consequences such as discomfort and anxiety. These could lead to the inability or unwillingness of teachers to delegate responsibility to students (Cohen, 1994). Similarly, little is known about teacher behavior in student-centered formats and about their influence on practice time and quality of practice. The time necessary to initiate and fully implement a peer tutoring strategy is often mentioned as a barrier to student learning (Slavin, 1995). The effect of academic learning time (ALT) as an indicator of time-management quality has been investigated in recent peer tutoring formats in third and sixth grade physical education classes. No significant differences in ALT-PE times were revealed between teacher-centered and student-centered teaching strategies (Barrett, 2005; Johnson & Ward, 2001 ). In student-centered teaching formats, task cards are often used as instructional tools to appropriate new skills. In general they can be used to enhance task execution on tbe one hand and stimulate task oriented behavior on the other hand. Considering task execution quality, simple instructions on a learning task or drill by means of text, illustrations, or pictures can be presented on task cards. They provide prompts, critical cues and directions to be followed by the students during practice (Lee & Ward, 2002). Considering task execution quantity task cards can explain the nutnber of exercises or trials to perform. In enhancing task oriented behavior they can be used as checklists for peers to assess each other's performance or as a cognition support in organizing, supporting, and augmenting thinking (Pea, 1994; Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991 ). In their roles as instructional, managerial, or feedback tools, task cards have showed beneficial influence as powerful learning tools in the social domain (Dyson & Rubin, 2003; Pea, 1994). To a much smaller extent researchers have examined the cognitive and motor benefits of task cards (Barrett, 2005). This study was designed to investigate the impact task cards have on learning motor skills in tennis. The researchers aimed to add to the current literature on field intervention studies specific to peer mediated instruction with task cards. First, in accordance with the implementation of authentic sport .settings in modified instructional formats (Davey, Thorpe, & Williams, 2003), tennis, as a technically and tactically demanding individual sport, was modified into 'midi-tennis'(Van Aken, Martens, & Gelens, 1994). This format is appropriate for implementation in a regular physical education program (Pellett& Lox, 1997; Van Aken et al., 1994). A new reliable and valid game-based tennis test for low to medium skilled young tennis players, the ForeGround procedure (Vergauwen, Madou, & Behets, 2004), was especially created for use in this study. Second, the researchers addressed different Spectrum teaching styles (Mosston & Ashworth, 2002) by comparing a inore teacher-centered instructional approach, where the teacher autonomously makes all content, managerial, and instructional decisions, to a more student-centered condition, where students used task cards

34

Iserbyt, Madou, Vergauwen, Behets

and gave motor skill feedback to one another. The influence of these two different teaching styles was compared on both ball control and stroke technique for the forehand stroke in tennis. Research suggests that several student characteristics can influence tool use. Two studies in the domain of reading comprehension found high ability students to profit more from control over tool use (glossary and navigation maps) than low ability students (Chapelle & Mizuno, 1998). More experienced students with higher prior knowledge in the domain of reading comprehension had a higher perception of competence and therefore often fostered learning better (Dochy & Alexander, 1995). Because of the reported impact of prior knowledge and ability on tool use, experienced students and beginners were distinguished in all performance measurements. Third, in previous research (Pea, 1994; Salomon et al., 1991 ) it has been argued that task cards can augment and structure thinking in peer partnerships. Therefore, the study compared the improvement of relevant tennis specific knowledge acquisition in the two experimental conditions. Fourth, Vygotsky's (1978) zone of proximal development was set up in this study. In the student-centered condition, the student-tutor guided the tutee's leaming process based on instructions on the task cards. Consequently, the tutor was the more capable peer showing the way to better performance for the tutee. It is hypothesized that this will lead to similar learning gains in comparison with the teacher-centered group. Finally, considering former concerns about the time necessary to fully implement peer mediated learning programs (Barrett, 2005) and the reported changes in both teacher behavior (Dyson & Rubin, 2003; Fullan, 1999) and student behavior (Dyson & Rubin, 2003), this study measured a number of process variables inherent to both experimental conditions. Different student roles in peer mediated learning strategies can create different attention levels (Solmon & Lee 1996), attention being one of the variables crucial to student leaming (Lee & Solmon, 1992).Therefore, we especially focused on the comparison of student behavior in the roles of tutor and tutee in the student-centered condition. In general, it was hypothesized that a strong peer mediated leaming environment with task cards could show to be as effective as a teacher-centered environment in developing the forehand tennis stroke in a normal four week lesson period with eighth grade children in a technically demanding sport like tennis.

Methods
Participants
A total of 55 eighth grade students (24 boys and 31 girls) constituting four coeducational classes participated in this quasi-experimental study in Bruges, Belgium. Each class contained 16 students. Nine students (maximum three per class) were excluded from analysis because of a lack of attendance.). Thirty-one students had no experience with tennis and 24 (six students per class) had a limited experience (i.e., as former tennis club members for at least one season or as participants in at least two tennis camps for one week). Written informed consent was obtained from the participants, their parents, the physical education teacher, and the school. All lessons (student-centered and teacher centered) were taught by an experienced

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis

35

physical education teacher who was qualified as a tennis trainer. The teacher was naive to the purpose of the study.

