Judith E. Rink
The purpose of this article is to discuss the relationship between learning theories and teaching methodology from the perspective of the researcher and the teacher. All teaching methodologies have their roots in particular learning theories. Teaching methodologies are discussed in terms of the learning theories upon which they are founded. Learning theories are discussed in terms of their assumptions and the issues which divide them. A case is made that researchers need to validate the treatment not only in terms of the methodology the teacher uses but the learning process experienced by the learner. If it is the process which produces particular kinds of learning, then teachers need to be knowledgeable about the assumed learning processes of a teaching method and be able to observe for and teach for that process.
Terry Sweeting and Judith E. Rink
This study investigated the effects of direct instruction and an environmentally designed instructional strategy on the product and process characteristics of kindergarten and second grade children in the standing long jump. One hundred and sixteen kindergarten and second grade students participated in the study and were assigned to a 3-day, 60-trial, direct instruction group or a 3-day, 60-trial, environmentally designed instruction group. A pretest, posttest, and retention test were administered in a flat mat testing condition and one designed to elicit performance through the testing environment (the swamp). Both instructional intervention groups were different from the control group at the posttest and the retention test. Younger students, less skilled students, and students tested at the pretest benefited most from the environmental testing condition. With age, skill, and experience the environmental testing condition lost its advantage. The instructional interventions had different effects on the process characteristics of the jump.
Judith E. Rink, Karen E. French and Kathy C. Graham
Judith E. Rink, Karen E. French and Bonnie L. Tjeerdsma
Bonnie L. Tjeerdsma, Judith E. Rink and Kathy C. Graham
J. Len Gusthart, Ivan M. Kelly and Judith E. Rink
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the Qualitative Measures of Teaching Performance Scale (QMTPS; Rink & Werner, 1989) and teacher effectiveness in producing student achievement. The QMTPS focuses primarily on variables related to teacher clarity and task presentation. Nine middle school generalist (classroom) teachers were asked to teach the volleyball forearm pass and serve over eight lessons as part of their normal curriculum. Students were pre- and posttested on the serve and forearm pass using the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (1969) volleyball tests. All lessons were videotaped and were coded using the QMTPS instrument. The relationship between the QMTPS total score and student achievement was significant for the forearm pass and for the serve. The authors concluded that the QMTPS was a valid measure of teacher effectiveness when the total QMTPS score for several lessons was used.
Karen E. French, Peter H. Werner, Judith E. Rink, Kevin Taylor and Kevin Hussey
Judith E. Rink, Karen E. French, Peter H. Werner, Susan Lynn and Amy Mays
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect on student learning of different ways of structuring student practice of complex motor skills. Previous research indicated that students who practiced the volleyball set and serve with a four-step progression learned more than students who practiced only the final test for the same number of practice trials; the effect of motivation and practice focused on specific learning cues was unclear. The present study investigated the specific role of progression, refinement, and motivation in learning the volleyball set and serve. Ninth-grade students were randomly assigned to one of five groups: (a) control, (b) final-test practice with refinement tasks after every five trials, (c) final-test practice with motivational feedback only, (d) four-step progression, and (e) four-step progression with refinement after every five trials. All experimental groups were pretested and posttested using the AAHPERD volleyball tests for the set and serve and practiced each skill 10 times a day for 6 days. The results supported the positive effect of providing students with a progression and the need for refinement tasks for parts of the progression.
Karen E. French, Judith E. Rink, Linda Rikard, Amys Mays, Susan Lynn and Peter Werner
The purpose was to compare the effectiveness of practice progressions on learning the volleyball serve and overhead set. Ninth-grade students were randomly assigned to three groups. Each group practiced the volleyball serve and set for 60 trials over 6 days. The progression group practiced four levels of difficulty of the set and serve. The criterion group began practice at the beginning level of difficulty and had to achieve an 80% success rate before practicing at a more advanced level. The third group practiced the AAHPERD volleyball skill tests for the serve and set for all 60 trials. At the end of practice, all subjects were posttested using these AAHPERD tests. The results indicated the progression and criterion groups had higher posttest scores than the third group. Profiles of the success rates across acquisition for each group showed that students in the third group and low-skilled students in the progression and criterion groups did not improve during practice. Students with some initial skill in the progression and criterion groups exhibited high success rates for acquisition and improvement. These results indicate that sequencing practice in progressive levels of difficulty enhances retention when task difficulty is appropriate for the learner. However, no condition was effective when task difficulty was inappropriate for the learner.