Settings
All lessons and tests took place in a multipurpose sports hall containing six midi tennis courts measuring 13.40 m. by 6.13 m. The surface was qualified as "moderate to quick." The net height was 0.80 m. Students received a personal midi tennis racket (sizes 23-26) suitable to their stature. Ninety midi tennis balls (Easy Play, Wilson) were used. Three cameras were used to videotape each lesson. One, with a broadened focus, was permanently fixed on the teacher while two were fixed on the students. All audio comments of the teacher were captured with a wireless microphone. i

Research Design
Intervention. The intervention spanned a seven-week period. At the end of a previous physical education lesson period, marked as week one, students were introduced to midi tennis via a 10-min video illustrating basic rules, techniques, and tactics to be learned in the upcoming period. The ForeGround procedure (Vergauwen et al., 2004) was administered during week two as a pretest. This protocol consists of 18 programmed rallies, reproducing neutral and offensive situations as they occur during midi tennis game play, driven by a te.st leader. Beginning in week three and continuing through week six, the students participated in the weekly 40-min lesson in midi tennis. In two classes, students were instructed according to the traditional teacher-centered format via direct instruction (Mosston, 1981). In the other two classes, learning occurred in a peer mediated setting based on Mosston and Ashworth's (2002) reciprocal style of teaching, with all instruction and managerial information explained and illustrated on task cards. During the intervention period, the students with no experience were not allowed to participate in any form of racquet sports outside their regular physical education class (i.e., the study setting) while the students with limited experience were permitted to maintain their standard weekly training regimen outside of the study setting. At week seven, the ForeGround procedure was administered again as posttest. Lesson Content. Lesson content in both conditions was standardized. In line with current curricular models (Van Aken et al., 1994), students were introduced to tennis play via authentic and developmentally matched lead-up games. Three basic rally patterns were taught on a midi tennis court: (a) forehand consistency during baseline play, (b) forehand down the line (to the opponent's weaker stroke) followed by a net approach, and (c) opening the court by means of a sharp angled forehand followed by scoring in the open court area. During each lesson, half of the motor ALT-PE was spent playing the applicable rally pattern in a collaborative way. During the other half of the time, rallies were shortened to the core feature of the respective pattern (e.g., only practicing the down the line shot). The tasks (drills) were designed to be challenging, to stimulate the use of the forehand strokes as well as the game tactics, and to offer sufficient opportunities for practicing skills.

3 O)

iZ
36

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis

37

Student-Centered Lessons. Tbe class was divided into four subgroups (four players per group), and each subgroup practiced at four stations in the tennis hall. During each lesson, each subgroup rotated through the four stations, alternating between a playing station and a practice station. ALT-PE, which started with the reading of the task card(s), was 12 min. At the playing stations, all four students played the entire rally pattern on two midi tennis courts. At the practice stations, two of the four students practiced the core feature of the pattern indicated on the task card (see Figure 1). Each of them was coached and given feedback by a classmate on three technical (see Figure 2) and tactical (see Figure 3) items mentioned on help cards.

Technique
Stay close to your partner and help him by - showing the pictures - explaining the technique 1. Keep your racket hofzoliti The racquet head and the hand are on the same horizontal iine at ball contact 2. Make contactwith tMball in front of your body ^

fWt

Before ball contact, step in with your left foot

Figure 2 Help card technique.

38

Iserbyt, Madou, Vergauwen, Behets

Ball placement
bail deep in the court in the correa zone.

2. Pla;^ irte bal! 1 meter above the net, fplay with control)

- -J

3. Foiiow your forehand irrtmediateiy to

f.tlieneift>.
1

'^-'
1 X
1 " 1

^-

1
1 1

_l_. _ _j ! . . . _ .

Figure 3 Help card tactics. A total of 12 task cards were used per lesson; one instructional task card and two technique cards on the two practice stations, one instructional task card on both playing stations, and one task and management-oriented task card at all four stations (.see Figure 1 ). The teacher's role in this setting was to facilitate the learning process by controlling time management. If necessary, the teacher intervened in an interrogatory way via task card content (e.g., "What do you think this means? Have you read the task card well? What are you supposed to do now?"). Interventions similar to teacher centered lessons were only allowed in extreme circumstances (i.e., misconduct). However, this did not occur. All task cards contained instructions via both verbal information and photographs or drawings. Teacher interventions were systematically addressed in an interrogatory way to the coaching students and not to the practicing students, as in the reciprocal style of teaching (Mosston & Ashworth, 2002). The teacher's managerial role was restricted to an agreed timetable.

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis

39

Teacher-Centered Lessons. In this condition, the teacher controlled all aspects of the didactical process, from instruction to skill assessment. The teacher was allowed to present additional technical and tactical cues and to provide skill-related feedback at any time. The lesson content was identical to the peer-mediated situation. Instruction and demonstrations, provided on a central court in one to two minutes, were alternated with 2.5 min of activity. ALT-PE was equally distributed between pattern play and practice as in the case of peer-mediation. ALT-PE, the number of players per court, and technical and tactical cues were standardized in both situations. Teaching Style Training and Verification. To achieve intervention fidelity, all lessons in the student-centered and teacher-centered condition were permanently supervised by two educational researchers, both experienced in instructional strategies in the field of physical education. Before the experiment, these researchers set up a teaching .style protocol for both experimental conditions based on Mosston's (1981) spectrum of teaching styles and Shertnan's (1982) Reciprocal Style Analysis Checklist. Both protocols were u.sed to train the teacher. This training procedure included a 60 min discussion of the theoretical basis of each teaching style and video observations of demonstration episodes, followed by the teaching of two les.sons in both the student-centered and teacher-centered fortnat. After every lesson taught, the teacher received feedback from the researchers concerning the implementation of the teaching style. By the end of this training the teacher demonstrated appropriate behavior for the successful implementation of both teaching styles. In addition, during the experiment all teacher actions were filmed, audio taped and analyzed to detect inconsistencies in the experitnental treatments. None were identified. Process t{/leasurementsTime Investment. General time investment in each lesson was analyzed by measuring the titne spent on ALT-PE. management, and instruction. Therefore, two of the four stations (a practice station and a playing station) were followed during the entire lesson by a camera and video images were analyzed afterward with observational software (Noldus, The observer 5.0,2003). Quality of ALT-PE. Quality of ALT-PE was measured by counting forehand rate and forehand error rate per minute. Every forehand that was not hit in the court, every air swing, ball in tbe net, or a ball not landing in the court on the opposite side of the net was scored as an error. These analyses were based on a satnple yielding half the motor ALT-PE of each lesson. During every student-centered lesson, all forehand strokes of the students were coded during their play on both a playing station and a practice station. In the teacher-centered condition the lesson time was divided into similar periods to be able to allow forehand counting in corresponding situations. In the teacher-centered condition .students rotated in the same way as in the student-centered condition to make sure the coding process was similar. After every rotation, the teacher continued the lesson as planned. Teacher Behavior. Teacher behavior was analyzed by exploring ALT-PE and (collective) instruction. Six different teacher behavior variables were coded. Variable one concerned intervention type: instruction or feedback. Variable two concerned intervention target: a subgroup of students or an individual. Variable three explained who took the initiative: the student (or subgroup) or the teacher. Variable four dealt with the intonation of the intervention, classified as notifying

40

iserbyt, Madou, Vergauwen, Behets

or interrogative. The fifth variable, contents of the intervention, was divided into seven headings: technique, tactics, regulations, social behavior, encouragement, annoying behavior, and a miscellaneous category. For variable six, the presence or absence of demonstrations during the teacher interventions was marked. Student Behavior. Student behavior in the student-centered condition was analyzed on PC with a software package (Noldus, The observer 5.0,2003). Each change in student behavior was encoded using a two level structure. Level one denoted the actual function of the student: player or coach. Level two concerned the task orientation of the student. It distinguished three variables: (a) task oriented behavior, (b) nonfunctional behavior and (c) disturbing bebavior. Student behavior was classified as task-oriented if the expected behavior was executed at the right time and place for his function, otherwise the behavior was labeled "nonfunctional." If classmates showed disturbing behavior, it was qualified "disturbing."

Product Measurements
Test Protocol. Upon arrival at the indoor hall, standardized test instructions were read to participants. The test assignment was illustrated by means of clear drawings. Then, each subject warmed up for five minutes with an experienced tennis player eliciting long forehand rallies from tbe baseline. Tbe ForeGround procedure (Vergauwen et al., 2004) was executed immediately tbereafter and consisted of three rally patterns of six rallies each. Each rally started with an underarm ball fed by the expert test leader, with every stroke being hit to the target area on the player's side of the court. The students were asked to return the approaching balls as close to tbe corresponding target spot as possible, while making minimal errors. A rally ended witb a player error or its completion. The total number of shots hit by the participant during the entire test ranged between 18 and 48 forehands, resulting in a test procedure duration of two to three minutes. A questionnaire on students' knowledge concluded the test protocol. The same regimen was followed at pre- and posttest. Bait Control. Ball control was determined by five different variables, (a) lateral distance from the ball bounce to the respective target point, (b) longitudinal distance from the ball bounce to the respective target point, (c) success rate (percentage balls landing in the court), (d) a precision index taking into account both lateral and longitudinal placement and (e) an overall index integrating the precision index as well as the success rate. These variables were determined from video images as described elsewhere (Vergauwen et al., 2004). Stroke Technique. Stroke technique was evaluated per student and per forehand based on video images. An initial 22-item ob.servation protocol was constructed by six tennis experts consisting of major technical cues concerning the forehand stroke in tennis (Van Aken et al., 1994). Three tofiveresponse categories were defined per item using an ordinal scale. The increment between consecutive response categories was set at one. Performance per item was calculated as the proportion of deviation between the observed score and the optimal score. The smaller the deviation score, the better the performance. Upon determination of observer reliability, 16 items of 22 were retained to be used in two technique indices. Afirstindex termed "common

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis

41

cues index" (CCI), includes four items that were addres.sed as technical cues in both experimental conditions. The 'additional cues index' (ACI) represents cues that deliberately were given by the teacher only in the teacher-centered condition. Knowledge. Knowledge was tested immediately after the ForeGround test procedure by means of a 20 item questionnaire with 10 technical, 5 tactical, and 5 general items. The items were constructed by three tennis experts concerning basic tennis initiation (Van Aken et al., 1994). Five technical andfivetactical items were closely related to the lesson content. The 10 general items included tennis regulations and basic tennis knowledge. All questions were in a multiple choice format with one correct answer out of four possibilities. This knowledge questionnaire was pilot tested in the same age group with classes from another school. Data Collection. Before the pretest, students were interviewed by a test leader on their former tennis experience. Thirty-one students had no prior tennis experience and 24 (six students per class) had a limited experience (as a former tennis club member for at least one season or followed at least two tennis camps of one week). All lessons were video- and audio recorded with three cameras. Lesson data included teacher and pupil behaviors. During the test procedures, six digital catneras were used for digitizing the players and test leaders positions and the landing spots of each ball. Knowledge scores were collected through a standardized 20 item questionnaire in pre- and posttest. Data Analysis. The average age of the participants was 13.4 years {SD- 0.4). The five ball control variables and two stroke technique variables were examined by 2 * 2 * 2 (conditions * experience* tests) factorial ANOVA with repeated measures in the test conducted on the multiple dependent variables. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of both technique indices (ACI and CCI) and the knowledge test were determined by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Time investment data were analyzed by 2 * 4 (conditions * lessons) ANOVA, followed by univariate and Scheff post hoc. Quality of ALT-PE (forehand rate and forehand error rate), all six teacher behavior variables, all three student behavior variables, and knowledge data were analyzed using ANOVA. Intra- and interobserver reliability (ICC) for the knowledge test were .98 and .94 respectively. A probability level of .05 was set as the criterion for acceptance of statistical significance. As the focus in this study is put on individual student learning outcomes and processes, students were used as the unit of analysis for all statistical treatments.

Results

Process Results.
Time Investment. Time investment was analyzed counting the amount of time spent in each of the three context categories. T'he weekly percentage of instmction time and management time for both teaching conditions is listed in Table 1. For time investment, a main time effect was observed, F(3, 132) = 180.33, p < .01, showing an increasing ALT-PE portion over the four weeks for the total group. No main effect for condition was found. An interaction effect between time and condition was found, F(3, 132) = 93.89,p < .01, as a result of a reduced

42

Iserbyt, Madou, Vergauwen, Behets

Table 1 Percentages of Time Investment in the Student-Centered (SC) and Teacher-Centered (TC) Lessons
Week 1 Time Category ALT-PE Instruction Time Management Time Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

M
SC TC SC TC SC TC 58.7 64.5 26.1 30.5 15.2 5.0

SD
6.4 2.0 9.8 1.2 4.3 0.9

M
68.3 59.8 20.6 33.5 11.1 6.7

SD
2.8 0.5 4.6 1.5 2.3 1.4

M
68.7 68.6 19.8 25.5 11.5 5.9

SD
2.8 2.2 3.6 1.8 1.9 1.6

M
71.5 71.5 17.3 23.5

SD
4.5 2.6 1.8 3.7 4.5 1.2

n.2
5.0

ALT-PE score, F(l, 44) - 88.67,/> < .01, in the teacher-centered group in week two, but not in weeks one, three and four. For instruction time, a main time effect was observed, F(3, 132) = 294.12, p < .01, showing decreasing instruction times during the intervention period for the total group. The portion of instruction time was higher in week one than in week four (p < .04). A main effect for condition was revealed, F{\, 44) = 61.5, p < .01. In weeks two, three and four the percentage of instruction time was higher (p < .05) in teacher-centered compared with student-centered lessons. No interaction effects were noted. Analysis of management time showed a main effect for condition, F(l, 44) - 55.76,/> < .01. For all lesson weeks, scores were higher (jp < .05) in the student centered compared with the teacher-centered condition. Quality of ALT-PE. Forehand rate and forehand error rate per minute were determined for each student (see Table 2). For foreband rate per minute, a main time effect was found, F(3, 132) = 34.78,/? < .05. Post boc analysis indicated bigber forehand rates during week one compared with weeks two, p < .05, and four, p < .05. No main effect for condition and no interactions were revealed. For forehand error rate, a main effect for condition, F(\, 44) = 10.18, p < .01, revealed higher error rates in student-centered lessons, particularly during weeks one, F(l, 44) = 21.34, p < .01, and four, F(l, 44) = 17.68,; < .03. No main time effect and no interactions were found.

Table 2 Forehand and Forehand Error Rates Per Student Per Minute in the Student-Centered (SC) and Teacher-Centered (TC) Condition
Week1 Rate Forehand rate Error rate Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

M
SC TC SC TC 5.5 4.7 2.3 1.1

SD
0.6 1.4 0.5 0.3

M
3.7 4.1 1.3 1.1

SD
0.4 LO 0.2 0.6

M
4.5 4.6 1.7 1.4

SD
LO 0.4 0.3 0.5

M
5.0 3.3 1.7 0.9

SD
0.9 1.4 0.4 0.2

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis

43

Teacher Behavior. During ALT-PE and in.struction time six teacher behavior variables, expressed in rate per lesson were measured (see Table 3). For intervention type, feedback rates were higher (p < .01) and instruction rates lower (p < .04) in the teacher-centered compared with the student-centered condition. For intervention target, teacher interventions in the teacher-centered format were addressed more often (p < .01) at individual students compared with the student-centered lessons. The opposite was true when interventions were addressed to small groups of students (/ < .01). For intervention initiative, the person initiating an intervention in far more cases was the teacher himself Only some 5% of the teacher interventions were elicited on a student's demand. The number of teacher reactions in response to student's request was similar in both conditions. The number of teacher-induced interventions in response to functional and nonfunctional student behavior was similar. In contrast, the number of teacher-induced interventions in response to observed forehand errors was higher (p < .01) in teacher-centered compared

Table 3 Teacher Intervention Characteristics (rate per lesson) in

the Student-Centered (SC) and Teacher-Centered Condition (TC) SC
Variable Intervention Type Feedback Instruction Intervention Target Individual student Subgroup Intervention Initiative Teacher student functional behavior student non functional behavior forehand errors Student Intervention Intonation Interrogative Notifying Intervention Content Technique Encouragement Regulations Social Behavior Tactics Miscellaneous Demonstrations "p < .05

TC M
44.8* 5.9* 27.8* 23.0*

M
29.5 17.2 17.1 31.9

SD
17.9 8.6 5.0 8.2

SD
7.9 2.6 5.6 5.8

26.0 8.1 7.3

10.5 5.2 3.9

3.6
9.4 26.4 2.8 16.6 12.3 1.5 0.4 2.1 2.8

2.3
4.8 5.9 2.4 6.4 13.1 1.8 0.7 3.1 3.0

21.8 2.7 23.6* 1.6 3.0* 64.5* 26.8* ll.O 15.4 1.4 2.8 0.9 38.5*

6.6 3.2 7.1 1.9 2.0 8.3 11.5 7.1 7.0 1.8 3.7 2.1 7.2

44

Iserbyt, Madou, Vergauwen, Behets

with student-centered lessons. Considering intervention intonation, interrogative interventions occurred more (p < .01) in the student-centered compared with teacher-centered lessons. The opposite was true for notifying interventions (p < .01). With regard to intervention content, technical feedback occurred more {p < .01) in teacher-centered compared with student-centered lessons. The number of interventions was similar between both conditions for the categories encouragement, regulations, social behavior, tactics, and miscellaneous. For demonstration rate, the number of demonstrations coinciding with teacher instruction and/or feedback was higher (p < .01) in the teacher centered-lessons compared with the student-centered lessons. Student Behavior. Task oriented and nonfunctional behavior was distinguished for both players and helpers during the four lesson weeks (see Table 4). Disturbing behavior was (almost) completely absent in all lessons. A main effect for orientation was found, F(l, 44) = 633.17,/? < .01, revealing more task oriented behavior than non functional behavior in each lesson (j> < .01). An interaction effect between condition and role was found, showing more task oriented and less non functional behavior in players compared with helpers in all lessons, F(l, 42) = 1244.31,/? < .01. Table 4 Percentages of Task Oriented, Non Functional and Disturbing Student Behavior for Players and Coaches in the Student-Centered Condition
Week1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

Behavior
Task oriented Non Functional Disturbing

Role Player Coach Player Coach Player Coach

M
94 78 6 22 0 0

SD
1 20 7 20 0 0

M
93 11 1 23 0 0

SD
10 16 10 16 0 0

M
89 86 11 12 0 1

SD
12 13 12 12 1 1

M 95
71 5 28 0 0

SD
6 21 6 21 1 1

Product Results
Ball Control. Ball control in pretest and posttest was determined from five variables (see Table 5): lateral precision, longitudinal precision, success rate, a precision index and an overall index. For both lateral precision and the precision index no significant effects were observed. Longitudinal precision was higher in posttest compared with pretest for the total group, F(l, 44) = 16.20, p < .05. A significant main effect for condition, F(l, 44) ~ 11.30,/? < .04, and a time by condition interaction effect, F{\, 44) = 3.38,/? < .05 were ob.served. Scheff post hoc indicated improved precision of longitudinal ball placement in the teachercentered (/? < .05) compared with the student-centered condition. Indeed, in the student-centered condition, precision of longitudinal ball placement was higher in the pretest, F(l, 45) = 8.12, p < .01, but not in the posttest. For success rate a

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis

45

Table 5 Forehand Performance in the Student-Centered (SC) and Teacher-Centered (TC) Condition
PRE Variable Ball Control Beginners Lateral precision (cm) Longitudinal precision (cm) Success rate (%) Precision index Overall index Experienced Lateral precision (cm) Longitudinal precision (cm) Success rate (%) Precision index Overall index Stroke Technique Beginners Common Cues Index Additional Cues Index Experienced Common Cues Index Additional Cues Index Knowledge Beginners Experienced M

SD
13 21 4 2.5 0.3 17 26 4 3.1 0.4

POST M SD

PRE M 173 334 17 11.6 0.5 151 312 36 13.9 1.9

POST

SD
14 23 4 2.7 0.3 18 28 5 3.3 0.4

SD
10 16 5 1.8 0.8 12 20 6 2.2 0.9

143 242 19 18.3 LO 147 275 23 16.1 0.9

151 264 30 16.0 2.2 143 259 41 16.9 3.7

9 15 4 1.7 0.7 11 19 6 2.1 0.9

151 256 25 16.2 1.2 128 262 45 18.0 4.0

0.86 1.13 0.75 0.97 8.5 10.6

0.05 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.7 0.9

0.83 1.11 0.65 0.97 9.0 12.0

0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.6 0.8

0.89 1.20 0.80 1.07 8.4 10.7

0.05 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.7 1.0

0.72 1.05 0.72 0.93 9.8 11.8

0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.6 0.8

main time effect occurred, F(l, 44) = 33.26,/ <. 01. A main effect for experience indicated higher success rates in students with experience compared with beginners, F(l, 44) = 9.79, p < .02. For the overall index a main effect was found for experience, F(l, 44)= 7.41,p < .01, indicating better overall ball control in more experienced students. A main effect for time, F(l, 44) = 15.21,/ < .01, and a time by experience interaction effect, F(l, 44) - 7.13,/ < .04 were observed. Post hoc analysis showed an improved index score for more experienced students (/ < .01) compared with beginners. Stroke Technique. Quality of forehand technique in pretest and postte.st was determined from two variables (see Table 5): a common cues index (CCI) and an additional cues index (ACI). Intraclass observer reliability was .77 for each of both indices. For ACI a main effect for time (total group), F ( l , 44= 5.31,/ < .01, as

46

Iserbyt, Madou, Vergauwen, Behets

well as a time by condition interaction effect, F(l, 44) = 6.08,p < .05, were noted. Post hoc Scheff showed a significant improvement in the teacher-centered (p < .02) condition compared with the student-centered condition. For CCI, a main effect for time was found, F(l, 44) = 5.21, p < .05, indicating improved technical quality for the total group. No interactions were found. For both ACI, F(l, 44) = 12.13, p < .01, and CCI, F(l, 44) = 4.18,/; < .05, a main effect for experience was noted, indicating higher quality of forehand technique in students with more experience in tennis. Declarative Knowledge. A main effect was found for time, Fi\, 44) - 9.01,/? < .01, and experience, F(l, 44) = 10.52,/; < .01, representing a better declarative knowledge in posttest compared with pretest for the total group and in more experienced students compared with beginners for both tests (see Table 5).

Discussion
In line with a paradigm shift toward the implementation of authentic sport settings in modified instructional environments (Davey et al., 2003) tennis was adapted into a midi-tennis format for implementation in a classical four week physical education schedule. Analyzing ball control, except for longitudinal ball placement with better learning effects in the teacher-centered group, no differences were found among conditions. The student-centered environment with task card instmction and feedback showed to be as effective as the expert-teacher environment on the other ball control measurements such as success rate, lateral ball placement and both the precision and the overall index. This finding confirms the hypothesis that implementing Vygotsky's (1978) "Zone of proximal development" in student-centered settings can lead to learning gains similar to those in teacher-centered settings. According to Vygotsky (1978), students learn through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. In the teacher-centered setting, the teacher was the adult expert guiding the students' learning process. In the studentcentered setting, students using the task cards (the tutors or coaches) were the more capable peers guiding their partners to better performance by means of task cards. This shows that peers, knowing a little more than their partner because of the task cards, are able to show the way to better performance like the teacher does. Results on stroke technique were analyzed on a common cues index (CCI) and an additional cues index (ACI). Both conditions showed to be equally effective in enhancing technical forehand skill concerning six identical "common cues." For six additional cues on forehand rhythm that were deliberately given in the teachercentered condition, significantly more technical improvement was found in this group. To clearly distinguish the teacher versus student approach, additional cues in the student-centered condition were not allowed. The results on both indices show the influence of intentional learning and practice on improvement. In other words, "you leam what you intentionally practice." The task cards were as effective in presenting the common cues as the teacher was, but had less impact on forehand timing and rhythm. Though speculative, the live demonstrations and verbal stroke guidance from the teacher, absent in the student-centered condition, are a possible explanation for the significant but rather small learning advantages on longitudinal

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis

47

ball placement and time specific technical cues for the teacher-centered group. Analysis of teacher behavior, revealing significantly more technical feedback and more demonstrations in the teacher-centered group, supports this assumption. More experienced players showed more learning gains on the overall ball control index. While this finding confirms results from Ward, Smith, Makasci, and Crouch (1998), it differs from previous research where low-skilled students performed similarly to their higher-skilled counterparts (Barrett, 2005; Johnson & Ward, 2001). In accordance with previous research with tool use in other domains such as glossaries and navigation maps (Dochy & Alexander, 1995), more experienced students in this study most probably took advantage of bigher prior knowledge and higher initial skill competence to focus on ball control cues from the first lesson on. Beginners were, in the early stages of the lesson period, mainly focused on technical matters. Due to their lack of technical background, the intervention period of four weeks (40 min per week) was too short to reveal equal leaming gains on ball control for beginners and experienced players. Overall, ALT-PE increased over the four weeks. In contrast to aforementioned concems about the time necessary to implement student-centered teaching environments (Barrett, 2005; Cohen, 1994), lower instruction times and higher management times in the student-centered format resulted in equal ALT-PE for botb conditions. These differences in instruction and management times differ from the John.son and Ward (2001) study, where the teacher's organization of lesson time remained mostly unaffected by the classwide peer tutoring intervention. Measurements of the quality of ALT-PE revealed no differences between groups for forehand rates and a higher forehand error rate in the student-centered condition compared with the teacher centered condition. Consequently, these findings do not support previous research demonstrating that peer tutoring decreases the amount of trials and increases the amount of correct trials (Johnson & Ward, 2001). The teacher in the student-centered format provided significantly more instruction and less feedback moments compared with the teacher-centered condition. The initial accustomization process for student-centered learning was the main reason for the higher amount of instruction moments. In the first lesson, the teacher often simply repeated the instruction on the task cards to an entire subgroup or a single student. In addition, more instruction moments do not necessarily result in longer instruction as the collective instruction moments in tbe teacher-centered group were always significantly longer. Tbe lower tecbnical feedback rate in the student-centered condition was due to the regulations on teacher behavior mentioned in the methodology section. Teacher feedback was only allowed by guiding the tutoring student with his help card. All other feedback was delivered equally in botb conditions. In the student-centered condition, bebavior analysis demonstrated significantly higher task-oriented and lower nonfunctional behavior for the player group compared with the helper group. Although playing tennis provoked more student attention than tbe belping tasks did, raw helper scores on task orientation were high and definitely showed a beneficial impact of task cards on students' functional behavior. Besides the impact on quality and quantity of instruction, this influence on task orientation and motivation for tutors in a peer mediated environment is an issue worth considering when using task cards in student-centered learning environments.

48

Iserbyt, Madou, Vergauwen, Behets

In addition, besides the comparison between the study groups which represented the main scope of the study, it is believed that the current midi-tennis program can be a powerful and effective learning environment for tennis in eighth grade physical education classes. The motor skill improvement in the two conditions after four weeks and the learning differences between experienced players and novices indicate both the quality of the current midi-tennis program and the sensitivity and validity of the ForeGround test procedure (Vergauwen et al., 2004) and the technical as.sessment protocol. Thefindingsof this study indicate that peer tutoring using task cards is as effective as a teacher-centered condition. However, based on this study, some concerns have to be addressed toward implementation of this new learning strategy. In this study, the teacher was an experienced, qualified tennis teacher. This expertise of the teacher might not be transferable to regular physical education classes, where teachers may have less knowledge and experience with the game of tennis. Ta.sk card implementation and student-centered learning demand serious accustomization from both teacher and students. The teacher needs to adapt to new management and instructional strategies consistent with teaching using task cards and the students must become less dependent on the teacher and more dependent on the task cards. The higher amount of subgroup reinstruction of task card content in the student-centered group reveals this. In addition, student-centered teaching strategies remain largely absent at this point in Belgian physical education curricula, hence students are not accustomed to work in a student-centered setting with task cards. When working together using task cards, students learn to give feedback, receive feedback, make mutual decisions, give and receive instructions, and listen to each other. This might explain the rather long instruction times in the first two lessons in the student-centered condition. After two lessons, instruction times shortened significantly due to smoother task card in.struction. A combination of the two teaching strategies, benefiting from both the cooperative aspects of task card learning and the powerful verbal guidance and demonstrations from the teacher is definitely worth investigating. Although the task cards were constructed by three experts on tennis didactics to be as clear and understandable as possible, their content and design were not based on empirical research findings. It is believed that research emphasizing both the construction and implementation of task cards could create even much stronger learning means and environments. Research on task card design could explore the domain of multimedia learning. Multimedia learning is defined as a projection of words and pictures to provoke learning (Mayer, 2005). From this study, it is argued that task cards, structured in accordance with modem instructional design principles, could decrease management times and instruction times in the accustomization phase to increase overall ALT-PE, and enhance self responsible learning in poweriful learning environments. Research on task card implementation could emphasize on student guiding. Students' guidance (e.g., by assessing the new learning tasks) in the initial phases of working in open learning environments has been proved to be one of the best alternative approaches to address the issue of nonor inadequate tool use (Clarebout & Elen, 2004). Studies could focus on the effects of reducing the openness of the environment in the early stages of the lesson period, with a gradual withdrawal of embedded support (Clark & Sugrue 1990; Van Merrinboer, 1997).

Peer Mediated Instruction in Tennis

49

With similar leaming in both conditions one could rightfully ask if student centered teaching strategies are worth the effort, preparation, and time. Based on this study the answer should be positive. Well implemented task cards with the appropriate content and design can be strong teacbing means, generating more time and attention for social as well as for motor goals in physical education classes. When working together using task cards students learn to give feedback and to cope with the given feedback, make mutual decisions, give and receive instructions, leam to listen to each other, etc. These are goals that are likely less emphasized in traditional teacher centered settings.

References
Atitil, L.R., Jenkitis, J.R., Wayne, S.K., & Vadasy, P.F. (1998). Cooperative teaming: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419-454. Barrett, T.M. (2005). Effects of cooperative learning on performance of sixth grade physical education students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 103-111. Byra, M. (2006). Teaching styles and inclusive pedagogies. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O'Sullivan (Eds.), The Handbook of Physical Education (pp. 449^66). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Chapelle, C , & Mizuno, S. (1998). Students' strategies with leamer - controlled CALL. CAUCO Journal, 7(2), 25-47. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2004). The foundation of perceptions: Instructional conceptions. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8{ 1 ), 267-271. Clark, R.E., & Sugrue, B.M. (1990). North American disputes about research on leaming from media. International Journal of Educational Research, 14, 507-520. Cohen, E.G. ( 1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Davey, PR., Thorpe, R.D.J., & Williams, C. (2003). Simulated tennis match play in a controlled environment. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 459^67. Dochy, F.J.,& Alexander, P.A. (1995). Mapping prior knowledge: A framework for discussion among researchers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 225-242. Dyson, B., & Grineski, S. (2001). Using cooperative learning structures to achieve quality physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(2), 28-31. Dyson, B., & Rubin, A. (2003). Implementing cooperative leaming in elementary physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74{\), 48-54. Emst, M., & Byra, M. (1998). Pairing learners in the reciprocal style of teaching: Influence on student skill, knowledge, and socialization. Physical Educator, 55(1), 24-36. Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Palmer Press. Goldberger, M., & Gemey, P. ( 1986). The effects of direct teaching styles on motor skill acquisition offifthgrade children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 215-219. Graesser, A.C., & Person, N.K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137. Greenwood, R., Carta, J.J., & Maheady. L. (1991). Peer tutoring programs in the regular education classroom. In G. Stoner, M. Shinn, & H. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 179-200). Silver Springs, Maryland: National Association of School Psychologists. Johnson, M., & Ward, P. (2001). Effects of class-wide peer tutoring on correct performatice of striking skills in 3rd grade physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 247-263.

50

iserbyt, Madou, Vergauwen, Behets

King, A. (1997). "ASK to THINKTEL WHY": A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher-level complex leaming. Educational Psychology, 32, 221-235. King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 57-74. King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41, 33-39. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated leaming: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lee, A.M., & Solmon, M.A. (1992). Cognitive conceptions of teaching and leaming motor skills. e<'.'.'^< 57-71. Lee, M., & Ward, P. (2002). Peer Tutoring: Student-centered learning in physical education for the 21st century. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 13{A), 16-17. Mayer, R.E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia leaming. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mosston, M. (1981). Teaching physical education (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (5th ed.). San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings. Pea, R.D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia leaming environments for transformative communications. Joumal of the Leaming Sciences, 3, 285-299. Pellett, T.K.L., & Lox, C.L. (1997). Tennis racket length comparisons and their effect on beginning college players' playing success and achievement. Joumal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 490-499. Putnam, J.W. ( 1998). Cooperative leaming and strategiesfor inclusion: Celebrating diversity in the classroom (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes. Salomon, G., Perkins, D.N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9. Sherman, M. (1982). Style analysis checkli.'its for Mosston's spectrum of teaching styles. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pittsburgh. Slavin, R.E. ( 1995). Cooperative leaming: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: AUyn and Bacon. Solmon, M.A., & Lee, A.M. (1996). Entry characteristics, practice variables, and cognition: Student mediation of instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 136-150. Van Aken, I., Martens, S., & Gelens, A. ( 1994). Tennis natuurlijk: Mini, midi en maxi tennis. Gent: Bond voor Lichamelijke Opvoeding, 5-28. Van Merrinboer, J.G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Vergauwen, L., Madou, B., & Behets, D. (2004). Authentic evaluation of forehand groundstrokes in young low- to intermediate-level tennis players. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 36{ 12), 2099-2106. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard: University Press. Ward, P., Smith, S.L., Makasci, K., & Crouch, D. (1998). Differential effects of peer mediated accountability in elementary physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 17, 442^52.

Copyright of Journal of Teaching in Physical Education is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.